For David Cameron’s first term as Prime Minister, there was only one guiding principle. His job was to “sort out the mess left by Labour”. He had a “long-term economic plan” to balance the books. The 2015 election campaign contrasted Conservative competence with Labour chaos.

Following the Tories’ surprise majority in May, Cameron realised that his second term was going to need something greater than merely managing the economy. After all, you can only claim to be clearing up someone else’s mess for so long, and politics is surely about more than balancing the books. But, what theme to go with?

Cameron revealed his plan at the 2015 Conservative conference. He wanted to end the “scourge of poverty”, to tear down the “brick wall of blocked opportunity”. It is an idea he returns to now and again, from the “let sunshine win the day” speech in his first conference address as leader in 2006, to 2011’s “compassionate conservatism”. And he was at it again this week in North London, promising an “all-out assault on poverty”.

His speech proposed a less economic, more social way of tackling poverty, rather than relying on the welfare state or the free market. Cameron suggests we should “think big” and be imaginative. There are some interesting ideas in there.

But really, we need to judge people by their actions rather than their words; and David Cameron has five years’ worth of actions behind him now. It might be easier to take Cameron’s words at face value if his record on fighting poverty were a good one to date. It is not. It is appalling.

Welfare cuts. The bedroom tax. Removal of the EMA. A tripling of tuition fees, with a retrospective increase on loan repayments. A public sector pay freeze. None of these are going to reduce poverty.

And what about impacts? What has Cameron presided over? A massive increase in the number of food banks. Homelessness up hugely since 2010. Child poverty on the increase. A shameful legacy.

But, as Cameron says, poverty isn’t all about money. Maybe not, particularly if you want to redefine it so it isn’t. But you could argue that, as well as money, services which target those in need of help can alleviate poverty. Mental health services were highlighted by the Prime Minister in his speech; they’ve been cut by 8% in real terms since 2010. He talks about supporting troubled families and helping with parenting classes; Sure Start centres already do a lot of this and have seen their budgets cut.

I could go on. But it seems fairly clear that, if David Cameron was serious about fighting poverty, he could do a lot worse than reverse every decision his government has made up until this point. All decisions up until now have been made with one eye on reducing the deficit, the lodestar of Cameron’s first term. And so, this renewed focus on poverty means there is now a gaping contradiction in the heart of the Conservative government.

The Tories are now wedded to two objectives which are going to prove extremely difficult to reconcile. For, as David Cameron promises an “all-out assault on poverty”, George Osborne intends to hack away at public spending until he reaches surplus, with his fiscal charter passed into law soon after the election. Going on the evidence of the last five years, unless one, or both, change course, there is no way these two ambitions can simultaneously be realised. They will fall into a trap of their own making.

But, even if they do, can Labour make the most of Tory failure? It should be a source of shame and embarrassment that the Conservatives feel they can talk on poverty so freely despite their abysmal record; Cameron’s speech should provoke gales of laughter.

This is Labour territory, but given our weak leadership, David Cameron has decided he can park his tanks on our lawn, and own the “centre ground”. Jeremy Corbyn’s opposition to all of this has been non-existent, his leadership a risible disgrace. To fail to land any punches on this government is, as Luke Akehurst argues, a dereliction of duty.

However, there are hard questions for non-Corbyn Labour as well. Much anger is directed at Jeremy Corbyn and his numerous mistakes, but pushing him out would not solve all the problems currently facing us. Much as Dan Jarvis argues we need to understand why we lost the general election in May, we also need to get why we lost the leadership vote in September.

We need to have an alternative vision to present the next time the leadership is up for grabs; this was sorely missing in 2015, with none of the other three leadership contenders offering anything particularly stirring. Jeremy Corbyn’s ascension means that a lot of the hard questions that were shelved under Miliband are now finally being asked, in all wings of the party.

So what have the “moderates” come up with? Chuka Umunna talks voting reform. Steve Reed talks localism. Not the kind of inspirational, visionary stuff we’re looking for. Tom Clements has an interesting piece on Labour Uncut, and I had a stab a while back, but I sincerely hope that some of the PLP’s leading lights are using their free time on the backbenches to come up with some ideas of their own on where the party goes from here.

As well as vision, how we communicate is important. I believe the “Red Tory” charge, foolish as it is, comes in part from Labour’s tendency to try and neutralise weaknesses by talking more like the Tories; pitching our tent mid-way between them and us. The Conservatives may currently beat us on economic credibility, but the answer is not to ape them, or define ourselves by what they are doing — the solution is to find our own authentic Labour voice, our own ideas for the economy, then win the argument.

So, “moderates”, we need a compelling vision for the country, built around Labour values, that we can sell to both the party and the electorate. And given how the Tories are wrecking the country, it needs to be sooner rather than later. No pressure then.

In the meantime, every Labour person must get stuck into opposing this disgraceful, wretched government. David Cameron is failing society, and George Osborne is failing the economy. It’s a good song for us to sing. Let’s sing it loudly enough for everyone to hear.