Many are saying 2019 was Labor’s 1993, the year John Hewson lost the “unloseable” election against Paul Keating. It’s not an unfair comparison. The massive policy agenda the ALP presented did make it a barn door for scare campaign ammunition.

The trap to be wary of, however, is thinking Labor can pull off a 1996. A conservative, small-target strategy won’t work for Labor like it worked for John Howard. Yet the temptation to try a 96 strategy will be strong.

The Morrison government is a husk. It is completely devoid of ideas, intellect and integrity. Deep tribal faultlines run through it. Now the economic waters have turned choppy.

As the government’s popularity inevitably wanes, a small target, tactical approach will look very appealing.

I’m sure it looked appealing in 1998 where the prevailing wisdom held that Labor could surf the GST to victory. Or again in 2001 where there was little policy to rely on when the Tampa steamed over the horizon.

Labor can't appear to ignore economic wellbeing over ideological values | David Hetherington Read more

Federal Labor has never won from opposition by simply offering relief from unpopular government. The only way Labor wins is by connecting a suite of progressive policy proposals to a unifying vision that makes politically disengaged voters feel two things: hope and ambition. That’s what Whitlam, Hawke and Rudd all did.

Federal Labor has never won from opposition by simply offering relief from unpopular government

It’s is a tough path, but it’s the only one that leads to victory.

Conservative parties, especially those in government, have an easier option: fear. Conservatives can win by convincing voters to feel defensive and worried.

This year Labor tried to counter that by beating off the scare campaigns with a weighty binder full of policies.

It was largely ineffective, because the only really effectively way to counter fear is with clarity of purpose. Labor needs to paint a picture of the future vivid enough that people can see themselves and their kids in it.

That doesn’t necessarily mean being heroically bold. Indeed, there are serious pragmatic arguments against this approach.

Labor’s historic legacy of a dynamic open economy, quality education, a massive middle class, a huge pool of comfortable retirees, universal healthcare and decent industrial protections means the struggling working-class constituency that reliably backed the party for a century just isn’t what it used to be.

Revolutions are only popular when people feel they have nothing much to lose. But Australians who have spent the last few decades latching on to the first few rungs of the middle class are wary of broad sweeping calls to “change the rules” or attacks on the “top end of town”.

They might not be content but they are relatively comfortable. They look at an unpredictable future and feel they have more to lose than they dream to gain. This is why Labor’s campaign theme of inequality may have failed to cut through.

Of course, anyone even vaguely across the detail would know Labor was hardly proposing an aggressive program of wealth redistribution. But the top-line messages are what stick. And while most would agree that fighting inequality sounds good for society, the question voters fundamentally ask themselves is: would it be good for me and mine?

For those at the upper end of society the equation is a little different.

This group are now so used to winning economically, and winning handsomely, that they can afford to be magnanimous and ponder the big picture. Labor’s fair and rational approach is resonating better with this well-educated end of society than ever before.

But our brand is losing those in the bottom half, partly to a rabble of nasty populist shysters selling the same basic scapegoating that demagogues have spruiked for centuries.

So how does Labor win them back? How can constituencies of blue-collar families be forged without losing the educated, urbanised middle class? If focusing strongly on inequality is not the answer – what is?

Labor doesn’t actually need to look beyond its own legacy. Because the Australian labour movement was built not on equality, but egalitarianism.

It’s a subtle, but crucial difference. The “fair go” has always distinguished our progressive tradition by focusing not on pure equality, but equality of opportunity.

Social mobility is the key to linking our vision for Australia with individual ambition. It tells everyone that regardless of your postcode, your faith or your parents, Australia will give you a fair shot.

The morality of redistribution itself is not what Labor should hang a lantern on

This is not the lazy laissez-faire model of individualism offered by conservatives. It’s about promoting real options to exercise individual choice, instead of mere statutory rights.

That means better education and training, better medical coverage, stronger wages, boosted infrastructure and tougher safety nets.

And, yes, progressive tax measures will be necessary to fund these programs. But the morality of redistribution itself is not what Labor should hang a lantern on. The aspect that should be pushed forward is the opportunity.

For those on the bottom rungs of society, Labor promises a way up. For those closer to the top there is a promise to elevate the whole ladder. And for business Labor must promise not a race to the bottom on tax rates but a beautifully functioning society so the best talent is drawn to Australia.

A strong focus on social mobility gives people the capacity to feel ambitious, and that ambition leads to confidence. None of this requires a backflip in policy terms. It’s a question of how Labor tells its story.

And it gives Labor an excuse to display a quality its members sometimes shy away from: patriotism.

Real patriotism is not about chanting you’re the best over and over again. It is not about pretending that Australians have some unique claim on mateship, or toughness, or barbecuing. Real patriotism is about aspiring for Australia to actually be the best.

We don’t have the best education system in the world, but why shouldn’t we? We don’t have the best early childhood care in the world, but why not? We don’t have the best public health system in the world, but we’re damn close and could get there. We have the some of the best scientists in the world, so why not the best inventions?

Paul Keating noted that “we are the people who dream the big dreams and do the big things”. That’s true. But in order to achieve the latter we need to romance the electorate into dreaming with us.

• Sam Crosby is the chief executive of the McKell Institute and the author of The Trust Deficit