One sure prediction for Gordon Brown’s premiership is that he will introduce an ethics package. This will be a quick way to demonstrate what Mr Brown has already called a new style of government: to try to revive trust in politics. It is pretty easy to devise such a package and Sir Alistair Graham, the outgoing chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, has already obliged. On the BBC programme Week in Westminster on Saturday, he argued for a review of the Ministerial Code. This should include a public register of ministers’ interests, a more open system of investigation of alleged breaches (filtering out the vexatious and irrelevant) and a more nuanced response (not just sacking or exoneration, but more of a yellow card). He will expand on these ideas at an open meeting of the committee today.

Sir Alistair has had discussions with Mr Brown and believes that he is already working on, and will introduce, such a package. So when a minister takes office and declares interests, these should be public. Mr Brown’s concern is not new, but goes back to the troubles of Geoffrey Robinson in 1997-98.

Both Sir Alistair and, separately, the Commons Public Administration Committee, chaired by Tony Wright, back a Civil Service Act to provide clarity on relations between ministers and civil servants. The latter’s report is an antidote to naive allegations of politicisation, and provides a sensible and robust framework for the inevitably overlapping roles of ministers and officials. There are no clear dividing lines, and proposals for contractual agreements between the two could weaken, not enhance, political accountability.

Mr Brown likes to quote Bank of England independence and the Competition Commission to justify the separation of politics and administration. While the Bank decision has been very successful, it looks an exception and cannot be used to justify an independent NHS, as urged by some Brownites, where key decisions on money are inescapably political.

The debate becomes fuzzier when you move from ethics to broader constitutional renewal, another Brown priority. There is no agreement about what is wrong, let alone what should be done. The latest fashion is to seek more direct democracy, citizens’ juries and the like. These can be useful consultative tools, but no more.

No one denies that “politics” as an activity is tarnished. The latest Audit of Political Engagement from the Hansard Society and the Electoral Commission (based on an Ipsos MORI poll) shows that while 93 per cent of the public say they have discussed national and international issues with friends or family in the past year, 60 per cent claim not to have discussed political issues.

Politics appears an alien process. There is scant evidence of a large, frustrated group eager to become involved in it. There is a big gap between what people say they are willing to do and what they have done. Moreover, political activism is a supplement to voting, not an alternative to it. Becoming more involved is not a priority. The real need is to improve our representative system and the links between voters, MPs and Parliament.

Times Recommends

• In the real world, the public sector must pay
• Playing politics in a land of double Dutch
• Be like the plinth people: not set in stone