Hubbry Logo
Red ToryRed ToryMain
Open search
Red Tory
Community hub
Red Tory
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Red Tory
Red Tory
Red Tory
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on
Toryism
Royal Oak
Principles
Variants
General topics
Intellectuals
Politicians
Related topics

A Red Tory is an adherent of a centre-right or paternalistic-conservative political philosophy derived from the Tory tradition. It is most predominant in Canada; however, it is also found in the United Kingdom, where it is more commonly known as one nation conservatism. This philosophy tends to favour communitarian social policies, while maintaining a degree of fiscal discipline and a respect of social and political order. It is contrasted with "Blue Tory" or "High Tory". Some Red Tories view themselves as small-c conservatives.

In Canada, Red Toryism is found in provincial and federal Conservative political parties. The history of Red Toryism marks differences in the development of the political cultures of Canada and the United States. Canadian conservatism and American conservatism have been different from each other in fundamental ways, including their stances on social issues and the role of government in society.[1]

Red Tory governments in Canada, such as those of John A. Macdonald, Robert Borden, and John Diefenbaker, were known for supporting an active role for the government in the economy. This included the creation of government-owned and operated Crown Corporations such as the Canadian National Railway, and the development and protection of Canadian industries with programs such as the National Policy.

The adjective "red" refers to the economically left-leaning nature of Red Toryism in comparison with Blue Toryism, since socialist and other leftist parties have traditionally used the colour red.[2] In Canada today, red is commonly associated with the Liberal Party. The term reflects the broad ideological range traditionally found within conservatism in Canada.

Canada

[edit]
Part of a series on
Conservatism in Canada
Schools
Principles
History
Active parties
Federal

Provincial

Defunct parties
Federal

Provincial

Media
Other organizations
Related
Further information: Conservatism in Canada

Philosophy

[edit]

Historically, Canadian conservatism has been derived from the Tory tradition, with a distinctive concern for a balance between individual rights and collectivism, as mediated through a traditional pre-industrial standard of morality – which has never been as evident in American conservatism.[3]

Red Toryism derives largely from a classical conservative tradition that maintained that the unequal division of wealth and political privilege among social classes can be justified if members of the privileged class practiced noblesse oblige and contributed to the common good. Red Tories supported traditional institutions such as religion and the monarchy, and maintenance of the social order. This position was later manifested in their support for some aspects of the welfare state. This belief in a common good, as expanded on in Colin Campbell and William Christian's Political Parties and Ideologies in Canada, is at the root of Red Toryism.

Origins

[edit]

In distinction to the American experience where class divisions were seen as undemocratic (although still existing), Canadian Tories adopted a more paternalistic view of government. Monarchy, public order and good government – understood as dedication to the common good – preceded, moderated and balanced a belief in individual rights and liberty. Anthony Hall has argued that Red Toryism in Canada developed specifically in opposition to the American Revolution and its ideology.

Richard Hooker (1554–1600)

This type of Canadian conservatism is derived largely from the Tory tradition developed by English conservative thinkers and statesmen such as Richard Hooker; the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury; and Benjamin Disraeli, later the first Earl of Beaconsfield. The primary influences on Canadian Toryism in the Victorian age were Disraeli's One Nation Conservatism and the radical Toryism advocated by Lord Randolph Churchill. Inherent in these Tory traditions was the ideal of noblesse oblige and a conservative communitarianism.

In Victorian times, these ideas were the pre-eminent strains of conservative thought in the British Empire, and were advanced by many in the Tory faction of John A. Macdonald's conservative coalition in the Canadas. None of this lineage denies that Tory traditions of communitarianism and collectivism had existed in the British North American colonies since the Loyalist exodus from the American colonies between 1776 and 1796. It is this aspect that is one of the primary points of difference between the conservative political cultures of Canada and the United States.[4]

The explicit notion of a "Red" Toryism was developed by Gad Horowitz in the 1960s, who argued that there was a significant Tory ideology in Canada.[5] This vision contrasted Canada with the United States, which was seen as lacking this collectivist tradition because it was expunged from the American political culture after the American Revolution and the exodus of the United Empire Loyalists. Horowitz argued that Canada's stronger socialist movement grew from Toryism, and that this explains why socialism has never had much electoral success in the United States. This also meant that Canadian conceptions of liberty were more collective and communitarian, and could be seen as more directly derivative of the English tradition, than that of American practices and theories.

Horowitz identified George Grant and Eugene Forsey as exemplars of this strain of thought, which saw a central role for Christianity in public affairs and was profoundly critical of capitalism and the dominant business élites. Forsey became a Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) member, while Grant remained a Conservative – although he became disdainful of an overall shift in policy toward liberal economics and continentalism, something Forsey saw happening decades earlier. When the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker fell in 1963, largely due to the BOMARC controversy, Grant wrote Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, a book about the nature of traditional Canadian nationhood and independence that would become a lodestar of Red Toryism. Grant defined an essential difference between the founding of the Canadian and American nations when he wrote "Canada was predicated on the rights of nations as well as on the rights of individuals."[6] This definition recognized Canada's multi-faceted founding nature as an English-speaking, aboriginal and Francophone nation.

Predominance and decline

[edit]
Sir Robert Laird Borden, 1915.png
Sir Robert Borden (1915)

Many of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada's leaders have been labelled 'Red Tories', including Sir Robert Borden, John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield and Joe Clark. Many others have been influential as cabinet ministers and thinkers, such as Davie Fulton, Dalton Camp, Roy McMurtry and John Farthing.[4] The main bastions of Red Toryism were Ontario, the Atlantic provinces and urban Manitoba, areas where the Red Tories dominated provincial politics, and in some federal elections Quebec, where the federal PC party operated largely separately from provincial politics. During 42 years, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario was led by Red Tories such as George A. Drew, Leslie Frost, John Robarts and Bill Davis, all of which supported increased funding for infrastructure, health care and education. Throughout the Atlantic provinces, traditional Red Tories are the dominant force in the provincial Progressive Conservative parties because of their support of the welfare state. As premier of Nova Scotia from 1956 to 1967, Red Tory Robert Stanfield introduced reforms for education, health care and civil liberties. The Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta included a broad spectrum from Red Tories to social conservatives, but Peter Lougheed who led the party from 1968 to 1985 and was Premier from 1971 to 1985 was a Red Tory and Lougheed's tenure was characterized by active economic measures and social reforms. In the 50's and 60's, Manitoba saw great prosperity in economic and social reforms thanks to the leadership of Premier Dufferin Roblin, a Red Tory, who governed to the left of the previous government led by Douglas Campbell, the leader of the Liberal-Progressive coalition.

