Finding the right (or is it the correct) centre?

I have just read 2 interesting articles - one on Labour Uncut by Peter Watt (see here) and another in the Times by Philip Collins (see here, although you will need to pay to see this one).

These are interesting in that they attempt to describe what makes potential Government's electable.  Peter Watt refers to the need to talk about electorate's needs, Philip Collins refers to the need to talk to the electorate's ambitions.

The problem for politicians, it seems to me, is that they are often framed by what others say about them.  For the Conservatives, after Theresa May's famous speech, this was partly in the term 'the nasty party'.  The party had spent so much of its time being described by its opponents as nasty that it had even come to accept that epithet itself. 

Next we come to Polly Toynbee's assertion (apparently supported by research), that more intelligent people tend to be more socialist in their outlook.  But at the same time, many simply see the Socialist agenda as one that tends to be corrupted by the needs and ambitions of those that command it - and thus both rapidly corruptable and corrupted.

Despite a healthy poll lead before the election was called, Neil Kinnock did not win the election in 1992 - John Major did.  Personally, taking into account what others have said about that election as well as my own experiences, I believe that it was the perceived essential decency of John Major and, by comparison, the suspicions of Labour's intent and Neil Kinnock's abilities (whether true or not) that changed the position by the time of the election itself.

When 1997 came along, the perceptions had changed.  The Conservatives had become divided and uncontrolled, it had had a torrid time with corruption allegations against individuals and charges that it was both incompetent and nasty as well - while Labour had undergone what was perceived as the 'revolution' to 'New Labour'.  Tony Blair appeared to represent the aspirations of the electorate and appeared to have a vision of what he wanted to do to make things 'better'. 

After David Cameron was elected leader of the Conservatives, perceptions began to swing again; but not by enough to overcome the electoral mountain that was required.  While Gordon Brown and his Government had clearly lost their way, suspicions remained about the motives and intentions of Conservatives.

As a party we tried, almost to oblivion, the theory that we were not clear enough or right-wing enough in the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections.   That simply did not work ... and neither should we expect it to.  It is by appealing to people's sense that we can change things 'for the better' that we can succeed.  If we merely read the music rather than interpret it in the most appealing manner for the electorate we shall not break through in 2015 (or earlier, if the Coalition falls apart) ... and we will again be dependent on coaltion or, worse, we shall not be in Government at all.

Moving forward will require a constant effort to demonstrate that we are the decent people that I believe that we are and that we have an idea of where we want to go, and more importantly, how we are going to get there.  That means that we will have to confront and confound our opponent's portrayals of us - and that includes our Coalition Partners.  We are, I believe, decent people, whose intentions are to improve the lot of the electorate through pragmatic rather than fixed ideological means.  The essential pragmatism is a strength, but unless we can persude people that there are policies as well as pragmatism, it can also be a weakness.