When our leader, Ed Davey, invited One Nation Conservatives to join the Liberal Democrats, he tapped into something important: the collapse of moderate conservatism and the hunger for decency in politics. Yet, this appeal has left some party members, myself included, uneasy. There is a fear that in trying to welcome disillusioned Conservatives, we risk softening our liberalism into a kind of managerial centrism, one that mistakes moderation for vision.
However, the truth is that Britain doesn’t need a return to One Nation Conservatism. It needs to rediscover One Nation Liberalism.
The phrase “One Nation” has always carried emotional power in British politics. When Disraeli wrote of a nation divided into “two nations”, one rich and one poor, he captured an anxiety that has never truly disappeared. Chimneys and factory gates no longer separate those two nations, but housing markets, regional inequities, and access to opportunity. The same fiscal fissures that alarmed Disraeli still scar Britain today, but the solutions no longer lie in patriotism from above. They lie in liberalism from below; building a society of free citizens bound by mutual respect, fairness, and opportunity.
Liberals have always been the true heirs to the One Nation tradition. Our philosophy is based on the belief that liberty is not merely the absence of restraint, but the presence of opportunity. The New Liberals of the early twentieth century understood this well. T. H. Green, L. T. Hobhouse, and John Hobson argued that freedom was meaningless if poverty, ignorance, or ill-health prevented people from exercising it. For them, liberty was social as much as political.
From Beveridge’s blueprint for welfare to Grimond’s call for community politics, from Paddy Ashdown’s belief in shared destiny to Jo Grimond’s call for “property-owning democracy”, Liberal Democrats have always sought to make Britain one nation in spirit as well as geography. We have done so, not by appealing to deference or hierarchy, but by insisting that every person should have the power to shape their own life and to contribute meaningfully to their community.
One Nation Liberalism means building a society where every citizen, regardless of birth, wealth, or postcode, has the freedom and means to live with dignity. It is freedom with fairness, compassion rooted in justice, and patriotism grounded in inclusion. It differs from One Nation Conservatism in both substance and spirit. Conservatism, even in its gentler form, relies on duty flowing from above to below. It is a politics of paternal care, however well-intentioned. Liberalism, by contrast, views society as a partnership of equals, united not by class or creed, but by a shared sense of responsibility. The state is not a moral guardian, but an enabler; its role is to create conditions in which liberty and fairness can flourish together.
Where One Nation Conservatism sought to hold a divided society together, One Nation Liberalism seeks to mend those divisions through empowerment. It believes that the moral health of a nation depends not on obedience, but on opportunity; not on hierarchy, but on human dignity.
This philosophy must shape our politics now more than ever. Too often, political centrism is defined by what it is not: not radical, not populist, not extreme. But One Nation Liberalism is not about trimming to the middle; it is about rebuilding the social fabric through fairness and empowerment.
Ed Davey’s outreach to One Nation Conservatives is understandable; decent people across the political spectrum are appalled by the moral decay of modern conservatism. But decency alone will not rebuild Britain. One Nation Liberalism must offer something bolder: a vision that united the decency of the centre with the purpose of radical reform.
We should not settle for simply being a sanctuary from Tory chaos. We should offer a roadmap for national renewal. That means reviving Beveridge’s spirit for the twenty-first century, and tackling the new “five giants” of our age: inequality, disinformation, disempowerment, environmental decay, and division.
In truth, liberalism has always carried the One Nation soul. We believe that the poor should not have to beg for opportunities, that the rich should not fear fairness, and that national pride should rest on inclusion over exclusion. If “One Nation” is to mean anything in modern Britain, it cannot be conservative. It must be liberal; a renewal of the social contract built on liberty, justice and compassion. We must not retreat into cautious centrism, but advance with confident liberalism.
Britain does not need One Nation Conservatism reborn; it needs One Nation Liberalism renewed.
