Gordon Brown has won the battle of the images. As a former Cabinet minister told me yesterday, Blairites have watched with awe, and envy, as Mr Brown has introduced a whirlwind of initiatives to foster the impression of newness and change. It has been a masterful, exhausting, exercise in hyperactivity, which should now slacken as MPs start their summer recess. But how much has really changed? And how much represents a watering down of the thrust of Blairite public service reforms?

The Conservatives are in an awkward dilemma. They want to convey the impression both that little has changed and, at the same time, that Mr Brown has turned to the Left. That has muddled their attacks. Mr Cameron responded to the draft legislative programme by claiming that almost all the Bills had been announced before and were therefore recycled old policies.

On big questions – the economy, Europe – there is little change. That is hardly surprising since, as Chancellor, Mr Brown was the main architect of most domestic policies. He is hardly about to reverse what he has done. And, despite noises off, Mr Brown has emphasised his closeness to Washington with no change in Iraq policy. Talk of distancing was, anyway, gesture politics.

There have been several distinctive Brown initiatives, notably the constitutional reform Green Paper. As intriguing have been the populist announcements – supercasinos, reclassifying cannabis and possibly reviewing late-night drinking – all designed to appeal to the Daily Mail and The Sun. And Tory clothes have been stolen on parts of terrorism policy.

The key questions are about public service reform. A critical new paper from Reform, the pro-market think-tank, argues that the Brown Government has accepted the case for less state intervention in the private economy but is significantly retreating from reform in public services by taking actions that will “decisively weaken competition and choice”. The paper points to the hold-up on urgent NHS decisions because of the review of health policy, and delays and cancellations of contracts to allow private sector companies to compete for NHS-funded treatment; to an increase in maintenance grants that will be inequitable and contradict the principle of tuition fees; to an increase in regulation of city academies; and to a centralised model of the housing market and new building.

Taken as a whole, these criticisms are exaggerated. Changes are at the margins. The £400 million plus on maintenance grants will not help universities, nor particularly assist lower-income families. But this will not compromise the basic principle of tuition fees. Similarly, the changes to academies are minor and their rapid expansion is going ahead, with the added advantage that they cannot be portrayed as just a Blairite fad.

The language and pace of reform has altered in some areas. But the direction has not. The unions are getting nowhere with their wish list. Mr Brown is not about to surrender the centre ground.

Style also matters since, merely by not being Mr Blair, and sounding conciliatory, Mr Brown has reduced opposition to many tough measures, notably in his counter-terrorism package.

Above all, unlike Mr Blair, Mr Brown has benefited from not having a Mr Brown around as a rival and challenger.

Times Recommends

• Bank charges hit us for being human
• Sorry, Father, thou still shalt not steal
• The shed where Santa’s failures go to die