The dominance of Red Toryism can be seen as a part of the international post-war consensus that saw the welfare state embraced by the major parties of most of the western world. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, the federal Progressive Conservative Party suffered a string of electoral defeats under Red Tory leaders Robert Stanfield and Joe Clark. Pressure began to grow within the party for a new approach. Clark's leadership was successfully challenged, and in the 1983 PC leadership convention, members endorsed Brian Mulroney who rejected free trade with the United States as proposed by another Blue Tory candidate, John Crosbie. Despite this early perception, the eagerness in which Mulroney's ministry embraced the Macdonald Commission's advocacy of bilateral free trade would come to indicate a sharp drift toward libertarian or liberal economic policies, comparable to such contemporaries as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

Following Mulroney, the Canadian conservative movement suffered a profound schism in the 1993 election, splitting into the distinct Progressive Conservative and Reform parties. The Red Tory tradition remained loyal to the Progressive Conservatives, while many "blue" Tories aligned with social conservatives in the Reform Party. Various Unite the Right efforts achieved only modest success in the 1990s and early 2000s – most notably, while the creation of the Canadian Alliance in 2000 attracted a small number of Progressive Conservatives, it failed to attract those in the Red Tory tradition or to replace the Progressive Conservatives.

Following the victory of Peter MacKay at the 2003 PC convention, and in violation of an informal contract signed with rival candidate David Orchard, MacKay merged the Tories with Stephen Harper's Alliance to create the modern federal Conservative Party in 2003. When first created, one of the most important issues facing the Conservative Party was what Red Tories would do. The union resulted in a number of Red Tories leaving the new party, either to retire or to cross the floor to the Liberal Party. Members of Parliament (MPs) André Bachand, John Herron, Joe Clark and Scott Brison declined to join the new party – Brison immediately crossed the floor to the Liberals, Bachand and Clark sat out the remainder of the 37th Canadian Parliament as Progressive Conservatives and then retired from office in the 2004 election, and Herron sat as a Progressive Conservative for the remainder of the term but then ran for re-election in 2004 as a Liberal.

Clark, a former Prime Minister, gave a tepid endorsement to the Liberals in the 2004 election, calling Paul Martin "the devil we know".[7] Rick Borotsik joined the new party but openly criticized it from within, did not run for re-election in 2004, and also publicly endorsed the Liberals over the Conservatives during the campaign. Additionally, three of the twenty-six Progressive Conservative Senators, Lowell Murray, Norman Atkins and William Doody, decided to continue serving as Progressive Conservatives, rejecting membership in the new party. Atkins, who died in 2010, remained allied with the still-existent Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, and Murray, from Atlantic Canada, opposed the merger of the federal PC party. Most, like prominent Senator Marjory LeBreton, came to endorse the new party and have been vocal and visible supporters of the party both between and during elections. Elaine McCoy and Nancy Ruth were later appointed to the Senate by Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, and chose to designate themselves as Progressive Conservatives. Doody has since died, and Ruth joined the Conservative Party caucus in 2006.

Despite the union, some former Progressive Conservative members still identify themselves as Red Tory, including high-profile political strategist turned Senator Hugh Segal, who in 2013 continued to describe himself as a Red Tory, which has put him at increasing odds with the government on several occasions.[8]

A 'grassroots' movement of dissenting Red Tories, who opposed the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada's merger with the Canadian Alliance, gathered signatures on Elections Canada forms from over 200 Progressive Conservative members and applied to re-register as the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. This name was refused by Elections Canada. Having anticipated such a rejection, the coordinators had had the 'SignaTories' also sign a second application to at least continue with the ballot name "PC Party". On March 26, 2004, the Progressive Canadian Party was registered with Elections Canada. It aimed to be perceived as a continuation of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, but achieved only very minor results. The party achieved its largest vote to date in the 2006 election, with 14,151 votes in 25 ridings (about 0.1% of the nationwide total). The party was deregistered by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on November 30, 2019, for failing to comply with Canada Elections Act requirements set out in subsection 415(1).[9][10]

Revival in provincial politics

[edit]

With the rise of the conservative Wildrose Party in Alberta in the 2010s, the term "Red Tory" was revived as a name for the moderate wing of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, which was seen to gain power under the premiership of Ed Stelmach and Alison Redford. As premier, Redford was closely associated with centrist Tories such as Joe Clark and Peter Lougheed, whereas Danielle Smith—the then Wildrose leader—was associated with the right-wing Tories Ralph Klein and Tom Flanagan. Redford was called a "Red Tory" by Chantal Hébert,[11] Ezra Levant[12] and others in the media.[13]

The Progressive Conservative Association of Nova Scotia under Tim Houston, branding themselves as Red Tories, won a majority government in the 2021 Nova Scotia general election.[14] Houston's Progressive Conservatives campaigned on using provincial resources to improve healthcare services.[15]

United Kingdom

[edit]
Further information: Conservatism in the United Kingdom

In 2009, Phillip Blond promoted communitarian traditionalist conservative ideas within the Conservative Party with a book titled Red Tory: How Left and Right Have Broken Britain and How We Can Fix It and by creating the think-tank ResPublica.[16][17] Leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron spoke at ResPublica's launch and Red Tory ideas were said to be a major influence on him.[18]

In Scotland, the term "Red Tory" has been used to describe the Scottish Labour Party,[19] who some see as assisting with, or failing to oppose, certain Conservative policies.[20] The term was first used in this context by Scottish independence supporters, following Labour's participation in the Better Together campaign in opposition to Scottish independence alongside the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.[21]

Evolving from the Scottish usage of the term, the term, along with the terms Blairite, Brownite and "centrist", have been used, particularly on social media by members on the political left of the Labour Party to refer to MPs and Labour Party figures who withheld support for Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader from 2015 to 2020.[22][23] The term has also been used as a pejorative against current Labour leader Keir Starmer, who has been seen by some to have moved the party too far away from traditional left-wing positions.[24][25]

Definitional drift

[edit]
Phillip Blond in 2018

The term Red Tory is often used today in the Canadian media not to refer to those in the tradition of George Grant, Dalton Camp or Robert Stanfield, but simply to moderates in the conservative movement, particularly those who reject or do not sufficiently embrace social conservatism. For example, in the 2004 Conservative Party leadership election, Tony Clement was sometimes referred to as a Red Tory even though he advocated privatization, tax cuts and the curtailment of social and economic development spending. Traditional Red Tories would reject most if not all of these stances.