* Jack Meredith is a member of the Welsh Liberal Democrats and an active campaigner and canvasser with Swansea and Gower Liberal Democrats. His writing focuses on democratic reform, social justice, trade unionism, economic democracy, and the institutional foundations of effective government. He has written for the Fabians, Lib Dem Voice, Liberator, Nation Cymru, Bylines Cymru, and Centre Think Tank.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
cim
Iain Donaldson
Jennie
Simon
Geoff Reid
13 Comments
Really interesting stuff
At the risk of boring people I’m rehashing a post one I made earlier in response to Caron’s 3:00 post yesterday. Apologies, but Jack’s post (as he warned us) does follow on.
“we risk softening our liberalism into a kind of managerial centrism, ”
The political offer wouldn’t be “managerial centralism”, but a position anchored around internationalism, human rights, markets and trade as free as possible but properly regulated. Policy would be based on evidence and/rational discussion, cares about fairness and a deep concern about the twin environmental threats of climate change and loss of biodiversity. We want to see people improve their lives within a supportive community and we see education skills and knowledge as the means to achieving that end.
My guess is that many of our MPs occupy this space.
If you want to call that “one nation liberalism” that is fine with me!
I get why Ed Davey wants ‘One Nation’ Conservatives to join the Lib Dems, and I can see that some of them are functionally liberals.
But I do think it a shame that there is no space for a Churchillian Conservative party that believes in social consensus, national unity, institutional and cultural continuity with the past, incremental reform rather than leap-in-the-dark change, and a balancing of instincts between private enterprise and state intervention where necessary.
I’d vote for it some of the time, maybe not all of the time. It would have significant points of difference with the Lib Dems but would be increasingly unlike the modern Tory party. I used to meet people like that who were Tories, even under Thatcher, but its not what I’m hearing from the modern party.
I think sometimes Keir Starmer wants to lead that party, but his party doesn’t want to be that party.
In response to @Tristan Ward:
I think it has a nice ring to it! It acknowledges the work of Disraeli, how we are “two nations” that must be brought together, but emphasises that this won’t happen from the top down but the bottom up.
“a Churchillian Conservative party”
That Liberal politician 1904 to 1924 – that Churchill ? The one who opposed the nazis tooth and nail?
Exhibit A in the case for the existence of the anti-socialist liberal/conservative electoral commanded by the Conservative party coalition 1922 to when? 2010? 2016? 2024?
I am sure there are some in the Labour party who could join/support an anti authoritarian party
Jack Meredith’s post is the best exposition of Liberalism that I’ve read for some time. I hope our MPs read it (I’ve printed of a copy for myself.) When I first fought a parliamentary election in 1970 I shared a leaflet cobbled together by Michael Meadowcroft, then Yorkshire Secretary, for a group of constituencies all too poor to produce their own. It was called “The Radical.” We need to put the fire of radicalism back into our campaigns. We are not top-down paternalists, “like the Tories but nicer” who want to create a kinder Britain without frightening the horses.. We want a root and branch reform a British attitudes and institution which aims to promote equality, fairness, enterprise, participation and co-operation from the bottom up. Thank you Jack Meredith for spelling it out so clearly.
“If “One Nation” is to mean anything in modern Britain, it cannot be conservative. It must be liberal; a renewal of the social contract built on liberty, justice and compassion. We must not retreat into cautious centrism, but advance with confident liberalism.” That means our policies must be radical, so that based on our principles we are seeking to change things for the better. There will always be people and forces that seek to change things for their own selfish gains, so this radical action will always be needed.
A lovely article. We do not need to modify our position or compromise our values to get the ‘reasonable’ tories on board. In the Blue Wall evidence has shown us that they either stay at home or vote for us. They have no other option so we do not need to do a thing. (fingers crossed) And in any case, Reform will help us by taking the rest!
This was a thoughtful article; I think redirecting the conversation to One Nation Liberalism is a good and necessary thing. I think for me it’s what they consider conservative one nation values and actually showing them they are more liberal values. That said, I’m not opposed to Ed’s approach in reaching out to One Nation Conservatives. Going just on my anecdotes I find those who identify as One Nations have often been far more receptive—and warmer—towards joining the Liberal Democrats or having conversations. I have them in my family with many of them have moderating their economic views.
