You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson provides a detailed analysis of the Conservative Party — the oldest enduring political party in the UK and one of the most electorally successful in any democracy. For Edexcel Component 1, candidates must understand the party's ideological foundations, the way those foundations have evolved, and the internal factions through which contemporary Conservatism is contested. A strong answer never treats the party as a single, fixed entity: it traces the tension between an older One Nation tradition and the Thatcherite / New Right tradition that reshaped the party from the late 1970s, and it shows how this tension continues to play out over Europe, the size of the state and questions of national identity.
A central organising idea for the lesson is that Conservatism is, in the British tradition, less a rigid ideology than a disposition — a preference for the tried and tested, a scepticism about grand schemes to remake society, and a pragmatic willingness to adapt in order to conserve. This is precisely why the party has been able to house such different tendencies and why its history is one of continual reinvention.
The party's remarkable electoral record is itself a reason to study it closely. For long stretches of the twentieth century the Conservatives were the dominant party of government, and they have held office, alone or in coalition, for more of the modern era than any rival. Explaining how a party can be at once so internally divided and so electorally successful is one of the most rewarding questions in UK Politics, and the answer lies largely in the interplay between the traditions and binding forces examined in this lesson. A confident answer keeps two things in view at once: the genuine ideological disagreements that run through the party, and the pragmatic, power-seeking instinct that has repeatedly allowed it to subordinate those disagreements to the goal of winning and holding office.
The Conservative Party traces its lineage to the Tory tradition of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, but the modern party is conventionally dated to Sir Robert Peel's Tamworth Manifesto of 1834, which committed the Tories to accepting moderate reform — most notably the 1832 Reform Act — while defending established institutions. This act of pragmatic adaptation set the template for the party's subsequent success: conserving the essential order of society by conceding gradual change rather than resisting it absolutely.
| Period | Key features |
|---|---|
| Nineteenth century | Peel and the Tamworth Manifesto (1834); Disraeli's One Nation conservatism, with social reform and an extension of the franchise (1867); identification with empire and the Union |
| Interwar period | Dominance under Baldwin and Chamberlain; the party as the natural party of government; the controversy of appeasement |
| Post-war consensus (1945–79) | Acceptance of the welfare state, the mixed economy and broadly Keynesian economic management; the "middle way" associated with Macmillan |
| Thatcher era (1979–90) | Free-market economics, privatisation, trade-union reform and a growing euroscepticism — a decisive break with the post-war settlement |
| Major to Cameron (1990–2016) | Deep internal divisions over Europe; defeat and "wilderness years" after 1997; modernisation and the coalition under Cameron; austerity |
| Brexit era (2016–present) | The EU referendum and its aftermath; Johnson's populist, "levelling up" conservatism; the short Truss premiership; Sunak's attempt at stabilisation; the 2024 general election defeat |
This long history reveals a consistent pattern: the party's greatest successes have come when it has adapted to changing social and economic conditions while presenting that adaptation as the defence of continuity. Peel accepted the principle of reform in 1834; Disraeli embraced an extension of the franchise and social reform later in the century; Conservative governments accepted the welfare state after 1945; and Thatcher remade the party's economic philosophy in the 1980s. In each case the party absorbed change rather than resisting it outright. The recurring source of crisis, by contrast, has been Europe, an issue that has cut across the party's traditional alignments and repeatedly set faction against faction — from the divisions over the Maastricht Treaty under John Major to the upheavals of the Brexit years. Understanding this pattern of pragmatic adaptation punctuated by European crises is the key to making sense of the party's modern history.
| Value | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Tradition | Respect for established institutions and customs; a preference for gradual, organic change over revolution, because institutions embody accumulated wisdom |
| Pragmatism | A practical, flexible "what works" approach rather than abstract ideological blueprints |
| Organic society | Society is understood as a living organism in which institutions — family, community, nation — bind people together and create obligation |
| Hierarchy and authority | The view that some natural inequality and ranking is inevitable, and that strong, legitimate authority is necessary for order |
| Property and free enterprise | Private property is seen as a foundation of liberty, responsibility and social stability; markets are valued for creating prosperity |
| Law and order | A firm state is needed to maintain order, uphold the rule of law and protect citizens |
| Nation and the Union | A strong attachment to the nation, national identity and the preservation of the United Kingdom as a single state |
| Scepticism about human nature | A more pessimistic view of human nature — humans are imperfect and fallible — so institutions, tradition and law are needed to restrain and guide behaviour |
These values are not held in isolation but form an interlocking outlook. The sceptical view of human nature, for instance, underpins the emphasis on law, order and authority: if people are fallible and prone to selfishness, then a firm framework of rules and strong institutions is needed to channel behaviour towards the common good. Likewise, the attachment to tradition flows from the same source — inherited institutions are valued precisely because they embody the accumulated experience of generations and have been tested by time, whereas untried schemes drawn up by fallible reformers may have unintended and damaging consequences. This coherence is part of what distinguishes conservatism as a serious outlook rather than mere resistance to change.