More recently, Phillip Blond, director of British think tank ResPublica, has gained traction with his so-called Red Tory thesis which criticizes what he refers to as the welfare state and the market state. Phillip Blond promotes a radical communitarian traditionalist conservatism. It inveighs against welfare states as well as market monopolies and instead respects traditional values and institutions, localism, devolution of powers from the central governments to local communities, small businesses, and volunteerism. Blond also favours empowering social enterprises, charities and other elements of civil society to solve problems such as poverty.[26] He has been mentioned as a major influence on the thinking of David Cameron and other Tories in the wake of the 2008 credit crisis. He advocates a civic state as the ideal, where the common good of society is valued and solutions emerge from local communities.[27] Blond's ideas also parallel the socioeconomic tradition of distributism, as is evidenced by Blond's appearance at a distributist conference at Oxford University in 2009 sponsored by the G. K. Chesterton Institute for Faith and Culture.[28] Blond's Red Toryism has been embraced by traditionalist conservatives in the United States, such as economist John Medaille.[29]

The editors of the web log Front Porch Republic, however, define Red Toryism as a "left or socialist conservatism" and further go on to say that it is "not a traditionalism that happened to oddly pick up a few egalitarian rhetorical tropes along the way."[30] This is more in keeping with the typical dictionary definition of the term as: "(Canadian) a Conservative who holds liberal or mildly socialist views on certain fiscal and social issues."[31] In this regard, Phillip Blond's views are probably closer to what has been referred to as High Tory.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Red Tory

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Red Toryism refers to a paternalistic strain of , rooted in the Tory tradition and prominent in , that emphasizes an organic conception of , hierarchical order, and communal welfare over individualistic , advocating state intervention to safeguard social cohesion and against the disintegrative forces of unchecked markets. The term was coined in 1966 by political scientist Gad Horowitz to characterize the philosophy of George Grant, whose Lament for a Nation critiqued the erosion of and under American-style technological , blending conservative reverence for and with sympathy for socialist means to achieve the . This ideology traces its practical origins to the High Toryism of Loyalists and 19th-century nation-builders like Sir , who employed government-led projects such as the Canadian Pacific Railway to forge economic and cultural unity while preserving monarchical ties and social institutions like family and church. Key characteristics include support for public enterprises like the CBC for cultural preservation, universal social programs such as Medicare to mitigate inequality's social harms, and a wary of continental integration that prioritizes provincial identities and historical loyalties. Red Toryism influenced the Progressive Conservative Party's governance, enabling policies that balanced fiscal prudence with welfare expansion, though it faced tensions with emerging neoliberal factions emphasizing and smaller government, leading to its marginalization after the party merger and the rise of market-oriented conservatism under leaders like . Its defining tension lies in reconciling Tory skepticism of with pragmatic acceptance of state power for conservative ends, a synthesis that has waned amid but persists in debates over civil society's role versus state .

Core Philosophy and Principles

Foundational Tenets

The term "Red Tory" was coined in 1966 by political scientist Gad Horowitz to describe a distinctive strand of Canadian conservatism that integrates traditional Tory emphases on social order, hierarchy, and communal bonds with a willingness to employ state intervention for egalitarian purposes, distinguishing it from the more individualistic liberalism prevalent in American conservatism. This synthesis rejects both unchecked market liberalism and radical egalitarianism, positing instead an organic view of society where individuals are embedded in historical and social contexts rather than abstract autonomous agents. At its core, Red Toryism upholds paternalistic authority rooted in tradition and , wherein elites bear responsibility for the welfare of dependents to maintain social cohesion and prevent atomization. This manifests in support for policies that prioritize the —such as public institutions for , healthcare, and —over pure individual rights or , drawing from Burkean notions of "little platoons" like and as bulwarks against state overreach or market disruption. It advocates , devolving power to local levels where possible, while endorsing national projects to foster unity, as exemplified historically by initiatives like the Canadian Pacific Railway under in the , which aimed to bind disparate regions through state-led development. Red Tory thought critiques both unlimited , which erodes communal ties, and excessive , which undermines voluntary associations, emphasizing instead ethical constraints on economic activity informed by moral traditions. Influenced by thinkers like George Grant, it stresses human through ordered , wary of technological and liberal homogenization that dissolve cultural particularities. This views the state as a steward of the , balancing private enterprise with public goods to avert inequality-driven unrest, as seen in advocacy for universal programs like Medicare established under conservative provincial governments in in 1962.

Distinctions from Other Conservative Strains

Red Tories diverge from libertarian and free-market conservative strains, such as Blue Tories in Canada, by endorsing a robust state role in fostering social cohesion and welfare provision rather than prioritizing minimal government intervention and fiscal austerity. Blue Tories, exemplified by the Party's influence in the 1990s and Stephen Harper's federal governments from 2006 to 2015, emphasize deregulation, tax cuts, and balanced budgets to promote individual economic liberty, viewing expansive social programs as inefficient distortions of market incentives. In contrast, Red Tories draw on paternalistic traditions, advocating government as a steward of communal , including support for universal healthcare and public infrastructure, as seen in earlier Progressive Conservative policies under leaders like in the 1960s and 1970s. This also sets Red Tories apart from neoconservative emphases on aggressive and , which often align with market-oriented domestic reforms but lack the organic, hierarchy-respecting central to Red Tory thought. Neoconservatives, influential in U.S. and circles since the , favor proactive state power abroad and moral clarity in promoting , yet domestically lean toward privatizing welfare to encourage personal responsibility, differing from Red Tories' preference for state-mediated rooted in Tory skepticism of unchecked . Red Toryism, akin to British , critiques neoliberal globalization's erosion of local communities, proposing instead interventions like family-supportive policies and to preserve , as articulated by thinkers like in the 2010s. Unlike populist or "" conservatism, which gained traction in Canada via figures like since 2022, Red Tories reject anti-elite rhetoric and market fundamentalism in favor of elite-guided reformism that integrates conservative values with pragmatic social investment. Populist strains prioritize and cultural traditionalism without compensatory welfare, often framing state expansion as elitist overreach, whereas Red Tories view the state as an extension of paternal authority to mitigate capitalism's inequalities, ensuring loyalty to , , and tradition endures. This distinction underscores Red Toryism's roots in pre-liberal Toryism, wary of both radical individualism and egalitarian leveling, prioritizing instead a hierarchical yet compassionate civic order.

Historical Origins

Tory Tradition and Paternalism

The tradition arose in late 17th-century amid the of 1679–1680, coalescing around supporters of the hereditary Stuart monarchy and the against Whig advocates of parliamentary exclusion and religious nonconformity. This faction emphasized continuity with pre-Civil War royalism, drawing from the defense of Charles I during the 1640s conflicts, and positioned itself as guardians of organic social order rooted in , custom, and divine sanction. Central to this tradition was , conceived as a reciprocal within a stratified society where the landed elite, akin to fathers in a , held obligations to protect and provide for dependents, including tenants and laborers, in exchange for loyalty and deference. This ethos, predating industrialization, reflected an agrarian ideal of , viewing unchecked or radical leveling as threats to communal stability; it contrasted with Whig commercial by prioritizing moral and social cohesion over contractual freedoms. Historical manifestations included Tory resistance to enclosures that disrupted village life and early advocacy for under the Elizabethan statutes of 1598 and 1601, which institutionalized parochial responsibility for the indigent. In the , amid the Industrial Revolution's dislocations, Tory paternalism evolved into support for ameliorative reforms, exemplified by the contributions of "Young England" figures like , who backed the Ten Hours Act of 1847 limiting factory workdays to protect vulnerable workers without endorsing class antagonism. These efforts stemmed from a Burkean view of society as an intergenerational partnership, wary of abstract rights, and informed later conservative interventions blending with pragmatic state action. Red Toryism in Canada traces its paternalistic core to this British inheritance, transmuted through colonial loyalty to and adaptation to a vast, frontier society demanding communal provision; thinkers like George Grant invoked Tory to critique American-style , advocating state-guided equity as an extension of monarchical benevolence rather than populist redistribution. This strand privileged empirical social duties over ideological purity, fostering policies like universal healthcare as paternal safeguards, though critics note its tension with fiscal restraint in modern contexts.

