With politics in a state of bewildering flux, three terms recur that attempt to make sense of it all. The complacent application of these terms is partly responsible for Brexit, and could delay the formation of a formidable opposition to a seemingly dominant Conservative party.

The terms give the impression of assertive precision when in fact they are dangerously misleading. And as the dysfunctional Labour party suffers yet another identity crisis and the Conservatives’ obsession with Europe moves towards an energy-sapping denouement, the terms will become even more widespread.

British politics urgently needs an injection of precision rather than shallow waffle

The terms are “liberal”, “centre ground” and “modernisation”. The last of these led the country towards Brexit. When David Cameron became leader of the Conservative party in 2005 he declared he was a “moderniser”. The self-description was widely accepted, not least by much of the media.

But if “modern” means moving a party on from the past, Cameron should have made a big move on Europe, that being the issue which brought down two Conservative prime ministers. Instead, he made social liberalism his test of modernisation. And as one of his first acts, he withdrew his party from the centre-right grouping in the European parliament, an act of aggression opposed by the man he defeated for the leadership, David Davis.

Such was the allure of the term and the hunger in parts of the media for a Conservative revival that Cameron became a moderniser while failing to modernise his party on the issue that had nearly killed it.

In some respects Theresa May is more of a moderniser. She claims to recognise the good that government can do, and puts the case for an industrial strategy and for intervention in some markets – near revolutionary moves in a party conditioned to regard the state as often a malevolent force. Yet May is opposed by those in her party, and other parties, who regard themselves as modern and on the centre ground.

Recently BBC Radio 4 ran a programme that posed the question Can the Centre Hold? It raised important questions about what the centre might learn from the rise of the outsiders. It also worked on the assumption that some of its dazzling interviewees were on the centre ground. Tony Blair and George Osborne were interviewed, as if it was a given that they are rooted in the centre. But is either of them on this ill-defined terrain?

I agree with them in their opposition to Brexit, but I doubt if this places any of us on the so-called centre. Blair wants to overturn the referendum and has powerful arguments for doing so. Osborne is critical of the focus the government places on immigration, and he too puts a strong case for the economy being the pivotal issue. But in their defiance of what happened in the referendum, they are arguably challenging the centre.

In addition, as chancellor, Osborne’s economic policies were well to the right of most interpretations of the centre. Similarly, Blair defends the war in Iraq and is an advocate for possible military intervention in other parts of the volatile region. I understand that he has no choice but to defend the Iraq invasion, and that must lead to a wider advocacy of risky force, but this is not necessarily where the centre lies.

Enoch Powell speaking in Sidcup, London, in 1975 on the subject of the European common market. Photograph: John Mitchell/Getty Images

The issue of Europe triggers alliances between senior figures in parties, with some sensing an historic realignment of the centre ground. But there is nothing new in Europe producing such coalitions. During the 1975 referendum on Britain’s membership of the then European Economic Community, Labour’s Roy Jenkins campaigned with the former Tory prime minister, Edward Heath, and the Liberal leader, Jeremy Thorpe. Labour’s Tony Benn and Michael Foot danced with Enoch Powell. Unsurprisingly Blair, Osborne, and MPs Nick Clegg, Nicky Morgan and Anna Soubry unite over Europe. On this issue they have clear and coherent arguments. But does the clarity apply more widely?

Some participants in the various contemporary battles argue that there is a much wider bond. They are “liberals” taking on the “authoritarians”. Recently the New Statesman published a striking cover with the question: “Who will speak for liberal Britain?” The owner of the London Evening Standard, Evgeny Lebedev, hailed the appointment of Osborne as his new editor because the former chancellor was a “liberal” in tune with “liberal” London.

This term is the most flexible of them all. Virtually everyone I know describes themselves as liberal. Yet some are on the right, espousing a small state in which people are “set free” from big government, and some are on the left, seeing it as a way of liberating people.

This imprecision is exemplified by the career of Davis, now the Brexit secretary. In 2008 he resigned as shadow home secretary because he suspected Cameron and Osborne did not share his “liberal” convictions in opposing measures such as detaining suspects without charge for up to 90 days. The PM who first tried to instigate the measure was the leading member of the liberal elite, Blair. Davis, who fought a byelection over this crusade, is now the lead minister taking the UK out of the EU, a move passionately opposed by “liberals”.

To add to the confusion, when the outgoing editor of the Evening Standard, Sarah Sands, was asked to defend the paper’s support for the Tories at a point when the capital was moving towards Labour, she argued that the partisan endorsement was because the paper was “liberal”.

This all matters because British politics urgently needs an injection of precision rather than shallow waffle. Globalisation is happening and will continue to happen, but how to harness the opportunities and protect communities from some of the destabilising consequences?

There are related debates about how governments can help those navigating an increasingly fractured world of work, and how they pay for and organise modern public services. The answers are demanding and complex, and will differ depending on ideological perspectives. For now, when anyone declares the solutions need to be modern, liberal and on the centre ground, we may nod in assent – but should then wonder what they mean.