What is David Miliband really saying?

In the aftermath of Labour's third successive defeat at the 1959 election, a famous pamphlet asked the question: "Must Labour lose?" Today, the temptation is similar fatalism.

Because he who shall not be named is our leader.

We must not yield to it.

We could get rid of him, after all.

The odds are against us, no question. But I still believe we can win the next election.

If we change leader.

especially not from a gloomy man on a beach in Southwold.

- oh yes it is -

Though really it's obvious. We need a new leader.

When people hear exaggerated claims, either about failure or success, they switch off.

Which is why I always sleep during he who shall not be named's dreary speeches.

- he who shall not be named doesn't do humble -

Or compelling, come to that.

With hindsight, we should have got on with reforming the NHS sooner.

Unfortunately, he who shall not be named blocked reform.

Of course, I wasn't in the cabinet at the time. Unlike my leadership rival, Jack Straw, who was foreign secretary and is to blame for it all.

But he who shall not be named wouldn't let us.

But 10 years of rising prosperity, a health service brought back from the brink, and social norms around women's and minority rights transformed, have not come about by accident.

No, Tony Blair made it happen.

Now what are they offering? The Tories say society is broken. By what measure? Rising crime? No, crime has fallen more in the past 10 years than at any time in the past century. Knife crime and gun crime are serious problems. But since targeting the spike in gun crime, it has been cut by 13% in a year, and we have to do the same with knife crime.

What about the social breakdown that causes crime? More single parents dependent on the state? No, employment has risen sharply for lone parents because the state has funded childcare and made work pay. Falling school standards? No, they are rising. More asylum seekers? No, we said we would reform the system and slash the numbers, and we did.

All this happened before he who shall not be named became PM.

The Tories overclaim for what they are against because they don't know what they are for. I disagreed with Margaret Thatcher, but at least it was clear what she stood for.

I haven't got a clue what he who shall not be named stands for.

He who shall not be named doesn't take decisions.

The problem with David Cameron is the reverse. His problem is he is a conservative, not a radical. He doesn't share a restlessness for change. He may be likable and sometimes hard to disagree with, but he is empty. He is a politician of the status quo - even a status quo he consistently voted against - not change.

This token attack on the Tories has gone on long enough. So back to he who shall not be named's weaknesses.

Every member of the Labour party carries with them a simple guiding mission on the membership card: to put power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many, not the few. When debating public service reform, tax policies

such as the 10p tax

should

But have failed to do so since he who shall not be named became our leader.

What is on Cameron's party card? What is his vision for Britain? He doesn't have one. His project is "decontaminating the Tory party", not changing the country. He is stuck, reconciling himself to New Labour Mark I at just the time when the times demand a radical new phase.

Preferably one involving me as leader.

The economic challenge is new. People want protection from a downturn made in Wall Street

and assisted by the man in Downing Street.

The public service challenge is new, too. The task of government after 1997 was a rescue mission. Now we need the imagination to distribute more power and control to citizens over the education, healthcare and social services they receive. So is the challenge to society - to build a genuine sense of belonging and responsibility on the back of greater protection from outside risks and greater control of local issues.

No one will know what this paragraph means. But it sounds good.

I really believe that it is only our means, the political creed of the Labour party combining government action and personal freedom, that can achieve the ends the Tories now claim to share.

The modernisation of the Labour party means pursuing traditional goals in a modern way

with a modern leader.

If people and business are to take responsibility, you need government to act as a catalyst. High polluting products will not disappear unless government regulates. New nuclear power stations need planning policy to facilitate them. And if we act through the EU, we green the largest single market in the world. In opposition, you can sound green while embracing Euroscepticism.

But in government, unless you choose sides, you get found out.

We know this because he who shall not be named has been found out.

With a new leader. That's me.

We need to remember that there is little real sense among the public - or even among Tory MPs - of what the Conservatives stand for, or what they would do in power. I agree with Jack Straw that we don't need a summer of introspection The starting point is not debating personalities but winning the argument about our record, our vision for the future and how we achieve it. That is why politicians across all parties fail to connect. To get our message across, we must be more humble about our shortcomings but more compelling about our achievements. We needed better planning for how to win the peace in Iraq, not just win the war. We should have devolved more power away from Whitehall and Westminster. We needed a clearer drive towards becoming a low-carbon, energy-efficient economy, not just to tackle climate change but to cut energy bills. After all, the Tories opposed almost all the measures that have made a difference - from the windfall tax on privatised utilities to family-friendly working. She sat uncomfortably within the Tory party because she was a radical, not a conservative. She wanted change and was prepared to take unpopular decisions to achieve it. or constitutional changes, we apply those values to the latest challenges. The country needs to prepare for an upturn when new service industries - insurance, education, care, creative industries - are growing at home but also among the new Chinese and Indian middle classes. The Tories claim the reverse. They say they have adopted "progressive ends" - social justice, better public services and fighting climate change - but they insist on traditional Tory means of charity, deregulation and lower spending to deliver them. It doesn't add up. New Labour won three elections by offering real change, not just in policy but in the way we do politics. We must do so again. So let's stop feeling sorry for ourselves, enjoy a break, and then find the confidence to make our case afresh.