Sometimes the political class bears a horrible resemblance to the annoying kid at the back of the car forever asking: "Are we there yet, mum?" The difference, these autumn days, is one of mere emphasis. The brat wants to know only one thing: "Is it election time yet?"

It wouldn't do to bother whether voters, having done their bit this year, actually want an election in bleak October. No-one is interpreting all those polls showing general satisfaction with Gordon Brown as simple proof that people mean what they say: they're satisfied, leave them alone. Nor has anyone bothered to tell us what an election would actually be about. What would we be voting for or against? I mean specifically. Mr Brown's Bournemouth speech was many things - possibly inspirational, certainly autobiographical, notably vague - but an election manifesto it was not.

The Tories, meanwhile, stagger on under a ton of grandiose policy documents, but only one commitment catches the eye. David Cameron's party will - bravely, defiantly - stick with Labour's spending plans. Take that, and let battle commence.

None of this dissuades the new breed of Kremlin-watchers for whom political theatre is preferable to the dull stuff of government. Minute details and received wisdom are the order of the day. Did Mr Brown mention Mr Cameron in his speech? He did not. Surely this is significant. Clearly, this signifies that the Prime Minister regards the Tory as ripe for crushing. Or, clearly, it means nothing of the kind: Mr Brown has not yet begun to fight. This, too, is tremendously significant. Then there are the polls, currently functioning as syllogisms in a cycle of circular logic. Brown is eight points clear? An election is, therefore, inevitable. Brown is eight points clear? He doesn't need to bother with an election.

Logically, it would make sense for the government to secure a fresh mandate lest it find itself between another Northern Rock and a hard place. Logically, just as logically, it would be wiser to wait until the global financial crisis blows over.

And so on. In an age when party conferences have ceased to confer, when the absence of challenging policies is a matter of policy, nothing beats hysteria. The election debate, so called, has become an end in itself. Why have a vote? Because we can.

Gordon, some say, would like his own mandate. Who wouldn't? Gordon, others insist, "needs" his own mandate. Yet there is no sign, none whatever, that voters are kept awake worrying over the legitimacy of a Brown government. That fox is dead. It is a non-issue, as even the Tories realise.

What is true, and perennially true, is that, short of matters of life and death, the decision to call an election is perhaps the toughest a Prime Minister can make. It is his choice, and his alone. If he gets it wrong, he is weakened, even if he is not defeated: self-inflicted wounds are never attractive. If he gets it right, the world and her husband resort to hindsight and say they told you so: victory was always inevitable, and no big deal. Certainly these are propitious times for Mr Brown. The credit crunch and the possibility of a recession in the United States are troubling, but outweighed, for now, by a simple truth: Mr Cameron's Tories are in no condition to oppose, far less to govern. If the polls say anything important, they say that few, as yet, feel a need to be saved from Labour. Why should the Prime Minister invite them to have second thoughts?

His decision will tell us something about the man, nevertheless. His allies have already begun to talk, a little prematurely, about Labour's next decade in power. Mr Brown has endorsed this confidence with a series of speeches on the job at hand, of the Britain proud, free and just he intends to build. In other words, stripped of the rhetoric, there is important work to be done, and he can't wait to get on with it. He has routed those who doubted his appeal. A surrender to base opportunism now would seem strange. On the other hand, the politician who throws away a golden opportunity is generally regarded as a fool. Mr Brown may not need to call an election. That, for those around him, is no good reason to pass up the chance. Lord Kinnock, addressing a Bournemouth fringe meeting, advertised his desire to grind Tory "bastards" into the dust. That sentiment always plays well with a Labour audience.

The Prime Minister has attempted to raise himself above the grubby political fray, however. He has Tories, bastards or otherwise, in his big tent. So has he also raised himself above the tribal instincts of Lord Kinnock and others like him? The new Brown is supposed to be a unifying force. General Elections are divisive. Which does he prefer?

A bit of both, probably, if that's available. The last time I wrote about snap elections, I suggested that the Prime Minister starts from the belief that he can beat Mr Cameron any time, any where. There is no evidence that he is wrong. There is no evidence, equally, that his popularity is about to collapse. The next spending round, a tight one, will be difficult for the government. But all that tells us is that an election in May, in decent weather, after a winter of Tory in-fighting, and prior to spending cuts, would suit Mr Brown just fine.

Labour's coffers, though recovering steadily, are not yet replenished. Labour's constituency organisations have yet to revive (far from it). Former supporters appalled by Tony Blair seem to be returning to the fold, but they need to have their hopes confirmed. Above all, Brown-for-Britannia needs a bit more work. The Prime Minister still has to prove that he is bigger than the passing electoral show.

Scotland, ironically enough, seems to prove the opposite. English commentators now take it for granted that Mr Brown has a Scottish problem, an impression that Comrade W Alexander's self- criticism session at Bournemouth, begging forgiveness for a detour on the long march, will have done nothing to dispel.

Taken constituency by constituency, however, Labour has very little to fear in Scotland. Westminster elections and Holyrood elections are very different things: everyone knows it, every poll shows it. Here, a "victory" for the SNP would be an increased share of the vote and more talk of a drift away from Britain. It would not, as John Curtice of Strathclyde University and others have been observing, affect the United Kingdom outcome in the slightest.

If Mr Brown has given much thought to Labour's standing in Scotland, he will have reached a simple conclusion. Better to give Wendy Alexander a chance to establish herself after a sticky start than have Holyrood's politics become confused with the great Westminster game.

Even then, there's no big deal. Mr Brown, the Scot wooing England, is approaching a fascinating moment, the moment in which he can win a British General Election without having to rely on Scotland's Labour MPs. There is no need for him to worry about the mechanics of a hung parliament. And there is no need, unless vanity intrudes, to worry about an election before next spring.