Brown's reforming zeal seems calculated rather than principled

APART from his long-standing support for Scottish devolution, Gordon Brown has never been a politician who has devoted time and effort to the issue of constitutional change. Since his days as radical rising star of Scottish Labour, Mr Brown has always put far more emphasis on economic rather than constitutional reform. That changed yesterday.

In a speech to a think-tank in London, the Prime Minister outlined plans for wide-ranging modifications to the way that Britain is governed, which he set in the context of the need for politicians to restore the public trust that has been shattered by the recent scandals over MPs' expenses.

Among the proposals, he revealed that he had asked Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell to codify the unwritten rules governing the operation of central government, as part of moves towards the creation of a written British constitution by the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta in 2015.

Such a written constitution would include fixed-term parliaments with known dates for elections, to replace the current system where the timing of the general election is in the hands of the Prime Minister. Mr Brown also promised further action on the House of Lords, arguing that there was simply no place for a hereditary principle in the UK parliament.

The idea of a written constitution has long been mooted. There is a case for such a measure to be considered since it works well in other countries. However, the argument that codifying Britain's governance would create too rigid and inflexible a system must be addressed.

Taking away the power of a Prime Minster to call an election, a power already denied Scotland's First Ministers, and ending the undemocratic influence of those who are law-makers by virtue only of birth, are sensible reforms that should have been introduced long ago.

However, at the heart of yesterday's speech was Mr Brown's promise of legislation on a referendum to introduce an alternative voting (AV) system to elect Members of Parliament.

The Prime Minister's case that AV offers voters increased choice with the chance to express preferences for all of the candidates while retaining MPs' links to their constituency – something the Single Transferable Vote (STV) cannot do – is a sound one.

Those who worry that a purer form of proportionality, such as STV, inevitable produces weaker coalition government have a case, demonstrated most recently by the Labour/Liberal Democrat administration at Holyrood.

But while praising Mr Brown for raising these issues and finally being radical on reform, his case is undermined by the fact that he is making it so close to an election. By so doing, he appears not to be a man of principle but of political calculation, seeking to lure the Liberal Democrats, long-time reformers, into backing modest change and forcing the Tories to vote against it.

There is a case for AV and for further changes to Britain's unwritten constitution, but the time to make that case is not months before an election.