Early Influences in Britain and Canada

The tradition in Britain, which forms a foundational influence on Red Toryism, emerged during the of 1679–1680 as a political grouping defending the , the established , and resistance to parliamentary encroachments on . This early Toryism embodied a paternalistic , wherein social hierarchy was seen not merely as a structure of privilege but as an organic order imposing reciprocal duties on the elite to safeguard the commons against upheaval, drawing from pre-modern notions of and communal responsibility. Eighteenth-century Tories, often aligned with country interests, extended this by critiquing Whig-driven commercial expansion and policies, advocating instead for the customary protections of tenants and laborers to maintain traditional agrarian bonds. Such paternalism contrasted with emerging liberal individualism, prioritizing societal cohesion over unfettered , though it was enforced through established authority rather than egalitarian redistribution. These British Tory principles were transplanted to Canada primarily through the United Empire Loyalists, an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 settlers who migrated from the Thirteen Colonies to British North America between 1783 and 1791 following the American Revolutionary War, rejecting republicanism in favor of monarchical loyalty and hierarchical governance. In Upper and Lower Canada, this influx reinforced a conservatism rooted in imperial ties, Anglican establishment, and elite stewardship, evident in the Family Compact of Upper Canada (circa 1810–1840), an oligarchic network of officials and landowners who wielded paternalistic control to promote order, infrastructure, and defense against American influence. Similarly, the Château Clique in Lower Canada upheld French seigneurial traditions alongside British institutions, viewing governance as a custodial duty to preserve cultural and social stability amid demographic pressures. This early Canadian Toryism diverged from British counterparts by adapting to colonial realities, such as fur trade economics and indigenous relations, yet retained a core emphasis on crown loyalty and anti-democratic caution, laying groundwork for later syntheses with social welfare pragmatism. By the early 19th century, these influences coalesced in pre-Confederation politics, where Tory leaders like , first lieutenant-governor of (1791–1796), institutionalized paternalistic policies such as land grants to loyal settlers and clergy reserves for the Anglican Church, aiming to replicate Britain's organic social fabric in a frontier context. Challenges arose during the (1812–1815), when Tory militias defended against U.S. invasion, solidifying a narrative of protective hierarchy against external threats, but internal strains culminated in the , exposing tensions between elite paternalism and reformist demands. Nonetheless, the enduring legacy was a Canadian conservatism that integrated British Tory skepticism of radical change with localized duties toward community welfare, distinguishing it from the more laissez-faire strains emerging in the United States.

Development in Canada

Origins and Key Figures

The designation "Red Tory" emerged in Canadian political discourse in 1966, coined by political scientist Gad Horowitz in his essay "Conservatism, Liberalism and Socialism in Canada," where he applied it to philosopher George Grant to highlight a strain of blending Tory paternalism with collectivist impulses resistant to liberal . Horowitz, influenced by Louis Hartz's fragment theory of ideological origins, posited that Canada's Tory heritage introduced a "socialist" residue into , enabling policies favoring state intervention for communal welfare over pure market —a view shaped by his own Marxist leanings in labor studies, which may accentuate egalitarian aspects at the expense of traditional hierarchies. George Grant (1918–1988), a conservative philosopher and theologian, exemplified this archetype through his 1965 book Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of , which critiqued the 1963 Liberal victory under as accelerating continental integration with the , eroding Canada's distinct British-influenced , , and Christian moral order. Grant advocated a grounded in organic , of technological , and limited acceptance of welfare measures to preserve social cohesion, influencing subsequent Red Tory thought despite his disillusionment with Diefenbaker's 1958–1963 Progressive Conservative government for insufficient resistance to American hegemony. Politically, (1914–2003) embodied Red Tory principles as Nova Scotia's Progressive Conservative premier from 1956 to 1967, enacting reforms including a provincial to fund expanded education (e.g., free textbooks and teacher training), hospital insurance, and labor protections like minimum wages and rights, balancing fiscal restraint with public investment to address Atlantic Canada's economic disparities. As federal Progressive Conservative leader from 1967 to 1976, Stanfield promoted , supporting universal pharmacare and opposing unchecked , though electoral defeats underscored tensions with more market-oriented party factions. Other early exemplars include party strategist Dalton Camp (1920–2002), who orchestrated the 1967 Progressive Conservative leadership convention that elevated Stanfield and advocated renewal over , and senator (1950–2023), an emerging voice by the 1970s emphasizing ethical and social safety nets within conservative bounds. These figures rooted Red Toryism in the Progressive Conservative Party's post-World War II ethos, drawing from British but adapted to Canada's and regional inequities, predating the term yet aligning with its paternalistic defense of ordered liberty against both radical and .

Periods of Influence and Policy Achievements

Red Toryism reached its zenith of influence within the Progressive Conservative Party during the post-World War II era through the 1980s, particularly at the provincial level where it shaped pragmatic governance blending fiscal restraint with social welfare commitments. This period saw Red Tories dominate party apparatuses, such as Ontario's "Big Blue Machine," enabling sustained electoral success and policy implementation that preserved community-oriented institutions amid . In , Premier Bill Davis's tenure from 1971 to 1985 exemplified Red Tory achievements, with his government creating the Ministry of the Environment in 1971 to oversee pollution controls and conservation, and establishing the Commission in 1973 to regulate development in ecologically sensitive areas spanning 725 kilometers. Davis also expanded postsecondary education by founding 22 community colleges and supporting university growth, while introducing full-day junior kindergarten in 1980 to enhance . These initiatives reflected a paternalistic approach prioritizing public goods over market-driven alternatives, alongside fiscal measures like balanced budgets during resource booms. Federally, Red Tory elements informed Progressive Conservative administrations, notably under from 1957 to 1963, where policies emphasized national autonomy and civil protections, including the Canadian Bill of Rights enacted on August 10, 1960, which enshrined fundamental freedoms predating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Brian Mulroney's government (1984–1993) retained Red Tory influences in its cabinet composition, which featured a predominance of moderate conservatives, supporting multilateral efforts like the 1987 to phase out ozone-depleting substances, though economic reforms increasingly tilted toward liberalization. These eras underscored Red Tory contributions to embedding acceptance—such as non-repeal of medicare and pension expansions—within conservative frameworks, fostering social stability without expansive ideological overhauls.

