The British constitution is a jumble of statutes, conventions and unwritten legal principles that have evolved slowly since Saxon times.

The British constitution is a jumble of statutes, conventions and unwritten legal principles that have evolved slowly since Saxon times. Gordon Brown's first address to the House of Commons as Prime Minister opened the door to the nearest thing to a written constitution since Magna Carta and the first Bill of Rights since 1689. Another day, another momentous announcement.

It is hard to believe that Gordon Brown moved into No 10 only a week ago. This is clearly a man determined not to let the grass grow under his feet. It reflects his acute awareness that after the Blair years, the British electorate is in the mood for change, and if he cannot supply it, David Cameron and the Tories are waiting in the wings. So far, Mr Brown's strategy seems to be working.

As Justice Secretary Jack Straw put it, much of what was set out yesterday sounded rather "anoraky". We are likely to see the end to outdated anomalies such as the executive's role in choosing Church of England bishops, for example. But behind this densely-woven document lies a route map that is intended to alter fundamentally the relationship between government and governed, reinvigorating British democracy for the 21st century. This involves both the transfer of power from the executive to parliament and from parliament to the people. Among the former is a welcome enlarged role for parliament in approving major public appointments such as the chief inspector of prisons, by introducing US-style confirmation hearings. The Prime Minister also confirmed his intention to surrender or limit the executive's power to declare war, though this could be blunted by the caveat that this must "never limit our ability to deal with emergencies or operational decisions". On the rights of citizens, it is clear the Bill of Rights envisaged by the Prime Minister has just as much to do with stressing responsibilities. It is also likely to be one of the most contentious areas of reform as many see it as an attempt by the back door to narrow the way judges can interpret the law, the Human Rights Act in particular, where the judiciary has frustrated efforts by ministers to tighten anti-terrorism legislation. This should be resisted.

In an attempt to increase voter turn-out, elections may be moved to week-ends, a move supported strongly by The Herald. However, there is a far less convincing case for a second proposal: to consider lowering the voting age to 16. Many 18- to 21-year-olds fail to use their vote and there is little evidence that introducing voting at 16 would engage teenagers in the political debate.

While proposing the setting up of parliamentary committees for each English region, Mr Brown rejects English-only votes on English matters, arguing, correctly, that it would create two classes of MPs. Ultimately, the issue of whether people will reconnect with politics will hang on whether he can distance himself from Iraq. He can talk of transparency and inclusivity until he is blue in the face, but without the trust of the British people, he cannot succeed.