By sounding like a Tory, Mr Blair wins elections but fails to change the nation

Prime Ministers who win landslide election victories are in a uniquely privileged position. Their overwhelming dominance means that Downing Street becomes partly a political pulpit. Almost single- handedly, they can change the way the country sees itself.

With her three-figure majorities, Margaret Thatcher was in a strong enough position to blow apart the prevailing political consensus on trade unions, public spending, the role of the state, the private sector and the nature of Britain's relationship with Europe and the United States. For more than 10 years, she proclaimed repeatedly on seemingly related themes: her mission was to get state off our backs; her father never spent more than he earnt and she would apply the same principle to the economy; she would liberate us from those backward-looking socialists in Europe; the private sector knew what it was doing while public services wasted a lot of our money; what mattered most in terms of Britain's foreign policy was her relationship with a Republican president.

This week's Queen's Speech shows that Mr Blair chooses to use his Downing Street pulpit in a very different way. While Mrs Thatcher strode on, dismissing her left-wing critics with disdain, he seeks to prevent the Conservative Party from recovering by occupying their traditional political terrain. The headlines from the Queen's Speech have been dominated by more ministerial plans to fight criminals and terrorists. The proposals follow the launch of the Government's five-year plan in the summer when Mr Blair blamed the 1960s for the rise in crime. Even David Blunkett, not known as a fun-loving hippy, awoke with some surprise to hear his five-year plan described in a way to make Lord Tebbit purr with delight.

There are valid reasons for a centre-left government to highlight crime in advance of an election campaign. The defeat of Lionel Jospin in France and John Kerry in the US are reminders of what happens when those on the right monopolise the voters' fears.

But this week's prime ministerial focus on crime was not only part of the pre-election campaign. As Michael Howard pointed out, crime has been the main theme of many legislative programmes from this government. Mr Blair has also made frequent headline-grabbing speeches about new policies for tackling criminals, some of them more practical than others (Charles Clarke once had to describe one of Mr Blair's wilder proposals as a "metaphor"). The causes of crime, although addressed to some extent by Mr Blair's policies, get less of a look-in when he speaks from his pulpit.

This is part of a wider pattern when he adopts a high profile. Mr Blair began his new term with a series of curious speeches highlighting the virtues of the private sector. The policy implications were not clear, but the political positioning was obvious. Once more, he was placing himself at a distance from his party, lecturing it about the need to change. In the context of the war against Iraq, his next high-profile theme was the importance of the special relationship and his closeness to President Bush. At the same time, he put the case for successful hospitals being largely independent of the NHS and for a more market-based system for financing universities.

No doubt, the Cabinet's Philosopher-in-Chief, Dr John Reid, would argue that all these second term themes are progressive causes. I admire Dr Reid's persistent efforts to place everything the Government does in a broader philosophical context. He dares to articulate a role for the state in the 21st century. Even so, his agile mind could make the case for almost any policy. If the Government cut the level of income tax for billionaires, I can almost imagine an article from Dr Reid in the New Statesman stating: "This is what Clem Atlee and Aneurin Bevan would have done if they were in power now. It is the role of a modern left-of-centre state to encourage high earners to spend more of their own money in a way that will create jobs for the poor. This is redistribution in a modern setting".

There is a strong defence for parts of Labour's second term. The introduction of top-up fees for universities will provide a much-needed injection of cash in a way students will be able to afford. Hospitals should not be stifled by bureaucracy. The introduction of foundation hospitals was at least an attempt to encourage more local innovation, although the precise policies were flawed. But Gordon Brown speaks about the need to build a "progressive consensus". The Blairite Stephen Byers makes the same point. The fact that this phrase has resonance following seven years of a Labour government suggests even senior ministers accept they have failed so far to build such a consensus, an astonishing admission after two landslide victories.

Perhaps they would have made progress if Mr Blair had used his pulpit at the start of the second term to highlight the modern role of the state rather than the virtues of the private sector. After all, we have heard about the virtues of the private sector for more than a decade under Mrs Thatcher. Possibly there would have been more self-confidence on the centre-left if Mr Blair had chosen to celebrate more openly the continuing popularity of public institutions such as the BBC. Maybe the flawed ideology that lay behind the disastrous privatisation of the railways would have been undermined if we had heard more prime ministerial exclamations of despair about the state of transport and what he planned to do about it. Would Europe be viewed with such venom if voters had heard as much about the benefits of membership as they been told about the virtues of President Bush?

Ironically, if Mr Blair had projected a more progressive message, some of his own recent policies would be viewed with less suspicion. The private sector is used far more extensively in Sweden's public services than it is in Britain. The Swedes are more relaxed because they have a much clearer and more positive view about the role and purpose of the state.

Policies do not necessarily reflect the priorities articulated from the prime ministerial pulpit. From welfare to work to higher spending on public services, Mr Blair displays a progressive belief in an enabling state. He is a pro-European even if he has failed to persuade voters. Similarly, while Mrs Thatcher preached about getting the state off our backs, she acquired unprecedented powers for her own government. While she proclaimed her Euroscepticism, she signed the Single European act. As she hailed her father's economic prudence, she presided over a wildly oscillating economy.

Even so, Mrs Thatcher changed people's minds. She moved this country to the right and turned it against Europe. Admittedly, she had powerful cheerleaders in the media, a hugely important part of her political armoury. But Mr Blair also has some advantages. He is the great communicator of his age and faces a demoralised Conservative Party. Yet so far, his incomparably more limited achievement is to win over right-wingers on the grounds that they believe a Labour prime minister is really one of them.

s.richards@independent.co.uk