When Julie Smith joined the fire service 10 years ago, she was handed the standard uniform – a unisex, one-size-fits-all number in navy blue. Because of her height and long arms (she is 5ft 8in), she had to wear a large size, which was too baggy for her, and when she was crawling around fighting smoke and flames, the protection on the elbows and knees of her uniform slipped and slid, digging in as she moved. Luckily she doesn’t have small feet – in those days, boots didn’t come smaller than a men’s size six.

Today, Smith, 40, has a much more comfortable outfit. She is part of the fire and rescue team in Lincolnshire, which has just introduced a new uniform that includes updated firefighting kit, with versions specifically designed for women that include extra protection around the breasts and are cut to accommodate curves.

“The difference is unbelievable,” she said. “It is so much more comfortable.”

Fire-service chiefs hope that the new Lincolnshire kit will eventually be rolled out across the country, and believe the changes will encourage a more diverse workforce. As well as new firefighting kit, the range of workwear includes corporate and station uniforms for public events and visiting people at home to advise on safety. There is even a version for Muslims, with a long skirt, shirt and hijab, all in the light grey and red that the fire service hopes will become their national colours and make them more easily recognisable.

Firefighting in a skirt and headscarf? “They aren’t going to be fighting fires in a hijab,” a spokesperson reassured me. “The aim is to recruit more people from ethnic minorities and have them recognised in an appropriate uniform.”

The fire brigade is not the only public service undergoing an image overhaul. Last October, judges hearing civil and family cases in England and Wales consigned their 300-year-old horsehair wigs to history and adopted a simple continental-style black gown created by the fashion designer Betty Jackson. The designer robes, which have coloured bands to designate seniority, have not gone down well – in a recent poll of 104 High Court judges, 40 voted to scrap the robes and one outspoken critic said the garment was “a cross between a Star Trek costume and a fascist stormtrooper’s uniform”.

The Ministry of Defence, meanwhile, is about to adopt the American practice of wearing military uniforms in the office in a bid to bring the army further into the public eye – all army personnel working in Whitehall will soon be swapping their civvies for braid and buttons.

But do these changes mean anything, or are they just a bid for more publicity? Uniforms have always been updated, and bringing in celebrity designers is an old trick. In the 1960s and 1970s, many American airlines competed to make their stew-ardesses stand out. Braniff employed Emilio Pucci to redesign its uniforms – although this was largely for the benefit of male passengers, as girls were required to wear “kinky boots and hotpants” or they didn’t get the job.

The fire service stresses that its new uniform should attract a more diverse workforce and it’s true that a redesign can often draw different people into an organisation. In his new book Uniforms, a romp through a history of workwear that includes everyone from the local butcher to Playboy bunnies, Bill Dunn tells the story of the city of Buenos Aires, which in 2000 was considering ways of attracting members of the transgender community into the police force. After a fact-finding survey, the overwhelming response was “Sorry, but we wouldn’t be seen dead in those uniforms”.

But are uniforms still important today – and if so, why the fuss when those in authority decide to mess around with tradition?

While the uniform might seem to have fallen out of favour except in some obvious cases, standardised modes of garb are still with us. The City is no longer awash with bowler hats and furled umbrellas, but a smart suit is the daywear of choice for most bankers (those who still have their jobs, that is), while in the dressed-down world of the media, having the latest phone or wearing the right trouser shape marks you as one of the gang.

“Even if it’s not uniform as we know it, there’s still that pack loyalty thing,” said Judi James, who works with companies seeking to change their image and is the author of The Body Language Bible. Uniform, of whatever kind, is the nearest thing we have to fur in terms of psychology, added James – it defines the animal group we belong to and identify with. Change is often treated with suspicion, both by the wearers, who may feel they have lost some control of their lives, and by the outsiders, who feel disordered when something familiar suddenly changes.

In difficult times, meanwhile, uniforms take on a new importance. According to Bill Dunn, the uniform is more important now than ever. “In hard times, trust is at a low ebb and uniforms reassure people and help them believe in authorities and services,” he said. “Hard times also mean more lawlessness and uniforms are a more obvious method of keeping people in their place”– just think of the police holding back the protesters at the recent G20 demonstrations.

Whether the new-look fire uniforms or the judges’ gowns, with their more “approachable” look, become respected remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure – uniforms, in whatever form – look here to stay. “We are a strange society,” said James. “We have this resentment of authority but intrinsically we are lovers of uniform. We still want our kids to be put back in school uniforms that resemble something like Harry Potter and we love our military displays.”

Times Recommends

• Inspirational leadership
• How to get a new job
• The reluctant CEO