Well, you can call off the search parties now. This is turning out to be a very political government led by a very political prime minister accompanied by a very political cabinet. Sir Keir is still confusing people somewhat by declaring that he leads “a government unburdened by doctrine”, but the ideological contours of the new order are already coming into focus.

If you want to get a handle on Starmerism, don’t spend too much time listening to what ministers say and concentrate on what they want to do. Take a look at the first Labour king’s speech since it was led by Clement Attlee. Just because this was a highly public affair doesn’t mean it wasn’t also a revealing one. With 40 servings of intended legislation, one of the chunkiest menus presented by a government in modern times, it ran the risk of being a themeless mess. Yet it heralded several striking and radical departures from what came before.

.First, it conveyed a view of capitalism that accepts the free market but not the free-for-all version of it. The prime minister and his chancellor are heavily relying on what Keynes called “the animal spirits” of enterprise to help them drive up economic growth, without which they are going to find it hard to achieve their other ambitions. What Starmerism recoils from, and seeks to correct, is market failure. Interventions in areas where capitalist models haven’t worked is evident both in the nationalisation of the rail network as operator franchises expire and the most serious challenge to the filthy practices of the water companies since their privatisation in 1989. A belief that the market does not provide all the answers explains using state funds to capitalise GB Energy, Ed Miliband’s pride and joy, and the national wealth fund, one of Rachel Reeves’s shop-window items. The idea is that they will pump-prime private sector investment in renewable energy, decarbonisation and other large infrastructure projects. This isn’t socialism. It is using the power of the state to try to galvanise a more productive capitalism.

Laws to create a football regulator and protect tenants tell us that Starmerism is interventionist. It is also unabashedly “workerist”. After a long period when employment rights have been eroded and restraints on trade union activities tightened in the name of ultra-flexible labour markets, that trend will be significantly reversed. The “new deal for working people” represents the biggest enhancement of employment protections in a generation. The rightwing media is frothy about this, but it is notable that business has been relatively muted.

Planning is good. This is an article of faith of Starmerism and one of its starkest ruptures with the belief systems of the Tory years. Industrial strategy was a dirty phrase, even a forbidden one, under Conservative prime ministers. This one will have an Industrial Strategy Council along with a clutch of delivery boards charged with driving the government’s key objectives. Whether you think this a recipe for success or doomed to fail, it is unarguably a decisive break with the recent past. There is also what seems to be a genuine commitment to try to spread the benefits of prosperity across the whole country, rather than just provide a sugar rush to London and the south of England. These aspects of Starmerism have antecedents in previous iterations of British social democracy with rather more in common with what Harold Wilson attempted in the 1960s than with the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. New Labour discovered industrial strategy too late to make much of a difference.