This political cross-dressing is very confusing

It is becoming increasingly difficult to pigeonhole Iain Duncan Smith in the Conservative spectrum, and this week has not made the task any easier. First we had yet another example of "gay" issues threatening to put him back into the traditional Tory box (from which many thought he originated) with his decision to impose a three-line whip against adoption by gay or unmarried couples. Reports of a "row" suggest that there is still unease inside the party – and the Shadow Cabinet – when the dreaded word crops up.

But then the Tory leader went to run-down Hackney yesterday and made a speech on education and public services which once might have tripped off the tongue of the soggiest liberal. In fact, it is possible to define a theme and reconciliation between these apparently contradictory approaches.

The phrase that sums up his attitude to both issues is "concern for the vulnerable". It is arguable whether unmarried or same sex couples can provide the loving care to adopted children – although it might have eased Tory tensions if a free vote had been allowed. But Mr Duncan Smith's first concern for the vulnerable entitles him to be given the benefit of the doubt on the adoption question. His worry should be that he has been set a trap by his political opponents – as well as his detractors inside his party – in the same way Labour trapped William Hague over the notorious Clause 28.

The Adoption Bill started out as a government Bill with all-party support and no mention of gay couples. Amendments were tabled and voted upon, with the battle now going to the Lords. Tories there will no doubt use their majority to return the Bill to the Commons in the way it was originally drafted by the Government. The Government will then allow a good old ding-dong to occur before conceding the Bill in its original form – relieved that the gay adoption clause has been removed. Once again, however, the Tories may get bogged down in the issue. But the Adoption Bill is not the place to pursue a "gayer than thou" agenda and Mr Duncan Smith was right to put the issue of vulnerable children ahead of gay rights. Damaged children probably do need, more than any other, the comparative longevity and commitment that married couples are more likely to offer.

The Adoption Bill is about the welfare of children and it should not be hijacked to promote pro-marriage or pro-gay agendas. But unfortunately for Mr Duncan Smith, anything that hinges on "gay" issues becomes a weathervane issue as to whether he is "inclusive".

By sticking to his theme of "vulnerable citizens", however, he is nevertheless beginning to define a more consistent narrative that should enable him to present a new, compassionate face of the Tory party. And he was on strong ground yesterday when he fleshed out his approach to the vulnerable in the inner cities.

No new policies were unveiled, but we can see where he is going. Once, the Tories encouraged parents who wanted to opt out of a bad school by giving them greater choice or by providing opportunities for the articulate to buy their way out of the bog standard comprehensive with private education or scholarships to independent schools. Now the approach seems to be specifically concentrated to appeal precisely to those who cannot escape the clutches of the "one size fits all" local failing comprehensives.

But the solution, says the Tory leader, does not necessarily mean that politicians can provide it. "To understand the power of politics you also have to understand its limitations. Tories have previously worked to help people take back control of their own lives – we don't try and live their lives for them."

But herein lies, according to Mr Duncan Smith, a perception that because of this people too often think that Tories are content for the vulnerable in our society to sink or swim. What it all adds up to is a view that local communities should decide how schools are to be run and funded, with central government's powers of control and direction removed.

The general approach is reminiscent of where the Tories pitched their tent in the 1970s, when they were last in opposition, on ground which was once Labour's preserve. Margaret Thatcher homed in on the Labour-voting council house tenants who were also trade unionists but had never before voted Tory.

This time it is the poor and the dispossessed who once voted Labour but now vote for no one (the greater part of the growing stay-at-home 40 per cent who abstained last year) who are the Tories' prey. While it stretches the imagination that the poor and the vulnerable on sink housing estates should throw in their lot with Mr Duncan Smith, the Tories have a historic ability to exploit this new market for their philosophy of self-help and volunteerism. Except this time it is a "community" based self-help and a collective volunteerism.

It is an irony that while Mr Duncan Smith was appealing to the hearts of the vulnerable, the junior Foreign Office minister Peter Hain was stressing tough action, Europe-wide, against illegal immigrants. While Mr Hain sounded like an old Tory, circa William Hague 2001, Mr Duncan Smith sounded like an old Liberal,circa Peter Hain 1970. This cross-dressing is becoming very confusing. But the voters might just get it – eventually.

mrbrown@pimlico.freeserve.co.uk