Oscar Houseago is a public affairs professional and a former parliamentary assistant.
Conservative Party history has been full of division and debate: on policy, on leadership, and of late, on the Party’s survival. Yet, anyone with an interest in Conservative Party politics will have been faced with the same fundamental question: what does it mean to be a ‘true’ Conservative, and how can that conservatism guide the Party from its worst electoral defeat in history back into government?
Part of the difficulty is that ‘true’ conservatism has become a factional weapon, deployed by one wing of the Party to delegitimise another, as though belonging to a specific school of thought matters more than holding the right principles. But the real answer lies not in faction or policy, but in the anchor principle that has held the Conservative broad church together from the Party’s foundation – freedom.
Freedom sits at the bedrock of conservative identity because, unlike the principles that follow from it, it cannot be derived from anything more fundamental. Personal responsibility requires the freedom to choose. Opportunity requires the freedom to pursue it. Pragmatism only has value in a society free enough to benefit from it. That is what makes freedom the anchor principle: not that other traditions do not invoke it, but that only conservatism treats it as the irreducible condition from which everything else follows.
It is worth being precise about what that freedom means in practice, because it operates in two distinct forms. Freedom from removes obstacles: from the overreach of the state, excessive taxation, the regulatory burden that stifles enterprise and constrains individual choice. Freedom to opens doors: to build a business, to keep the fruits of your labour, to speak without fear, to determine your own future. Both matter. Conservatism is the only political tradition that takes both seriously and organises around them.
The question of Conservative identity is not new. Since Robert Peel gave the Party its modern foundation in the 1830s, what conservatism stands for has never been fully settled. Peel split the Party over the repeal of the Corn Laws. Disraeli rebuilt it around One Nation principles. Churchill defined it through national character and resolve. Thatcher repositioned it around economic freedom, private enterprise and a rolling back of the state. Each leader produced a different answer, shaped by their own interpretation of conservatism and how its values should interact with the society of their time.
Modern Conservative Party politics has been no different. Brexit forced a reckoning on sovereignty and identity, while the tenures of Johnson, Truss and Sunak each reopened familiar fault lines on economic management, social values and political character. By the close of fourteen years in government in 2024, a party that had got into the habit of governing policy-first and principle-second was left not merely with an historic election defeat, but with bitter and unresolved questions about what it stood for and whether it could recover.
Part of the problem is the premise that people use as their starting point. All sorts of factors, from policy and character to fashion style, have formed contemporary understandings of how conservatism should be interpreted. One only needs to cast an eye across the sea of blue outfits at Party conference to appreciate that. But these are cosmetic factors. They do not account for why people from all walks of life, regardless of background, identify as conservatives. Nor do they explain why a significant proportion of the electorate consistently lend their vote to the world’s oldest and most successful political party to govern.
Unlike its rivals on the left or populist challengers elsewhere on the horseshoe spectrum, conservatism possesses a unique set of principles that guides the Party’s evolution: pragmatism, opportunity, personal responsibility, to name just a few. But above all others, the anchor principle that must drive Conservative thought, decision-making and policy delivery is freedom.
Conservatives often make the case for freedom in economic and social terms. Less regulation gives businesses the freedom to take risks, operate efficiently and grow. Lower taxation means hard working people keep more of what they earn, and businesses face lower costs that allow them to invest and expand. These are the conditions that determine whether an economy generates opportunity or suppresses it, whether enterprise is rewarded or burdened, and ultimately whether a country grows or stagnates. Similarly, freedom of expression, a free press and the liberty of individuals to live, speak and associate as they choose are central to the conservative case. They are the conditions under which individuals can challenge and participate in democratic society without fear of the state determining what is permissible.
But to reduce freedom purely to its economic or social expression is to undersell it. At its core, freedom is a philosophical principle and the defining hallmark of ‘true conservatism.’ It is the belief that society functions best when individuals are unencumbered by an overbearing central authority. That people have the right to live as they see fit within the laws of the land. That businesses, when left to operate without unnecessary interference, will innovate and serve their customers better than any bureaucratic officials ever could. That communities, given the tools and the trust, are better placed to determine their own futures than a Whitehall department operating at a distance.
