"Oh," they cry, "not another U-turn!" First there were the forests, then there were the GP commissioning consortiums and now there are Ken Clarke's sentencing plans. These volte-faces are fatal, exclaim the Tory right and Labourites alike. But are they? Arguably, they are David Cameron's strength, and they may well get him re-elected.

To govern successfully in modern Britain a prime minister has to do at least two of three things: make the voters better off; learn the lessons of recent political mistakes; and favour sensible compromise over ideology. In other words, British people like to spend a penny or two, heed their mistakes and trust their common sense.

Margaret Thatcher (eventually) made people better off, and in rejecting the bankrupt combination of union power and complacent corporatism, showed she had learned the lessons of recent past. But she couldn't be accused of favouring sensible compromise over ideology.

Tony Blair was probably the better politician – standing down from office on his own terms and with no stand-out domestic policy failure on a par with the poll tax. Blair made people better off, and showed he had heeded the past by rejecting the false choice between markets and state. Thus, annoying as Blair's third way was for the purists, it appealed to the British people's love of sensible compromise. Perhaps this explains (along with Tory disarray) Blair's re-election in 2005, despite widespread disquiet over his foreign policy.

But Blair's acceptance of sensible compromise showed only in the content of policy, not in the way he governed. In terms of the latter he aped Thatcher's "the lady's not for turning" with "I don't have a reverse gear". Cameron is different. It may just be the way the coalition works, but I suspect it is more than that. He has realised that what made New Labour semi-toxic was not so much its political philosophy, but its uncompromising style of government.

Consequently, Cameron's re-election depends on presenting his programme as sensible compromise in the national interest, for I doubt he will manage to make people better off before going to the ballot box. The key to success will be redressing the damaging trends in the last government's policies, while not appearing ideological. These trends were, to name a few, over-centralisation, wasteful spending and state dependency.

The electorate, on the whole, is on board with the government here. They are inclined to decentralisation, as well as an end to waste and welfarism. But they do not want these things willy-nilly, with no consideration of counter-arguments and exceptions.

I would wager that, in the practice of government, Cameron is doing what he wanted to do in opposition, but which his party would not let him: develop a set of policies that claim the centre ground while retaining a centre-right flavour. If none of these policies end in disaster, and some of them even work, his ability to compromise for the good of the country will be seen as strength not weakness – in keeping with the British way of life.

Some within the coalition – for example Steve Hilton, Nick Clegg and Michael Gove – favour pushing through a very radical agenda and are probably not happy with Cameron's propensity to compromise. And it's true that a government cannot be seen to be listening and giving ground on everything, lest it appear devoid of ideas. But there is still enough that is bold in the programme to avoid this judgment: notably school reform, higher education reform and the central economic policy of deficit reduction and rebalancing the economy. The universal credit is perhaps the most radical coalition policy. But its introduction has been sensibly stretched over two parliaments (this compromise being due to George Osborne, not Cameron, but these two are birds of a feather when it comes to the art of governing).

Of course, the Liberal Democrats may try to claim the compromises are all down to their moderating influence. But the prime minister is the public face of government – he gets to go through the humiliation of making the climbdowns. When the dust settles, my money is on him taking the credit for putting the work in.