Lurking somewhere underneath all the froth about Blair versus Brown lies a curious desire. Digging down beneath the personality conflicts, the who-said-what-to-who nonsense that fills the papers, you find a solid ideological layer. But, as you look closer, this ideological substance itself disintegrates, for there is very little to choose between the two politicians in terms of ideas or policies.

Instead, the difference – and probably the cause for much of the arguments – is the ideological projections by people outside the government. Political commentators, party activists and, to a limited extent, the general population, want politics to be ideological, for it to be a battle between big ideas, and they project this desire onto rivalry for leadership of the Labour Party.

Since Tony Blair came to power in 1997, British politics has appeared to be an ideology-free zone. You can tell this if you try to answer the question, what does this government stand for?

In the past, it was easy. British politics split along quasi-Marxist lines: the Tories represented capital – the bosses – while Labour represented, well, labour, or the workers. And, speaking very generally, voting was a simple process of voting according to one's place in society.

This, very oversimplified, model began to break down in the late 1970s and early 1980s. First, James Callaghan's Labour government got into financial trouble and the IMF had to bail them out. So, from 1976, the Labour Party went against type, and targeted inflation and economic competence.

Then, Margaret Thatcher's government of the early 1980s reached across the boundaries with policies aimed at Labour's traditional working class constituency, most notably by extending the policy of allowing council house tenants the right to buy their homes. In doing so, she helped bring large swathes of traditional Labour voters into the Tory camp.

After Thatcher came John Major, but it would be too generous to describe his government's incoherent and incompetent policies as an attempt to transcend the ideological divide. Instead, it was just crap – probably the worst government Britain had in the twentieth century.

By being so useless, Major's government allowed Tony Blair's New Labourites to steal one of the Conservatives' traditional advantages: their reputation of competence, particularly in the area of economic management.

And it is competence, specifically in the economic area, that has become this government's ideology, for they believe – probably correctly – that, in general elections, voters will choose the party they trust not to make a mess of things.

So, instead of using big political ideas to shape their policies, New Labour turned to what they considered to be non-ideological 'technocratic' solutions to society's challenges. They believed that large corporations were far more efficient than the public sector, so either aped their approach or outsourced public services to them, for instance through Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP).

And this helps explain why so many small-c conservatives supported the government in the last two elections, and why it seems highly likely that Labour will win the next election.

But, to many people, particularly traditional Labour Party supporters, the government's policies feel all wrong. John Harris, author of the just-published So Now Who Do We Vote For?, spent a year travelling the country "trying to get a grip on where once-loyal Labour people like me ought to take their votes".

Frustrated at the "the war in Iraq, tuition and top-up fees, the Blair government's brand of illiberalism and, in particular, the steady invasion of our public services by private companies", Harris – and voters with similar beliefs – find themselves largely unrepresented amongst the three main parties. Even today's Lib Dems have recently ditched many of their 'soggy socialism' left-wing policies.

While he researched his book, it was clear to Harris that modern-day Labour politicians believed his views to be old fashioned. One MP told him that his beliefs had "nothing to do with the modern Labour Party". He was ideological; they were pragmatic. He believed in abstract ideals; they believed in 'what works'.

However, it is not possible to escape ideology in politics. Today's Labour Party does have an ideology: a belief in a technocratic big-business management approach to politics. Just because they have ditched traditional left-wing ideology does not mean they do not have no ideology at all.

Interestingly, the government has been able to achieve a key traditional left-wing goal: to help the poor. Someone told me recently that this government was just the Tories in disguise, and that "the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer".

But this claim is not true. While the rich have got richer under Blair, the poor – specifically the most desperate bottom 10 per cent – have also got richer, and by quite a lot. It is the middle-income groups that have lost out. This is a fact that the left ignores, presumably because they believe the government has the wrong principles.

Under Michael Howard, the Tories have partly recognised that they need to reclaim their traditional reputation of being the party of economic competence. This explains why, earlier this month, they made such a fuss about costing their spending plans, and why the tax cut they proposed was so small. However, once a reputation is lost, it is very hard to reclaim. And Michael Howard's prominent role in the incompetent Major government hardly helps his party's cause.

The Tories – like Harris – cannot escape the traditional lure of ideological grandstanding. As a result, we hear the Conservatives make 1980s-style attacks on 'big government' and hear inflated claims about the threat of immigration. All this appeals hugely to the dwindling Tory faithful and the rabid press, but William Hague took this same route, and it led to massive electoral defeat in 2001.

On the old left/right spectrum, this government has moved to the right, into the centre, pushing the Tories to the extreme right. However, in reality, Blair and Brown have not moved rightwards. Instead, they have developed an ideology that successfully transcends older ideas of left and right. Obviously, this annoys those on the left because this government does not feel like a Labour government, while the right feel irritated because they believe – correctly – that the government steals all their best policies.

There is very little difference between Blair and Brown. While those on the left dearly wish that Brown would come to power and lead us into some kind of socialist utopia, this is a fantasy. It is Brown that pushed for PFI – it was he who pushed for the London Underground to be run by private companies, for example – and it was Brown that ensured interest rates would be set by an independent committee, not government.

Despite the boring management speak of New Labour, these are interesting times for British politics. Labour's non-ideological ideology allows policymakers to be free of the shibboleths of traditional right and left-wing thought. Voters are not enthused by this, but they seem to believe it is a better approach than the largely old-fashioned ideas espoused by the Tories. However, Labour's appeal to the electorate is not tribal – there is no emotional attachment sought or gained – meaning that the government's support is broad but extremely thin.

However, in recent months, the government has begun to lose its touch. It has made a complete mess out of passing what should be very simple laws, such as relaxing the 1960s-era gambling regulations, and changing pub licensing hours. The government should be worried: they have no appeal other than their reputation for competence. Lose that and history will swallow Tony Blair and his government, leaving very little trace.