Initial plans for the transition are out of date, gathering dust on some Treasury shelf. Everyone hopes Gordon Brown has a programme but no one seems to know if he has

Politics is about the pursuit of power. Yet the two contenders for the next premiership appear unaware of the difference between being in office and being in power. Both are saying what they think it takes to win. Yet real power is the ability to change the world in tune with the political values of your party. It requires not just a genuine mandate, but active and sustained support throughout the country.

This month in Dunfermline, people who had never even considered voting anything other than Labour broke the habit of their political lives. People who stuck with Labour throughout the dark days of the 1980s have had enough. The world is not being changed in a way that is in tune with their values. And things might get worse before they get better. The closer Gordon Brown gets to the crown, the more cautious and Blairite he is becoming. If this was the week in which contracts were exchanged on the house next door, the day of completion could see him become more cautious still. The desire to win his own mandate will be enormous. But means always shape ends. The way Labour fights for a fourth term will dictate the scope of that government. Breaking out of this cycle of caution will not be easy.

Time is against Brown in two ways. First, the space to set out a modern-left agenda as an alternative to the commercialisation of the public services is being squeezed every day Blair stays on. Second, the stamina to plan for a more deep-rooted transfer of power is diminishing. People have been waiting a long time. Many are tired or have moved on. Brown's Economic Council at the Treasury, charged with long-term thinking, has not had a chair since Ed Miliband became an MP. Initial plans for the transition are now out of date, gathering dust on some Treasury shelf. Everyone hopes Brown has a programme, but no one seems to know if he has.

The "seamless transition" desired by the Brownites is an oxymoron. Of course there will be points of continuity with Blair's world, but much more important to Labour MPs, members and supporters are the points of departure. Brown feels unable to tell us what these might be, in part because only Tony Blair and David Cameron are defining the reform agenda, but also because his great fear is that he will inherit a divided party.

Far more haunting, however, is the prospect of a Labour Party being reduced to a rump. It is likely that if the government's education reforms go through in their current shape, even more activists will leave than did over Iraq. Campaigners for the local elections will be impossible to find. The cycle of decline will be confirmed.

As Brown gets more cautious, Cameron becomes more radical. It is now possible to envisage the Tories outflanking Labour not just on the environment or quality-of-life issues, but on democratic renewal as well. There is talk of Cameron backing electoral reform.

And yet help may be at hand. The Power inquiry into the state of our democracy is about to publish its findings. Commissioners from all parties and none will show a democracy in a more perilous state than any of our politicians comprehend. Its recommendations will include a list of ways to rebalance and devolve power at every level to permit meaningful engagement between citizens and the state.

One idea is called the "right of initiative". This would give citizens the power not just to reward or punish political parties once every four years at the ballot box, but to set the political agenda in other ways. It would involve the power to initiate public inquiries and other assemblies; alternatively, citizens would be able to change existing laws and establish new ones through referendums. These new rights, combined with more informal checks on MPs, such as online interest groups, could spark a revolution in the way in which Britain is governed.

All three parties will have to compete to measure up to its analysis of the crisis and its prescriptions for reform. It could not be more timely.

Eighteen months ago Brown was setting out the case for a progressive consensus. This was a route map for the modern left to mobilise behind. It was the recognition that change happens not just by electing Labour governments but by building alliances across civil society around progressive causes. It was about enabling people to create their world collectively. Power was something to win - in part to be given away. This is what Brown did when he bravely gave monetary policy

independence to the Bank of England. Will he apply

the lessons of that success to our democracy?

Taking his lead from the Power inquiry, Brown would do well to return to his progressive consensus. It is the banner beneath which he can set out his thinking as a future leader without constraining himself in the process. It allows the prospect of winning the next election as a springboard to transform our country - rather than a straitjacket of despair.

Neal Lawson is chair of Compass. www.compassonline.org.uk

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website