The “sensible centre” is the most overpopulated address in Australian politics today.

It has been claimed not only by the Albanese Labor Government in the name of pragmatic progress, but also by those urging a fractured Liberal-National Coalition to regroup and rebuild after electoral defeats and internal discord. To hear leaders across the spectrum, the future lies not in ideology but in reasonableness; not in bold transformation but in balanced reform. The centre, we are told, is where the voters are – and where solutions must therefore lie.

Labor’s recent electoral success has been widely attributed to its ability to “occupy the sensible centre” – to reassure markets, appeal to middle Australia, and distance itself from ideological extremes. In the wake of leadership instability and Coalition turmoil, the Liberal Party, too, has been advised to return to “sensible centre-right values” as a strategy for renewal. From political commentary to party manifestos, this rhetoric of moderation dominates: a promise to avoid disruption, to manage rather than remake, to adapt without alarming.

But in a century shaped by unprecedented disruption — climate breakdown, geopolitical instability, deepening inequality, and technological upheaval — the very idea of the sensible centre may no longer be sensible at all. It is not reason or compromise we should reject, but the assumption that small steps and technocratic tweaks will suffice in the face of systemic crises.

To grasp the limits of the centre as a political idea, we must turn to the deeper currents of political philosophy. Conservatism, when it seeks continuity and coherence, offers valuable restraint. But in practice it often defends entrenched interests — economic, cultural and environmental — that are no longer sustainable. Liberalism, long the champion of rights and markets, has enabled many freedoms, yet its market-centric strain has accelerated inequality and weakened collective institutions. Meanwhile, radicalism, often caricatured or sidelined, at its best invites us to imagine a different order – not by tearing down democracy, but by deepening it.

What none of these traditions should support is stasis disguised as moderation. The idea that change must be slow, that systems must not be questioned too deeply, that the “middle ground” is inherently virtuous – these have become comforting myths in an age where the status quo is both unjust and unsustainable.

The problem with today’s “sensible centre” is not its caution, but its failure of imagination. It speaks the language of climate concern while protecting fossil fuel subsidies. It acknowledges inequality while refusing to tax wealth. It nods to housing crises while outsourcing solutions to the very developers and investors who profit from the scarcity. Its vision is shaped less by the scale of the challenge than by the narrow bandwidth of what is seen as electorally palatable or media-friendly.

In truth, this “centre” is not neutral ground – it is the crowded intersection of vested interests and policy minimalism. It can absorb progressive rhetoric while resisting progressive action. It can rebrand neoliberalism in a softer tone. And it can unite parties across the aisle around a politics of modesty when the moment demands courage.

The crises of the 21st century — global warming, inequality, surveillance capitalism, democratic decline — will not be resolved within the limits of what current centrism deems “sensible". That is not a call for extremism. It is a call for transformative realism: a politics grounded in truth about the scale of change required, and the courage to act upon it.

This century demands more than centrist choreography. It demands a new political centre – not one defined by triangulation between left and right, but by alignment between ecological survival, social justice and democratic renewal. It will draw from the best of all traditions: the conservative sense of stewardship, the liberal commitment to rights and the radical belief that better is not only possible but necessary.

The real danger is not radicalism – it is complacency disguised as common sense. The “sensible centre” has become a resting place for exhausted ambition. If we want to build a future that is liveable, equitable and free, we must move beyond it.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.