What do you think?
Rate this book
Tory Nation: The Dark Legacy of the World's Most Successful Political Party
Why do the Tories keep winning? The Conservative Party has presided over countless corruption scandals, blundered its way through a pandemic and into a cost of living crisis that is set to plunge millions more into poverty. But in spite of their track record the party remains in power. Why?Tory Nation tells the story of how the Conservatives came to dominate Britain, and how this dominance is eroding our democracy, pushing us closer to a one-party state. It combines a fascinating history of the Conservative party, extending as far back as the 17th century and the establishment of the Tory party, with a study of how conservatism has shaped not only British politics, but its culture and identity too. With dazzling clarity and insight, Samuel Earle explores the reasons for the party’s success, including its disproportionate influence on the British press, its exploitation of Labour’s failings, and the use of ‘culture wars’ to divide and conquer. This is the story of the making of Britain through one party’s astonishing rise to power. Earle reveals that it’s only by reaching into our history that we can understand how we got here – and how we can change our politics for the better.
304 pages, Paperback
Published February 29, 2024
7 people are currently reading
120 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
August 5, 2024
Would have benefitted from more comparative analyses but very interesting and well-written
July 26, 2023
really enjoyed this book - good to be reminded that everything we accuse the Tories of being today, they have always been. shape-shifting, slippery bastards
September 25, 2023
erg educatief vooral omdat ik vaak in engeland kom (hehe) soms wat gek taalgebruik maar is doorheen te komen
January 14, 2024
Fascinating study about the contradictions in the Tory party and the collective cognitive dissonance of the country who keeps electing them
July 3, 2024
Having skim-read this book over the last two days. Finishing it a day before the general election, I have to say this is an intriguing look over the Tory party. Samuel Earle does not hold back. The book outlines how the Tory party has been successful over the past 200 years and why they have been in power for so long. From the introduction to the conclusion, Earle puts forward an argument that the Tories have dominated society by dominating both the institutions and elections. Unlike other political parties, emerging from revolutionary insurrections, the Tories have managed the emergence of democracy in the UK.
The history that Samuel Earle goes back to to establish the second chapter looks over Lord Salisbury and looks over the intellectualism of the rising Toryism including David Hume, the Scottish empiricist intellect. Discipline and party loyalty were partial explanations for their success but Samuel Peale also mentions the electoral system as being one of the keys to their success. FPTP has allowed the Tories to dominate elections, never dropping below 25% in national elections. Of course, this might actually change if the polls are correct. Their success Samuel Earle argues is to do with a sense of superiority which is then contrasted with a sense of existential dread of extinction. It is also adaptability and quoting Gramsci the fact the Tories have created an ideological hegemony.
What then do conservatives believe? This is where Samuel Earle highlights the innate contradictions of conservativism. On the one hand, the ideas of Thatcherism influenced by Friedrich Von Hayek are clearly front and centre of modern conservative ideology. On the other hand, there were many different conservative thinkers who disagreed with Hayek's belief. In fact, Earle argues that on a range of topics, you would find conservatives that would be for or against them. The key ideological tenets for Conservativism as set out by Samuel Earle would be "common sense" and a disdain for theoretical ideas, nationalism and patriotism, capitalism and hierarchy. These I don't really disagree with. Edmund Burke is considered to be the intellectual father of conservatism in the UK , which I would agree with. The thing with Burke is that unlike writers of the age such as Rousseau, Thomas Paine or David Hume, Burke I find to be a waffling writer who isn't concise in what he writes.
What liberalism was in the 19th century became a heavy tenet of conservative ideology of the 20th. I think one of the success stories of the Tories is how they effectively merged the liberal middle classes who would have been Liberal voters in the 19th century into their voting base of the 20th century. In "Ruling Britainnia", there was a real show of how the Tories gained control of the UK, with the aristocrats marrying the industrial classes which is how the modern Conservatives. Earle cites Daniel Ziblett in how the Tories have ended up dominating the UK by introducing democratic reforms to protect their interests. But by dominating the ruling classes, the Tories have in fact controlled the UK despite having a democratic system. The most fascinating part of "Ruling Britainnia" was the mentioning of the coup plot against Harold Wilson which I hadn't heard of much before. The landowners end up dominating the UK. And the 1980s ended up with the elites empowered by the financial reforms enacted by Margaret Thatcher.