Decline Amid Party Realignments

The decline of Red Tory influence within federal Canadian conservatism intensified through the realignments of the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the December 8, 2003, merger that dissolved the Progressive Conservative Party (PC) and fused it with the Canadian Alliance to create the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). Negotiated by Alliance leader Stephen Harper and PC leader Peter MacKay, the merger received 86 percent approval from PC delegates at a special convention on December 6, 2003, but prioritized Alliance structures, including leadership selection rules favoring the larger western base, thereby embedding a more populist and market-oriented ideology over PC paternalism. This process, building on the earlier 2000 United Alternative talks, absorbed Red Tory elements but subordinated them to the Alliance's fusionist conservatism, which emphasized fiscal restraint and reduced state intervention—hallmarks antithetical to Red Tory support for active government in promoting social order. Prominent Red Tories mounted opposition, decrying the merger as an ideological takeover that betrayed the PC's moderate traditions. David Orchard, a MP and Red Tory advocate, condemned it as a violation of his 2003 leadership pledge against Alliance fusion, leading him to challenge the decision in court and later form dissident groups. Similarly, former PC leader criticized the terms as favoring Reform-Alliance radicals, while a minority of Red Tories defected to the short-lived Progressive Canadian Party. These efforts failed to halt the consolidation, which resolved the right-wing vote split post-1993 PC collapse but accelerated Red Tory marginalization by prioritizing electoral viability in the West over eastern and urban moderate appeals. Under Harper's CPC leadership from March 2004 to November 2015, Red Toryism further receded as policies focused on balanced budgets, tax cuts, and , eschewing expansive social programs in favor of targeted interventions like the 2006 Universal Child Care Benefit. Harper, a former strategist, explicitly rejected Red Tory associations, viewing them as incompatible with the party's renewed emphasis on individual responsibility over collectivist . This era's internal dynamics, including 2011 leadership voting reforms that empowered conservatives, sidelined remaining Red Tory figures like , who retired amid policy frustrations, solidifying a party trajectory where paternalistic conservatism yielded to neoliberal and populist strains.

Provincial Persistence and Recent Provincial Examples

Despite the marginalization of Red Tory elements within the federal following the 2003 merger of the Progressive Conservatives and , the tradition has exhibited notable persistence in provincial politics, particularly in , , and the Atlantic provinces, where Progressive Conservative parties historically emphasized pragmatic interventionism, social welfare commitments, and fiscal responsibility without the neoliberal shifts dominant at the federal level. In these jurisdictions, Red Toryism manifested through policies blending market-oriented reforms with state-led investments in public goods, sustaining electoral viability amid broader ideological realignments toward and fiscal . A prominent recent example occurred in under Progressive Conservative Premier Danny Williams, who governed from 2003 to 2010 and aggressively renegotiated offshore oil royalty agreements with petroleum companies, securing an estimated additional $10 billion in provincial revenues by 2010 through higher equity stakes and production shares, which funded expanded social programs and infrastructure while adhering to balanced budgets. Williams' approach exemplified Red Tory by prioritizing provincial economic and public welfare over unfettered free markets, as evidenced by his government's rejection of the federal Atlantic Accord in favor of direct negotiations that boosted per capita GDP from $28,000 in 2003 to over $40,000 by 2010. In , Premier John Hamm's Progressive Conservative administration from 1999 to 2006 represented another instance of provincial Red Tory governance, with Hamm self-identifying as a Red Tory and implementing balanced budgets alongside investments in healthcare and , including a 2003 budget that eliminated a $1.1 billion deficit through expenditure controls and modest tax adjustments without deep cuts to . This era sustained the party's hold on power until 2009, reflecting Red Tory resilience in Atlantic contexts where voter preferences favored conservative stewardship with protections over radical . More contemporarily, Ontario's Progressive Conservative government under Premier , elected in 2018 and re-elected in 2022, has incorporated Red Tory traits amid a populist veneer, such as maintaining and expanding universal healthcare funding—allocating $81.1 billion in the 2023 budget—while pursuing corporate tax reductions from 11.5% to 11% and spending exceeding $190 billion over a decade, though critics attribute such balances to electoral pragmatism rather than ideological purity. In , urban Progressive Conservative factions continue to advocate Red Tory policies like government roles in social supports, as seen in post-2023 leadership debates emphasizing over pure . These provincial dynamics underscore Red Toryism's adaptability, rooted in regional traditions that prioritize communal stability over federal-level ideological purges.

Manifestations in the United Kingdom

One-Nation Conservatism Framework

constitutes a paternalistic variant of British conservatism that prioritizes national unity and social cohesion over unfettered individualism or class antagonism. Its foundational tenet, , posits that societal elites hold a duty to uplift the less privileged through responsible and incremental reforms, thereby forging a singular from Disraeli's observed "two nations" of and . This framework rejects economics in favor of pragmatic state intervention to sustain welfare provisions and economic stability, viewing society as an organic whole where unchecked market forces risk fragmentation. The ideology's structured approach emerged distinctly under Stanley Baldwin, who in a December 4, 1924, speech post-election triumph articulated "One Nation" as a commitment to cross-class service, mobilizing national resources for welfare expansion without radical upheaval. Key elements encompass centralized authority for social legislation, support for Keynesian to avert depressions, and corporatist arrangements in , all aimed at preserving established institutions amid modernization. Unlike Tory democracy's emphasis on local autonomy, One-Nation prioritizes robust central planning to enforce minimum standards and foster unity, as evidenced in post-1945 Conservative acceptance of the . Red Toryism adapts this framework into a contemporary communitarian , skeptical of both statist overreach and neoliberal monopolies, advocating instead for decentralized through mechanisms like community-owned assets and employee cooperatives. Phillip Blond's formulation extends One-Nation paternalism by proposing relocalized banking—such as via networks—and antitrust measures against dominant retailers holding over 70% market share, aiming to redistribute economic agency without expansive . This synthesis underscores a that aligns market dynamics with , countering the atomization attributed to 1980s Thatcherite deregulation.

