“The British constitution”, the Queen once observed, “has always been puzzling and always will be.” The changes set out by Gordon Brown in the House of Commons yesterday would not make Britain’s arrangements much less curious but would remove some of the eccentricities that have accrued over the centuries. The only point at which these might be tackled is at the beginning of a prime ministerial tenure, for at a later point the temptation of enjoying quasi-monarchical power would, inevitably, become overwhelming. The broad thrust of these reforms is, therefore, welcome. Indeed, David Cameron generally endorsed them even while disputing the Prime Minister’s claim to be an agent of change.

Some reforms are, nevertheless, more substantial than others. The right of Parliament to be consulted on issues of war and peace was more or less inevitable after Tony Blair agreed to a division in the Commons before the Iraq invasion. Involving MPs in US-style confirmation hearings before major public appointments has some merit, although parliamentarians have to respond to this new responsibility by avoiding infantile grandstanding. Allowing the Church of England to select its own bishops, without the prospect of interference from Downing Street, is no threat to its established character.Parliament should be in a position to ratify all international treaties Britain enters.

Other innovations outlined by the Prime Minister are merely symbolic. Allowing a majority of MPs to demand a recall of the House of Commons during a recess and asking for their approval before Parliament is dissolved and an election is called sound like sizeable concessions, but would the majority party ever go against the edict of its leader on such matters? The creation of an independent adviser on the ministerial code looks similarly impressive, but there are reasons to question what difference it will make in practice. The concept of “citizens’ juries” is wildly fashionable but would these be anything more than a glorified version of a focus group? There is solid stuff in the Brown proposals but he (and the Opposition) must avoid being too faddist.

The most intriguing elements of the package lie elsewhere. The first rests in the suggestion that residents should be able to challenge the taxation and spending priorities of local councils directly by calling for a referendum. Such a shift could awaken local democracy from its current comatose condition. The proposal for a Bill of Rights could (and should) become the device by which ministers can abandon the Human Rights Act (which has proved a mischief in practice) and be in a better position to resist the seemingly monumental ambitions of the European Court of Justice. That possibility alone makes this an area worth exploring.

Mr Brown should not, though, spend too much of his time personally carrying a map and compass in this territory. There is a sound case for modernising the constitution and he will doubtless win plaudits from across the political spectrum for his willingness to surrender or limit his personal powers of patronage. Yet when polling day finally arrives, there will be precious few constituencies outside certain enclaves in Central London where the new Prime Minister’s embrace of a Civil Service Act would secure him many votes. The Government will survive or fall on its competence in delivering improved services at an acceptable cost.