A survey by the bank First Direct six months ago discovered that Bournemouth was the happiest place in Britain. An impressive 82 per cent of its residents claimed to be content with their lot. During the next few days, nevertheless, the town is destined to exceed even that whopping level of satisfaction. For while there might be the odd trade union dinosaur who is distressed (appropriately, Bournemouth is at the very edge of the Jurassic Coast), the vast majority of Labour Party delegates will be absolutely delirious with the political situation in which they find themselves.

They could also be excused for being surprised, too. At the same time as the national happiness survey was published a series of opinion polls implied that Labour was in deep trouble and that Gordon Brown would be a liability if he inherited the leadership.

One ICM poll for The Guardian in late February was especially damaging. It revealed that when voters were asked how they might choose between a Conservative Party headed by David Cameron and Labour with Mr Brown at the helm, the Tories would have a 13-point advantage. It looked then as if the Labour conference would resemble Bournemouth in James Herbert’s horror novel The Fog, in which a psychologically-tormenting miasma drives the entire population to walk into the sea and drown itself. As matters stand, that is more likely to occur next week when the Tories gather in Blackpool (although whether this would be caused by the opinion polls or simply the location is disputable).

Why this transformation? Because the polls earlier this year were ludicrous. Comparing someone who is already the leader of his party (Mr Cameron) with what one might imagine Mr Brown to be like as Prime Minister was - as a tiny minority of us noted at the time – a false exercise. It was the Northern Rock of polling projects, a model that could not be sustained when confronted with real events. It understated Mr Brown and it overrated Mr Cameron. Yet senior members of the Shadow Cabinet actually believed these numbers. They are paying a high price today for that delusion.

So, the Prime Minister enters his first conference in an exceptionally strong position. What should he do with it? On this, Tony Blair was right: “At our best when at our boldest.”

Almost all the pundits have concluded that Mr Brown is just “too cautious” to call an election for October 25 or November 1, even though most of them concede that he would probably win comfortably. He will, they insist, stay until next May, allowing the polls to settle down before considering the question of a new mandate.

Mr Brown should ignore them. He should wait until after the Conservatives have met and then dissolve the House of Commons. He is entitled to argue that voters have seen enough of him and his opponent in crises to make an assessment of them. He should observe, accurately, that the global economy is in a turbulent state and that it would be wise to invest a prime minister with full authority in these conditions.

Yes, he could hold until next spring before naming a date but that would be affording the Conservatives the chance to recover from what is close to a shambles over policy. And, as a master strategist, he should appreciate what would happen to the Tories after their defeat in any snap election – there would be, less of a “lurch to the right” than a huge lunge in that direction.

His biggest policy headache is the EU reform treaty, not so much a parting gift from Mr Blair than a ticking timebomb. There is the threat that any election could become a referendum on whether to hold a referendum about this ugly duckling. If he is bold, Mr Brown would turn the terms of this dispute in his direction. Most of the EU high command want the final version of this document to be agreed at a summit next month. The Prime Minister should harden his negotiating stance, demand stronger legal backing for Britain’s “red lines” and make it plain that nothing will be signed until after the voters have spoken. He should, to put it differently, make the election a referendum on whether his conditions for any settlement are acceptable to the electorate.

Then one more audacious initiative should be undertaken (although I’m sure it won’t be). Mr Brown should announce that he would welcome three-way televised debates with Mr Cameron and Sir Menzies Campbell. No prime minister has done this before and they would have been advised against it if they were leading in the polls. It has been traditional to hide behind the notion that Britain, almost uniquely among democracies, does not need such debates because we have the institution of Prime Minister’s Questions.

But Mr Brown is supposed to be the advocate of a “new politics” based on participation. PMQs is about as much of a substitute for debates as Tizer is for Bollinger. There would be no more visible means of demonstrating that both he and his ideas for governing are distinctive than to throw open the election to living rooms across the nation. It would be brave but the rewards could be enticing. It might turn a landslide into an avalanche.

The Prime Minister might instead reject an early poll, attempt to push through the EU treaty by conventional means and run a safety-first election campaign later. That is what a normal politician would do and it may work. It would not, though, amount to a legacy.

Mr Brown should keep in mind another literary reference relating to Bournemouth. In Douglas Adams’s So Long and Thanks for All the Fish, an immense silver robot some 100ft tall ventures down to the town from London, followed by a vast crowd, and spends several days lying face down on the beach and saying nothing of consequence before departing for space.

Prime Minister, this is no time for burying your head in the sand.

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