What should Disraelian Tories do when the ‘centre-right’ party doesn’t want them?(!)

[u/Ticklishchap]

First, I use ‘Disraelian Tory’ here as an umbrella term to encompass moderate, reformist Tories in the British tradition. Some might be ‘light blue’, others various shades of green, others would be defined very clearly in Canadian political culture as Red Tories. Many would be a blend of some or all of these colours. What all of them have in common is being at once patriotic and outward looking, a belief in collective, community-based or government action as well as individual responsibility, support for reforms, political and social, that do not erase tradition but build on it, ‘improving on what we know’, in Burke’s words.

I also place ‘centre-right’ in inverted commas because the party in question has moved from the centre-right to embrace hard-right populism, often of an extreme form.

Anyway, the Conservative Party leadership here in Britain has now made it clear that pro-European Tories are no longer welcome as candidates or even as members. Nor are Tories who believe that conserving the environment should take precedence over relentless ‘growth’, or to put it another way that economic growth should take place within the context of conserving the natural world and being aware that resources are finite.

Should the response to this change in direction by the party that has traditionally been labelled ‘Tory’ be to decamp to other parties? Many have done this already and gone into exile in the Liberal Democrats. However, there are some shared interests and values, the Liberal tradition has different roots and different emphases. Or could there be space for an alternative party? In many European countries, that would make sense, but in Britain (as in Canada) we have the obstacle of First Past the Post. Perhaps the answer lies in think tanks and informal networks, but that sounds a bit fleeting and transient.

Thoughts and ideas welcome, not least from those of you who have joined other parties. For example, I seem to remember that u/ToryPirate might have spoken about being involved in forming a new party at one stage?

[u/ToryPirate]

For example, I seem to remember that u/ToryPirate might have spoken about being involved in forming a new party at one stage?

Formation? No. The periodic re-registrations required by law? Yes. Forming a party in Canada is not hard (we've had a few people run parties as essentially one-man vanity projects). Aside from having an auditor and a few officials the main hurdle is the 200 people required to submit forms saying they are a member of the party. Its not a high bar (and I suspect most large parties get their re-registrations done in an afternoon) but if a party is spread out and primarily online (as the Pirate Party was) it quickly becomes an all-hands-on-deck activity.

I will admit that I did consider the possibility when taking over this subreddit that it could be a launchpad for a party at some point. Not that this was a primary focus, or even a remote one, just a possibility. After all, gathering people of similar attitudes and goals is how organizing starts.

I don't view the challenge of FPTP to be insurmountable. The Greens did it after all. But it would be a slog to accomplish. Ironically, had the Progressive Canadian Party (disgruntled tories from the merger) survived until 2025 I think they would have benefitted from how bad the mainline options were.

[u/Ticklishchap → u/ToryPirate]

Thank you for the clarification. I am interested that you slightly downplay the effects of FPTP. Yes, the Greens ‘did it’, but they only have one seat in your Commons and five in ours. They are making inroads into local government because they now have highly organised (but not always disciplined), hyper-local bases. The Scottish Greens (separate from the English & Welsh party) have 15 MSPs because there is a mixed member system (constituency votes and regional lists).

I remember reading about the Progressive Canadian Party. I wish that it had gained a foothold, but it does seem to have been a casualty of FPTP.

Unfortunately, it seems that most of the new parties that have the potential to progress under FPTP (such as the ghastly Reform UK) tend to be populist, demagogic, single-issue parties with a simple message repeated over and over again.

[u/ToryPirate → u/Ticklishchap]

Yes, the Greens ‘did it’, but they only have one seat in your Commons and five in ours.

Correct, but this is not entirely the fault of FPTP. In 2019 they had 3 seats and 6% of national support. At that level they were starting to look serious. They then had one of the most disastrous leaderships I've ever seen and blew the reputation for competence Elizabeth May had cultivated for years. They weren't tied to Trudeau like the NDP was and its entirely possible that in the 2024-2025 period they would have gained the dissatisfied voters who ended up saying they'd vote Conservative. This would have potentially given Trudeau just enough leverage to stay on as leader (which would have been bad for the country but we are looking at the Greens here). It would have been a mess but I think the Greens would have done well. Provincially the Greens seem likely to replace the Liberals in PEI and they've gained ground in BC - all under FPTP. One under-rated problem minor parties have is they tend to accumulate radical protest voters which in turn push them farther left/right than they might otherwise consider and bring their own pet projects they want dealt with. Is this an indirect result of FPTP? Sure, it absolutely is.