This is not to suggest that the state does not have an important role. The defence of the realm comes first and foremost, alongside an education system that equips individuals with the skills to succeed, essential community services that keep society safe and ensure vulnerable people are not left behind, and a business environment that fosters confidence and growth. Conservatives do not argue for the absence of the state. We argue for a state that knows its place: one that sets the framework, upholds the rule of law and then steps back. Arguing for a state that enables rather than controls, driven by a philosophy of individual agency and freedom, is at its core what makes a ‘true‘ conservative.
This answer also addresses the factional debate. Diversity of Conservative thought is not a vulnerability or a problem to be managed. It is evidence of a living philosophy, one that has intelligently adapted to the demands of different times and societies without abandoning its core. Those who deploy ‘true conservatism‘ as a threshold of right-wing purity misunderstand what the term means. What makes someone a ‘true’ conservative is not which faction they identify with, but whether freedom, in all its forms, sits at the centre of how they think.
The conclusion I bring myself to is that ‘true’ conservatism cannot be defined in terms of policy, because policy is symptomatic of the values that decision-makers bring to their choices. Equally, it cannot be defined by social class, personal characteristics, or the cultural stereotypes that those on the left like to deploy. It can only be defined by principle.
The principle of freedom, which most other political traditions pay lip service to but few are prepared to organise around, is what unites the Conservative broad church. It connects the One Nation tradition to the Thatcherite, the social conservative to the economic liberal. The extent to which freedom is applied may differ, but it remains the compass that underpins Conservative thinking and decision-making across every tradition.
History bears out that the Party’s most consequential periods in government have been those in which freedom served as the organising principle. Peel’s liberalisation of trade, Disraeli’s reforms that opened opportunity to those previously excluded, Thatcher’s transformation of the British economy through privatisation and deregulation. When Conservatives have governed by principle rather than political convenience, they have governed well and won the public’s trust to do so again.
As the Party rebuilds, freedom must be treated as the anchor principle from which everything else follows, not one consideration among many, and it is the standard against which the Party’s renewal should be judged.
Oscar Houseago is a public affairs professional and a former parliamentary assistant.
Conservative Party history has been full of division and debate: on policy, on leadership, and of late, on the Party’s survival. Yet, anyone with an interest in Conservative Party politics will have been faced with the same fundamental question: what does it mean to be a ‘true’ Conservative, and how can that conservatism guide the Party from its worst electoral defeat in history back into government?
Part of the difficulty is that ‘true’ conservatism has become a factional weapon, deployed by one wing of the Party to delegitimise another, as though belonging to a specific school of thought matters more than holding the right principles. But the real answer lies not in faction or policy, but in the anchor principle that has held the Conservative broad church together from the Party’s foundation – freedom.
Freedom sits at the bedrock of conservative identity because, unlike the principles that follow from it, it cannot be derived from anything more fundamental. Personal responsibility requires the freedom to choose. Opportunity requires the freedom to pursue it. Pragmatism only has value in a society free enough to benefit from it. That is what makes freedom the anchor principle: not that other traditions do not invoke it, but that only conservatism treats it as the irreducible condition from which everything else follows.
It is worth being precise about what that freedom means in practice, because it operates in two distinct forms. Freedom from removes obstacles: from the overreach of the state, excessive taxation, the regulatory burden that stifles enterprise and constrains individual choice. Freedom to opens doors: to build a business, to keep the fruits of your labour, to speak without fear, to determine your own future. Both matter. Conservatism is the only political tradition that takes both seriously and organises around them.
The question of Conservative identity is not new. Since Robert Peel gave the Party its modern foundation in the 1830s, what conservatism stands for has never been fully settled. Peel split the Party over the repeal of the Corn Laws. Disraeli rebuilt it around One Nation principles. Churchill defined it through national character and resolve. Thatcher repositioned it around economic freedom, private enterprise and a rolling back of the state. Each leader produced a different answer, shaped by their own interpretation of conservatism and how its values should interact with the society of their time.
