What kind of centrist are you, Mr Cameron?

Last week David Cameron warned that the “alternative to fighting for the centre ground" was "irrelevance, defeat and failure”.  This week's Economist noted Norman Tebbit's criticisms of David Cameron's move to the centre and then set out to then parody them.

The Economist posited that...

"Lord Tebbit (along with other Thatcherite diehards") believes it is possible for the Conservatives to win an election by stirring up the Tory base. He reckons that there are 4m “disgruntled Tory abstainers” who can be wooed back with vigorously right-wing policies. Mr Cameron believes that is precisely the way to repel the groups the Tories must appeal to if they are to win—young, middle-class professionals and women."

That is a very partial reading of Lord Tebbit's analysis.  The Economist is guilty of sloppy, cookie-cutter journalism.  I'm unconvinced that a core vote strategy or an appeal to the metropolitan tastes of what John O'Sullivan has called Curtisland are really opposites.  And what does David Cameron mean by "the centre ground"?  I suggest that there are three ways of thinking of "the centre ground"...

1. The midpoint centre;
2. The embracing centre;
3. The perfect centre.

The midpoint centre

A politician gets to the midpoint centre by triangulating.  Clinton and Blair are masters of triangulation.

A midpoint centrist would avoid the 'extremes' of both right and left.  The right's emphasis on controlled immigration and Euroscepticism would be shunned or, at least, diluted.  The left's stealthy taxation and support for the EU Constitution would also be disowned by a midpoint centrist.

Midpoint centrism is essentially managerial.  It is largely in tune with the steady-as-you-go voices of Britain's establishments.  Such voices include the public sector unions who oppose radical reform of schools and hospitals and the foreign office establishment which favours multilateralism and stability over pre-emption and regime change.

The embracing centre

The embracing centre represents a much more ambitious politics.  It is essentially the "politics of and" and has not been attempted in modern British politics.  Tony Blair's "economic prosperity and social justice" rhetoric once promised to do so but New Labour has failed because its policies on the economy and poverty were very much of the establishment/ midpoint variety.

The embracing centre enthusiastically pursues many of the traditional concerns of left and right.  Equal passion is given to...

• controlling immigration and tackling world poverty...
• increasing economic dynamism and helping the most broken members of society find their feet...
• faster, longer imprisonment of serious offenders and more help for young people to escape the conveyor belt to crime...

If midpoint centrism is neither right nor left, embracing centrism is of the right and left.  Some of the concerns of the traditional left and right are, of course, contradictory but not all of them - as the above examples suggest.

My guess is that the British people have "right-wing" interests in immigration, Europe and crime but a "left-wing" concern for the poor, for example, although they'd never see their interests in left-right terms.  The embracing centre is, in this respect, about the common ground of politics.

The embracing centre rightly keeps faith with core conservative positions on Europe, immigration and crime - none of which (in themselves) have been shown to be unpopular.

The perfect centre

The perfect centre is a more conservative version of the embracing centre.  A perfect centrist will, for example, embrace the concerns of the left but will address them in an authentically conservative manner.  David Cameron has been an embracing centrist on the environment - taking an issue associated with the left and largely adopting the leftist green policies of Kyoto.  The Tory leader has been more of a perfect centrist on social justice.  He has driven his political tank on to Labour's welfare turf but is determined to be distinctively conservative when it comes to finding solutions to poverty.  Hence his emphasis on stronger families and social enterprise.

***

I think it's too early to be sure what kind of centrist Mr Cameron is...

• There have been a lot of mixed signals with boldness on police reform and poverty-fighting but a midpoint/ consensual approach to the public services and tax...
• A lot of what Mr Cameron is doing appears to be motivated by very successful attempts to destabilise the LibDems and seperate Tony Blair from the left of his party.  It is difficult to disentangle the tactics from fundamental beliefs...

We'll know a lot more in a year or so when the policy groups start reporting...

Comments

[Chris Palmer]

Personally I would say it's too soon to say exactly what David Cameron is, or has instore for the Conservative party. He has left many policy decisions on the backburner - and it will only be in a year or two's time when the policy groups report back, that we will truly be able to assess Mr Cameron.

[Selsdon Man]

The "centre" is a collectivist myth as is MacMillan's "middle ground". Trying to define new types of centrism plays into the hands of conservatism's enemies. It gives credence to that myth.

The Conservatives should offer a range of attractive policies based upon its values and principles. The key to winning electoral support is to communicate them effectively to target audiences.