These values explain the party's instinctive caution about radical reform and its emphasis on stability, security and continuity. However, the relative weight given to each value differs sharply between the party's factions — most obviously over how large and active the state should be.
A classic statement of the conservative disposition is the preference, in the words often associated with the philosopher Michael Oakeshott, "to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded". This captures the party's traditional scepticism towards sweeping schemes of reform and its trust in inherited institutions and accumulated practical wisdom.
It is important to recognise a genuine debate about whether Conservatism is best understood as an ideology at all. On one view, it is a coherent set of beliefs about human nature, society and the state, with identifiable principles. On another, more traditional view, it is better described as a disposition or attitude — a temperamental preference for caution, continuity and pragmatism — that resists being reduced to a fixed doctrine. This ambiguity is not a weakness but part of the party's strength: precisely because Conservatism is more an attitude than a rigid creed, it has been able to adapt repeatedly to changed circumstances, absorbing new ideas (such as free-market economics in the 1980s) while presenting them as a defence of enduring values. A top-band answer can use this point to explain why the party has survived and prospered for so long.
One Nation Conservatives argue that supporting the vulnerable is not a betrayal of conservative principle but a precondition of social stability: a contented, cohesive society is the surest defence against the disorder and class conflict that conservatives fear.
One Nation conservatism is best understood as the dominant tradition of the party for much of the twentieth century, and especially during the post-war consensus, when Conservative governments accepted the welfare state, the mixed economy and a commitment to full employment. Its philosophical roots lie in a particular reading of the organic society: if society is a single body in which all classes are mutually dependent, then the wealthy have an obligation to the poor, and the state has a legitimate role in binding the nation together. This paternalism distinguishes One Nation conservatism sharply from the more individualist, market-driven strand that came to dominate after 1979, and the tension between the two is the central fault line of the modern party.
A common misunderstanding is to equate One Nation conservatism simply with "moderation" or "the centre". In fact it rests on a distinctive principle: the belief that stability and order are best preserved through social obligation, not merely through markets and individual effort. Disraeli's warning against the nation dividing into "two nations" of rich and poor was not a left-wing sentiment but a profoundly conservative one — a concern that gross inequality and a neglected poor would breed resentment, disorder and ultimately revolution. From this perspective, measures to support the disadvantaged are a form of social insurance that protects the existing order, which is exactly why One Nation Conservatives can defend the welfare state on conservative grounds. Recognising this principled foundation, rather than treating the tradition as merely a "soft" version of Thatcherism, is the mark of a genuinely informed answer.
There is a genuine intellectual puzzle at the heart of Thatcherism that examiners reward candidates for noticing: it is, in important respects, a liberal doctrine grafted onto a conservative party. Its economic strand — a faith in free markets, deregulation and the rolling back of the state — descends from classical liberalism, not from traditional conservatism's preference for organic, gradual change and a strong, paternalist state. Thatcherism reconciled the two by pairing this economic liberalism with a firmly conservative emphasis on the strong state in matters of defence, law and order and national identity. The result has sometimes been summarised as wanting a "free economy and a strong state". This combination explains both the dynamism of Thatcherism and the unease it provoked among One Nation traditionalists, who feared that unleashing market forces would corrode the very social bonds and institutions that conservatives are meant to conserve.
The legacy of Thatcherism is profound and contested. Supporters credit it with reviving a stagnant economy, curbing over-mighty trade unions and spreading ownership; critics blame it for rising inequality, the decline of industrial communities and a more individualistic culture. Crucially, Thatcherism reset the terms of British politics so thoroughly that even New Labour accepted much of its economic settlement, and the question of how far to remain "Thatcherite" has divided the Conservative Party ever since.
This right-populist strand sits awkwardly with both of the party's older traditions. It shares Thatcherism's instinct for a strong state on questions of sovereignty, borders and national identity, but it is frequently willing to support a more interventionist economic policy — state aid for struggling regions, infrastructure spending, a more activist industrial strategy — than Thatcherite free-marketeers would accept. At the same time, its cultural conservatism and economic interventionism appeal to exactly the kind of working-class, non-graduate voters who deserted Labour in 2019, but can unsettle the more socially liberal, free-market wing of the party. The rise of Reform UK, which competes directly for these sovereigntist and culturally conservative voters, has sharpened the dilemma, forcing the Conservatives to decide how far to chase that vote at the risk of alienating moderate, centrist supporters.
The relationship between the party's traditions can be set out as a comparison, which is a useful structure for an essay on whether the Conservatives are united or divided.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.