Prominent Leaders and Initiatives

Phillip Blond emerged as a leading intellectual proponent of Red Toryism in the United Kingdom, authoring the 2010 book Red Tory: How Left and Right Have Broken Britain and How We Can Fix It, which critiqued both neoliberal economics and state socialism in favor of decentralized, community-based solutions drawing on conservative traditions of mutual aid and localism. Blond founded the think tank ResPublica in 2009 to advance these ideas, influencing policy discussions on civil society renewal and ethical markets. David Cameron positioned himself as a One Nation Conservative during his tenure as Prime Minister from 2010 to 2016, invoking the tradition in speeches such as his 2012 Conservative Party conference address where he pledged to govern as a "One Nation" leader committed to uniting social classes through pragmatic reforms. A key initiative under Cameron was the program launched in 2010, which sought to empower voluntary organizations and local communities to address social issues, reducing reliance on central government through measures like the for youth volunteering and of public service commissioning. Theresa May, from 2016 to 2019, reaffirmed One Nation principles in her 2016 leadership launch, emphasizing an "active government" to combat burning injustices and extend opportunities to working-class communities, as seen in her focus on industrial strategy and worker representation on corporate boards. Her administration advanced initiatives like the 2017 expansion of grammar schools to enhance , though implementation faced resistance from within the party. Iain Duncan Smith, as Work and Pensions Secretary from 2010 to 2016, led welfare reforms rooted in akin to One Nation ideals, establishing the in 2004 to research family breakdown and poverty, resulting in the 2010 system consolidating benefits to incentivize work, which by 2016 had enrolled over 500,000 claimants despite rollout delays. The One Nation Conservative Caucus, formed in 2019 with around 40 MPs including as chairman, has advocated for moderate policies on issues like and social cohesion, opposing hardline shifts within the party.

Post-Brexit Evolutions and Challenges

Following the United Kingdom's formal departure from the on January 31, 2020, the Conservative Party under integrated elements of into its post-Brexit agenda, particularly through the "levelling up" initiative launched in and formalized in the 2021 white paper, which aimed to address regional disparities via infrastructure investments and , reminiscent of Disraelian . This approach sought to bind newly won "Red Wall" seats in —28 of which flipped from Labour in the , many with Leave majorities—by promising economic intervention without full abandonment of market principles. However, Johnson's government balanced this with populist measures, such as overriding EU-derived regulations and prioritizing sovereignty, which strained relations with the One Nation caucus, a predominantly composed of Remain supporters who had opposed hard . The from September to October 2022 marked a sharp departure, as her mini-budget's unfunded tax cuts and deregulation—praised by libertarian factions—provoked market turmoil, including a sharp gilt yield spike and the Bank of England's emergency intervention, undermining confidence in interventionist One Nation economics. This episode exacerbated internal divisions, with One Nation figures like criticizing the rejection of fiscal prudence tied to social stability. Post-Truss stabilization under in October 2022 attempted a partial return to pragmatic , including net zero commitments and public sector pay deals, but persistent and pressures—net migration hitting 685,000 in the year to December 2022—eroded the paternalistic appeal amid perceptions of policy U-turns. The July 4, 2024, delivered a catastrophic defeat for the Conservatives, reducing seats from 365 to 121, as 's economic legacies—such as trade frictions contributing to sluggish GDP growth—alienated both moderate One Nation voters and the populist base. Surveys indicated 26% of 2024 Conservative voters defected to by September 2025, largely right-wing enthusiasts frustrated with unmet promises on sovereignty and borders, while One Nation heartlands in saw swings to Labour. In opposition, the election of as leader in November 2024 signaled a rightward pivot, with her October 2025 pledge at the party conference to pursue withdrawal from the if re-elected, prioritizing national control over internationalist constraints—a stance that sidelined One Nation emphases on institutional continuity and frameworks. These challenges reflect Brexit's enduring polarization, which purged pro-EU One Nation voices during Johnson's intake and empowered libertarian and populist wings, leaving the tradition vulnerable to definitional erosion as the party competes with UK's 14% vote share in 2024. Critics within argue that One Nation's historic accommodation of high migration and supranational ties failed to adapt to post-referendum realities, contributing to electoral irrelevance, though proponents contend its social cohesion ethos remains essential for broad appeal against Labour's dominance.

Criticisms and Ideological Debates

Critiques from Libertarian and Populist Conservatives

Libertarian conservatives have long criticized Red Toryism for its endorsement of paternalistic state intervention, which they argue erodes individual and perpetuates inefficient government expansion. This tradition's support for mechanisms and active economic steering is viewed as a form of disguised that prioritizes collective obligations over personal responsibility and free-market dynamics, ultimately leading to an unjust concentration of power in the hands of bureaucrats. In , think tanks aligned with libertarian principles, such as those advocating fiscal restraint, have highlighted how Red Tory policies under Progressive Conservative governments historically sustained high public spending and resisted efforts, contributing to ballooning deficits—federal debt reached over 60% of GDP by the early under such influences. In the , libertarian-leaning figures within the Conservative Party, including Thatcher-era reformers, derided —the British analogue to Red Toryism—as insufficiently committed to and individual , labeling its adherents "wets" for tolerating statist remnants that stifled enterprise. This critique posits that Red Tory approaches assume societal order can be engineered top-down, neglecting the of markets and risking through subsidies and regulations that distort incentives, as evidenced by persistent resistance to full-scale Thatcherite reforms in sectors like and labor markets. Populist conservatives, emphasizing sovereignty and of consensus, fault Red Tories for embodying a detached mentality that dilutes conservative resolve on cultural and issues. In , the rise of the Reform Party in the and explicitly targeted Progressive Conservative Red Tories as out-of-touch insiders who accommodated expansive and fiscal profligacy at the expense of working-class priorities, paving the way for Stephen Harper's 2003 merger that subordinated Red Tory elements to a more populist, deficit-cutting agenda—achieving balanced budgets by 2007 through spending caps. Harper's tenure, spanning 2006 to 2015, systematically marginalized Red Tory influences by prioritizing tax cuts (reducing the GST from 7% to 5%) and resource development over interventionist social programs. In the UK, post-Brexit populists have assailed One-Nation Tories for their perceived globalism and reluctance to confront immigration surges or bureaucratic overreach, viewing them as antithetical to national renewal—historian David Starkey described the One Nation Caucus as a "vile antithesis" that rejected true nationhood in favor of left-leaning appeals. This strand of critique argues that Red Tory pragmatism fosters definitional drift, alienating voters who demand unapologetic defenses of borders and traditions, as seen in the 2019 election's populist surge under Boris Johnson, which sidelined wet conservatism for harder-edged mandates.

Left-Wing Objections and Mischaracterizations

Left-wing critics, particularly from socialist perspectives, have objected to Red Toryism's paternalistic framework as a mechanism for preserving class hierarchies and under the guise of benevolent , rather than promoting genuine egalitarian reform. This critique posits that Red Tory support for welfare provisions and stems from a top-down that entrenches traditional power structures, such as deference to and , which socialists view as antithetical to class-based and universal justice. For example, analysis of George Grant's philosophy—a cornerstone of Red Tory thought—highlights how its emphasis on communitarian ultimately reinforces rather than challenges inequality, as "communitarian ... is still ." Socialists further argue that Red Tory nationalism confines political solutions to national boundaries, rendering it incapable of addressing "problems and injustices that are universal in character," thereby prioritizing state loyalty over international working-class interests. The tradition's nostalgic appeal to pre-liberal organic communities is dismissed as "wistful " ill-suited to egalitarian ends, lacking the revolutionary impetus to dismantle capitalism's structural inequalities. These objections portray Red Toryism as insufficiently radical, offering incremental palliatives like expanded social programs without confronting the root causes of exploitation inherent in market economies. Mischaracterizations from left-leaning sources often conflate Red Tory advocacy for moderated with unbridled , ignoring empirical instances where figures like or provincial premiers implemented interventionist policies, such as national resource development or universal healthcare expansions, independent of socialist pressure. This framing undervalues Red Tory agency in building Canada's —evident in the 1957-1963 Diefenbaker government's creation of the Royal Commission on Health Services, which laid groundwork for medicare—by attributing such achievements solely to left-wing agitation, thereby erasing conservative contributions to social stability. Analogous UK critiques dismiss Red Tory rhetoric as superficial that fails to escape liberal paradigms, yet Canadian evidence, including sustained provincial Red Tory governance in under (1956-1967) with progressive labor reforms, contradicts claims of mere ideological window-dressing. Such portrayals, amplified in academia and media with documented left biases, serve to delegitimize as inherently regressive, overlooking its causal role in fostering consensus-based policies that empirically reduced poverty rates in mid-20th-century without full socialist overhaul.

