Nick Timothy
Jeremy Corbyn offers undiluted socialism. Theresa May is focused on Brexit, the dream of Rightwingers for decades. The centre is, therefore, available for any politician who wants it. So goes the theory, anyway. For since Theresa May became Prime Minister, it has become received wisdom that her agenda represents a departure from the centre ground. But is this true?
To answer that question we must first answer two others. What is the centre ground? And who determines what it is?
Sir Keith Joseph, Margaret Thatcher’s great ally and intellectual influence, defined the middle ground – as he preferred to put it – as the central point between the ideological offerings of the Right and Left. “The trouble with the middle ground,” he said, is that it is “shaped for us by the extremists. The more extreme to the Left, the more to the Left is the middle ground.” Instead of seeking the middle ground, he argued, political leaders should occupy the “common ground with the people and their aspirations”.
These days, what constitutes the centre ground is defined differently. Corbyn might have moved Labour radically to the Left, and he might have surprised the country by winning 40 per cent of the election vote, but few think the Conservatives should seek ideological compromise with him.
Instead, among politicians and the commentariat, the centre ground is defined not in relation to what the public believes, nor in relation to the respective platforms of the Right and Left. The centre ground has become, for the liberals who regret its alleged abandonment by the two main parties, whatever they happen to believe in.
George Osborne, for example, claims the Conservatives have “left the centre ground”, complaining that they have “moved away from economic and social liberalism” and arguing that seeking to control immigration and curb corporate excess puts off “metropolitan Britain”. Never mind that most of the country disagrees with what metropolitan Britain demands.
This summer, liberal journalists have fantasised about the policies and membership of a new centre party. “The entire centre ground is up for grabs,” declared one. Jeremy Cliffe, from The Economist, produced a centrists’ manifesto, containing some proposals that were sensible and some that were not, but at least two of his ideas reflected his anxiety about Brexit.
This brings us to the problem with the way in which liberals talk about the centre ground. It sounds so reasonable, so moderate. It implies compromise and an understanding of what the country wants. Yet it bears little resemblance to political reality in our democratically constituted parliament. It barely pretends to reflect what the public wants from its government. And it does not provide convincing solutions to the problems Britain faces.
The composition of the House of Commons reflects the fact that, in June, 82.4 per cent voted for the two main political parties. This was the highest combined vote share since 1970, and neither party was offering the unbridled economic and social liberalism – nor the pro-europeanism – represented by the advocates of the so-called centre ground.
The British Social Attitudes Survey, published shortly after the election,
‘The liberal concept of the centre ground provides no convincing solutions to the problems Britain faces’
bears this out. People are becoming more liberal on issues such as samesex relationships and abortion, but the survey discovered that, since the referendum, Britain has become more, not less, Eurosceptic. It found that “cultural concerns about immigration, identity and sovereignty mattered” in the vote to leave the EU, as well as “concerns about the economic consequences of globalisation.”
The survey also revealed scepticism about deregulation and support for government intervention to deliver economic growth. And it showed backing for a strong defence and tough, even draconian, counterterrorism policies. As Roger Harding from the National Centre for Social Research said when the report was published, “people want a more active state that’s firm but fairer”.
This, in essence, is what Mrs May’s programme has been about since she became Prime Minister. And not just because it is popular but because it is what she believes Britain needs. After a majority voted for Brexit, that is what she will deliver. She wants to control immigration because she thinks that is best for our economy and our society. She believes in using the power of government to reform dysfunctional markets, prevent corporate abuse, and support growth where it is needed most. She envisages a smaller state, but one that is stronger and more strategic.
Those of us who served in government certainly made mistakes and the Prime Minister will sometimes have to compromise, but she is, in Sir Keith Joseph’s terminology, seeking to occupy the common ground. Her statement in Japan yesterday that she intends to fight the next election shows her determination to ignore calls to move to the so-called centre, and instead focus on delivering what the country wants and needs.