Most of us use an imaginary two-dimensional spectrum to chart the positions of political parties, generally based on the fundamental issue of the relationship between the state and private enterprise.

Parties of the left tip towards a greater role for government, while those on the right favour free markets and lower taxes.

The centre – that fabled land where political kingmakers and queenmakers roam – captures the moderate edges of both, at least in theory.

But what that means in practice can be unclear. “Centrism” is often defined as the non-ideological position, or as the pragmatic, moderate approach to politics – a bit of this and a bit of that.

Either way, the centre is always proposed as an alternative to the more ideologically recognisable positions taken up on the right and left – as if it is the Goldilocks part of the spectrum where the policy is just right.

In short, centrism is an ambiguous term which merits closer attention than it usually gets.

Ideology and ‘common sense’

Politicians who characterise themselves or their parties as centrist often describe themselves as being non-ideological.

In the early 2000s, former United Future leader Peter Dunne was fond of claiming he was the voice of “common sense”, the suggestion being that whatever his view on a given policy issue, it........

© The Conversation