Modern Conservative Party politics has been no different. Brexit forced a reckoning on sovereignty and identity, while the tenures of Johnson, Truss and Sunak each reopened familiar fault lines on economic management, social values and political character. By the close of fourteen years in government in 2024, a party that had got into the habit of governing policy-first and principle-second was left not merely with an historic election defeat, but with bitter and unresolved questions about what it stood for and whether it could recover.
Part of the problem is the premise that people use as their starting point. All sorts of factors, from policy and character to fashion style, have formed contemporary understandings of how conservatism should be interpreted. One only needs to cast an eye across the sea of blue outfits at Party conference to appreciate that. But these are cosmetic factors. They do not account for why people from all walks of life, regardless of background, identify as conservatives. Nor do they explain why a significant proportion of the electorate consistently lend their vote to the world’s oldest and most successful political party to govern.
Unlike its rivals on the left or populist challengers elsewhere on the horseshoe spectrum, conservatism possesses a unique set of principles that guides the Party’s evolution: pragmatism, opportunity, personal responsibility, to name just a few. But above all others, the anchor principle that must drive Conservative thought, decision-making and policy delivery is freedom.
Conservatives often make the case for freedom in economic and social terms. Less regulation gives businesses the freedom to take risks, operate efficiently and grow. Lower taxation means hard working people keep more of what they earn, and businesses face lower costs that allow them to invest and expand. These are the conditions that determine whether an economy generates opportunity or suppresses it, whether enterprise is rewarded or burdened, and ultimately whether a country grows or stagnates. Similarly, freedom of expression, a free press and the liberty of individuals to live, speak and associate as they choose are central to the conservative case. They are the conditions under which individuals can challenge and participate in democratic society without fear of the state determining what is permissible.
But to reduce freedom purely to its economic or social expression is to undersell it. At its core, freedom is a philosophical principle and the defining hallmark of ‘true conservatism.’ It is the belief that society functions best when individuals are unencumbered by an overbearing central authority. That people have the right to live as they see fit within the laws of the land. That businesses, when left to operate without unnecessary interference, will innovate and serve their customers better than any bureaucratic officials ever could. That communities, given the tools and the trust, are better placed to determine their own futures than a Whitehall department operating at a distance.
This is not to suggest that the state does not have an important role. The defence of the realm comes first and foremost, alongside an education system that equips individuals with the skills to succeed, essential community services that keep society safe and ensure vulnerable people are not left behind, and a business environment that fosters confidence and growth. Conservatives do not argue for the absence of the state. We argue for a state that knows its place: one that sets the framework, upholds the rule of law and then steps back. Arguing for a state that enables rather than controls, driven by a philosophy of individual agency and freedom, is at its core what makes a ‘true‘ conservative.
This answer also addresses the factional debate. Diversity of Conservative thought is not a vulnerability or a problem to be managed. It is evidence of a living philosophy, one that has intelligently adapted to the demands of different times and societies without abandoning its core. Those who deploy ‘true conservatism‘ as a threshold of right-wing purity misunderstand what the term means. What makes someone a ‘true’ conservative is not which faction they identify with, but whether freedom, in all its forms, sits at the centre of how they think.
The conclusion I bring myself to is that ‘true’ conservatism cannot be defined in terms of policy, because policy is symptomatic of the values that decision-makers bring to their choices. Equally, it cannot be defined by social class, personal characteristics, or the cultural stereotypes that those on the left like to deploy. It can only be defined by principle.
The principle of freedom, which most other political traditions pay lip service to but few are prepared to organise around, is what unites the Conservative broad church. It connects the One Nation tradition to the Thatcherite, the social conservative to the economic liberal. The extent to which freedom is applied may differ, but it remains the compass that underpins Conservative thinking and decision-making across every tradition.
History bears out that the Party’s most consequential periods in government have been those in which freedom served as the organising principle. Peel’s liberalisation of trade, Disraeli’s reforms that opened opportunity to those previously excluded, Thatcher’s transformation of the British economy through privatisation and deregulation. When Conservatives have governed by principle rather than political convenience, they have governed well and won the public’s trust to do so again.
As the Party rebuilds, freedom must be treated as the anchor principle from which everything else follows, not one consideration among many, and it is the standard against which the Party’s renewal should be judged.