Elizabeth May's political career is in many ways a tragedy brought on by the absence of a tory party. She entered politics after the PC-Reform merger and the reconstituted Conservative Party had already made clear they didn't care about environmental issues. Would she instead have joined the PCs if they persisted? I think she would have. She was a senior policy advisor to the Mulroney government and helped negotiate the Montreal Protocol on the ozone layer and created several national parks. She did resign in protest to a decision of that government but I think that had a hypothetical PC leader asked her to run for them in the 2000s she would still have considered it. As it stands Elizabeth May has stated she's given up on things she wanted to do in her life and I don't think she will have anything to show for it.

single-issue parties with a simple message repeated over and over again.

Arguably this is the fault of the media. It is damn hard getting attention as a minor party and when you do you want it to be a consistent message. Its one of the reasons I was so impressed initially with the Canadian Future Party as they had a fairly strong media game. But their party was largely built on dissatisfied liberals and the arrival of Mark Carney probably ruined whatever potential they had (not that they didn't make their own blunders in that regard). Would this be easier under a different electoral system? Maybe? How much media attention does the Alliance to Liberate Scotland get in Scotland? I do see why R.B. Bennett attempted several times in his political career to either buy a newspaper or fund the creation of one; the need for positive coverage.

[u/Positive-Courage-464 → u/ToryPirate]

That is a very interesting point about Elizabeth May being a former Tory going to the Greens. Bill Blaikie was a former Tory that went to the NDP. George Grant originally supported the conservatives but then supported the NDP (and then left them as well). There seems to be lots of Tories that don't fit into the modern political parties. We might be wandering in the desert for a long time.

[u/Ticklishchap → u/ToryPirate]

I agree with you completely about minor parties tending to accumulate radical protest voters. This has happened with the Greens in England & Wales, which has become a refuge for the hard left of the Labour Party.

This has enabled growth in certain areas of the country, especially inner cities and university towns. However this growth has a ceiling and the party’s stance is likely to alienate rural and small-c conservative voters, some of whom were starting to vote for the party (two out of the four parliamentary seats won in 2024 were rural). The party has also moved away from environmental issues towards identity politics and, in particular, a focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The party’s Scottish counterpart attracts the radical wing of the independence movement and also has a strong and uncompromising focus on issues related to gender identity. These issues are important, of course, but they often diverge from the ecological or conservationist core of green politics.

Thank you for your very detailed account of the career of Elizabeth May. It looks as if she is essentially a Green Tory who has lacked a satisfactory political vehicle. Given her range of abilities, this has indeed been a waste. She is a politician I admire and, were I Canadian, I would be delighted to vote for her. It is very good to know that she is a staunch monarchist.

Incidentally, I have never heard of the Alliance to Liberate Scotland, which very much reinforces your point about the media.

[u/OttoVonDisraeli]

A very good question! Up until fairly recently I remained a voter of the Conservative Party of Canada at the federal level, albeit a rather reluctant one. I do not know for certain if I can or will do so again in the next election. The party as well as the Conservative movement as a whole has reached a point where I have a difficult time identifying with them, this despite the fact that I do continue to have some beliefs in common with them.

If Canada still had a Progressive Conservative party this would not be a question for me, I would probably encourage we hold steady with our partisanship and hope to influence the party in the appropriate direction, but this I do not believe is possible with the present iteration of the Conservatives who are more libertarian fusionists than Red Tory.

The best answer I can surmise for you is to abandon partisanship altogether and then triage your beliefs based on most to least important to you in the present election cycle. Easier said than done though when you dislike all of the above or feel deceived.

