Executive Summary
This document provides an overview of each Conservative Prime Minister’s time in office since 1950. It is not intended as an in-depth historical treatise; if that is what you want, there is no shortage of academic material available, much of which informed this summary.
What emerges clearly is a steady decline in the overall quality of governance delivered by Conservative administrations. The reasons are many: persistent internal factionalism, inconsistent ideological direction, and a marked deterioration in the calibre of those elected to represent the party.
Public confidence has declined in parallel. The graph on page 27—an aggregate of multiple decades of opinion polling on party leaders, prime ministers, government performance and overall approval—shows a consistent downward trajectory. This is not a partisan interpretation; it is borne out repeatedly across polling organisations.
The real question is simple: is the Conservative Party fit to govern the United Kingdom?
Judging by their performance since 1950, the scandals that have dogged them since the 1960s, and the conduct of far too many of their MPs, the answer is an unequivocal NO!
It may be stark, but based on their record, they should be grateful they are not a horse.
Contents
1. The Churchill Years of the early 1950s.
2. Anthony Eden Government (1955 – 1957)
3. Harold MacMillan (1957 – 1963)
4. Alec Douglas-Home (1964-1965) and Edward Heath (1970-1974)
5. Baroness Margaret Thatcher (1979 to 1990)
6. John Major 1990 to 1997
7. David Cameron (2010-2016)
8. Theresa May (2016 to 2019)
9. Boris Johnson (2019 to 2022)
10. Rishi Sunak (2022 to 2024)
11. Overall conclusion
12. Consolidated Approval rating Graph
The Churchill Years of the early 1950s.
This analysis examines the performance and principal controversies (often referred to as “scandals” in political discourse) surrounding Conservative administrations associated with Winston Churchill in the early 1950s. It explores why these administrations did not undertake a systematic reversal of the Labour Party’s programme of nationalisation and welfare expansion, placing Churchill-era governance within the wider historiographical context of the British “post-war consensus” and the institutional legacies from wartime to peacetime that shaped policy options (Edgerton, 2011) (Hickson, 2004) (Heffernan, 2002). The focus of the discussion is the immediate post-war decade, particularly the Conservative governments that came into power after the 1951 election, operating within a policy environment heavily influenced by Labour’s reforms (1945–51) and wartime planning, which continued to shape state–industry relations (Hickson, 2004), (Heffernan, 2002). The aim is to synthesize economic, political-institutional, legal, and international explanations provided in recent literature to create an integrated account of performance, controversy, and policy restraint regarding nationalisation Edgerton, 2011) Whiteside, 1996) (Richardson, 2000).
Economic performance in context.
Macroeconomic performance in the immediate post-war era significantly constrained the range of feasible policy options for any government in the early 1950s, including the Conservative administrations aligned with Churchill. Scholars have noted that post-1945 annual GDP growth was modest, commonly cited at around 2.5% per year, which limited fiscal flexibility for politically costly reforms such as mass denationalisation Sanderson, 1991), Borooah & Ploeg, 1982). Economic histories and comparative political-economy studies emphasize the importance of post-war policy objectives—price stability, full employment, external stability, and real growth—that British governments regarded as simultaneous priorities, thereby narrowing the political appetite for disruptive industrial policy during the 1950s Sanderson, 1991) (Borooah & Ploeg, 1982). Furthermore, substantial public debt inherited from wartime mobilisation necessitated a mixture of fiscal and regulatory instruments to manage this legacy, which constrained the fiscal capacity for one-off compensation and complex asset transfers that wholesale denationalisation would have required (Fulcher et al., 2014). As a result, these structural economic constraints fostered a politics of prudence, leading all major parties, including the Conservative government, to prefer policies that prioritized employment and macroeconomic stability (Richardson, 2000) (Fulcher et al., 2014).
Political constraints and the “post-war consensus.”
