This is where it gets tricky. Where's the centre?
Do you mean rignt of 1970's centre? I'd agree.
Or right of 2015 centre? I don't agree.
My thesis, and I think it's hard to argue with, is that the centre has moved. To the right. Or, perhaps, even that "centre" is now measured in a 3D political space, whereas the 60s/70s centre was on a much more linear political spectrum. I think it's self-evident that New Labour was, in linear terms, certainly to the right of old Labour. And that's
why it was both electable, and elected. New Labour moved to where the electorate were.
Which is why I think it's hard to argue with the notion that the "centre" has moved, because I'd define the centre as related to the location of the electorate. I see the electorate as being a normal distribution curve, in statistical terms. A bell curve. If that curve shifts right, then to get elected, a left political party has to shift right with it, or it finds itself on the slope of the curve and if it gets just a little too far down that slope, it's unelectable no matter how well-intentioned, honest and sincere it is.
And that, in my view is both Corbyn's problem and Labour's dilemma. Among a large percentage of the party, New Labour is almost a dirty word(s), but New Labour is much closer to the top of the bell than old Labour, let alone a Bennite Corbyn. Labour's dilemma is how to be where, by and large, their hearts want to be when tbey know full well it isn't where the floating voters that decide elections are.
Blair certainly got that. For all his faults, and later mistakes, he was the ultimate pragmatist. By definition, if floating voters float, they are somewhat sympathetic with both the right of Labour and the left of Conservative. If they weren't, they wouldn't be able to float. They represent the exact centre, +/- about 3-4%, of that bell curve.
The trick to winning a modern UK general election is to be close enough to that point to attract those floaters without being so far that you lose too many of your base to other parties, be it Green or UKIP, respectively. Though, in truth, neither of those fit perfectly into old-fashioned left/right definitions. They're more 3D than that.
IMHO, the trick Labour needs to pull off is to follow essentially New Labour policy positioning, WITHOUT identifying with Blair (or Brown), especially as regards Iraq, etc, or the worst aspects of ill-conceived Brownite spending and off balance sheet financial acrobatics. They need to shake off the Blair/Brown ghosts, just as the Tories had to shake of the Thatcher ghost. In both cases, excessive periods in power led to an arrogance of attitude that was personality-driven. In both cases, that arrogance led to policy disasters be it poll tax, or Iraq and the impact of the financial crunch.