Gordon Brown must feel like a man calling a crowded room to order in vain. Political impotence is fast becoming political irrelevance at a time when leadership is sorely needed. Despite a chorus of vitriolic accusation, it is not all Brown's fault. The economic downturn, the expenses scandal, a tired and cynical electorate – all of these events, dear boy, would have tested even the most astute political operator.
But in allowing public service reforms to atrophy, Brown made a strategic error of exponential importance. Not only has this robbed the government of a coherent message (what is the plan for crime, education or health?). Not only has it allowed the Conservatives to steal Labour's clothes in broad daylight. Without a strong domestic policy, events have filled the vacuum and forced Brown into a reactive posture that is bound to destroy him.
To have any hope, the government must recapture the high ground on public service reform. It has made a start today by publishing Building Britain's Future (also known, with unflattering resonance, as the "National Plan"). The most likely response is a collective shrug of the shoulders: many people have stopped listening.
Which is a shame, because some of the ideas announced today are powerful. The new plans endow us with entitlements to minimum standards of public service. This is not mere rhetorical window-dressing. If these minimum standards are not met, users will be able to seek reparations. So if the NHS cannot provide elective surgery within 18 weeks, or a consultation for suspected cancer patients within two weeks, patients will be entitled to demand that the NHS foot the bill for private treatment. Children will be entitled to one-to-one tuition if they lag behind at school. Alongside choice, enforceable entitlements are a compelling strategy for improving public services.
Done in the right way, entitlements are also a welcome dose of liberalism, creating a meaningful mechanism for empowering individuals. Done the wrong way, entitlements could saddle us with legions of adjudicators and a bureaucratic dog's breakfast. But provided the government is serious about raising awareness of the quality to which users have a right, and the mechanisms of redress are quick and effective, entitlements offer a meaningful way for individuals to exert control.
Entitlements are also politically savvy. They allow the government to move away from top-down targets while entrenching the benefits these have delivered. They also equip the government to ask awkward questions about whether the Conservatives would really abolish all national standards and oppose rights to good public services. And according to one Downing Street source, they are an elegant way of bringing together two competing philosophies in cabinet. On one hand, figures like Ed Balls and Alan Johnson stress the state's importance in assuring standards. On the other, ministers such as David Miliband and Liam Byrne talk about giving more control to individuals. Entitlements neatly appeal to both positions.
It remains to be seen if the public are in any mood to listen, no matter how good the ideas. But if it is going to draw back from the electoral brink, this can't be just one more policy document. Labour needs to rebuild its reputation as the party of public service reform.