For a healthy rebuttal, though, I think we sometimes misremember that many One Nation Conservatives did have genuinely liberal/pragmatic instincts. Rab Butler, for instance, introduced the Education Act that abolished fees for secondary education and sought to build a partnership between central government and local authorities. He was also known for working constructively with progressive thinkers. People often misremember and think this was an Attlee achievement. Harold Macmillan, too, in The Middle Way book, argued that markets sometimes required intervention to serve the common good—and as Prime Minister, he built more council houses than any of his successors.
So while I agree that One Nation Liberalism is probably a better language, I would should avoid too much hostility (although I am not saying this author is) and just help their gesture towards liberalism for those who might feel politically homeless.
In response to @Andy Chandler
Thank you for your lovely comment, and you’re right, we shouldn’t be hostile to ONCs joining the party, and you’re equally correct in saying that wasn’t my intention. I’ve a big respect for anyone who values moderation and evidence-based policy over dogma
To quote one of the greatest thinkers of our time – Marge Simpson – when it comes to the term “One Nation Liberalism”; “I just think it’s neat!”
Tristan Ward:
Yes, Churchill was a member of the ‘old’ Liberal party before and after WW1. Some of his work in that period was in the social liberal tradition.
But the politics he espoused after his decision to leave the Liberals, because he would not reconcile himself to what he saw as a socialist government, were not consistently Liberal (and even if they were Liberal it’s hard to see them being compatible with the Lib Dems), and the position he led the Conservatives from for fifteen years (which was a modified, less technocratic, version of the policies of Baldwin and Chamberlain) was a conservative one – although not an ultra-conservative one – and a key part of the refoundation of ‘one nation’ Toryism.
I’ve always thought of myself as a liberal and a democrat, although I’ve wandered out of the Lib Dems. But I’ve come to realise that we need a rational, competent centre-right party in this country and if reasonable Tories depart the field completely (maybe they have already) we lose something as a nation and we’ll be all the poorer until something similar is invented again.
A great article, with a lovely sentiment. As a political initiative Ed is quite right, but we need to avoid using the term ‘one nation’ anything. The UK is many nations, and ‘one nation-ism’ will be interpreted in Scotland and Wales as centralism around an England dominated unitary state. We are a multi nation state, which should be a federation. Let talk of internationalism, at home and abroad.
@ Matt. Yes, Churchill was a member of the Liberal Party up until 1923/24, but a very flaky one, unlike his wife Clementine who I believe continued to be a donor to the party well into the 1960’s.
WSCs liberalism was, however, often of a very flaky kind.
In 1913 he supported eugenics and wanted to sterilise the ‘feeble minded’.
In 1921 he wanted to send four divisions of the Rhine Army into the coalfields to put down discontent when miners struck on Black Friday after their wages were cut. In County Durham the windows of my grandparents cottage were smashed in (my Mum age 6 was terrified and remembered it for the rest of her life). Churchill also ordered in the thuggish Black and Tans to Ireland……. One of the reasons he lost Dundee on the Irish vote in 1922.
I’m afraid his reputation has been glorified because of WWll…….. but a closer look reveals a great many flaws.
A timely and well-written article. The message behind the article is an important one, as is Ed Davey’s intent in encouraging those formerly known as One Nation Conservatives to join us. I believe what was originally meant by One Nation Conservatism, is public policy focused on the citizenry as a whole rather than just traditional middle class and ‘aspiring working class’ voters (ie playing to your base). With this in mind, ‘One Nation Liberal Democracy’ might imply going beyond the traditional Lib Dem base, no doubt a good concept, albeit needing a better moniker. But like all political parties, supporters accept the policies and principles they like, and tolerate the others. This will be no different for so-called One Nation Tories. It is good to be realistic and honest about what Lib Dem policies and principles will and will not find favour with Pne Nation Tories, if we wish to manage the consequences in an astute way.