When politicians turn to the public for help, you know they're in trouble

Mr Howard has been presented with an easy opportunity to present the Government as running out of steam

The Prime Minister's launch, in Newport today, of the Labour Party's "big conversation" with the British people is the curtain-raiser for the start of the next general election campaign. Coming at the end of a week that also saw the beginning of the probable last full session of the current Parliament, this initiative is an attempt to bring back, centre stage, raw electoral politics. But there is only one real conversation that Tony Blair needs to have, as Michael Howard pointed out, which is with Gordon Brown. Unless the questions of redistribution, tax and spend are addressed, the rest of the consultation is simply window dressing.

But while it is easy to dismiss this exercise for the sham that it is likely to be, it does underline the fact that Mr Blair is turning his attention to the need to engage with the electorate - if not with Labour Party members. For many months the last group of people Mr Blair has had on his mind has been the electorate. Bolstered by a previously weak and incoherent opposition, and with his energy and mind focused on the needs of international affairs, Mr Blair has free-wheeled his way through 2003, concentrating primarily on his duties as Prime Minister rather than on his other responsibility as leader of the Labour Party.

Nevertheless, this morning's launch shows he finally recognises that, with an election looming, he has to be a partisan political leader as well as a leader of his country. There will be many in the Labour Party, such as the former chief whip, Nick Brown, who will say it is a pity that Mr Blair does not simply hold a big conversation with Labour MPs who might have a few sharp words with him on how to avoid electoral elephant traps. And there will also be many viewers, having just watched Labour's party election broadcast on Wednesday, announcing the conversation, who must then have been appalled at the refusal of Peter Hain, appearing on Newsnight, to converse directly with Tim Yeo from the Tories and Mark Oaten from the Liberal Democrats.

If Mr Blair wants a national debate on where his party and Government should go, he really needs to get his ministers to enter into the spirit of this consultation. And when there are great national issues, such as the shortage of playing fields for children, or the announcement by Jack Straw that we may not, after all, need to sign up to the new European Convention, it does not help when departmental ministers refused, this week, to appear on the Today programme.

There is a hint of desperation about any political party - especially one in office - which resorts to the public to tell it how to solve the nation's problems. Generally speaking it has been the politicians who have previously been expected to reassure the public. Asking the public what a party's policy should be on transport, public services or pension provision begs the question "well, if you don't have the policy answers why should we vote for you?" And if the public's views do not coincide with what a party in government has already been doing - on foundation hospitals, on Europe or university top-up fees - is that government prepared to do a series of policy U-turns in response? That would hardly square with the Prime Minister's claim at the Labour Party conference that he has "no reverse gear".

The fundamental flaw in this approach is that Mr Blair still does not trust the Labour Party to make policy. Somehow - although he may recognise that, as the election draws closer, he needs the party's help - its participation is solely on the basis that it is to be used as nothing more than a cipher. The danger is that the public, which usually has contradictory views on fundamental questions, will force a party into a set of manifesto commitments that turn out to lack any semblance of coherence. This accounted for the difficulties of William Hague after the Tories' "Listening to Britain" exercise before the 2001 election. Generally speaking, the public's views can be summed up in one sentence: "We want to pay less tax and have better public services for the money we do pay." As to how to achieve this - well, that is what politicians are paid to do.

Mr Blair's risky approach to policy-making has handed Mr Howard an easy opportunity to present the Government as running out of steam. The new Tory leader has already, in the space of less than three weeks, re-energised MPs, party donors and workers. Simply renewing the organisational infrastructure will yield disproportionate gains among Tory voters who have sat on their hands for nearly a decade. Mr Howard has a secret weapon in the "lost" Tory voters who simply gave up on the party in despair at its inability to provide a credible opposition.

The extraordinary re-energising of the party's younger supporters - who cannot remember Mr Howard as environment or employment minister - means that Mr Blair's attack on his past cuts little ice with first-time voters, or those in their twenties. I am reminded of a young heckler at a public meeting I held during the 1992 election campaign - my fourth - when I regurgitated the old lines about the 1979 winter of discontent that had successfully seen me elected and re-elected at the previous three elections. He was about 25 and reminded me that he was 12 in 1979 and that I might, 13 years on, consider changing the record.

Mr Blair may be surprised to find that, in the eyes of younger voters with shorter memories, Mr Howard may actually have more of tomorrow, rather than yesterday, about him than the Prime Minister has yet recognised.

Of course the Tory policies, on the extent to which the private sector will be involved in the provision of health and education, will come under greater critical scrutiny during the coming months. But, for the time being, they have a breathing space where they can capitalise on the Government's sense of drift and, most important, the yawning gap between ministers and Labour MPs. And the Government's turmoil on the proposed European Constitution has unwittingly handed the Tories - including even the likes of Ken Clarke - an issue, which although they have been loathe, hitherto, to put it at the centre of their agenda is nevertheless one around which they can make mischief.

Parliament is once again a gladiatorial contest between two big beasts. But Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats, who looked severely squeezed, may still punch above their weight. Mr Kennedy spoke to a near empty chamber on Wednesday - although he had a full turnout of his troops. On the other hand he was spared the ritual heckling from the other parties. This make his speech, though barely listened to by MPs or journalists, all the more appealing to the non-political majority of voters beyond the Westminster village. The new Punch and Judy show plays well in the Commons but Mr Kennedy - in spite of Mr Blair's jibe about the Lib Dem idea of free cod liver oil - still plays disproportionately well outside Westminster.

mrbrown@pimlico.freeserve.co.uk