Politicians are all the same - except the ones that aren't

We've all heard, whether on the doorstep, on tv, or online, that politicians are all the same. It's not a bad shorthand, to be honest - general elections became about winning over a few thousand swing voters in a small number of constituencies, and naturally the two main parties began to adopt similar styles to try to attract them.

But that isn't the whole story. Remember Clegg-mania? Before the coalition, the Liberal Democrats had the freedom to be different. No-one, not even they, believed they were going to be in government any time soon (a hung parliament was considered a remote possibility) and so they didn't have to chase that few thousand voters - they could just be themselves instead, and it won them seats.

And then there's UKIP. They have traded extensively, and effectively, on not being like the rest. They're the authentic voice of the people, the only ones not in the Westminster bubble, not a part of the establishment, and so on. Most of these claims are absolute rubbish, but they are perceived as true, which is just as important.

Labour and the Tories, however, are seen as being pretty much the same. It's an understandable position - when one party announces they will follow the same spending plans as the other (as Labour did before 1997, and the Conservatives did in 2007), it's clear there is at least some similarity there. When you add the more recent capitulation in the argument about the causes of the government deficit and debt by Labour, leaving both sides apparently agreeing on the cause, and the solution, only differing on the details (pace, timing, marginal differences in scale of the cuts) it looks like they are more alike than not.

Don't get me wrong, I think an Ed Miliband led government would have been better for the country than this David Cameron led one, but it is easy to see how the vast majority of the electorate, who have only a passing interest in politics at election time (or no interest at all, given the number of non-voters) could think there isn't much difference.

The thing is, this is a product of the tactic of chasing the few thousand swing voters, and I no longer think that tactic is valid, certainly not for Labour. Targeting a few thousand swing voters in England is not going to win back the hundreds of thousands of voters we need in Scotland. Sounding like the Tories is not going to win back the disaffected "none of the above" voters in the north of England, many of whom voted UKIP. And if we can't keep hold of, or win back, those voters, the votes of a few thousand swing voters in the Midlands and South of England are irrelevant.

The thousands of swing voters tactic only works when the two parties are close in terms of seats. The brutal truth is that, having tried that tactic again last time, we are now over one hundred seats behind the conservatives. That doesn't call for a tactic designed to shift ten or twenty seats - it calls for a step change. It calls, in fact, for an attempt to fundamentally shift the parameters of the debate, much as the SNP managed in Scotland, much as UKIP are starting to do across England.

We're in a time of flux, and we need to win votes across the entire UK - in Scotland, to regain what we have lost, in northern England and Wales, to keep what we have, and in the Midlands and the South of England, to get back to power. The way to win those votes? By showing that we're different from the Tories. By showing that we don't think people should be criminalised for being poor, punished for being on benefits, or sanctioned for being sick. By showing that we do believe in investing in our young people, in our infrastructure, and in our country. By showing that when it comes down to choosing between the rich or them, we're on their side.

In short, by being Labour, by emphasising our differences rather than diminishing them, and, yes, by making the case for our positions, even when the electorate (currently) disagrees.