"Conservative Nation" highlights the successful control of narrative over British life. It is in this regard that patriotism, the Conservative support of homeownership and how privilege is used to create a factional electorate in what political and social scientists would call "cleavages". It is particularly how patriotism has been used to create a veneration for parts of the state such as the monarchy and armed forces that the Tories have been able to rule over the narratives in society. This is particularly shown in the "Tory Press" where the history of the Tory media shows a consistent bias towards the Tories. Any opposition to patriotism makes the opponents be seen as foreign. An example would be how Brexit was used in segmenting the population between patriotic Leavers and foreign sympathising Remainers.
The darker side of the Tories was also shown through the racism of the Conservatives. This book first looks at Enoch Powell but makes it clear that racism runs deep in the Tory party, including imperialist attitudes but also Anti-Semitism which ran deep in the 1930s Tory party. Enoch Powell, whose views on capitalism and racism put him at the extreme right of the Tories but it was his racism that made him famous. But even Stanley Baldwin has racist views. Tory Nation also argues that the racism of the Tories is a problem because they have to expand their support among ethnic minorities but this can't come at the cost of the racists who support the Tories.
The last chapters of "Permanent Opposition" and "Leap into the Dark" highlight the difficulties Labour has had in trying to beat the Tories. Labour's inability to win power was looked at in both chapters, with the "Leap into the Dark" looking at the demise of Corbyn. I do think that Samuel Earle is too sympathetic to Corbyn for Anti-Semitism in the Labour party, given the ruling that Labour was an "institutionally racist" political party by the Equality and Human Rights Commission back in 2020. That said, what is emphasised in Leap into The Dark is the chaos that the Tories have created in Brexit. Labour though, is portrayed as being a "more competent Conservative party. Is that really fair? Well, I guess if you are like Samuel Earle in that the Tories have commanded such power over the UK, you would think that but even Earle lists the successes of Blair's government.
The conclusion finally sums up the problems of the Tory party and says that perhaps Britain at some point could get rid of them. Despite Earle's views on Labour, he argues for various policies that would be positive at ending the injustices in Britain including VAT on private schools and greater funding for local government. Other policies I agree with include a written constitution and PR.
The book is a good overview of how the Tories have had so much success over the UK for so long. Perhaps Searle doesn't focus on the concerns of Tory voters but he does show the successes of the Conservatives. A good book to read as a way to contemplate their rule over the last 14 years.
The history that Samuel Earle goes back to to establish the second chapter looks over Lord Salisbury and looks over the intellectualism of the rising Toryism including David Hume, the Scottish empiricist intellect. Discipline and party loyalty were partial explanations for their success but Samuel Peale also mentions the electoral system as being one of the keys to their success. FPTP has allowed the Tories to dominate elections, never dropping below 25% in national elections. Of course, this might actually change if the polls are correct. Their success Samuel Earle argues is to do with a sense of superiority which is then contrasted with a sense of existential dread of extinction. It is also adaptability and quoting Gramsci the fact the Tories have created an ideological hegemony.
What then do conservatives believe? This is where Samuel Earle highlights the innate contradictions of conservativism. On the one hand, the ideas of Thatcherism influenced by Friedrich Von Hayek are clearly front and centre of modern conservative ideology. On the other hand, there were many different conservative thinkers who disagreed with Hayek's belief. In fact, Earle argues that on a range of topics, you would find conservatives that would be for or against them. The key ideological tenets for Conservativism as set out by Samuel Earle would be "common sense" and a disdain for theoretical ideas, nationalism and patriotism, capitalism and hierarchy. These I don't really disagree with. Edmund Burke is considered to be the intellectual father of conservatism in the UK , which I would agree with. The thing with Burke is that unlike writers of the age such as Rousseau, Thomas Paine or David Hume, Burke I find to be a waffling writer who isn't concise in what he writes.
What liberalism was in the 19th century became a heavy tenet of conservative ideology of the 20th. I think one of the success stories of the Tories is how they effectively merged the liberal middle classes who would have been Liberal voters in the 19th century into their voting base of the 20th century. In "Ruling Britainnia", there was a real show of how the Tories gained control of the UK, with the aristocrats marrying the industrial classes which is how the modern Conservatives. Earle cites Daniel Ziblett in how the Tories have ended up dominating the UK by introducing democratic reforms to protect their interests. But by dominating the ruling classes, the Tories have in fact controlled the UK despite having a democratic system. The most fascinating part of "Ruling Britainnia" was the mentioning of the coup plot against Harold Wilson which I hadn't heard of much before. The landowners end up dominating the UK. And the 1980s ended up with the elites empowered by the financial reforms enacted by Margaret Thatcher.
