In the aftermath of our election defeat much of the post-mortem has centred why voters took such a dim view of Labour’s economic credentials. This debate is largely encompassed in the divide between two positions: Should we resolutely stick by the record of the last Labour government, or should we apologise for overspending and try to move on?

In some ways this isn’t even the difficult question. If we choose to fight our corner, the Tories will keep saying that “Labour can’t admit they got it wrong” and will continue to expound their exclusive right to economic competence. If we do admit to overspending, the Tories will say “even Labour politicians admit they’re incompetent”… and will continue to expound their exclusive right to economic competence.

As such, apologising could only be the start. The much harder task will be getting people to stop talking about overspending when every other Newsnight features a smirking, new-model Michael Green Grant Shapps reciting his “track record” mantra.

Anyone who followed Lord Ashcroft Polls over the past six months will have read about focus group after focus group where people described Labour policies the same way – “it sounds very nice, but where is the money coming from?” This is despite providing more detail over our budgetary plans than any opposition in history. The Budget Responsibility Lock from page one of Labour’s manifesto ensured that every spending pledge was fully funded by a tax rise or spending cut elsewhere. Compare this to the Conservatives, who are currently scrabbling to fund £28bn of extra spending pledges on top of £30bn of cuts. These were promises so ludicrous that they could only be made by a Conservative Party convinced that the Liberal Democrats would provide cover to dilute their manifesto. They’re now embroiled in back room rows over where to find the savings.

And yet the focus groups’ responses remained the same throughout the campaign. Despite Labour specifically identifying where the money was coming from, people simply did not believe we knew. Such is the damage to Labour’s brand.

For this reason, I am firmly in the ‘apologise’ camp. It doesn’t even matter whether we actually overspent or not. Until the media (and to a lesser extent the public) has its pound of flesh, nothing Labour says will be deemed credible, and the Conservatives will continue to be seen as the only safe pair of hands. We will be locked out of office for decades, waiting for another Black Wednesday to reverse the parties’ fortunes.

It is understandable that the opposing view is primarily advanced by the likes of Kitty Ussher and Yvette Cooper, who played crucial roles in Gordon Brown’s economic management. It’s their record we would be trashing, somewhat unfairly, for the sake of political expediency. But the Labour Party does not exist to enhance the reputation of individual politicians, it exists to win elections and implement progressive policies. Anything that prevents this has to go.

Admitting that the last Labour government overspent will not restore our economic reputation by itself. As I have described, we will still have to move the conversation on. We’ll also need the policy platform to reassure a wary electorate that we can be trusted not to indulge our well-meaning though ultimately imprudent instincts. But it is essential if we are to be part of the conversation again.

The debate over government spending, both before the financial crisis and in the parliament that followed, was one Labour was never going to win. It was lost before even the 2010 election, and was lost for a political generation. After ten years of stable growth under a Labour government it will be time to bring out the revisionist analysis – but continuing the argument now is like howling into a gale.