Politics

One-nation conservatism has always been a relatively malleable concept. First conceptualised in 1837 by Benjamin Disraeli, it has constantly been reinvented throughout the party’s history to meet the demands of an evolving society. Historically, it has referred to the paternalistic duty of the privileged to look out for those less fortunate and a commitment to maintaining the Union of the United Kingdom, but following the result of the 2019 General Election, it should be reinvented once more to meet the demands of British society in the 2020s. With the advent of Boris Johnson’s ‘People’s Government’ amidst the increasing fragmentation of the Union, Britain needs one-nation conservatism more now than at any time since the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.

Perhaps the most notable period of one-nation conservatism was between 1951 and 1964, when Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan, and Alec Douglas-Home led pragmatic governments committed to narrowing inequality whilst helping Britain recover from the economic tribulations of the War. They were also faced with the challenge of establishing Britain’s place within a changing international order. Boris Johnson’s government also faces this challenge, as the task of re-establishing Britain’s global role in the wake of Brexit presents huge opportunities within economic and foreign policy. Similarly, the flattening economic and social consequences of the Coronavirus outbreak require policies which cater for everyone in society. Naturally, this requires different policies to those implemented after the War, but the principle remains the same – the Government must represent the interests of everyone in society, making no exclusions based on race, class, gender, sexuality or disability.

Such has been the transformation of British society, the Conservatives now represent constituencies outside their traditional support base, such as Blyth Valley and Bassetlaw. Transformations require new commitments. Where one-nation conservatism has traditionally aimed to narrow the degree of inequality between the richest and poorest sections of society, it should now strive to narrow regional inequality as well. One of the worst countries in the world for regional inequality, Britain has seen a disproportionate yet necessarily high level of investment in infrastructure and employment in London and the South East, but often overlooked working class and coastal communities in the north of England, Wales and Scotland. In 2017, average disposable income in London stood at £28,000 p/a, compared to just £16,000 in the North East. To be a one-nation conservative in the 2020s should mean a commitment to investing in infrastructure projects in underfunded regions of the UK, improving standards of education in these areas and empowering local communities.

Infrastructure projects such as HS2 are therefore essential to combat Britain’s increasing centralisation by making the north better connected. So too is the extension of subsidies to attract new employers to former manufacturing communities suffering from a high level of structural unemployment, to have a similar impact that Nissan has had in Sunderland. This is especially important in the context of an increasingly fragmented Union. The rise of Scottish nationalism, complemented by a lack of identification and engagement with London and the South-East from other parts of the country has shrouded the future of the Union in uncertainty. This could be rectified by a commitment to promoting regional equality, by creating new opportunities for less developed areas of the country, without damaging progress already made in other areas. By adopting new principles, one-nation Conservatism can remain committed to its traditional principles.

In order to understand what one-nation conservatism means, it is important to understand what it means to be British. Whilst historically concerned with addressing class differences, the latest evolution of one-nation conservatism should strive to promote inclusivity and celebrate diversity. Post-war immigration from the Commonwealth, and more recently from Eastern Europe and the Middle East has seen Britain become a multicultural society where multiple faiths are practised. In 2018, 13.8% of the British public came from a minority ethnic background – a percentage which is much larger in urban areas. One-nation conservatives should promote inclusivity and tolerance, whilst aiming to narrow inequality between different ethnic groups. At a time where there is little that unites the British population, being British should be celebrated for the diversity it implies. Beyond ethnic diversity, one-nation conservatives should also promote inclusivity and equality of opportunity in terms of sexual orientation, disability, and gender.

Traditionally a pragmatic form of Conservative ideology, one-nation conservatism in the 2020s should be no different in this regard. It should be pragmatic in its attitude to the changing demands of society, and pragmatic in the means it adopts to achieve its socially liberal aims. This is not to say that one-nation conservatism should abandon Conservative economic principles. It should remain fiscally responsible, promote equality of opportunity, and reward individualism and enterprise. It should find a balance between social and economic liberalism to forge a Conservative Party which works for the whole country.

