Liberty last week, equality yesterday and no doubt fraternity before too long. Gordon Brown’s two big speeches, on constitutional reform and education, are intended to define what his premiership is about. They are central to the necessary readjustment after the recent election shambles.

As such, the speeches partly succeed. Mr Brown has a vision. He is a deeply serious moralist: worried last week about the balance of rights and responsibilities of citizens and, yesterday, about the role of aspiration, of teachers, pupils and, above all, parents, in improving educational performance for all. Mr Brown has read widely and enjoys discussing ideas in a way that few prime ministers have.

In policy terms, the speeches fill out what had been a blurred picture. The rush of initiatives in July, and at the Labour conference, was about positioning the Brown Government in the centre ground before an election no later than spring next year. This was via a combination of populist mini-statements on, for instance, school bullying and hospital matrons and reversals/reviews of some controversial Blairite policies, such as supercasinos and the classification of cannabis. But the substance was often thin. Now, with an election at least 18 months, if not farther, away, Mr Brown knows that he has to take decisions, to establish a record.

There is a lot in the constitutional programme. Mr Brown takes worries over civil liberties more seriously than Tony, if not Cherie, Blair. He believes that tough antiterrorism measures should always be justified to Parliament and balanced by their impact on freedom but the goals can appear confused: between the statement of British values and a Bill of Rights, and the more ambitious goal of a written constitution.

Yesterday’s speech returned to themes from the David Blunkett era of 1997-2001: impatience with failure and intervening early to tackle weak schools, as well as ideas to motivate children and involve parents more. Critics, such as the Reform think-tank, eager to show how the Brown Government is retreating from Blairite policies, claimed that the speech represented a significant extension in central government powers, moving away from choice and competition. This point is exaggerated as, for instance, the academy programme is still expanding rapidly.

Mr Brown is cautious tactically, reluctant to start debates, where he has no comprehensive answers, and which could therefore run out of control. He is understandably apprehensive about the nature of media and partisan debate. That explains his reluctance, so far, to engage in a broader debate about immigration or relations with Scotland (apart from criticising the Tories’ proposals on English votes on English laws).

Mr Brown cannot avoid these topics, however, or, for example, Britain’s role in Europe. He needs to be bolder, but not in the way some Labour pressure groups want. A higher-spending, anti-reform core-vote strategy is just what David Cameron would like. Mr Brown is correct to focus on aspiration, not just in education but also, more broadly, in electoral terms. He cannot be written off, as Michael Gove sought to do in an elegant critique on Tuesday, but Mr Brown needs to take more risks.

Times Recommends

• Nerdy cafés no longer maid in heaven
• Cameron will not break marriage vow
• Avatar will make the case on climate