Definitional Drift and Conceptual Ambiguities

The term "Red Tory" was popularized in 1966 by political scientist Gad Horowitz to describe a distinctive strand within Canadian that incorporated elements of collectivism and social welfare, contrasting with the more individualistic dominant in American politics. Horowitz, drawing on Louis Hartz's fragment theory, posited that Canada's Tory tradition provided a non-Marxist path for through conservative , enabling cross-ideological alliances like those between and the (CCF). This framing emphasized historical figures such as , whose of 1879 combined , investment, and incentives to foster national development, though Horowitz's interpretation has been contested for overstating ideological coherence. Critiques emerged promptly, with Rod Preece's 1977 essay "The Myth of the Red Tory" arguing that the concept lacked empirical grounding in a uniquely collectivist ideology. Preece contended that Canadian conservatism derived from pragmatic Anglo-Saxon traditions rather than Hegelian organicism or British idealist influences like , which were absent in ; policies like Macdonald's were responses to immediate economic pressures, not principled . Horowitz rebutted by defending the Tory "touch" as a cultural affinity for and over abstract , yet the debate highlighted foundational ambiguities: whether "Red Toryism" represented a substantive or a retrospective label for ad hoc interventions. Preece's analysis, rooted in historical texts and absent of evidence for doctrinaire collectivism, underscores toward Horowitz's framework, which some attribute to the latter's Marxist sympathies seeking to legitimize leftist inroads into . Over subsequent decades, the term underwent definitional drift, shifting from Horowitz's ideological fragment to a vaguer descriptor for moderate or "progressive" conservatives within the Progressive Conservative Party, particularly under Brian Mulroney's governments from 1984 to 1993, which balanced with social programs like the amendments. By the 2000s, amid the merger into the , "Red Tory" increasingly denoted fiscal caution or opposition to populist reforms, as seen in critiques of Stephen Harper's market-oriented policies, but without consistent policy markers—leading to overlaps with or even liberal tendencies. This evolution has amplified conceptual ambiguities, such as distinguishing Red Tory from neoliberal "" individualism or socialist interventionism; for instance, while traditionalists invoke organic community, modern usages often conflate it with technocratic , diluting its analytical utility and inviting pejorative deployment by ideological purists on both right and left.

Contemporary Status and Legacy

Relevance in Canadian Federal Politics

Red Toryism exerted notable influence within the federal Progressive Conservative Party from the onward, manifesting through leaders who blended conservative fiscal prudence with support for social welfare and national interventionism. , party leader from 1967 to 1976, exemplified this by championing progressive policies including expanded social programs and active government roles in the , despite repeated electoral defeats against the Liberals in 1968, 1972, and 1974. Joe Clark, succeeding Stanfield as leader in 1976 and serving as in a from June 1979 to March 1980, further embodied Red Tory tenets through emphases on national unity, , and accommodations for , alongside progressive economic stances such as advocacy for wage and during the 1974 election campaign. His administration's short duration, ending after a non-confidence vote on a in December 1979, limited substantive policy enactment but underscored the ideological tensions between Red Tory moderation and demands for deeper reforms. The 2003 merger of the Progressive Conservatives with the more right-leaning to form the marginalized Red Tory elements, as the unified party shifted toward and to consolidate support. This decline accelerated amid the Reform Party's rise in the 1990s, which eroded the Progressive Conservatives' base and culminated in their 1993 election collapse to just two seats. In contemporary federal politics as of 2025, Red Tory perspectives persist among a minority of Conservative MPs and voters favoring pragmatic social policies, yet they confront dominance by libertarian and reform-oriented factions under leaders like , rendering the tradition more electoral liability than core ideology.

Influence in UK Conservatism Today

The influence of Red Tory principles—emphasizing community-oriented social policies alongside traditional conservative values—persists in pockets of the Conservative Party but faces significant marginalization amid a post-2024 electoral realignment. Following the party's landslide defeat in the July 2024 general election, which reduced its parliamentary seats from 365 to 121, internal dynamics have favored a sharper ideological pivot toward and economic over the redistributive and interventionist elements historically linked to Red Tory thinkers like . This shift reflects voter migration to , capturing 14.3% of the national vote in 2024 by appealing to disaffected conservatives on and issues, thereby pressuring the Tories to de-emphasize One-Nation (Red Tory-adjacent) blamed for alienating the base. Kemi Badenoch's leadership, secured on November 2, 2024, after defeating in the final ballot, has accelerated this trend by prioritizing anti-woke rhetoric and skepticism toward expansive state welfare, contrasting with Red Tory advocacy for "progressive conservatism" in areas like localism and mutualism. Badenoch's conference speeches in October 2025 underscored a rejection of "wet" , with party insiders noting the quiet dissolution of the One Nation parliamentary —a group embodying moderate, socially conscious —as evidence of waning institutional clout for such views. Polling post-election indicates only 11% of Britons view the Conservatives as government-ready, with internal critiques attributing past One-Nation dominance under leaders like and to electoral complacency and policy dilutions that eroded core support. Remnants of Red Tory influence endure among a minority of MPs and thinkers, who argue for its revival to recapture centrist voters lost to Labour and the Liberal Democrats—85% of 2024 Tory-to-Reform switchers cited but also as motivators, leaving room for hybrid appeals. Advocates like former director , whose 2010 manifesto inspired early Cameron-era "Big Society" initiatives, have sporadically resurfaced in commentary urging economic leftward shifts within , though without recent policy traction under Badenoch. Yet, with polling competitively at 20-25% in late 2025 by-elections and opinion surveys, Red Toryism's role appears confined to intellectual debates rather than shaping the party's opposition strategy ahead of the 2029 election. This diminishment underscores a broader tension: while Red Toryism once modernized the party for urban professionals, its perceived softness on and identity contributed to the 2024 collapse, per analyses of voter data showing 37% of former Tory supporters shifting rightward.