As a new decade begins, so too should the new direction of one-nation conservatism. The Conservative Party, by embracing the latest evolution of one-nation conservatism, has the opportunity to reinvent itself, unite the nation and protect the future of the Union – an opportunity it can ill afford to waste, given the need to adapt, to avoid losing power after ten years in government. The extraordinary election result , coinciding with the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union presents a unique opportunity for Britain to forge its own path once more. By empowering the new communities that it represents, and celebrating the uniqueness of multicultural Britain, the Party can dispel the urban myth that it represents only the wealthiest in society, and establish a new reputation as a benevolent party committed to equality of opportunity by economically responsible means. Beyond enhancing itself, the party can also make the United Kingdom a more liberal, socially mobile country with one of the most advanced infrastructure networks in the world. Only by championing the latest form of one-nation conservatism will this be possible.

Ollie is a second year History student at Newcastle University and is the winner of the Tamworth Prize 2020. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Number 10]

The Conservative Party’s ability to adapt pragmatically to the political, economic and social landscape is often lauded by its supporters as the key reason behind its electoral successes, and derided by its opponents, who claim that the party is interested in nothing other than obtaining office.

While Conservatives certainly approach grand plans, dogma and ideology with a great deal of scepticism, the idea that this inevitably comes twinned with a lack of principle is entirely wrong. The party can, and indeed consistently has, fused its natural pragmatism with a clear and coherent political philosophy.

Philosophically speaking, what unites conservative thinkers from Edmund Burke to Sir Roger Scruton and politicians from Benjamin Disraeli to Boris Johnson is what has been labelled ‘civic conservatism’. Civic conservatism is often perceived to be a modern and obscure offshoot of the mainstream conservative tradition, but it in fact encapsulates the very heart and soul of conservative politics and is more relevant than ever.

In the past 15 years alone, there have been a number of excellent conservative thinkers who have highlighted the importance of civic conservatism. The David Cameron opposition years were heavily influenced by the likes of Danny Kruger, now the MP for Devizes, and Philip Blond, the author of the seminal book Red Tory, who both provided the intellectual basis for the future Prime Minister’s excellent Big Society concept.

Some years later, the seismic EU referendum ushered in a renaissance of civic conservatism, with David Goodhart’s Road to Somewhere and latterly David Skelton’s Little Platoons both arguing that neither deregulating the market or strengthening the state would constitute a sufficient response to the underlying causes of Brexit.

Naturally these writers make different arguments, but they are united by a belief that the excesses of ideology and dogma on both the left and right not only ignores but also endangers the key tenets of civil society such as a sense of place, community, tradition, the family, and local relationships.

The conservative, and indeed Conservative, priority should always be to strengthen these societal links which bind people together. Conservatism is, after all, based on a Hayekian perception of knowledge; the belief that information and wisdom isn’t concentrated in one place such as the central state or based on first principles but instead spread across society and time. 

This means that the institutions which make up society are incredibly important as they contain the experience and knowledge not just of a range of existing individuals but different generations too. True liberty is transmitted from civil society to the individual when that individual is firmly enmeshed in these traditional structures, rather than treated in an atomistic way.

Strong local links and a sense of belonging are becoming more and more important to people in this country and across the world. Four years ago, 17.4 million people voted to leave the EU overwhelmingly for eurosceptic reasons, but there were undeniably other related factors at play too. As Danny Kruger said in his excellent maiden speech:

Brexit is about more than Global Britain; it is a response to the call of home. It reflects people’s attachment to the places that are theirs. Patriotism is rooted in places. Our love of our country begins with love of our neighbourhoods. Our first loyalties are to the people we live among, and we have a preference to be governed by people we know. That impulse is not wrong; it is right.

Danny is absolutely correct. Brexit, and what has followed since, has demonstrated that our country is crying out for stronger community bonds, enhanced institutions and more of an emphasis on the local. If 1945 was a call for the state and 1979 was a call for the market, then the 2016 referendum and 2019 General Election were both a call for society.

The response to this call needs to focus relentlessly on the local, in the best traditions of conservatism. One way to advance this would be to build on David Cameron’s localisation agenda by making it easier for communities to own pubs, shops or post offices which are threatened with closure.

It should also involve strengthening the most fundamental element of civil society: the family. Fantastic Conservative MPs like Fiona Bruce have written extensively about how politicians could help to bolster families, while 44 Conservative MPs recently wrote to the Prime Minister to call for a new families ministry.

On the economy, the infrastructure revolution, free ports and reforming business rates will not only play a crucial role in boosting economic growth in areas which badly need it, but also help to improve the social fabric of these communities. The Prime Minister has rightly recognised that the state can play a crucial role in spreading the benefits of free market capitalism more widely, and in doing so strengthen societal bonds and a sense of place.

