The Grumbling Times in 2025
Plenty more history and thoughts on conservatism, one should hope.
It appears I started 2024 in one place and ended it in quite another, in more ways than one. I can only think that, as far as my writing is concerned, this has been entirely for the best. This Substack has naturally followed me through my changing thoughts and so I believe it too has demonstrably improved. I started last year searching for an overarching project or theme that could tie most of my writing together. Although it took longer than originally anticipated to find something that was not merely presentational, my writing now has a firm purpose for the first time and one which I am confident can intrinsically sustain it for years to come. That purpose, for all avoidance of doubt, is conservatism, more specifically whatever small part one can muster in the preservation and furtherance of its tradition at what is clearly a precarious moment in its history. I shall reiterate something I wrote a couple of months ago: conservatism, although imperfect as all ideologies or philosophies are, is the closest amongst contemporary sets of ideas to encompassing all that is needed to navigate the present and future. This is because it is the most intimately attached to reality, the human experience and thus truth. It is not dead or lost as its critics claim, nor bereft of things to conserve, but instead in urgent need of rediscovery and reapplication. It remains ultimately a positive, humane and constructive force, unlike everything else on offer in contemporary British politics. My hope is to continue to inform of and spread that spirit to readers, grounded in the otherwise disinterested pursuit of knowledge.
Looking to the year ahead, my principal aim is to write more of the same on conservatism and history, if that was not already obvious. The headings below cover some more specific aspirations that come to mind.
Quality and Frequency
At fear of sounding like a scratched record, the quality of my writing here over the past few months has finally become both satisfactory and consistent. Greater purpose has assisted tremendously in this respect, as it has in making pieces more substantial, focussed and lengthier than they were at the start of last year. A concerted return to reading since summer, both for pleasure and better research, has doubtless helped too. As for frequency, I have successfully held myself to one new piece each month, which is at least consistent. I plan to continue that as a baseline but exceed it as much as possible. I have always found establishing a good quantity for my writing challenging and it has probably become the most significant barrier to producing something cohesive, as I intend for this Substack going forward. Readers shall have to wait and see for any progress on this point over the year.
Sentimental Conservatism
I doubt readers understand the significance I attribute to this piece. This was, for want of a better phrase, the turning point in my writing as well as for this Substack. It was around this time, as the Conservatives’ defeat at the polls appeared imminent and was then realised, that I almost accidentally embarked on a personal rediscovery of conservatism. After a few years of what I can only consider errancy, Russell Kirk’s Concise Guide to Conservatism articulated with nearly every page a previously buried disposition and shook me out of a complacency that assumed to understand enough about the principal ideologies of modernity. Although my piece now has a lot of rough edges and things left unsaid, it ought to stand that way, as both an initial personal declaration for the potential of conservatism today and as an outline of its potential disintegration that must be averted. I want to write a hopefully lengthy successor, probably titled ‘Sentimental Conservatism at the Election and After’, at some point this year.
In the meantime, ‘Kemi Badenoch and Conservative Renewal’ bears some relation to this topic, as it indicates my no longer oppositional yet complicated relationship to the Conservative Party. Probably for the reasons above, I remain untroubled by Badenoch’s extended contemplation of principles, at least until the party has to contest local elections. It is for those same reasons, however, that I have a rapidly growing problem with what may be generalised as the populist right, which reveals itself daily to have mirrored every dislikeable characteristic of progressives on the left in pursuit of its own twisted schemes. Its acolytes make no secret of being totally anti-conservative and working towards the label’s destruction in every meaningful sense, alongside most of what conservatism promises to protect. They answer the politics of repudiation with a politics of counter-repudiation; the two combined will only result in a nihilistic void emerging to engulf British politics and society. ‘Reform and Ideological Restoration’ is a small contribution to the case that the present challengers on the right are another apparition of the ‘destructives’ that the Conservatives were established to thwart, but more direct elaboration is required.
Definitive Versions of Prior Articles
Further to ideas about a turning point in my writing and thoughts, I have grown to dislike almost everything I wrote before ‘The Prospect of Sentimental Conservatism’ (7th-10th June, to be exact) for a wide variety of reasons. The only exceptions to the rule are the article I had published in The Critic by that time and the earlier pieces still published in full on this Substack. Whilst there is plenty of shoddy work to happily disclaim in perpetuity, some could be brought up to my present standard with thorough re-editing, even full rewrites on worthy subjects. Since most of these would be quite off-topic, I am unsure about emailing such uploads to readers, plus it would be simply lazy for them to replace new writing. Nevertheless, at least a few will appear on this site over the coming year, but I do not wish to assign any great priority or promise to their (re)publishing.
Protection to Oblivion
My editor at ConservativeHome has graciously given me the opportunity to write a series for the website on the history of the Conservative Party’s factionalism and splits over trade, of which there have been several. By the time this post is released, the first part of the project on the repeal of the Corn Laws should have been published in two instalments. Completing this series will be a priority in the first month or two of the year. Upon its complete publication, there will be a piece on here with links to all the articles, lists of references for each part and likely some miscellaneous notes.
The Whig Ascendancy and the Rise of Political Conservatism
Upon the completion of Protection to Oblivion, the next project requiring substantial academic research that I wish to undertake should be housed predominantly on this Substack, concerning how conservatism and the Conservative Party emerged in British politics in the first place. There exists a notion that the Conservatives were a near seamless evolution of the Tories, which may be observable to some extent amongst personnel at the moment of change but not in core ideas or approach. There was perhaps even less continuity within the history of the Tories themselves, owing to the Whigs’ supremacy during the first half of the eighteenth century and enduring ascendancy in different forms until the 1820s. However far removed today’s politics is from the initiation of conservatism as a political practice, it remains useful for at least its own sake to properly understand its origins.
My theory, which has changed substantially over the year since I first considered embarking on this project, incidentally concurs with the arguments Sir Roger Scruton made in the early chapters of Conservatism (2017) that the political philosophy is a “product of the Enlightenment” as a qualification or “hesitation within [classical] liberalism.” Although my writing will focus on the political practice over the philosophy, as the latter’s eighteenth-century influences were more mixed, his argument loses no strength when translated explicitly to party politics. Accordingly, the Conservative Party owes more to the Whigs than the Tories, exemplified by Edmund Burke being an unashamed parliamentary Whig yet the founder of conservatism. Furthermore, I believe these origins have made a positive contribution to the development of political conservatism and the Conservative Party, not just politically but in the realm of ideas. The history of Whig factions transforming into the main parties of the nineteenth century also defines a constructive relationship between liberalism and conservatism, although one which may not be fully reclaimable in modern times since the philosophies have evolved in increasingly separate directions.
A Spooky Button…
After some to-ing and fro-ing on the matter, I have enabled pledges to be an option within email subscriptions. The monthly amount is set to the lowest it can be, as I have no immediate intentions of creating a paid element to the site and have little idea of what I would offer. Perhaps a much improved output would create more of a case on both sides of the equation, but until then it is merely an indication that the time and research I like to put into writing here does not occur without cost. I thank in advance any reader who considers the results worth rewarding.
Thank you for reading, or continuing to read, my thoughts in 2024. I hope my writing in the coming year remains of interest to readers new and old. A special acknowledgement must be given to my confidante, who since June has uniquely held me accountable on both the quality and frequency of my writing. This, for which no editor has ever seemed capable or willing, has been an invaluable influence. Much of what I wrote over the past few months or will write this year simply would not exist without it. I can reasonably believe, therefore, that 2025 will be a strong and productive year for this Substack. What that will exactly look like and what help it shall offer to conservatism are the only things that remain to be seen.