"Conservative Nation" highlights the successful control of narrative over British life. It is in this regard that patriotism, the Conservative support of homeownership and how privilege is used to create a factional electorate in what political and social scientists would call "cleavages". It is particularly how patriotism has been used to create a veneration for parts of the state such as the monarchy and armed forces that the Tories have been able to rule over the narratives in society. This is particularly shown in the "Tory Press" where the history of the Tory media shows a consistent bias towards the Tories. Any opposition to patriotism makes the opponents be seen as foreign. An example would be how Brexit was used in segmenting the population between patriotic Leavers and foreign sympathising Remainers.
The darker side of the Tories was also shown through the racism of the Conservatives. This book first looks at Enoch Powell but makes it clear that racism runs deep in the Tory party, including imperialist attitudes but also Anti-Semitism which ran deep in the 1930s Tory party. Enoch Powell, whose views on capitalism and racism put him at the extreme right of the Tories but it was his racism that made him famous. But even Stanley Baldwin has racist views. Tory Nation also argues that the racism of the Tories is a problem because they have to expand their support among ethnic minorities but this can't come at the cost of the racists who support the Tories.
The last chapters of "Permanent Opposition" and "Leap into the Dark" highlight the difficulties Labour has had in trying to beat the Tories. Labour's inability to win power was looked at in both chapters, with the "Leap into the Dark" looking at the demise of Corbyn. I do think that Samuel Earle is too sympathetic to Corbyn for Anti-Semitism in the Labour party, given the ruling that Labour was an "institutionally racist" political party by the Equality and Human Rights Commission back in 2020. That said, what is emphasised in Leap into The Dark is the chaos that the Tories have created in Brexit. Labour though, is portrayed as being a "more competent Conservative party. Is that really fair? Well, I guess if you are like Samuel Earle in that the Tories have commanded such power over the UK, you would think that but even Earle lists the successes of Blair's government.
The conclusion finally sums up the problems of the Tory party and says that perhaps Britain at some point could get rid of them. Despite Earle's views on Labour, he argues for various policies that would be positive at ending the injustices in Britain including VAT on private schools and greater funding for local government. Other policies I agree with include a written constitution and PR.
The book is a good overview of how the Tories have had so much success over the UK for so long. Perhaps Searle doesn't focus on the concerns of Tory voters but he does show the successes of the Conservatives. A good book to read as a way to contemplate their rule over the last 14 years.
August 27, 2024
An interesting and for the most part convincing argument about the long-term success of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom as well as about the failures of the political Left. Most of the book could have been written by Gramsci, as it deals with sustaining what could be called the ‘cultural hegemony’ of the British ruling class and its various institutions, which are defined rather broadly and in the author’s own words are expansive (adsorbing into itself newly rich classes, like the bourgeoisie in the 19th century) and adaptative (similar argument for US context was made in ‘What's the Matter with Kansas’). Most of it is explained through its connection to media, and appeal to broad values like personal ambition, self-reliance and nationalism (which can be rebranded, in the ‘nasty party’ version of Tories as lesser suffering or feeling ‘better than foreigners/others’).
In the author’s narrative, it is not the status quo that is to be maintained - as radicals like Thatcher can rebrand Conservativism - but rather the interests, wealth and prestige of the ruling class. In this sense, the Tory nation is not the British nation or the Conservative party, but rather a broad ‘Establishment’, that does what it can to rule - because it deeply believes in its innate right to do so. It is willing to make deals, change its policies, and be the force of change or continuity if it serves its interests.
The analysis is more interesting when it deals with history (for instance it recalls how Edmund Burke was anything but Tory - a liberal, radical and anti-egalitarian, and was made into a caricature of a conservative in late 19th century based on his work on the French Revolution and a few quips, rather than what he actually represented across his whole career), rather than with the more current periods - the author, for instance, glosses over the actual and very real impracticalities of Corbyn’s and McDonald’s manifesto in 2019 to only explain their decline through attacks of the Tory press. That is not to say that the chapter on Labour and the political Left is not good - it is one of the most novel parts of the book - but more that it's a more idealistic bit amidst a very pragmatic and analytical book.
