Terrel Mollel is an undergraduate at Queen Mary University of London studying Comparative Literature. He is a Young Conservative who has interned in Parliament, for the former Solicitor General, Robert Courts.
I first came to Parliament at 18-years old, unsure of how to negotiate my ideological position within our broad party.
I expect that some Liberal-Conservatives may share this challenge too. However, now at 22-years old I have made some headway to understanding how I fit in our broad-church Conservative Party. This journey involved considering another ideology, as well as (One-nation) Conservatism: New Liberalism. In summary, I weigh up aspects of One-nation Conservatism against New Liberalism to discern the value of the centre-right ground.
On reflection, identifying as a One-nation Conservative can appear like preferring a liberal persuasion within a traditional Party. So, this can prompt an important question: why choose the Conservative Party over the Liberal Party, if you’re more Liberal than traditional Conservatives? I have an answer, shaped by a comparison of the two liberal branches within these Parties. Yet a comparison of One-nation Conservatism and New Liberalism is due – to arrive at my answer. I begin with the former.
‘Young England’ originally featured in the former Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli’s novels (such as the Two Nations of 1845). A term referring to the energetic economic activity of England – stimulated by talented individuals. Disraeli was certainly optimistic about an England united under One-nation Conservatism. However, what does One-nation Conservatism amount to now? For example, before the 2024 general election the Times suggested that this branch of Conservatism may pervade the Parliamentary Party. But this powerful One-nation force has not manifested.
For instance, the Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch MP, is adamant about prioritising the “common ground” over the “centre ground”. Therefore, an appraisal of the Party’s relationship with its One-nation Conservative heritage is important. It can provide insight on how centre-right Conservatives can navigate political thought. Key to doing this is reconciling One-nation Conservatism with its ideological counterpart: New Liberalism.
The ‘Young England’ ideal – a meritocratic society, in which every citizen can harness their talent as an economic agent – is contentious because it does not address inequality. So, this dream of England when applied to reality appears like a collision that incurs extensive collateral damage. For example the 1897 Rowntree and 1902 Booth studies validated the Liberal Party’s concerns about inequality.
So, an alternative vision to ‘Young England’ was shaped. In particular the New Liberals, valuing the primacy of the individual, sought to ‘wage war against poverty’. Their 1909/1910 People’s budget was emblematic of a progressive approach to social security. It created a safety net through its liberal reforms. Meanwhile, the Conservatives – persuaded by the centre ground – were in the process of expanding the franchise substantially that same century.
I digress, following the Rowntree and Booth studies, the New Liberals identified a range of vulnerable people in Britain who could not be economic agents: the young, the elderly, the sick. Indeed, the liberal reforms sought to redress these peoples. But the legacy of One-nation Conservatism is more abstract than British New Liberalism. While thinkers like Benjamin Disraeli and Edmund Burke supported reform, One-nation Conservatism in comparison with Liberalism defines its reform tenet less clearly. This problematises an edifice that attempts to reconcile ‘two nations’ (the upper and lower classes respectively).
However, notably Burke advocated for a state to change and permit preservation of other aspects of its apparatus (in their book Reflections on the Revolution in France). In this way, One-nation Conservatism seems to value the stability of the polity as much as social cohesion. Therefore, ‘Young England’ is emblematic of more than just a free-market creed (‘Young England’).
One-nation Conservatism is a free-market and a dynamic state, whereas New Liberalism reduces everything to the primacy of the individual. Particularly as to Burke the logical progression from ‘Young England’ led to an ambition for a dynamic state. Such a society can accommodate the liberal reforms. Indeed, after the 1922 Conservative meeting that decisively defeated the Liberals, the Conservatives retained the Liberal’s ‘safety net’.
Young Conservatives like me value One-nation Conservatism. Particularly as Benjamin Disraeli’s ‘Young England’ ideal can be traced as the antecedent for much more than just a meritocratic creed. New Liberalism can appear more ambitious than the One-nation Conservatism on economic terms alone, but that does not account for everything. One-nation Conservatism is oriented around a different – greater – aim, rather than one prescriptive policy platform (the safety net).
One-nation Conservatism can appeal to our aspirations toward agency and our concerns about social cohesion. In contrast, New Liberalism just offers a reductive imagination of our capacity. While One-Nation Conservatism derives from an economic creed, ‘Young England’ was just the origin of a dynamic ideally that can be advanced. By reappraising our understanding of the two ideologies discussed, I believe that the value of the centre-right can be advanced. In summary, One-nation Conservatism remains a promising product of political thought. We must engage with it.