As any fule kno, Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign catchphrase was "It's the economy, stupid" – a succinct summary of the only thing that really mattered in that election.
Except, of course, it wasn't. The phrase was actually part of strategist James Carville's three-point campaign message crib sheet, hung on the wall at Clinton's headquarters, which read:
1. Change v more of the same
2. The economy, stupid
3. Don't forget healthcare
Point two is the one everyone remembers now. (Point one is simply the argument almost all challengers use against almost all incumbents, that it's time for a change – as expressed by Tony Blair in "Things can only get better" and Barack Obama in "Change we can believe in".)
But point three is just as critical. It meant having something to look forward to when the recession was over, a big and positive idea about something that would get better if Clinton won. Gordon Brown's got his point one (the incumbents' version of this is "better the devil you know", or for Brown "no time for a novice"). He's also got his point two (saving the world, stupid). But what ministers are increasingly worried about is point three. Of which so far they think there is little sign.
"The manifesto has to be a forward look rather than, 'Here's how we handled the economy'," says one senior party aide. "The voters won't thank us for that, they'll just think it's what they pay us for. But most people (in government) are not focused on the manifesto, they're just focused on getting through to the end of the week."
Another talks about needing to explain what the economy is being mended for: that can't just be a goal in itself, and if the government is saying it can restore the good times, it needs to explain what would then become its priority for another four to five years in power.
Downing Street types argue that if they stopped worrying about the recession in order to concentrate on future plans for crime or education, they would justifiably be accused of neglecting the issue still of primary concern to most voters.
But still ministers complain privately that there is little sign of big ideas being cooked up for the point at which voters will be ready for them or of what one calls a "broader offer" for a 2010 election.
They complain that there is no big plan for public service reform – Blair's fallback manifesto option – in health, education or crime, and while social mobility is meant to be the theme of the manifesto being overseen by Ed Miliband, there is no big idea to bring it about, unless you count free nursery places for two-year-olds in deprived areas, which was already on Labour's radar under Blair.
Last week Jon Cruddas, the former deputy leadership contender and serial critic, suggested that Brown needed to find a "new language' for the economic crisis – reflecting concerns among MPs reported on this blog last month that the whirlwind of new measures was starting to lose its impact.
But the worry now at some levels of the party is that however good Brown sounds on "the economy, stupid", that won't be enough to win an election. Labour's national policy forum meets this month to discuss the manifesto process; it will be interesting to see if it comes up with a point three.