In this sense, this book unfortunately again falls into a well-populated genre of ‘establishment stitch-up doesn’t want to allow an alternative’, when there is no idea whatsoever what could the alternative realistically be. The gradualism of Fabians is mocked, yet Earle concedes that it was Attlee’s harmlessness from the perspective of the Tory nation (together with some structural factors during and after the war), that allowed for the most radical social and political changes in British history. An interesting note is in the conclusion (which is very reflective, making fun of conclusions in similar books) that the policies of the 1950s Conservatives would be on the far left of the current spectrum and those of the current Labour Party would be on the right of the spectrum of the 1950s.
Interesting historical survey, and a good argument (although too much mocking of the New Labour years, only briefly mentioning the actually quite significant social and economic progress it achieved), yet failing to truly account for or explain the shambles in the past 5 years.
In the author’s narrative, it is not the status quo that is to be maintained - as radicals like Thatcher can rebrand Conservativism - but rather the interests, wealth and prestige of the ruling class. In this sense, the Tory nation is not the British nation or the Conservative party, but rather a broad ‘Establishment’, that does what it can to rule - because it deeply believes in its innate right to do so. It is willing to make deals, change its policies, and be the force of change or continuity if it serves its interests.
The analysis is more interesting when it deals with history (for instance it recalls how Edmund Burke was anything but Tory - a liberal, radical and anti-egalitarian, and was made into a caricature of a conservative in late 19th century based on his work on the French Revolution and a few quips, rather than what he actually represented across his whole career), rather than with the more current periods - the author, for instance, glosses over the actual and very real impracticalities of Corbyn’s and McDonald’s manifesto in 2019 to only explain their decline through attacks of the Tory press. That is not to say that the chapter on Labour and the political Left is not good - it is one of the most novel parts of the book - but more that it's a more idealistic bit amidst a very pragmatic and analytical book.
In this sense, this book unfortunately again falls into a well-populated genre of ‘establishment stitch-up doesn’t want to allow an alternative’, when there is no idea whatsoever what could the alternative realistically be. The gradualism of Fabians is mocked, yet Earle concedes that it was Attlee’s harmlessness from the perspective of the Tory nation (together with some structural factors during and after the war), that allowed for the most radical social and political changes in British history. An interesting note is in the conclusion (which is very reflective, making fun of conclusions in similar books) that the policies of the 1950s Conservatives would be on the far left of the current spectrum and those of the current Labour Party would be on the right of the spectrum of the 1950s.
Interesting historical survey, and a good argument (although too much mocking of the New Labour years, only briefly mentioning the actually quite significant social and economic progress it achieved), yet failing to truly account for or explain the shambles in the past 5 years.
Read
July 24, 2023I don't deny that Earle does have knowledge in politics, and the first chapters certainly prove that. This book was promising, and as someone who isn't a conservative, I too, was curious about how they became so popular. But the reasons to support his argument were merely made up of sweeping generalisations, which in turn let down the book.
According to Earle, not only the Tories, but the monarchy and even the British people are against progress of all kinds. One of Earle's reasons for why the Tories are popular? Because Downton Abbey is popular (as well as other period dramas). Apparently Downton Abbey is what makes the British comfortable with inequalities so they refuse to vote for anyone else apart from Tory. Somehow, I don't think my left-leaning friends who enjoy the show would agree to being tarred with the Tory brush. This begs the question as to whether Earle has actually watched an episode of Downton Abbey, because as someone who has, I can tell you that the revolutionaries, servants and minorities all play an integral role to the story, not just the Lord and Lady of the house. Does he not remember that Lady Sybil was a staunch suffragette who went out of her way to spark change? Or the Irish Republican chauffeur with socialist values? But that's beside the point: Using pop culture references and then making generalisations about them is not what I'd regard as insightful political analysis. But I digress.
I did think that the later chapter on the media was quite strong. The Murdoch media does indeed have a huge influence public opinion around election time, not just in the UK but around the world. But it should also be noted that Murdoch's same media machine had led to Tony Blair, a Labour politician, to victory.
Overall, thesis itself is good, and gripped me initially, but lacked objectivity for me to take it seriously as political analysis. With more research and less generalisations, this book could have become really insightful. But perhaps objective political analysis was not what Earle was aiming for. If that's the case, job well done.
