Steve Richards: Electoral reform could be just what Brown needs. But if he is to act, he must do it soon

If Labour is to retain power, it will have to turn round its fortunes without help from the economy

When a government falls well behind in the polls an unavoidably persistent question arises: what can be done, if anything, to bring about a recovery? It is a theme of a thousand conversations between ministers, advisers, Blairites, Brownites and those that have escaped such narrow definition. One way or another the question hangs over ministerial activity and especially, of course, prime ministerial hyper-activity.

The question burns especially brightly at the moment because the circumstances are relatively unusual. In its first two terms Labour was rarely behind in the polls and was often well ahead. The Government falls now at a time when there is such limited room for manoeuvre to rebuild a coalition of support. Normally the Budget is a moment when levers can be pulled. This month the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, demonstrated that in the current economic situation there are no levers. If it is to win next time, the Government will have to turn around its political fortunes without the assistance of a benevolent economic background.

There is, though, one piece of ammunition available to Brown if he cares to use it. At some point soon he could come out in favour of electoral reform for the House of Commons. In doing so he would almost certainly change the dynamics of the current political situation in his favour, possibly bringing new life to the pluralist mood that worked in Labour's favour during the mid-1990s.

Of course, now the context is unrecognisably different. More than a decade ago there was a prevalent anti-Conservative mood in the country. Now voters turn away from Labour. But if Brown were to move in favour of electoral reform he would have a chance of reversing the tide.

In defining the strength of a tide against one party, the Liberal Democrats have a strangely pivotal role. In the 1980s the SDP/Liberal Alliance was shaped partly against Labour. In the mid- 1990s the Liberal Democrats in effect were part of an informal alliance with Labour against the Conservatives. Now they reaffirm their neutrality in relation to the two bigger parties. But their neutrality would be tested if Brown came out in favour of a referendum on electoral reform. In such circumstances Nick Clegg would be keeping his fingers crossed that one way or another the election produced an outcome in which Brown remained as Prime Minister. Brown would have formed a tentative progressive consensus.

There is significant support for a limited change on Labour's side. At The Independent's fringe meeting during Labour's conference after the 2005 election, Ed Balls declared his backing, in principle, for the Alternative Vote. At this newspaper's fringe meeting a year later the various contenders for what was then an embryonic deputy leadership contest all said that they would support AV. Normally a strong advocate of the status quo, Jack Straw is one of those who would accept such a change. During his solo leadership contest last summer Gordon Brown stated that he did not rule out electoral reform for the Commons.

AV is not a proportional voting system but, I am told by some of those close to Clegg, its introduction would be welcomed by the Lib Dems' leadership as a significant step forward, at least marking the end of first past the post. With such moves timing is everything. There is a great big conundrum in relation to electoral reform. When a party is doing well under the current system reform becomes an unattractive option. After Labour's landslide in 1997 Tony Blair's erratic interest faded altogether. Yet when a party is performing badly a sudden interest in electoral reform looks cynical and desperate. This will not be a misguided perception. Calculations of self-interest play an overwhelming part, inevitably, in attitudes towards voting systems.

The cynicism and desperation would be especially obvious if Brown and his colleagues discovered a sudden interest in electoral reform if they lost their overall majority at the next election. In such circumstances it would be almost impossible to claim with authority that a change in the voting system was in the interests of the country: "In order to cling to power I am embracing a new politics. Thank you and good night". This would hardly be a convincing rallying cry in a subsequent referendum campaign.

Which means the only space to act is well before the election. To be more precise, Brown would have to state soon that after the election he would hold a referendum on electoral reform and personally campaign in favour of a change. This would place him in a different position from Blair, who promised a referendum during Labour's first term but did not state whether he would put the case for ending the current arrangements. In the event he did not even hold the referendum, describing such a move as "quixotic" in the light of Labour's massive landslide. As matters stand, there is no chance that Brown will be able to deploy such a get-out clause next time. He is not going to win a landslide.

Admittedly if Brown were to make such a firm proposal in the current political climate he would still be accused with good cause of acting out of fearful self-interest, but the onslaught would be nowhere near as intense as it would be after losing a majority in an election.

He is also in a situation in which the proposal would carry some credibility. The Government has offered different voting systems for the devolved assemblies and the Scottish parliament. More widely, although with too much incoherent caution and too many reviews of reviews, Brown has sought to make constitutional reform a defining theme of his leadership.

Today it is expected that Jack Straw will unveil his draft constitutional reform bill which will encompass familiar proposals ranging from the right of Parliament to vote before military action to the role of the Attorney General. Contrary to reports yesterday, there will be no references to the voting system, suggesting that as things stand nothing is planned this side of an election.

I wonder if that will change. For many reasons, including some beyond crude electoral calculations, it is in Labour's interests to make a move. Probably this was always the case. I remember William Hague telling me that after 1997 he feared Blair had a cunning plan for electoral reform that threatened to keep the Tories away from power for decades. Then to his bewildered relief Blair scrapped the plan. No wonder some Blairites now regret their failure to act then.

If Brown does not revive a similar plan soon he will miss his chance too. Over the next few months he just about has a reason to do so, beyond desperation. When he is truly desperate he will have no authority to propose a referendum, let alone win one.

s.richards@independent.co.uk