If his speech yesterday was the Prime Minister’s last conference performance before the next election, it was probably effective. Although too long, with an underwhelming ending and wanting for memorable lines, Gordon Brown concentrated on the domestic issues that he presumes will concern the majority of voters. He did so rather more in the style of an American president’s State of the Union Address than the traditional British conference rallying oration. David Cameron, the Conservative Party and the prospect of an early poll were not mentioned. Education, health, housing, crime and Britishness were focused on remorselessly. But it was oratory lacking in philosophy and a social spending plan that ignored how society generates the resources to aid the disadvantaged.

The sentiments were largely familiar to those who have closely followed his previous policy proclamations. Even some of his words about himself had been deployed before (it is about time that Mr Brown moved on from his “moral compass” to something else – a moral altimeter, barometer or speedometer?). This may, again, work better with the typical citizen than political commentators. If the Prime Minister opts for an early poll, he will plainly start as favourite.

Yet it cannot be claimed that this speech challenged either party or country. It was a blend of gestures to the Left (cleaning contracts in hospitals and the alleged irresponsibility of certain company directors) with superficial signals to the Right on social questions (a harder line on drink, drugs and firearms). This was practical and potentially populist material but it hardly constituted a weighty political, let alone philosophical, argument. It was a comfort-zone sermon directed at a party that has many activists who dislike the realities of the modern world, but risks alienating an electorate who understand that they are paying for Mr Brown’s “social justice” agenda.

What would have been brave, bold and right would have been for Mr Brown to exploit this opportunity to make the case for markets. Not for the first time, he declined to do so. His text was crammed with initiatives to be undertaken by the State but with no hint of where the wealth would come to finance it. Globalisation was not explained to his audience, yet alone eulogised, but instead presented as some alien but inevitable force which Labour had to cope with, not champion. This was Polo politics – sweet enough but with a large hole in the middle.

But Mr Cameron does not appear willing to engage in a contest of ideas either, and his numerous pollsters and advisers will be telling him that to embrace the word “capitalism” would be suicide. Nonetheless, as Tony Blair knew, the impressive novelty of new Labour was its ability to fuse the dynamism of markets with the noble objectives of social reform and to sell this combination as a coherent and attractive package. To the extent that he did not stick with this formula, Mr Brown took a significant step backwards.

All of which adds to the paradox of him as the Prime Minister. Three months into his tenure, the nation has more information about his agenda and life story but not much more about his mission. We appreciate that he is “serious” and that in serious times this is a virtue, but what exactly he is serious about remains ambiguous. The date of the next election (or its likely outcome) is not the real mystery of his conference. It is instead what a fourth Labour victory at the hustings would ultimately mean for the country.