With some degree of irony, the radicalism of the decision taken on 23 June 2016 needs to be met with a genuinely conservative response. It is the Conservative Party, following its most fundamental instincts, which is uniquely placed to bring about the social renewal which the country clearly needs. With a Prime Minister who possesses an understanding of this along with the numbers he needs to be bold, the party can and must deliver.

Toby is a member of Bright Blue and was a Conservative Party candidate for the Mitcham and Morden constituency in the 2019 general election. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Number 10]

In January, Austria’s first centre-right and Green coalition between Sebastian Kurz’s centre-right ÖVP and the Green Party was sworn in. Following the FPÖ’s ‘Ibiza-gate’ scandal concerning political corruption, Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz ended the previous ÖVP-FPÖ coalition with the words ‘enough is enough’. The snap elections in September increased the ÖVP’s vote share to 37%, as well as returning the Greens to parliament with 14% of the national vote. Abandoning traditional coalition-patterns with the FPÖ or the Social Democrat SPÖ, Kurz has instead decided for a novel solution by choosing to work with Werner Kogler’s Greens. Has the time for political ‘contraptions’ come by working with the predicted decline of traditional parties, and what does Austria’s example show us about the political importance of the global green agenda?

According to Austrian polls, 57% of Austrians support the ÖVP-Green government, who seek a ‘sensible mixture’ of welfare capitalism, globalisation and environmental policies. The Austrian example is not perfect, being more a division of power than an attempt to share it. Furthermore, a three-hundred-page coalition agreement sets out clear boundaries in the parties’ remits, and the Green Party enters government as the junior coalition partner which has accepted several traditionalist demands, from banning headscarves for schoolgirls to strict migration policies. However, the Austrian example shows how change may come from within the government and the novel interplay if conservative and green ideas. 

For other European countries, looking to Austria’s example presents an interesting example of what may be their political future. In Germany, the Greens are now polling as the second-largest party after the CDU/CSU, and coalitions between the two parties are already a reality in several state governments. It is certainly possible that this could be replicated at the federal level after the next election. However, how can we learn more broadly from the new green-conservative ideological coalitions?

Most importantly, the Austrian coalition shows how environmental policies do not have to be associated with any ideology but should be common ground for all parties who value protecting their world around them. There are no more ideological obstacles preventing conservatives from endorsing policies combating climate change than other political parties. In the UK, 64% of respondents want the Conservative Government to place a high or very high priority on the issue of climate change. Undoubtedly, the Government is making environmental policy an issue of greater importance, particularly with the upcoming COP26 summit. Nevertheless, there is a difference between superficial policy amendments and the fundamental shift of mindsets. Successfully responding to the climate crisis will require responses on a political, personal and business level. The environment cannot become the campaigning platform of only one part of society, but something we all think about and act on.

In the UK, the relationship between conservative and environmental politics has certainly been varied. Margret Thatcher’s period of ‘Green Thatcherism’ brought environmental issues to the fore, as she gave speeches at the Royal Society and the UN on the threat of climate change before linking it with wild conspiracy theories of ‘supra-national socialism’ in her later life. David Cameron proclaimed in 2010 that he would lead the ‘greenest government ever’ but his overall record presents a mixed picture and the May government, while enshrining a net-zero emissions target in law, had little time or political capital to expend on environmental issues. 

However, green and centre-ground politics can share a political basis supporting values of ecology, democracy and freedom. Capitalism can combat climate change. Already in the 1980s, former Austrian ÖVP leader Josef Riegler termed the expression of ‘eco-social market economy’ to incorporate sustainability and environmental protection into a regulated market economy. In this model of society, the terms market, social, and ecological should ‘chime with each other as equally essential elements in a melodious triad’. These ideas have never significantly been considered beyond academia, but the growing interest in stakeholder capitalism and social-benefit corporations certainly shows a shift as many seek a more sustainable existence.

Certainly, the UK will not be emulating the new Austrian coalition any time soon due to their differing political systems. However, we should look to Europe to see how the climate crisis can affect politics, and how novel ideas can present a new, positive plan to protect the environment. Environmental issues are not a fringe issue but at the heart of modern politics, and should be vital to the centre-right’s manifesto for change.

Nikolas is currently undertaking work experience at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Raul Mee]