The nation in ‘One Nation Conservatism’ refers to England and has done since it was coined by Disraeli in the 19th century.

Thread. 1/x https://twitter.com/NJ_Timothy/status/1243492205307838464

As a backbencher in the 1840s, Disraeli was the unofficial leader of a movement dubbed ‘Young England’, echoing nationalist movements such as ‘Young Italy’ and’ Young Ireland’, which campaigned for the repeal of the Acts of Union. 2/x

Disraeli published a trilogy of novels, including ‘Sybil or The Two Nations’ - the two nations being the rich and the poor of England, which he believed should be One Nation. Disraeli refers in the books to “the three great empires of the age: France, England, and Russia”. 3/x

Disraeli set out what became the defining statement of One Nation Conservative values in a series of speeches in 1872 while Leader of the Opposition, in which he refers to the then PM William Gladstone as “the Prime Minister of England”. 4/x

This was no slip of the tongue. Many of the debates from the 19th century are now available on Hansard. We see that the phrase “Prime Minister of England” was used hundreds of times, and was common right through to the post-war era. 5/x

In contrast, the phrases “Prime Minister of Great Britain” or “Prime Minister of the United Kingdom” do not appear at all before the 1880s, and the latter only became common after the 1960s. 6/x

Going back to 1872, in Manchester Disraeli set out a defence of the English constitutional settlement dating from the Glorious Revolution: “Since the settlement of that Constitution, now nearly two centuries ago, England has never experienced a revolution." 7/x

Disraeli defends the monarchy by comparing the cost of the Civil List with the democratic institutions of the USA - Congress, State Legislatures, etc: “There is no sovereignty of any first-rate State which costs so little to the people as the sovereignty of England." 8/x

It’s an argument that might sound eccentric to modern ears, but even following the expansion of the franchise in the Reform Act of 1867, the entire electorate was only around 2 million people or 6% of the population, deciding the fate one of the world’s greatest empires. 9/x

Later that year, Disraeli emphasised his commitment to empire: “There is another and second great object of the Tory party. If the first is to maintain the institutions of the country, the second is, in my opinion, to uphold the empire of England." 10/x

The union allowed England to strike a geopolitical bargain giving it a secure base from which to pursue an imperial rivalry with the other Great Powers of Europe. 11/x

Disraeli’s view explains why the the Irish nationalist movement was more than a territorial threat to the empire: it also posed a fundamental intellectual challenge to an English constitution that was not based on the sovereignty of the people but of the Crown-in-Parliament. 12/x

If we fast-forward to the referendum of 2016, we see the same conflict between the principles of parliamentary and popular sovereignty expressed in a different way. In embracing the ‘will of the people’, the modern Conservative Party has chosen the latter. 13/x

As the union fractured in the first part of the 20th century, British nationalism emerged as a way to hold the remainder of it together. This was then fused with the moral certainties of the post-war era to create the temporary illusion of a coherent national state. 14/x

But the roots of the union lie in the earlier era of competing imperialisms. In a post-imperial era, in which de facto democratic popular sovereignty is the norm, the UK looks like a constitutional relic. 15/x

In his book, @NJ_Timothy ducks the issue by proposing a federal solution for the UK, but this avoids the fundamental constitutional question of national sovereignty. 16/x

In the UK today, the real regressives are not the so-called Little Englanders, but the British nationalists and unionists who cling on to the illusions of the past. 17/17