'Ian Gilmour and One Nation Conservatism'
Neill, Edmund (2023) 'Ian Gilmour and One Nation Conservatism'. Revue Francaise de Civilsation Britannique (French Journal of British Studies), XXVIII (1).
Abstract
This article examines the place of Ian Gilmour within the ‘One Nation’ conservative tradition. First, it examines possible definitions of ‘One Nation’ conservatism, rejecting claims that one can fully find its origins in the writings of career of Benjamin Disraeli, or that the ideology is so wide and amorphous that it can encompass Thatcherism as well as those more sympathetic to state aid for the poor. Rather it suggests that to capture the essence of ‘One Nation’, one should examine the original pamphlets of the group, ‘One Nation’ (1950) and ‘Change is Our Ally’ (1954). This reveals that ‘One Nation’ conservatism has four aspects: a desire to accept the welfare state (albeit with more targeting and less universality), a suspicion of central planning (albeit with tolerance of Keynesianism), an emphasis on a distinctive conservative tradition to developing the welfare state, and a set of concerns that are particular to the mid-twentieth century – including underpopulation, a need for migration to the Commonwealth, and worries about lack of resources for the welfare state at a time of austerity. Second, the article stresses that by the 1970s and 1980s, five factors concerning the economy and the welfare state had significantly changed, including the advent of affluence in the 1950s and 1960s, the increasing life expectancy of the population, the end of the economic ‘golden age’ and the undermining of Keynesianism in the 1970s, the rise of ‘New Right’ conservatism, and new constitutional challenges associated with the EEC, Celtic nationalism, and class dealignment. Third, the article argues that one can, nevertheless, make a judgment about how closely Ian Gilmour’s work fits into the ‘One Nation’ conservative tradition, and examines three areas of his work. Firstly, looking at his views on history and the constitution, the article contends he respects the original account of historical development given in ‘One Nation’, but develops it, providing a more detailed account of Conservative Party history to try and prove that the party has been most successful when least ‘ideological’. This is coupled with advocacy of constitutional changes to centralized power – including increased use of referendums and reform of the House of Lords. Secondly, considering economics, Gilmour’s rejection of Thatcherite monetarism and advocacy of Keynesianism arguably remained true to the ‘One Nation’ tradition, but his increasing tendency to uphold all of what he saw as a post-war ‘consensus’ and claim that Thatcherism was entirely unconservative departed from it. Finally, considering social policy, again some of Gilmour’s arguments remained firmly within the ‘One Nation’ tradition – including those lamenting unemployment, criticizing the Thatcherite distinction between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor. But others – such as his strong support for a centralized NHS, advocacy of universal benefits, and support for a universal basic income – departed from it. Overall, the article contends Gilmour was a powerful re-interpreter of the ‘One Nation’ tradition, even if he did not always remain true to its original tenets.
Actions (login required)
 |
Edit Item |