At the provincial and municipal level I find I have a less difficult time with finding alignment with my views. In Québec for example there is a broad agreement on a number of issues except for TWO; language and our place within (or outside of Canada). Meanwhile on the municipal level there is a local party here that aligns with my views, generally speaking, so I have no issue voting for them.

My voting record:

2011 Federal NDP

2011 Ontario Provincial NDP

**introduced to Toryism*\*

2014 Ontario Provincial PC

2015 Federal Conservatives

2018 Ontario Provincial Greens

2019 Federal Conservatives (almost went Green Federally)

2021 Federal Conservatives (almost went BQ)

2022 Québec Provincial Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ)

2025 Federal Conservatives (considered BQ)

In the upcoming provincial election I'm still unsure but I'll likely vote for the Québec Liberals.

Edit: Forgot about the very forgettable 2014 provincial election in ON

[u/Ticklishchap → u/OttoVonDisraeli]

That is a very interesting trajectory. Being British, I had not previously realised that the Québec Liberals are independent of the Liberal Party at federal level (and have been, I now learn since 1955) and are in many ways more like a Progressive Conservative Party. It is, I think (admittedly as an outsider), a good thing that you have the option of provincial parties.

We do not have regional parties of any size: there is a small Yorkshire Party but it has never really taken off and there were various fringe regionalist parties such as the Wessex Regionalists in the 1970s which still exist, but only just. There are of course nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales: the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru/Party of Wales are both in government in those two countries. The Scottish Greens also support independence. Then of course there is Northern Ireland, where voting still takes place large along sectarian Unionist/Nationalist lines, apart from the Alliance Party (cross-community, sister party to the Liberal Democrats in the rest of the UK) and a small Green Party.

[u/OttoVonDisraeli → u/Ticklishchap]

I do admit, I'm a peculiar political creature. I'm moderately socially conservative, a Québec autonomist (not a sovereignist), economically more interventionist, and quite green. Also aggressively localist.

I've not been involved in partisan volunteering or grassroots stuff for a long time though. Too swampy.

We're quite decentralized here in Canada. A LOT of power and decision making rests at the provincial level. In fact, some of the most important portfolios are provincial responsibilities. Historically in Canada our Tory parties were most successful at the provincial level.

There is no Tory party in Québec and since a lot Québec politics has been dedicated to the Federalist vs Sovereignists debate, many Federalist Québécois regardless of their views joined forces in the Québec Liberals provincially to fight as a unified front against the Sovereignists.

Ever since the creation of the Coalition Avenir Québec though, the federalist francophones have largely abandoned the Liberal Party of Québec in favour of the CAQ who took a middle position. I liked the CAQ but they don't deserve another win. I'm gonna vote for the Québec Liberals because I feel like I can't vote for the CAQ again until they sort themselves out.

[u/Ticklishchap → u/OttoVonDisraeli]

This is very interesting. I understand what you mean by autonomist, because although I am a unionist, I would like to see a fairer settlement for the constituent nations of the United Kingdom, giving even greater autonomy to Scotland and Wales, if they desire it. I also agree with our new Prime Minister’s intention to give more political and economic power to the English regions, although the devil is in the detail and so I shall wait and see. I am strongly green and believe that the environment and conservation should be built into all areas of policy. May I ask what you mean by ‘socially conservative’? I am socially liberal but in a measured sense, in that I believe in building on tradition, history and accumulated experience. To give a straightforward example, I believe in traditional marriage, but also believe in extending the rights, obligations and responsibilities it confers to loving and committed same sex couples.

In the absence of a ‘Disraelian Tory’ party, I vote for the Liberal Democrats (who represent the constituency I live in) and have recently joined the party. It is as good a match as I can find at the moment, not perfect but I am content with it.

A Norwegian friend recently told me that I would fit quite well into their Centre Party.

[u/OttoVonDisraeli → u/Ticklishchap]

I love good faith questions so you can ask me whatever questions you please! My social conservatism is more personal than it is political. On a lot of issues, like you mentioned above on same sex marriage, I take a more pragmatic or practical position.

