An adviser to John Major, when the Tory premier was facing meltdown, recalls an American visitor to Downing Street bringing Republican expertise. He was given a tour of senior people and, after hearing of impending doom, was asked what he thought.

"What are you going to do if you lose?" he asked.

His hosts stumbled around an answer about reform, renewal, reconnection, reinvention and rejuvenation. They may even have mentioned leader replacement. "Well," said the American, "why wait? Why not get started before you lose?"

This was recounted recently as a lesson for the Republicans themselves in the post-Bush era. But it is a simple lesson applying equally to the parlous state of the Labour Party. Rather than wait until a train wreck at the 2010 polls, and then figure out what comes next, why not start now? They might even avert disaster. They might also avert the post-election calamity that is Scottish Labour at Holyrood. Under Wendy Alexander, it is showing that waiting to lose an election only leaves more space for subsequent ineptitude.

Labour had better start soon, because disastrous is how things look. A super-poll last week provided unrelentingly terrible reading for Gordon Brown, primarily about himself. Journalists covering the Crewe and Nantwich by-election found Brown was loathed by voters and blamed for everything.

This can all be turned around, says Labour. If Brown gets out more, being seen in different settings, they say, people will connect with him and his charisma. Don't be so sure. He got the benefit of the doubt for a few months last year, but with the economy in trouble and Brown a man uncomfortable in his own skin, he risks merely emphasising how much of an intense political wonk he is.

So, before sending the Clunking Fist out to reconnect, the most immediate problem for Labour is to find its bearings. It looks disoriented, and this leads to a very Westminster debate about the nearest historical parallel. Following the English and Welsh elections, is this like the Tories in 1991 or 1995, Jim Callaghan in 1977 or Harold Wilson in 1968?

There's no harm in looking backwards. Whitehall historian Peter Hennessey at the weekend was reminding that Prime Ministers should be wary of immersion in detail, then announcing a raft of disjointed policy initiatives in the hope that a big picture will emerge. That is exactly what Brown is announcing later this week. But this is not any previous decade. We can overdo the search for precedence. Politics and government are changing, public expectations shifting, voter loyalties weakening and Labour is learning a tough lesson for mature governments: they get little credit for past achievements, and need to focus on what people expect now.

Communities Secretary Hazel Blears will talk today about the challenge of "The New Politics". She will talk climate change, globalisation, aspiration, stronger communities and the need to engage with people rather than excluding them from a narrow circle of power.

Brown's problem is that he is Mr Old Politics. If ever someone failed to engage even with his close colleagues, preferring to exclude them from his narrow circle, it is the Prime Minister. Just ask John Prescott, whose memoirs call him "frustrating, annoying, bewildering and prickly".

One of the more interesting Labour reflections in the past week has come from John Cruddas, the deputy leadership contender last year who surprised rivals by showing how much his finger was on the party pulse. He is now warning colleagues against simplistic dismissal of the Tories as out-of-touch toffs.

The Tories are getting something right, he suggests: the politics of emotion. David Cameron talks relationships, values, bonds, fraternity, care, empathy and social justice, even if his solutions are vague, while Labour doesn't seem to know how to speak to people's insecurities. "It offers to listen," says Cruddas. "The danger is it hears only the echo of its own jargon." Others in Labour note that the same trick has been learned in Scotland by the SNP. It uses the positive language of building, being constructive, conversation and social union with England, while Labour talks spending programmes.

There are big structural issues for Labour to address if it is to renew while in office at Westminster and in opposition at Holyrood. One of them is whether it should do what has previously been recommended for Scottish Tories: follow the Bavarian model, in which the dominant, autonomous right-wing party aligns itself loosely with Christian Democrats at federal level. Shift that to the centre-left, and Scottish Labour could end the charge of being "controlled by London Labour".

It also needs to ask tough questions about whether it has the right leaders at Westminster and Holyrood. Both are badly wounded and seem to lack the resilience to bounce back. But if the party got it wrong in 2007, it should not rush in 2008. Before heads roll, Labour first needs to get its bearings, figure out where it is, where it wants to be and what kind of leader is needed to get it there.