[RobC]

Editor - is it a quiet day for news? I think you are trying to over analysis, trying to label or pigdeon-hole Cameron. Its too early to perform your analysis. A more suitable subject for the framework you are suggesting is Blair.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

To be honest editor, your criticism of the Economist as cookie-cutter is itself, cookie-cutter. If you cut down to basics, the concept of "x million disgruntled Conservatives" (the "more people voted for Major than Blair" argument) is exactly what the Tebbit strategy is, and the same thing has been mentioned by a number of regular posters on here. The problem is, of course, that it is arrant nonsense. The polls consistently show that non-voters favour Labour, and the drops in turnout are most pronounced in the safest Labour areas.

As for "Curtisland", I'm afraid that only exists in one commentator's head. Cameron is wooing moderate centre-right people across the country, including here in Salford which is hardly metropolitan elite!

[Sean Fear]

The Economist article was still not really accurate Iain. Criticism of Cameron is *not* confined to the traditionalist right of the Tory party - it also extends to the more centrist sections of the centre-right (as today's Times leader demonstrates). Cameron should be concerned that people like Anatole Kaletsky, Tim Hames, John Clare, Irwin Steltzer etc view him with very considerable scepticism.

[malcolm]

I would agree with those posters who say that it is far too early what type of Conservative David Cameron is.I'm also not sure if all the different type of 'Centres' you mention are actually valid.One thing we can all agree on is the fact that the political centre means very different things to very different people,somebody on this blog described me as 'leftwing' which is certainly not the way I would describe myself.
Regarding the Economist and electoral strategy I am inclned to support Cameron over Tebbit.As far as I'm aware there hasn't ever been a poll which urges the Tory party to adopt more core strategy positions.

[William Norton]

It's a nice analysis - I'm not sure quite how well it fits Cameron vs Tebbit, but it's worth keeping it to hand, and presumably it will be used to score moves by Cameron and in due course Brown over the course of this parliament.

Chris Palmer: it's too soon to say exactly what David Cameron is, or has instore for the Conservative party.

Agree. There'll be a plan, but it's probably quite loose at the moment. No surprises, it will concentrate on moving to the centre, with perhaps a few notable right-wing innovations depending on how the polls run. We may well end up with examples of all three versions of centrism.

Selsdon: The "centre" is a collectivist myth as is MacMillan's "middle ground".

Yes - but with a caveat. Although the term is intellectually barren and meaningless, a lot of voters still consider themselves 'centre-ground moderates', probably for reasons of amour-propre. If Cameron panders to them it's because:
(a) He's being guided by the same thinking as with Enoch Powell's remark that a nation is any group of people who consider themselves to be a nation - i.e. a centrist is anyone who considers themselves to be a centrist. They have to be wooed: they have the votes.
(b) It's actually quite an easy-win to establish a change narrative, and in fact all Tory leaders after election go through this phase. The difference, as one MP put it to me the other day, is that this time it might work because it appears to be genuine.

Iain Lindley: the concept of "x million disgruntled Conservatives" (the "more people voted for Major than Blair" argument) is exactly what the Tebbit strategy is, and the same thing has been mentioned by a number of regular posters on here. The problem is, of course, that it is arrant nonsense. The polls consistently show that non-voters favour Labour, and the drops in turnout are most pronounced in the safest Labour areas.

Hmm - false dichotomy alert? There are two great theories for why we got junked in 1997: the "stab in the back" theory, that Major was too wet and 'our people' stayed at home; and the "nasty party" theory that we were out of touch and irrelevant. I don't see them as mutually exclusive: the strategic dilemma for the Tories is that both are probably true (Tories stayed at home AND defected straight across), and it's not obvious how to counteract one without blocking yourself out of recovering from the other. We can argue about which effect is more significant - probably varies from place to place.

So, I think you're wrong to describe what you call as the Tebbit strategy as arrant nonsense, but you might be right that it wouldn't work in Salford. I haven't fought an election in Salford and I'm happy to trust your view of your patch (and let you get on with it).

I suspect that turnout is down in safe Labour seats because Blair has done little to galvanise the genetic Labour vote that lives there - and because Blair hasn't looked like losing (good union men don't break sweat unless it's an absolute emergency).

As for polls and non-voters, don't polls tend to exaggerate support for whoiever looks most like winning at the time it is conducted? I vaguely recall that Thatcher tended to poll above her vote in the 1980s (Sean F will put me right if I'm wrong here).

[Giffin Lorimer]

Very interesting analysis. I've met too many people in their 20's and 30's who were brought up to hate Thatcher even though they have conservative values; up to now they voted New Labour and/or Lib-Dem. I backed Cameron simply because he wasn't associated with Thatcherism and therefore the public might listen to him.

Based on the analysis, is it possible to triangulate over the course of 12-18 months from an 'embracing centre' articulation of a problem to a 'perfect centre' proposition for the solution?