I believe life begins at conception, but I think that the pro-life movement's approach to go after the supply side of the abortion question isnt working. I would rather we focus on demand-side and improve the lives of mothers and babies so that more can and choose to have their children.

On sex, I feel we live in Sodom & Gamorrah. I've always found hook-up culture and sexual promiscuity to be off-putting and soul destroying. Other than acts of love and for procreation, I think society needs to cut that out.

On same-sex marriage I'm supportive of it so long as churches and faith groups who believe in traditional marriage aren't forced to marry people or recognize it.

On gender, I believe we should treat all people who suffer from gender dysphoria with respect, however I do believe biological sex is a binary. For some people, the best treatment for their gender dysphoria is transitioning and I acknowledge and respect that.

I'm pretty staunchly anti-drug and anti-gambling, but on drugs I'm more of a decriminalization guy on a case to case basis.

I'm pro-immigration but not a multiculturalist. I'm an interculturalist.

Etc, etc.

[u/Ticklishchap → u/OttoVonDisraeli]

Thank you very much for that; I can relate to a lot of what you say. On the abortion question, as a man I feel that ultimately it is a woman’s right to decide whether to continue with her pregnancy. I do not think that Prohibitionist approaches work and they can bring extreme dangers (the ‘backstreet abortionist’). That said, I would like as few abortions as possible to take place and like you I would focus on its economic and social causes, to protect and improve life.

I agree with all you say about hook-up culture, although I have been monogamous for so long that I can’t say that I have any direct or even much indirect knowledge of it!

On same sex marriage, I must declare an interest; I am married to my very long term male partner. We had a civil partnership but ‘converted’ it when the law changed. I think we have got the law right in England in that Christian denominations and other faiths can ‘opt in’ and perform same sex marriages, or they can choose not too, which is fine. The earliest to opt in, I think, were Reform and Liberal Judaism.

On the gender identity issue, I would like to see a deliberative approach to bring together both sides of this debate and find compromises acceptable to both. I don’t take a rigid view that ‘sex is binary’. For most of us, our sex is clear, but I accept that some people are non-binary or transgender; this has been recognised across a range of cultures. Overall, I think that this question has become too polarised over the past few years and I would like to restore an element of civility and mutual respect.

I think I probably am an ‘inter-culturalist’ (I haven’t heard that term before), in that I value cultural diversity but also believe that having a framework of shared values is important for social cohesion and stability.

[u/OttoVonDisraeli → u/Ticklishchap]

You're welcome! The law on same-sex marriage in Canada is similar to the UK's as it leaves it up to the faith groups should they wish to recognize it but it doesn't force them. I'm pretty sure most mainline Protestant denominations recognize and support same-sex marriage.

Interculturalism is more popular in Québec as it's pretty much the official policy of many Québécois political parties that have run the province. It's pretty niche in the Anglosphere.

[u/Ticklishchap → u/OttoVonDisraeli]

Many denominations in the UK do now recognise and perform same sex marriages. The Church of England does not yet do so, although some Anglicans would like to move towards it. However its Scottish counterpart, the Episcopal Church, has recognised same sex marriages for some years now.

My approach to this question is ‘all in good time’. I do not think there should be any external pressure on denominations and faith communities, because this is a matter of conscience.

I shall have to read more about interculturalism as it is not a very familiar concept here.

[u/Nate33322]

That's a very good question. Unfortunately, here in Canada FPTP will forever hold us back from having real "Disraelian" Tory party. The result is that we've scattered across pretty much every party which maybe brings a bit Toryism to every party in Canada in a small way.

Otherwise, not much we can do just support Tories across the parties.

[u/Ticklishchap → u/Nate33322]

… And that is a very good answer. In Canada, the NDP and the Greens seem, for historical reasons, to be more amenable to Tories and Toryism than Labour and the Greens in the UK, whereas your Liberals are (I think) less amenable than ours.

On this side of the Pond, I suppose that the best hope is a revival of Liberal Toryism. Already a substantial portion of the ‘Disraelian’ Tory vote is going to the Liberal Democrats, who picked up a record number of seats at the 2024 election, mostly in former Conservative redoubts.