Seán Moncrieff: ‘Centrist dads’ are the political version of the missionary position but they offer something valuable

Just after Christmas, I was out with my old friends, a couple of whom said they enjoy the podcast The Rest Is Politics. It’s hosted by former Labour Downing Street spin doctor Alastair Campbell and former Tory cabinet minister Rory Stewart. I hadn’t heard it, and when I checked it out I quickly learned two things: (1) It’s extremely popular; and (2) it’s widely derided.

The derision stems from the idea that the podcast is hosted by two smug political has-beens, and that the audience it attracts mostly consists of that most contemptible category of people: the centrist dad.

In popular culture, the word “dad” has been leaning towards the pejorative for some time. Dad jokes. Dad bods. Dad dancing. But in political terms, the phrase centrist dad isn’t shy about being an outright insult.

Originally coined by an adviser to Jeremy Corbyn, it purports to describe middle-aged men who cannot come to terms with the fact that the world and politics are changing; who feel they must know better, given that they are older and presumably wiser. But, of course, they are not. In temperament, they are Victor Meldrew, croaking puzzled complaint. In ideological terms they are rigidly conventional: the political version of the missionary position.

Brendan O’Connor brings his contrary streak to a cosy conversation about immigration

---

Seán Moncrieff: What does the word ‘woke’ really mean?

---

Seán Moncrieff: As dull as it is, queuing isn’t just a cultural habit – it says something about society

---

Seán Moncrieff: Psoriasis is one of the flaws that make me who I am

---

Leaving aside the ageism and the lazy categorisation, there’s probably something to this. The world around us does seem to be changing, and even for non-centrist dads, it can be baffling and frightening.

[ The Rest Is Politics: Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart are wildly well informed and personally invested ]

History chops up periods of time and gives them names: the Dark Ages or the Renaissance. So, it’s quite possible, maybe even probable, that in years to come, historians (if there are any left) will look back at this period of time and give it a title. It could be the Anthropocene: the geological epoch which began with humans having an impact on the climate. But there’s disagreement as to when this era began: as far back as 15,000 years ago, or as recently as the 1960s.

Anyway, Anthropocene refers to just one aspect – admittedly the most important – of what’s going on in our world at the moment. And there’s a lot going on. A lot will happen this year, and somehow it all seems connected: like the effects of climate change and bad politics and misinformation, othering, hatred, fear, racism, poverty and dozens of other factors will eventually come crashing together, and we’ve been heading towards this collision for some time.

Without a centre ground, there’s less chance of any change at all: just the opposing combatants, be they political or military, fuelling themselves with the fantasy that total victory is possible

And perhaps those future historians will identify one of the causes for the collision to be the way we spoke to each other: the gradual loss of moderate language; an inability to publicly express ourselves in anything other than a scream, reducing discourse to nothing but binary propositions. Yes/no, right/wrong, us/them. The death of detail and context and nuance: a mental state where two contradictory ideas can never be entertained.

Gaza, refugees, Ukraine, the American election, homelessness: take your pick. Each has an effect upon the other, and the reactions to them can often sound like moral panic, even mass hysteria.

Centrist dads can’t solve these problems. It’s arguable that they caused many of them. But if historians do come up with a title for this era, it may well be something to do with how centrism came under sustained attack. Electorally, it’s happening all over Europe. It may well happen here.

The centre ground can be a dull and dispiriting place. Necessary change never comes quickly enough. The change is often far too little. But without a centre ground, there’s less chance of any change at all: just the opposing combatants, be they political or military, fuelling themselves with the fantasy that total victory is possible.

But the historians will tell you: that rarely happens. Conflict simply breeds more conflict, and sooner or later everyone agrees to meet and talk. But if there’s no middle ground left, there’s nowhere left to do it.