The policy express is running a bit late to pick up steam now

There will be a new hyper-fast modern railway, a referendum on PR at Westminster and (according to a weekend paper) abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement with a wholly elected "senate".

The mixture of old dependable Gordon with new, exciting ideas looks good on paper but also serves to highlight how little has been delivered since Tony Blair wrested power from the Tories 13 long years ago.

I should be rejoicing to see policy supplant presentation and to find commitments on three important policy issues from the progressive party most likely to win a General Election.

Instead, I find myself screaming with freshly rediscovered frustration.

The Lords should already have been reformed by Labour, who settled for stuffing the Upper House with its own people instead. PR could have been the subject of a referendum at any time since 1997 when it was first promised in Labour's manifesto, and fast rail may be a gimmick rather than a great idea.

Indeed, I hadn't started thinking about the long list of things Labour hasn't done until they started putting policy centre-stage. I might not be alone.

This "top-down" government showed little interest in gaining public backing for radical policy change until the election finally started looming, and the inescapable suspicion is that, left to its own devices with the same experienced/motley crew at the helm, Labour won't quite get round to delivering awkward policy change all over again.

Indeed – with the prospect of a hung parliament rather than outright victory for either main party – its constitutional wheezes look more like ways to steal votes (or at least not lose them) to the traditional party of electoral reform, the Lib Dems, whilst also positioning Labour as the most PR-friendly suitors should a hung parliament put Nick Clegg in pole position.

Another problem with a last-minute welter of policy initiatives is the lack of time available to subject them to robust analysis. Take the high-speed rail plan. Since it was announced by Lord Adonis, the main argument from Scots has been for inclusion as a destination right from the start. But veteran transport consultant David Spaven has pointed out that upgrading existing lines would be cheaper, quicker, less environmentally damaging, and equally likely to encourage both a switch from air travel and more rail travel across the UK (not just along the superfast corridor).

The much-praised TGV in France has apparently sucked up investment leaving "lesser" regional routes poorly served. And the French don't have UK planning procedures to contend with.

Can one prestige rail project lift the heart of a nation? I'm starting to hear the trams fiasco starting all over again.

But a new superfast rail line does sound wonderful to travellers who have fallen out of love with air travel thanks to cattle-like queuing and lengthy search procedures. There's also a homing instinct that sees people switch back to reassuring symbols of authority in times of trouble – viewers turn to BBC News, phone-users revert to BT, and voters turn to the reassuring bulk of the incumbent Gordon Brown.

A new age of the train completes this comforting retro picture, with subliminal references to whistles, railway children and Jenny Agutter. But this is "pat on the head" policy-making – giving the public what they want instead of what they need.

How many air travellers will "ditch the wings" if fast rail to London costs 300 (without a guaranteed seat) and flights remain on offer at a fraction of the price?

A commitment to upgrade all existing lines (and un-jam London bottlenecks) is unsexy stuff at election time but might deliver more public benefit.

Shame no-one had time to get their heads round rail travel as a vital issue until now.

Of course, manifestos have not yet been published and the election date has not yet been named. So there's time for Labour to deliver some genuinely new, big, workable policies that don't also remind voters of their recent inertia.

But if that doesn't include a cast-iron guarantee to scrap Trident – the only single decision that can change Britain's finances, deliver Robin Cook's ethical foreign policy and switch our manufacturing base from arms to green energy – its manifesto will be a collection of old promises, undelivered change and vital policy omissions.

There is another way policy can be made to matter during this election. Supporters of PR and opponents of Trident will observe there is common support for these policy positions across most of the non Ulster-based small parties. Whether it's Clegg or Salmond who are approached by Brown or Cameron in the event of a hung parliament, both men can afford to talk tough. Perhaps, with clever electoral footwork by voters selecting reform-friendly MPs across parties, they could talk even tougher.

The Institute of Ideas is set to produce a pledge card with preferred policies on civil liberties, innovation and education and will ask individual candidates to sign up, publicising the results online. Groups focusing on expenses, Iraq, Trident and PR will doubtless do the same.

Will that allow voters to support policy rather than party by selecting candidates at the ballot box? There are snags. Few policy positions are easily stated. PR, for example, has several different working models. What are the "right" policies for the economy? It would be simple (but also simplistic) to ask if each candidate agrees with Vince Cable.

And with so many new faces – thanks to the expenses scandal – there are few track records. Nonetheless, Obama's stunning election victory has offered a template for success to civic society as well as political parties. It's time for everyone interested in political policies to get weaving.