Most now agree that to get out of these challenging times and recover the political momentum the government needs to concentrate on developing a policy programme that clearly and boldly defines its intentions. One idea Gordon Brown should consider as part of this is the creation of elected mayors in all of England’s towns and cities.

Mayors have already proved capable leaders, having overseen an improvement in the performance of their councils. The introduction of a mayor in Hackney, for instance, has coincided with a complete turnaround in the borough’s fortunes. Even Hartlepool’s mayor, Stuart Drummond, who famously stood for election dressed as a monkey, has confounded sceptics: Hartlepool is now judged to be one of the country’s top-performing councils, and Drummond was re-elected with an increased majority. Mayors have also pushed through a range of innovative policies like the congestion charge in London.

By virtue of being directly elected mayors also ensure greater political accountability. Mayors tend to be well known, enabling them to develop a connection with local voters than council leaders often fail to do. A survey conducted in Newham, for example, revealed that 67 per cent of residents could identify Sir Robin Wales as their mayor. And as the London campaign has proved, mayoral elections can galvanise and reinvigorate political debate in a meaningful way.

Nor have mayors generated the swathe of negative headlines about incompetence or corruption that was widely predicted. The argument that mayors concentrate too much power in one individual fails to recognise that under current arrangements council leaders are to be given the powers of mayors – in effect creating indirectly elected mayors – without the accountability that comes from direct election.

The real problem with mayors is that we have too few of them, thanks to the flawed process for introducing them. A referendum to establish a mayor can only be triggered by councils themselves or through a petition signed by five per cent of residents. Option one meant that councils – who were strongly opposed to mayors – could veto them. Option two places too much pressure on grassroots campaigns, which lack resources, expertise and profile and who struggle, in an age of weak political participation, to get local people to sign up. In places like Birmingham you would need 36,000 signatures to spark a referendum.

This system is ripe for reform and presents Brown with an opportunity to radically overhaul things. He should ditch the referendum requirement and instead legislate to introduce them in all major towns and cities, with an option to revoke the model after a four-year term if it proved unpopular.

It would be seen as a bold political move and help silence those who accuse Brown of dithering on big issues. Naturally such a policy would provoke opposition from within the party and local government. But this shouldn’t put him off. Winning an argument against a minority in the party on an issue which would be popular with the public could serve to strengthen his leadership. It would also allow the government to steal a march on the Tories and get onto this territory before they do.

A mayor in every city would also help underline Brown’s commitment to constitutional reform, and would, moreover, help bring this agenda to life and capture the public imagination in a way that reforming prerogative powers is never likely to do. It would answer critics who say the government lacks ‘definition’ since it would explicitly link a political narrative about empowerment with a concrete and tangible policy decision.

By presenting the introduction of mayors as a decentralising measure for England, Brown would also finally have a substantive policy answer to the English question which has arisen since the advent of devolution to Scotland and Wales. Mayors alone would not be enough – it would need to be combined with reforming the Barnett formula – but it would show that the government is genuinely concerned about improving the way England is governed.