Hope springs eternal. I don't know about you, but I'm not convinced that Labour's poll-ratings paint as dire a picture as they appear to. I'm certainly not convinced that the Tories have it in them to win the next election, even if the current government could lose it in the current inhospitable weather.
But if the next election does bring a change of government, those of us that worked for a Labour victory in the 1990s, and those of us that have largely wished New Labour well during the years of government will have to reflect upon the reasons for that defeat.
We will be able to partially absolve the Party that we support of the blame by offering the argument that there are few governments that will survive the current economic crisis unscathed. For the most part, it isn't a crisis especially of Gordon Brown's making, and for the most part, he has handled it as well as could have been expected.
But we won't be able to absolve Labour of all of the perceived failings in the quality of our governance. For a government that has managed to invest public spending at levels higher than many of the Party's leftish critics would have hoped for, the dividend has not been as obvious as it could have been. We are, one has to admit, not as good at day-to-day public administration as we were at achieving our early political goals. I've not seen anything to convince me that we're any worse than the previous Tory government, and Cameron's current penchant for local direct democracy would suggest that his party have entirely given up on effective government in favour of crude populism.
But Labour's reputation for competence will need to be re-established before we can realistically hope for another 1997-style landslide. For this reason, it's important that the Party can break with past failure and embrace Greg Rosen's excellent report on civil service reform. It speaks to many of the failings of modern politics in general, and New Labour in particular.
Those new MPs in 1997 were often puzzled spectators on the whole question of departmental administration. Many of them lacked the basic grounding in good governance, and were prepared to be bullied by their headline conscious whips into the spiral of short-termism that seems to have infected all of the major British parties. Never before has a bureaucratic agenda faced so little resistance as it has over the past decade, and much of Labour's perceived illiberality can be attributed to this failing.
Labour ministers often weren’t selected for their grasp of public administration, after all.
Many had little idea about how to get government departments to do what they were supposed to, and were prepared to turn to grasping management consultants for answers – with predictable results.
And when a headline kept them awake, they arrived at work the next morning ready to add yet another ropey patch to the poor legislation that had just been enacted. Instead of fewer, better, bills before Parliament over the past twenty years (and this clearly started before 1997) we've seen more worthless legislation that was often being replaced on the floor of the House of Commons before it even reached the statute books.
For those of us who have long believed in active government, the constant spiral of ill thought-out, reactive regulation has done nothing to bolster our case.
While he is clearly swimming against the tide of public opinion, Rosen is right. We need a more politicised Civil Service. By politicised, I don't mean the way it is politicised at the moment. Currently, 'politicisation' means special advisers with no understanding of their department's role. It means surrogate enforcers for Downing St. It means a media-determinist who is constantly at the ministers’ elbow, banishing thought and judgment in favour of headline-phobia. No-one could have watched ‘The Thick of It’ and come away any more comforted about the quality of government than the viewers of ‘Yes Minister’ did back in the early 1980s.
It’s time to see political parties show their expertise at administration if they are to regain public confidence. This isn’t a requirement that will be confined to Labour either.
This is not just about competence. A broader, more capable party would inevitably be less centralised - as Rosen points out. The PM's power in the UK is in the patronage he wields, and the weakness of his rivals. Minsters with a strong team behind them would change all of that.
It's time for those of us who advocate active government to demand more powerful ministers with the kind of technocrats behind them that can help them resist the short-termism that flows from the centre.
When elections are won, departments should change hands. It's time to acknowledge that the political decentralisation that a lot of the liberal left argue for is only possible if elected ministers can draw upon the support of a broad supportive technocratic resource.
I'd go even further than Rosen does here. This is the 'state funding' of political parties that we should be campaigning for. Not special advisers. Not campaigning. Not advertising, leaflets, or any of the bullshit that parties use to snaffle MPs allowances for their own purposes.
It's always been the case that 'no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.' The next Labour government needs to commit itself to a truly democratic, anti-establishment programme. It's time for the election winners to be able to change things - and it's time for broad decentralised parties again. Parties where the PM is picked by the Cabinet - not the other way around.
About the author: Paul is a London-based blogger with a mixed track-record over at Never Trust a Hippy and a few other places. He usually writes about representative democracy and decentralisation. Follow him at www.twitter.com/paul0evans if you usually do that kind of thing. Read more from this author
I agree. What next?