Labour is on track to ‘win-lose’ at the next general election as it doesn’t have the clear vision New Labour had in 1997 - Matthew Flinders

But just because an election takes place does not mean that democracy exists. Shams and skull-duggery haunt the international picture and events in recent months underline this point.

Even where elections are likely to be ‘free and fair’ major concerns still exist about their international implications.

More elections, but more concern. Concern because democratic debate has in recent years been defined by a focus on democratic backsliding. This involves the gradual but constant hollowing-out of democratic standards and the stripping away of traditional checks and balances. A refusal to follow the rules and in some cases a refusal to accept defeat, are the hallmarks of democratic backsliding.

The United Kingdom has not been immune from this democratic malaise. The premiership of Boris Johnson was almost defined by a failure to follow convention, respect precedent or operate within the rule of law. This is not a partisan point, its political reality. The British constitution’s traditional reliance on the self-restraint of those in office – what Lord Hennessy has labelled ‘the good chaps theory of government’ - was tested to breaking point.

British democracy has been and remains under strain.

It is in this national context and against this broader international backdrop that a general election is looming in the United Kingdom. An election which – if polls are anything to go by – is going to deliver a new Labour government and prime minister.

The problem is that it is possible to ‘win-but-lose’, just as it is possible to ‘lose-but-win’.

The ‘win-but-lose’ option looks like this. Labour wins the election with a comfortable majority but no defining vision, intellectual substance or public message. They have, in effect, won by default: a disillusioned public voting for ‘the other side’ because they think the other one has run out of puff.

A new government sets off without a rudder with no clear sense of where they are going, why or at what speed.

The five bold missions that we are told will fix Britain’s short-term ‘sticking-plaster politics’ are all fairly obvious. Like apple-pie and motherhood, it’s hard to argue against ‘getting the NHS back on its feet’ or ‘breaking down barriers to opportunity’ but it's also a little too easy to make these commitments without also having clear answers to the ‘exactly how?’ question.

To say that details will be revealed ‘nearer the time’ or through extensive consultation is hardly likely to ‘cut the mustard’ when a transition in government is likely to occur in the next six months. My sense is that Labour are on track to ‘win-lose’, rather than ‘win-win’.

Think back to 1997, the ‘things can only get better’ anthem might have set expectations a little high but overall, it was a ‘win-win’ election for the simple reason that ‘New’ Labour had defined a clear vision and demonstrated the existence of a shadow cabinet that really did look like a ‘government in waiting’.

Many Conservatives have already accepted that the next general election is lost while comforting themselves that a ‘lose-win’ result is probably the best possible outcome. Let Labour have the reins for a few years, give the Tories the chance to reset and refresh, without a strong governing narrative or simple story the Labour Party will ‘win-lose’ rather than ‘win-win’. Principles and values are the glue that binds policies together so that they deliver not only more than the sum of their parts, but they also serve to close the gap between the governors and the governed.

They also define the tone and texture of the government. I’m no New Labour super-fan but ‘education, education, education’ was a simple message that everyone could understand and get behind.

Labour’s current shorthand script is a little too strong, somewhat scary and potentially populist: ‘Labour’s missions are built on fulfilling our first duty: to protect our country – through economic stability, secure borders and strong defence.’

I’m sure the Conservatives, Reform and most other parties would say the same thing.

Labour’s strategy for a ‘win-win’ must focus on regaining the trust and support of non-college educated working class voters. People who work hard want to feel they can get on with their life. They want to feel understood and acknowledged, not strangers in their own land.

The recipe for success is not that hard. Surveys consistently reveal that what matters to most people can be summed up in three words - fairness, families and finance.

The answer to ‘why should I vote for you?’ could therefore be a bold and simple message: ‘Because everything we do will be defined by a commitment to fairness, families and finance.’

Without a clearer vision, a tad more courage and a little less caution the Labour Party risks winning while ultimately losing.

Matthew Flinders is a professor of politics at the University of Sheffield.