If so, then such an approach could have the following benefits:

1. Positions the leader as a very reasonable person and worthy of respect for his political skills in triangulation.

2. Allows a wide section of the population to agree with his analysis of the problems without the knee-jerk antagonism against Tory policies (the polls show this happening already)

3. Moves the analysis of the solution through a sustained period of why existing (government) policies have failed and onto why 'perfect centre' policies offer are a reasonable solution. By then, the Tory majority are back on board and momentum is built around a centre-right consensus.

This seems to explain the current policy approach. However, I'd be more sanguine about Cameron if it weren't for his proposal to allocate 'safe seats' to a central party slate of candidates, which is definitely more 'prescriptive' than 'perfect centre'.

[Matthew Oxley]

On the point of non-voters, I think I have to agree with lain Lindley in that most of them are Labour voters, and most voter apathy is now towards Nulab.

Both parties have thier disgruntled few million, but I still think we've got most of our core to vote in the last few years. William Hague's save the pound and Michael Howard's immigration + NHS policies ensured this.

The problem has been the trust of the more moderate voters towards us.

I still see the curtisland theory as quite interesting however, appealing to liberal elite to make use of thier influence seems perfectly sensable. Perhaps get the BBC and friends on side first in order to sell more traditional policies.

I really hope the strategies aren't considered mutually exclusive however, I think there's more value in curtisland, but I don't think Tebitt should be completely ignored.

[Editor]

I agree with those commentators who say that it's too early to be certain of what kind of centrist Mr Cameron is (and said so in my initial post) but I was frustrated by the press' loose talk of his 'moving to the centre' without ever defining what it meant.

With this post I was attempting to define three different ways in which a conservative politician could stake out the centre ground. The second two definitions argue that you can be a centrist without abandoning "right-wing" positions.

I spent all of my five years at CCHQ arguing that the Tories embrace a social justice/ family-friendly agenda. I'm delighted that DC is doing exactly that. I hope he'll also stay faithful to core values on Europe and crime etc.

[Tory T]

Although I don't pretent to know what his ultimate objective (beyond winning) is, Cameron's medium term strategy is clear - and absolutely right.

All this talk about 'attractive policies' misses the point. We are not talking about an SDP-type new party with a clean slate. We are talking about a new leader with a clean slate in charge of the Conservative Party - an organisation that suffers from a serious long-term problem of negative perceptions. No one (inc. DC) can simply wish these away.

Steve Hilton and other clever strategists have exhaustively analysed the nature and depth of these negative perceptions - and developed a way of overcoming them.

We can argue endlessly about why the Party is perceived as it is. Personally, I think it's 50/50. Some factors are our own fault: Back to basics/sleaze (Archer, Aitken, Mellor, Hamilton); Division/weakness (Maastricht/Major); Extreme/racist (Tebbit/Winterton/John Taylor/Townend); Economically incompetent (ERM/Black Wed); Uncaring (Thatcher/Miners/Biffin/Ridley) etc, etc, etc.

Of course not all of these things were bad per se (eg - the Maastricht rebellion was courageous and right, Mrs T was a national saviour) but they all helped to shape the image of the Party.

Add to that an additional key factor, the other 50 of the 50/50 - the BBC. One day we may truly understand the full extent of the role of the nation's most trusted source of information in undermining not just the Tory Party but right wing ideas in general. Each problem we've had has been magnified and distorted to suit the liberal/left agenda. Every right wing cause, from Europe to fox hunting and immigration to tax cuts, has been traduced and misreprented so that no 'decent' person could possibly support it.

This is Cameron's inheritance. Turning it around is a mammoth task and he's going about it in exactly the right way - breath of fresh air, NOT the 'same old Tory', open minded, liberal, etc.

To those who fear that the ideological pass is being sold I say this: what's your alternative? Impotence. Making the Party into an increasingly irrelevant standard bearer for the True Faith. Whatever we've said for the last few years, all the public has heard has been 'right wing, right wing'. In these circumstances the necessary tactical corrective is to say and do almost nothing right wing and instead focus on illuminating our moderate, even left wing, side. It may stick in the craws of those less savvy than Steve Hilton but it will, in years to come, give the Conservative Party permission to speak out on important Conservative causes without being effectively misrepresented by our enemies (esp. the BBC). As a new, safe, moderate leader David Cameron can become Prime Minister and in government we will be able to shape the agenda and the future in a way that no amount of emotionally-satisfying right wing argument-making in opposition could ever deliver.

We've had a hell of a lucky escape. It's amazing to recall that less than three years ago, under IDS's catastrophically inept leadership, we were in grave danger of sinking into third place. The brave move to oust him ushered in Michael Howard who was never going to win a national popularity contest but who instilled in our Party a sense of discipline, competence and self-belief JUST in time for the 2005 election. Now the Lib Dems are in disarray, we have climbed out of the 30-34% band in the polls for the fist time in a decade and we can seriously contemplate a future Conservative government.

Stop complaining - and start working to make it happen.