Gordon Brown has made mistakes, including the huge one of not going to the country in autumn 2007. Had he decided to call an election, Labour would most likely have been returned to power and the Prime Minister would have had to set out what he believed to be the aims of his premiership. Now, as his government contends with the dire consequences of global economic greed, we are still in the dark about his vision.

Does Brown think his government's responsibility is to protect the lower-paid from the credit crisis? Or, as increasingly seems the case, does he principally want to reassure the richest in society that Labour will regulate business with a light hand while cracking down on public-sector pay?

This matters. Families facing negative equity and rising fuel costs need to know what to expect from their government. Alistair Darling's assurances to the Trades Union Congress, paired with his refusal to consider lifting the 2 per cent public-sector pay cap and his demurring on a windfall tax, failed to convince. Such equivocation leaves Brown, in particular, vulnerable to the charge that he is making policy on the hoof, buffeted by what focus groups tell No 10 advisers will improve his ratings. When he wrote for the parliamentary Monitor magazine that he was planning to "adapt and rethink New Labour policy", aides hastily informed the BBC that he did not intend a change of direction.

The perception of a focus-group-directed leader has further consequences. A bored and impatient press, finding little coherence in policy, speculates wildly about any snippet of information it gets hold of. A moratorium on stamp duty? A windfall tax? A chancellor in rebellion? A leadership challenge?

But it is with Labour's core support that the lack of a clear philosophy is really an issue. Those who listened to the Trades Union Congress debate on the economy in Brighton heard speaker after speaker refer to the disappointment felt by "ordinary working people". That, of course, is the TUC's function. Yet it is disturbing that, only a year earlier, Brown had been received with warmth and enthusiasm by the same congress. This year, in a letter to "all trade unionists", a Tory shadow chancellor could promise a warm welcome from the Conservatives and not be laughed out of court with his claim that "the Labour Party has betrayed working people . . . forget about the Labour Party. It has forgotten about you."

Few respected commentators believe Brown can lead the party to victory in two years but they are divided over whether he should resign, be forced out or carry on. For the present, we believe there is nothing to be gained by a change of leader, though much to expect from a change of strategy. Brown must indeed demonstrate that he is prepared to "rethink policy". It will not guarantee re-election. That is not the point. The aim should be to make the coming two years more comfortable for the most vulnerable in society.

A bold package of Labour reforms that can produce results within two years should include:

  • a windfall tax on the energy industry and tighter regulation of its activity, both of which would be widely perceived as just, particularly in the light of bonuses awarded to directors and shareholders
  • strict regulation of the financial sector, whose reckless speculation and greed have threatened global economic security
  • a commitment to fair pay, including an increase in the minimum wage and monitoring of its application, particularly for vulnerable workers. The 2 per cent pay cap on public-sector workers should be abandoned. It is unjust to use one set of workers, many low-paid, as a tool for controlling inflation
  • a fairer tax regime so that top earners, who currently contribute little to the UK economy, pay at least at a level similar to the poorest.

Such measures would challenge the Conservatives to set out where they stand on trade union rights, the minimum wage, taxation, regulation of industry and the financial sector. We, too, quickly forget who are the Tories' real friends. They are not trade unionists.