Twenty years ago I was part of what would now be called a “social movement”. It grew out of anger, frustration and desperation at years and years of Tory misrule. It grew out of despair that Labour could ever win again after repeated election defeats. It grew out of a desire for radical social change – a desire for an assault on poverty, an end to cuts, for massive investment in creaking public services.

It took its socialism very seriously. For a year we held big meetings around the country where we earnestly debated what it meant to be a democratic socialist in the modern age, examined the ideas of Gramsci, Marx, Robert Owen, and how these might be applied to the challenges Britain faced. Eventually, after much ideological upheaval, we rejected the old, statist approach we had grown up with, and came up with a new constitution which for the first time included the “s” word and stated that we were a “democratic socialist party … [that] believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone.”

At the same time, huge changes were made to the internal democracy of our party. Members and trade unionists were for the first time consulted in leadership elections through one member, one vote. This was also used to select parliamentary candidates for the first time. MPs were banned from hogging the members’ places on the party national executive so that real grassroots activists could serve there. A referendum was held on the general election manifesto to ensure it had a mandate from the party members.

It’s the new big thing in politics - the old-style public meeting | Steve Richards Read more

We had a succession of charismatic leaders, each elected by crushing, overwhelming personal mandates: 71% in 1983 and 89% in 1988 for Neil Kinnock; 91 per cent for John Smith in 1992; and 57% but a still record-breaking 507,000 votes in 1994 for Tony Blair.

After this last victory, membership doubled to more than 400,000. Local branches were reinvigorated as former members came streaming back and young idealists flocked to the cause. For the first time in decades we had a vibrant youth section that owed its loyalty to our ideology, not an external one.

The “social movement” I was part of was called the Labour party.

The difference between the way the Labour party behaved then and the way Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum are behaving now is that it had humility. We did not think we had a monopoly of wisdom. We assumed that our election defeats meant that voters were trying to tell us something and we ought to listen. Our main activity was not the hosting of large, self-congratulatory rallies, though each of Kinnock, Smith and Blair was a hundred times more compelling an orator than Corbyn. Rather it was to systematically go out and speak to millions of ordinary working people on their doorsteps and listen to what they wanted.

Within the party the whole spectrum of opinion was engaged in the project of seeking victory, with leftwing figures like John Prescott, Frank Dobson, Robin Cook and Clare Short all holding significant shadow portfolios and working as a team. We had iron discipline in our messaging and media management, led by the best professional political communicators in Europe. In parliament, the Tories were terrified of the razor-sharp, forensic performance at the dispatch box of our leader and our shadow chancellor and shadow foreign secretary. We were united because we knew if we did not win, the party and our hopes of a better society might die.

Our exercise in listening to the voters meant that we were able to do what very few social movements do and become immensely, genuinely popular, not just with political activists but with ordinary people of all classes.

We seemed to have found a recipe for repopularising the politics of the left and democratic socialism after decades of steady decline.

I prefer retro Labour from 20 years ago as my model of what a social movement or a political party should look like

And really it did not involve having to make too many compromises. It needed a popular and charismatic leader who voters could identify with. It needed an everyday language of aspiration and hope rather than the clunky, internally focused rhetoric historically loved by activists on the left. It needed the junking of three policy areas that had previously been obstacles to victory: weakness on defence, weakness on crime, and a propensity to raise income tax on the base rate payers who make up most of the “99%”.

In contrast to the Tory opinion poll lead of 16% now, we were chalking up Labour leads of up to 36% – with Labour topping 60% in some ICM polls, while we were in power.

Electorally, it looked beautiful. Three thumping general election victories, two with more than 400 seats. Places like South Dorset electing a Labour MP. The Tories in meltdown with serious debate about whether they could ever be in power again. For a while it looked like we had achieved a democratic socialist ideological hegemony in the UK.

And socially, politically, economically it was beautiful. It was the best time to have ever been British, particularly if you were not well-off and needed the state to give you a better life. Labour deliberately, systematically, transferred huge amounts of cash to the poorest people and poorest communities.

We had a decade of economic growth where long-term unemployment was squeezed down to levels last seen in the 1960s. We made pensioner poverty a thing of the past. We opened up higher education to nearly half the population. Educational attainment and health indicators all rose, crime fell.

When the global economic crash struck we didn’t respond with austerity; we responded with classical Keynesian demand-management, boosting infrastructure investment, local council, school and NHS spending to record levels.

Leftwing insurgencies led by Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders won’t melt away | Diane Abbott Read more

We all had things we disagreed with. For me it was an approach to public services that put too much faith in marketisation. For many it was Iraq – but we should remember that was born of idealistic hubris, not malignancy, a belief that we could overthrow fascist dictatorships and install humane liberal democracies in the world’s trouble spots.

You can keep your big rallies with mediocre speakers; you can keep your Twitter storms and social media abuse; you can keep your 16% Tory poll leads and spitting at CLP AGMs; you can keep your blind-eye to antisemitism and your fetishising of dodgy Latin American regimes and Middle Eastern terror groups; you can keep your snappy slogans and absence of policy, you can keep your mass recruitment of passive clicktivists to stack internal elections; you can keep your elevation of a faction above a 116-year old party that founded the NHS.

Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer retro Labour from 20 years ago as my model of what a “social movement” or a political party should look like. I won’t be taking any lectures about socialism from people who are busy destroying, demeaning, diminishing, eroding the only social movement that can ever, and has ever, delivered it in this country: the Labour party.

• This is an edited version of a piece that originally appeared on LabourList.org