References

  1. https://c2cjournal.ca/2020/01/fbp-future-of-conservatism-series-part-i-thfuture-of-conservatism-series-part-i-the-enduring-appeal-of-red-toryism/
  2. https://dchp.arts.ubc.ca/entries/Red%20Tory
  3. https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2022/08/31/red-toryism-the-best-and-worst-of-canadian-conservative-politics/271243/
  4. https://dchp.arts.ubc.ca/entries/Red%2520Tory
  5. https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLIConfederationSeries_MacdonaldPaperF_Web.pdf
  6. https://jared-milne.medium.com/the-hidden-strength-of-red-toryism-in-canada-part-one-4ab21881bc
  7. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ben-woodfinden-red-tory-vs-blue-tory-is-nothing-but-a-trap-set-by-liberals
  8. https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/red-tory
  9. https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/neoconservatism-versus-libertarianism-part-1
  10. https://www.policyoptions.irpp.org/2011/05/small-is-big-red-toryism-and-the-political-debate-in-britain/
  11. https://drjaredwesley.substack.com/p/alberta-needs-a-few-good-tories
  12. https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2022/07/tory-tradition-michael-connolly.html
  13. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-british-studies/article/toryness-of-english-conservatism/2DFF680131EA5EAC74BFE3D2DA9B7E5A
  14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1840484
  15. https://www.tutor2u.net/politics/reference/paternalism-conservatism
  16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1849547
  17. https://historyofparliament.com/2025/04/19/disraeli-one-nation-conservatism/
  18. https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316/ielapa.383394572623599
  19. https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/tory
  20. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/54022/the-prospect-debate-red-tory-vs-blue-labour
  21. https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/canada-as-cradle-of-conservatism/
  22. https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/conservatism
  23. https://opentextbc.ca/preconfederation/chapter/11-4-the-tory-oligarchy/
  24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/139794
  25. https://www.politics.utoronto.ca/people/directories/all-faculty/gad-horowitz
  26. https://jacobin.com/2019/09/george-grant-canada-nationalism-philosophy
  27. https://www.compactmag.com/article/george-grant-and-conservative-social-democracy/
  28. https://pinkoski.substack.com/p/george-grants-lament-for-a-nation
  29. https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/robert-lorne-stanfield
  30. https://inroadsjournal.ca/hope-for-a-green-restoration/
  31. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2011/05/small-is-big-red-toryism-and-the-political-debate-in-britain/
  32. https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2011/09/red-tory/
  33. https://campbellstrategies.com/parli/red-tory/
  34. https://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2016/12/the-house-that-bill-built/
  35. https://www.tvo.org/article/10-reasons-its-worth-remembering-premier-bill-davis-today
  36. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/world/canada/bill-davis-pragmatic-ontario-premier-dies-at-92.html
  37. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-bill-davis-he-was-progressive-he-was-conservative-like-canada/
  38. https://lispop.ca/uncategorized/bill-davis-was-a-moderate-reformer-who-made-change-work/
  39. https://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2010/Zorbas.pdf
  40. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2024/03/the-mulroney-years-transformation-and-tumult/
  41. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/12/18/opinion/right-wing-merger-was-tragedy-stephen-harper
  42. https://www.cpac.ca/headline-politics/episode/canadian-alliance-progressive-conservative-merger
  43. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02722011.2024.2326264
  44. https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2003/10/23/the-trouble-with-mergers
  45. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2006/12/full-circle-death-and-resurrection-in-canadian-conservative-politics-book-excerpt/
  46. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/07/conservatives-1993-election-canada
  47. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/wp-content/uploads/attachments/Understanding_Stephen_Harper.pdf
  48. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mackay-cheers-as-bid-to-alter-tory-leadership-selection-rules-falters/article615074/
  49. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2011/02/danny-williams-goes-out-on-top/
  50. https://www.tvo.org/article/why-doug-ford-may-finally-be-growing-into-the-job
  51. https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/2025/02/08/the-future-identity-of-the-manitoba-progressive-conservatives
  52. https://journals.openedition.org/cve/15476
  53. https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/one-nation-conservatism-disraeli-stanley-baldwin
  54. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/52797/rise-of-the-red-tories
  55. https://sites.google.com/site/thepoliticsteacherorg/home/a-and-as-politics-2017/unit-1-politics-in-the-uk-year-12--13/political-parties/one-nation-conservatism
  56. https://www.tutor2u.net/politics/reference/one-nation-conservative
  57. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/one-nation-conservatism
  58. https://www.robertbuckland.co.uk/news/win-election-we-must-revive-one-nation-conservatism
  59. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/what-is-one-nation-conservatism-tory-group-robert-jenrick-kemi-badenoch-b1187291.html
  60. https://www.brightblue.org.uk/what-should-one-nation-conservatism-mean-in-the-2020s/
  61. https://www.psa.ac.uk/psa/news/2019-general-election-brexit-one-nation-conservatism
  62. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/is-a-one-nation-brexit-possible/
  63. https://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/11124
  64. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/brexit-and-the-conservative-party/
  65. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/66821/brexit-has-fundamentally-damaged-the-tories
  66. https://conservativehome.com/2025/09/05/adrian-lee-one-nation-conservatism-the-tendency-that-has-led-the-conservative-party-to-the-brink-of-destruction/
  67. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/07/has-kemi-badenoch-sounded-the-death-knell-for-one-nation-conservatism
  68. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/25/one-nation-toryism-dead-reform-conservative-party
  69. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-923X.13405
  70. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/red-tory-liberalism-and-loss-of-liberty/
  71. https://iea.org.uk/one-nation-conservatism-can-be-redefined-again/
  72. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-taube-sorry-red-tories-but-poilievre-is-the-one-reaffirming-conservative-values
  73. https://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/10/26/red-tories-plan-ride-back-from-the-wilderness/
  74. https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2019/put-the-nation-back-into-one-nation-conservatism/
  75. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/04/red-tories-phillip-blond-conservatives
  76. https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ctheory/article/view/13700
  77. https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ctheory/article/view/13719
  78. https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/a-deep-history-of-canadian-populism/
  79. https://www.historymuseum.ca/blog/prime-minister-joe-clark
  80. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2004/09/message-to-the-conservatives-go-mainstream-or-go-home/
  81. https://oxfordpoliticalreview.com/2021/08/20/identity-crisis-under-the-big-tent-canadas-conservative-party-in-turmoil/
  82. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/britains-once-dominant-conservative-party-battling-to-avoid-extinction
  83. https://theboar.org/2025/10/the-death-of-goliath-how-the-conservatives-lost-their-grip-on-british-politics/
  84. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0rnj6504yo
  85. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53105-how-do-britons-see-the-conservatives-ahead-of-their-2025-party-conference
  86. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-liberal-democrats-strategic-error/
  87. https://www.newstatesman.com/author/phillip-blond
  88. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/07/tory-party-britain-kemi-badenoch-one-nation
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.