Terrel Mollel: Why sticking with my One Nation conservatism doesn’t make me a Lib Dem
Trust is earned, not demanded.
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, …
Trust is earned, not demanded.
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, …
Terrel Mollel: Why sticking with my One Nation conservatism doesn’t make me a Lib Dem
Trust is earned, not demanded.
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, …
0 Comments
0 Shares
40 Views
0 Reviews