According to Earle, not only the Tories, but the monarchy and even the British people are against progress of all kinds. One of Earle's reasons for why the Tories are popular? Because Downton Abbey is popular (as well as other period dramas). Apparently Downton Abbey is what makes the British comfortable with inequalities so they refuse to vote for anyone else apart from Tory. Somehow, I don't think my left-leaning friends who enjoy the show would agree to being tarred with the Tory brush. This begs the question as to whether Earle has actually watched an episode of Downton Abbey, because as someone who has, I can tell you that the revolutionaries, servants and minorities all play an integral role to the story, not just the Lord and Lady of the house. Does he not remember that Lady Sybil was a staunch suffragette who went out of her way to spark change? Or the Irish Republican chauffeur with socialist values? But that's beside the point: Using pop culture references and then making generalisations about them is not what I'd regard as insightful political analysis. But I digress.
I did think that the later chapter on the media was quite strong. The Murdoch media does indeed have a huge influence public opinion around election time, not just in the UK but around the world. But it should also be noted that Murdoch's same media machine had led to Tony Blair, a Labour politician, to victory.
Overall, thesis itself is good, and gripped me initially, but lacked objectivity for me to take it seriously as political analysis. With more research and less generalisations, this book could have become really insightful. But perhaps objective political analysis was not what Earle was aiming for. If that's the case, job well done.
December 21, 2023
A good overview of the history of the Conservative Party: explains well the two key characteristics, that all these people are somehow related to each other, what her cousins or classmates; and that they’re basically all bankers and accountants more than political figures. The Tories are more of an investment bank than a political party, with no real philosophy or thought behind them.
Earle could’ve gone a wee bit more into the current crisis within the Conservative Party: it seems to me there’s a great potential they’ll never be in government again after they lose next year.
Earle could’ve gone a wee bit more into the current crisis within the Conservative Party: it seems to me there’s a great potential they’ll never be in government again after they lose next year.
October 16, 2023
This is a short, readable, and incredibly insightful survey of all the forces and personalities that have empowered the Tories over the last century or so. Earle is a really pithy, smart writer who can pull together a lot of history and cultural commentaries in a way that never feels dry or didactic. While you likely won't agree with everything here -- I took some issue with the way he laid out the Corbyn period -- he's a fair-minded and consistently thoughtful writer.
July 20, 2023
A clear and enjoyable look at the history and current context of the most successful political party in the world, examining their core tenets (such as they are), their amazing ability to shapeshift and the various British institutions that help keep them in power.
May 1, 2024
well-written and lively, with a fair amount of good points. Might perhaps have gone just a bit deeper, but a very good read neverthless
March 26, 2024
The story of modern UK revolves around the Tories, deeply entwined with the nation's identity, particularly in England. Throughout its 200-year history, the Conservative Party has held power for about two-thirds of the time. "Tory Nation" delves into the party's remarkable resilience and sheds light on the factors that shape Britain's inherently conservative nature: monarchy, imperial nostalgia, public schools, and the House of Lords. Despite the author's (presumably) non-Tory stance, it is evident that the Conservative Party, primarily aligned with the “ruling class”, has consistently secured electoral victories, often with working-class support. “Tory Nation” is sharp, accessible and witty book, and a must read for anyone interested in UK politics.
Read
September 18, 2025My first foray into British politics was wholly enjoyable. Samuel Earle very succinctly broke down not only the history of the Tories but also the institutions which are complicit in their continued claim of power along with their ability to pull their opposition further to the right. The history of this nasty party is very telling (and very reminiscent of the American Conservative party) as to why the working class of Britain continue to get the short end of the stick and the ways in which this party working against their very interests continues to get their support.
The Tory party is a Monarchist, conservative, racist, elitist, hateful, selfish, and overall Nasty party who has perfected the art of staying in power. Hopefully, this will change.. but in the end any reform still works within their system and as they say “the house always wins”. To really end their supremacy the current system must not be reformed, but instead destroyed with a new system (*cough* socialism *cough*) built in its stead.
The Tory party is a Monarchist, conservative, racist, elitist, hateful, selfish, and overall Nasty party who has perfected the art of staying in power. Hopefully, this will change.. but in the end any reform still works within their system and as they say “the house always wins”. To really end their supremacy the current system must not be reformed, but instead destroyed with a new system (*cough* socialism *cough*) built in its stead.
December 14, 2023
Earle lays out a history of just how conservatives have managed to form a political stranglehold on the UK's governance and how they manage to convince the working class to continue voting tory even though it goes against their interests.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews