
Is one-nation Toryism dead? Not yet, but it can't let Reform and the right provide all the answers
This is not a happy time to be on the one-nation wing of the Conservative party. The final round of last year's leadership election was between two candidates from the right of the party, and since then it has been Robert Jenrick, the more rightwing of the two, who has emerged as the party's centre of gravity – a remarkable feat for a man who lost the race.
His recently reported comments about a coalition with Reform UK (or perhaps, as sources close to him insist, its voters) have put the question of the Tories' future direction back in the spotlight. Is Nigel Farage the herald of a fundamental rightward shift? Is this, as one fellow journalist put it to me, 'the final death of one-nation Toryism'?
The short answer is 'probably not' – at least not unless the Tory party dies its own final death. The 'one nation' label dates back to Benjamin Disraeli; it survived the reactionary hegemony of Lord Salisbury and the revolutionary one of Margaret Thatcher. So long as there is a Tory party, it will have a left wing and, historical labels being what they are, it will probably call itself one nation.
Last year's contest would also seem, on the surface at least, to provide that wing with some bullish indicators. Broadly speaking (for personal loyalties and ambitions confound precise readings from such tallies), James Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat had the support of about half the parliamentary party. It took a real feat of self-sabotage for neither to reach the final. Yet there can be no doubt that one-nation Conservatism is in trouble – and the root of that trouble is that it is intellectually exhausted.
Consider last year's leadership election again. Many Cleverly supporters ended up rowing in behind Kemi Badenoch to stop Jenrick. They knew they didn't like the policy direction he was proposing. But the alternative was a candidate who made a virtue of having no policy direction at all and who, on issues such as immigration and the European court of human rights, is now inching towards his positions anyway.
Badenoch was an opportunity to hit the snooze button on an intellectual reckoning with the past 14 years, and postponing that reckoning has been the sum of the Tory left's ambitions since the general election.
Hence nonsensical arguments such as the Conservatives lost not because of any failure of doctrine, but on 'competence', two things that cannot in politics be so cleanly distinguished. Where was the incompetence on immigration, for example: promising to cut it to the tens of thousands, or failing (indeed, not really trying) to fulfil that promise?
The unhappy truth that capital-S 'Sensible' Tory MPs must confront is that any 'lurch to the right' over the past few years was almost entirely rhetorical rather than substantive, and with the exception of Brexit – which, however important you think it is, is not the root cause of our housing and energy price crises – they got what they wanted most of the time.
Perhaps that feels counterintuitive, but it's true. NHS spending increased by 25% in real terms between 2010 and 2023 without (post-Andrew Lansley) any serious effort at structural reform; more young people than ever were funnelled into higher education; immigration was allowed to rise to whatever level industry and sector lobby groups demanded; taxation levels soared.
Yes, the Rwanda scheme was certainly very right-coded. But not only did Rishi Sunak bend over backwards to try – and fail – to implement it without fundamentally challenging our existing legal and treaty obligations, but the whole thing was in part a way to talk about immigration without talking about legal immigration, which Boris Johnson had casually doubled.
This disconnect played a significant role in the Tories' shattering defeat last year by alienating voters on all fronts; Badenoch is right to point out that the party 'talked right, but governed left', even if she cannot or will not offer any compelling explanation as to why.
Perhaps the most telling evidence of this intellectual aridity is the way the Tories responded to the rise of Ukip. Like Jenrick now, Nigel Farage was able for years to set the tempo of Conservative thinking – or at least Conservative language – on Europe and immigration; time and again, David Cameron either made promises he had no intention of keeping (net immigration to 'tens of thousands') or didn't expect to have to keep (an in/out referendum).
Some one-nation MPs certainly criticised his 'pandering' in this way. But they never furnished him or his successors with an actual alternative solution to the problem of a party that came second in 100 seats in 2015 and was well positioned to walk away with a critical slice of the Tory vote.
At root, the problem currently facing the one-nation Tories is, paradoxically, that they are the most small-c Conservative faction; often self-consciously non-ideological, and united around the principle that the status quo more or less works and requires only sensible adjustment to keep the ship of state on course.
That is a healthy, conservative cast of mind, of course. But it can too easily ossify into a reflexive defence of the status quo, an instinctive distaste for radicalism mutating into the comforting belief that radical measures are never the answer, compounded in this case by the understandable reluctance on the part of former ministers to admit, even to themselves, to complacently presiding over systems that were slowly falling to pieces.
Ultimately, the reason the right is making the policy running is that it is the only force on the field. What is the one-nation solution to mass immigration, save shoring up a Westminster consensus that allows public opinion to be safely ignored? To the looming financial apocalypses in higher education and local government? To the unsustainable trajectory of NHS and entitlement spending?
I have no idea, and I write about the Conservative party for a living.
It's not that there aren't ideas out there, intellectual threads that could be woven into a relevant one-nation philosophy and programme. But MPs have no right to grumble about their party gravitating towards Jenrick's answers, or Farage's, when for now they are the only people offering any.
Henry Hill is deputy editor of ConservativeHome
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)

The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Too low, now too high': Rachel Reeves' winter fuel U-turn reignites fairness debate
As the government hikes the winter fuel payment threshold to £35,000, many Independent readers say the means test was too low last year – and is now far too high. The sudden shift has sparked frustration, confusion and claims of political opportunism. Many readers criticised the move as politically motivated, coming just days before a crucial spending review and following electoral losses and pressure from Reform UK. Several argued the new threshold is too high, with one pointing out that a £35k salary should not warrant government support, especially when many working-age families and the unemployed receive far less help. Others echoed the IFS and Resolution Foundation's concerns that the policy is poorly targeted and administratively messy, potentially creating unfair outcomes for households just above the income line. Some welcomed the return of payments for lower-income pensioners but questioned why the government scrapped them in the first place without a clear plan. Pensioners themselves weighed in too – some said they managed perfectly without the payments and felt younger families in poverty needed the support more. One commented: 'We are mortgage-free and have enough – give it to those who really need it.' The overall feeling from our community was that the government had acted too late and without transparency. The move was described as a 'headless chicken' reaction, lacking clarity on implementation, repayment, and future policy direction. Here's what you had to say: I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only. It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think. RickC Not a U-turn, just a high threshold It's not a U-turn. They brought in the concept of means testing the WFA and now they've raised the limit. A U-turn would be going back to universal WFA. Personally, I think they've set it far too high. I know plenty of families that would love to be earning £35k and getting guaranteed pay rises every year, plus money towards their fuel bill. KrakenUK Means test still not right Means test was too low before and is too high now – and should be based on household income. We're both pensioners with a joint income of close to £50k, no dependent kids, no mortgage. Added to this, we've got the protection of the triple lock. There is no way we need this money, whereas many young families do. WokeUp 4,000 lives at risk The enduring problem is that the government's own estimate said that 4,000 people would die of the cold if this policy was introduced. The excess deaths figures will not be published for another year and, in any case, are now very complicated. The question for me is: would I ever vote for people who were prepared to allow 4,000 old people to die because they don't understand economics? MrBishi We manage, give it to those who need it I've always said the same. We are mortgage-free, I'm on a state pension and get a small private pension. My wife, who is younger, still works part-time and gets around £600 per month. We manage perfectly. We know a lot of younger people who work and struggle with rents, children to keep, etc. Give it to them. Some pensioners out there are just plain greedy and want every penny piece they can grab. Ian Why should wealthy pensioners get it? I barely earn £35K as a 45-year-old professional in the NHS and certainly won't get that kind of money for a pension. Why should so many get a £300 handout when they've more than likely paid their mortgage and don't have to spend money on children, etc., any more? OnlyFishLeft Social care funding was the original point I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only. It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think. RickC Help paying the gas bill on £35k? Thirty-five grand coming in a year and you get help paying your gas bill? Truly outrageous. This suggests a person needs £35k a year, minimum, to live. So how about getting disabled people and the unemployed up to that rate then? Because they are far, far below. BigDogSmallBrain A compromise, but poorly communicated This sounds a more sensible compromise rather than going back to the old universal payment, but the government should have made this announcement last year so people would have been prepared for it, and it wouldn't have looked so much as if they were frightened of Farage. ruthmayjellings What if one earns over the limit? I suppose we will have to wait for the detail, but what happens if a couple claim the WFA (one per household) through the non-earning spouse, while the other has income over £35,000? That's not very clear. SteveHill Why not last year? Last year there was no money so they cut WFA and they can blame it on the Tories. This year the economy is in an even worse mess and they reinstate it, against all logic, and then they put the level far too high. No details as to how it will be paid for, how it will be recouped, nor how they will ID those who can get it and those who will have to pay it back. And if they suddenly found a system, why did they not use it last year? And I do not suppose the shellacking they got in May has anything at all to do with it, has it? Headless chickens, the lot of them — especially Reeves and Starmer. ListenVeryCarefully


Sky News
38 minutes ago
- Sky News
Dozens of MPs back campaign to revive playgrounds
More than 70 MPs are backing a campaign to revive England's playgrounds as pressure grows on the government to do more to tackle community decline to fight Reform UK. Labour MP Tom Hayes has tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would ensure playgrounds lost to development are replaced. Mr Hayes told Sky News it is a personal subject as he grew up in poverty, caring for two disabled parents, and without his local playground "they wouldn't have been able to afford any sort of leisure activity for me". "Talking to parents these days, with the cost of living crisis going on, they just don't have play areas on their doorstep like they used to. What they have instead is rusting swings or boarded-up playgrounds." The Bournemouth East MP said this speaks to a "wider hopelessness" that people are feeling about "littering in their streets, graffiti on their walls, potholes in their roads". "It just makes people feel like nobody really cares about their area. That's at a time when people are feeling hopeless about the possibility of change and Reform, obviously, are trying to capitalise on that." Under the last Labour government, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham launched England's first and only play strategy, which aimed to create 3,500 new play spaces across every local authority - backed by £235m of funding. It was abandoned by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition two years later and facilities have been in sharp decline since then, according to Play England which has developed the amendment Mr Hayes is tabling. The amendment would require councils in England to assess play provision and integrate "play sufficiency" into local plans and planning decisions - similar to a law that already exists in Scotland and Wales. It would also require developers to deliver and fund adequate play infrastructure, with a focus on inclusive play equipment for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Mr Hayes said this would not cost the Treasury anything and "is such a simple thing" the government can do quickly for children and young people "who have been shafted for so long". It is backed by 71 MPs from across Labour, the Conservatives, the Lib Dems and the Greens, with many supporters hopeful it could also reduce screen time amid mounting concerns about online safety. Pressure on government over left-behind areas Amendments by backbench MPs are not usually agreed to but can be used to put pressure on the government, with the issue to be debated in the House of Commons this week as the planning bills enter the report stage. Mr Hayes said his playground campaign was just the start as he backed the resurrection of Sure Start centres, following calls from Rother Valley MP Jake Richards last week. There is growing momentum among Labour backbenchers who want to see the government give more of a priority to social infrastructure to deliver tangible change to communities and fend off the threat of Reform UK. MPs and policy insiders have told Sky News they are concerned Downing Street's ambition to grow GDP with long-term transport and infrastructure projects will not make a difference in places that look and feel forgotten, even if achieved. As Sky News has previously reported, several Red Wall MPs have backed the work of the Independent Commission On Neighbourhoods (ICON), which has identified 613 "mission-critical" neighbourhoods in need of a cash boost to ensure people in left-behind areas can benefit from growth. 3:04 The commission, chaired by Labour peer Hilary Armstrong, highlights the need to regenerate neighbourhoods with facilities like libraries, parks and community centres for voters to feel a difference. Any money for such a project will be set out in Chancellor Rachel Reeves's spending review on Wednesday, when she will allocate funds for each department over the coming years. One of ICON's supporters is Blackpool South MP Chris Webb, who has also signed Mr Hayes's amendment. He told Sky News playgrounds "will make a real difference to families in Blackpool, which has the most mission-critical neighbourhoods in the country". "I'm committed to fighting for policies that benefit our community, and I'm thrilled to be working with Tom Hayes MP, the play sector and Play England to make this vision a reality."


New Statesman
41 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Will Labour's winter fuel U-turn work?
Winston Churchill believed that 'the Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted'. The same, one minister tells me, is true of Rachel Reeves and winter fuel payments. Two days before her first Spending Review (which I preview here), Reeves has announced that winter fuel payments will be restored to three-quarters of pensioners (or all those earning below £35,000). The Chancellor wants to use the event to tell a story of pro-growth investment and dispel accusations of austerity – hence this advance U-turn. As I reported last August, plenty inside government always feared that the original £11,500 earnings threshold – above which the £200-£300 benefit was withdrawn – was too brutal. So it proved. MPs began referring to the policy as Labour's 'original sin' and it was blamed for the party's dismal performance in the local elections and its defeat to Reform in the Runcorn by-election. Though Reeves long defended the measure as an emblem of fiscal discipline, the Chancellor herself came to conclude that it was untenable (cabinet colleagues such as Ed Miliband and Liz Kendall had doubts from the start). Reeves is now making the argument that some new Labour MPs wanted her to deliver from the start: that it is 'fair' to withdraw the benefit from the 'wealthiest' pensioners (two million earn over £35,000). Such a framing could have opened up a conversation around generational inequality but the policy was instead justified as a response to the Conservatives' '£22bn black hole'. Even now, some inside government fear that an opportunity has been missed to make a values-based argument. Here, for instance, is how Gordon Brown explained his U-turn over the abolition of the 10p income tax rate in 2008. 'It really hurt that suddenly people felt I wasn't on the side of people on middle and modest incomes – because on the side of hard-working families is the only place I've ever wanted to be,' he said. 'And from now on it's the only place I ever will be.' But Reeves avoided such a moral narrative today, leaving Labour open to the charge that it has merely U-turned out of political expediency. In recent weeks she and Starmer have also sought to tie the move to an improving economy – growth of 0.7 per cent in the first quarter – yet this creates an additional headache: renewed pressure to reverse other measures (such as the health and disability benefit cuts) even as debt continues to rise. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The winter fuel episode ultimately left Labour looking both unfair and weak, a deadly combination for any government. For Reeves, the test is whether she can now escape from her own history and use this moment to reset her Chancellorship. Related