Politics
The House Article | Tepid managerialism is dead but the centre ground is not
Keir Starmer meets Labour Party members in Ealing, 8 May 2026 (Alamy)
4 min read
For 80 years, the Conservatives and Labour have shared 80 per cent or more of the vote, but – as the results of these elections come in – is the centre-ground dead?
The centre-ground used to be broad and radical. In the early 1990s, the left still leaned towards state control and nationalisation, while the right championed laissez-faire privatisation. New Labour’s adoption of pragmatism over zealotry swept Thatcherism aside. Since then, most British governments have tried to follow that path, but what was once dynamic and fresh now seems tired and stale.
Like populism, the centre ground is not in itself an ideology but a governing method. Whereas populism makes political appeal its primary goal, ahead of economic reality or the practical capability of the state, the centre-ground approach is to seek to reconcile what is politically desirable with what is economically effective and institutionally deliverable. Governing from the centre ground, therefore, requires recognising rather than denying constraints.
Too often, Starmer has articulated constraint but not purpose, sounding managerial not transformational
In 2026, Britain has many constraints: more than at any time since the 1980s. Debt is approaching 100 per cent of GDP. Pension and healthcare costs are rising with an ageing population. Energy shocks and geopolitical instability remain largely outside Britain’s control. The UK is heavily exposed to international investors and bond markets. After Liz Truss, everyone understands how quickly market confidence can disappear.
The problem is not just that these constraints are tough. Following two decades of low growth, institutional strain and political volatility, voters are no longer confident that the system can reliably deliver growth, security, infrastructure and competent public services. “Broken Britain” is not simply an economic diagnosis but a collapse in confidence that government itself can work.
That is what makes this moment so dangerous. The centre-ground approach depends heavily on trust: trust that institutions (from competition regulators to council planning officials) can work, that trade-offs are manageable, and that gradual reform can still improve people’s lives. Once people stop believing that, the centre starts to look less like pragmatism and more like the cowardly maintenance of self-interested stasis. One of the attractions of Nigel Farage and Zack Polanski is that they correctly identify and effectively articulate this collapse in confidence.
The constraints Britain faces are real. They are not readily solved by promising hope or denouncing elites. Any party that moves from effective opposition to effective government will need policies that address the constraints of debt, an ageing society, or geopolitical shocks to energy and inflation. The populist challenge is powerful and has succeeded in these elections because they speak to anger, identity and decline, but significant economic and institutional tests remain.
Even with a large majority, Starmer has not been able to carry out reforms. In failing to do so, he has worsened the perception that the system is broken
It is also clear from the election results that the remedy offered by Keir Starmer’s government in its first two years – a promise of stability and steady progress – has felt to many like stasis and stagnation. Balance and moderation are necessary to govern from the centre ground, but they are not goals in themselves of effective centre-ground governments. Too often, Starmer has articulated constraint but not purpose, sounding managerial not transformational.
Across the West, the central political question in the late 2020s is not really ‘left versus right’ nor even ‘state versus market’. It is whether democratic states still possess enough legitimacy and capability to sustain reform at all. Even with a large majority, Starmer has not been able to carry out reforms. In failing to do so, he has worsened the perception that the system is broken and the state ineffective.
The answer is not abandoning the centre ground but rediscovering its reforming ambition. The SMF, like many think tanks, is not short of ideas for a government that is willing to act. Reforming social care and council tax together can unlock opportunities for change in both. Our ‘Citizens Advance’ would unlock pensions to provide money now to a generation locked out of the property ladder. Introducing social leasing would give low-income families access to electric vehicles and shield them from fuel price volatility. The radical centre-ground ideas are there; what is needed is a government with the courage to act on them.
Starmer has tested to destruction the idea that the centre ground can survive simply as a defence of managed incremental reform and a politics of caution. An effective centre-ground government combines realism about constraints with visible state capability, faster delivery, institutional reform and a stronger sense of national purpose. Tepid managerialism is dead, but a purposeful centre-ground is not.
Reform UK has taken a big step towards government in these elections. Meanwhile, Labour is running out of time to restore public confidence in governing itself.
Theo Bertram is director of the Social Market Foundation
You must be logged in to post a comment Login