TONY BLAIR may not be interested but Gordon Brown, David Cameron and whoever becomes leader of the Liberal Democrats are. Constitutional reform — the way in which we are governed — has become fashionable again.

Mr Brown has said that a priority for Labour’s next manifesto will be the next steps for local democracy and long-term constitutional reform, while the Tories have set up a “democracy task force” under Kenneth Clarke.

But too much of the debate rests on misleading and outdated stereotypes: big bad central government and a weak parliament, both ignoring the wishes of voters. That oversimplification is the main flaw of yesterday’s report from the independent Power Inquiry, chaired by Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws. She writes that “Parliament and Government are increasingly in the hands of privileged elites as if democracy has run out of steam”. The “increasingly” is debatable: the elites have less power than before.

Similarly, the assertion that “Parliament has had many of its teeth removed” is plain wrong. Parliament has seldom been more assertive: just look at the number of revolts in the Commons and the doubling in the number of defeats in the Lords since the removal of most hereditary peers in 1999 (revolts in which Baroness Kennedy has herself often been prominent). Moreover, MPs are more active then ever in working for their constituents.

There is an associated over-enthusiasm for single-issue campaigns. This is treacherous ground. Direct democracy risks giving too much influence to unrepresentative groups of activists — like phone-in programmes. A march by lots of people, even the one million against the Iraq war in February 2003, captures attention but does not of itself convey legitimacy. Government and Parliament have to decide, as they did over Iraq, and it is up to voters to respond, as they did.

Similarly, the inquiry’s suggestion that citizens be given the right to initiate legislation, public inquiries and the like risks disappointment and resentment if a petition is examined, debated and rejected.

The main priority should be to strengthen representative democracy. This involves rebalancing power, and there are many good proposals about strengthening select committees, as well as empty ones such as putting limits on the power of the whips. Talk about a new “concordat” between central and local government is vague, though the report is correct to focus on the need to give councils enhanced power to raise taxes.

However, the inquiry has spread itself too broadly — setting out a programme for several Parliaments — with a breathless compendium of the familiar reformist agenda: a majority elected Lords, electoral reform and changes to party funding to reduce dependence on big donors.

It all turns on the question of how much we want to spread power. Voters tend to be ambivalent, wanting strong government but not too strong.

The Power Inquiry has done a service in stimulating debate. It is time for a fresh look. But the report exaggerates not only the scale of the problem, but also the impact of its proposals. Disillusionment with politics is mainly about the style and record of politicians, not about the structures of government.

Times Recommends

• Should Knox’s trial even have reached the courtroom?
• All that glitters is not sold in Wright’s world
• Believe it or not, Big Brother is your friend