Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
This is a challenging time for the one-nation wing of the Conservative Party. Recent developments have positioned Robert Jenrick, despite his loss in last year’s leadership election, as a leading figure within the party. His recent remarks regarding a potential coalition with Reform UK, or more specifically its supporters, have reignited discussions about the future trajectory of the Tories. This brings to the forefront the question of whether figures like Nigel Farage signal a significant rightward shift within the party, prompting speculation about the potential demise of one-nation Toryism.
The immediate answer is likely “no,” at least as long as the Conservative Party remains intact. The concept of “one nation,” attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, has persisted through various political climates, from the conservatism of Lord Salisbury to the more revolutionary approach of Margaret Thatcher. As long as the party exists, a faction representing a more moderate viewpoint will continue to be part of its identity, likely still labeled as one-nation.
Looking back at last year’s leadership election, it appears that there were positive indicators for the one-nation faction. Candidates like James Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat garnered considerable support within the parliamentary party, indicating that a significant segment of Tory MPs aligned with a more moderate agenda. However, neither candidate advanced to the final stage, highlighting an unfortunate lapse in strategy for the one-nation wing. There’s an undeniable truth that this group is currently facing significant challenges rooted in an ideological stagnation.
Reflecting on last year’s leadership race, many individuals who supported Cleverly switched allegiance to Kemi Badenoch in an effort to block Jenrick’s ascension. This tactical maneuvering came with the understanding that Badenoch lacked a clear policy agenda, yet represented a necessary alternative. In doing so, they chose to sidestep an important introspection regarding the policies and performance of the past 14 years, a discussion that has been summarily avoided by the left wing of the Tory Party since the last general election.
As a result, misguided discussions have emerged suggesting that the Conservatives’ electoral losses were merely a question of “competence,” distinct from doctrinal failures. However, in politics, these elements are often intertwined. For example, the inconsistency in immigration promises—from commitments to reduce numbers to the operational reality of increasing them—illustrates a disconnect that has contributed to electoral defeats.
A grim reality that moderate Tory MPs must face is that the perceived rightward shift in recent years has largely been rhetorical rather than significant. Excluding Brexit, which, while pivotal, does not single-handedly address issues like housing affordability and energy costs, the right wing has mostly achieved its objectives without substantial policy changes.
It may seem counterintuitive, but it holds true that NHS funding saw a real-term increase of 25% between 2010 and 2023 without any major attempts at structural reform. More young people have access to higher education than ever before, immigration levels have surged to meet labor market demands, and tax rates have risen. Though initiatives like the Rwanda scheme signaled a more right-leaning agenda, the implementation attempts by Rishi Sunak fell short of challenging existing legal frameworks, largely avoiding the contentious topic of legal immigration entirely.
This disconnection has played a critical role in the Conservative Party’s substantial losses in the last elections, leaving them alienated from voter concerns. Badenoch’s observation that the party “talked right, but governed left” reflects an undeniable truth, even though she has yet to articulate a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy.
The response to the ascendant Ukip movement further underscores the intellectual stagnation within the Conservative Party. As figures like Nigel Farage gained prominence, they often dictated the tone of discussion on issues such as Europe and immigration. Meanwhile, leaders like David Cameron oscillated between promises picked to placate party factions without a genuine plan to address underlying concerns, such as significantly high net immigration numbers.
Despite critiques, one-nation MPs provided little in the way of tangible solutions to counteract such populism, missing opportunities to capture disillusioned voters after the party’s significant setbacks in elections. This absence of coherent strategies leaves the one-nation faction in a precarious position.
Ironically, the one-nation Conservatives, who may be the most traditionally conservative section of the party, often pride themselves on being pragmatic rather than ideological. This approach typically promotes stability and moderate adjustments; however, it risks stagnating into an entrenched defense of the status quo, where any radical measures are reflexively dismissed. This tendency is exacerbated by an understandable reluctance among former ministers to acknowledge their roles in overseeing systems that are now increasingly dysfunctional.
Ultimately, the ascendance of right-leaning policies is because they present the only strategic responses in a vacuum of alternatives. The existential questions faced by the party regarding issues like immigration and the financial health of public services remain largely unanswered. With no compelling one-nation alternatives being proposed, it’s easy to see why the party gravitates towards the solutions offered by figures like Jenrick or Farage.
While potential solutions and intellectual underpinnings exist that could be integrated into a revitalized one-nation philosophy, Conservative MPs cannot complain about their party’s shift towards more radical answers when they currently lack the viable alternatives to provide a credible counter-narrative.
Source
www.theguardian.com