Of the many myths about British politics, few are more surreal than that any government can relaunch itself on the basis of a sudden Cabinet reshuffle or a legislative programme. It is said that the draft Queen's Speech, which the Prime Minister set out yesterday, was brought forward so it might have an impact on the Crewe & Nantwich by-election. Whether the robust electors there will change their minds because they have discovered today that Gordon Brown has plans for a community empowerment, housing and economic regeneration Bill, a marine and coastal access Bill and a coroners and death certification Bill has to be deemed unlikely. The truth is that administrations live or die on the basis of what the public senses about their whole and not a careful dissection of the sum of their parts. Mr Brown's “whole” seems to be somewhat empty.

Ministers would insist that there is much of substance in what they propose that deserves to be treated with more deference. And if the titles of some of these Bills alone were a guarantee of their success, then there would indeed be plenty to look forward to. The reality, though, is that there is little reason to expect that the enactment of the policing and crime reduction Bill will, of itself, cut crime, nor that a welfare reform Bill will reform welfare in a meaningful fashion, nor that an education and skills Bill will render the young more intelligent and able, nor that the notion of a constitution for the National Health Service could transform the experience of patients. This is all doubtless worthy material and some of it (notably the banking reform Bill) is essential. Yet it is hardly the Sermon on the Mount, more like the Whitehall version of the Yellow Pages.

The Yellow Pages is a useful tome but it is not a philosophy for government. The measures outlined yesterday have the feel of a laundry list about them and a laundry list is not enough to inspire depressed MPs or convince voters that in 2010 they should allow Labour a fourth term.

Mr Brown can only fill his empty whole by articulating a clear and compelling sense of direction based on a serious body of political ideas. This is the core of his and his party's problems. As the memoires of Cherie Blair published in The Times this week make plain, it was never obvious to her husband (or her) when Mr Brown was Chancellor whether he was for or against the Blairite prospectus for reform or whether his attitude towards it was one of short-term calculation or long-term conviction. That ambiguity has remained true as Mr Brown has moved on from the Treasury to 10 Downing Street. He may well have a “moral compass” as he insists but the character of his political compass remains unknown.

Dean Acheson, then a former US Secretary of State, caused a storm in 1962 when he remarked publicly that Britain “had lost an empire, but still not found a role”. Despite the criticism made of him at the time, his assessment was largely valid. In a similar vein, the Labour Party has lost Tony Blair but still not found an alternative to him or his politics. Is Mr Brown a Blairite with the same agenda but a more sombre style? Is he a neo-Blairite who is also drawn from and to the political Centre but with a different set of issues that he wants to address? Or is he an anti-Blairite in substance as well as style and if so then what exactly is he A draft Queen's Speech, even if packed with exciting ideas, cannot answer such questions. Yet until the post-Blair Labour Party can answer it, no amount of legislation and no lengthy of a laundry list will be its salvation.