Political scholarship emphasizes that Conservative governments in the early 1950s operated within a broader post-war consensus, where significant elements of Labour’s social welfare and mixed economy agenda had achieved broad political legitimacy and voter acceptance; thus, aggressive rejection of core Labour policies posed electoral risks for the Conservatives Whiteside, 1996) ( Hickson, 2004) (Heffernan, 2002). Studies indicate this consensus was reflected in cross-party parliamentary attitudes and the preferences of many civil service and interest group actors, producing an environment in which radical policy reversals were difficult to justify to legislators and the public Hickson, 2004) (Richardson, 2000).
Consequently, the Conservatives’ strategy was one of selective modification rather than wholesale rollback; where they disagreed with Labour’s methods, they sought efficiency or managerial reforms rather than a complete return to pre-war laissez-faire (Whiteside, 1996) (Hickson, 2004). Thus, political considerations rooted in electoral viability, public opinion, and elite consensus largely explain why Conservative administrations did not pursue comprehensive denationalisation during the early 1950s Whiteside, 1996) (Heffernan, 2002).
Institutional legacies and administrative path dependence.
Historical analyses emphasize that nationalisation and wartime planning created enduring legal structures, statutory boards, and administrative practices that generated significant path dependence and vested interests opposed to rapid reversal Edgerton, 2011; , (Priel, 2013; . Edgerton’s work indicates that national planning and immediate post-war nationalisation were not only programmatic choices but also created new bureaucratic structures and relationships among state agencies and trade unions that were costly to dismantle politically and administratively (Edgerton, 2011) (Priel, 2013).
Legal scholarship has pointed out that the statutory entrenchment of functions, along with new liabilities and labour rights, increased the procedural and fiscal challenges associated with reversing public ownership, thus leading ministers to prefer incremental managerial reforms (Priel, 2013) (Edgerton, 2011).
Consequently, the existence of these institutional constraints resulted in high transaction costs associated with denationalisation, favouring safer, more administratively manageable alternatives (Edgerton, 2011) (Priel, 2013) (Dorey, 2009).
Electoral politics and public attitudes toward welfare and public services. The reluctance of Conservative governments to aggressively challenge core elements of the Labour settlement can be attributed in part to public attachment to universal services and education reforms established or expanded under Labour, creating durable electoral constituencies favouring continued state provision.
Research indicates that services perceived as universal, particularly the National Health Service (NHS), gained strong public legitimacy and became politically significant, making proposals for dismantling or significantly contracting them electorally risky (Whiteside, 1996) (Melia, 2020).
Studies in education policy reveal similar dynamics: secondary education systems, especially grammar schools, received broad support across social groups, so efforts to roll back these nearly universal services risked alienating substantial segments of the electorate (Mandler, 2014) (Whiteside, 1996). Hence, Conservative administrations opted to protect the general framework of public service provision while pursuing reforms focused on administration and efficiency rather than attempting to overturn the foundations of the welfare state (Whiteside, 1996) (Mandler, 2014).
Conservative economic policy orientation in the early 1950s. Analyses of Conservative economic strategy during the early 1950s depict it as pragmatic and managerial, maintaining Keynesian demand-management principles and commitments to employment and stability rather than seeking immediate retrenchment or radical market restructuring (Borooah & Ploeg, 1982) (Sanderson, 1991). Comparative studies suggest that the ideological pivot towards a full pro-market, deregulatory agenda, which would characterize the later Thatcher era, did not define mainstream Conservative governance in the early 1950s; instead, Conservatives accepted a mixed economy and focused on incremental efficiency, fiscal prudence, and industrial stability Borooah & Ploeg, 1982) (Hickson, 2004). This approach was influenced by macroeconomic constraints and a political calculation that prioritizing employment and preventing disruptive industrial conflicts were more effective strategies for achieving electoral success and economic stability (Fulcher et al., 2014) (Borooah & Ploeg, 1982).
External and geopolitical constraints on domestic reform. International commitments and the Cold War context further constrained domestic policy agendas of early 1950s Conservative governments, as priorities shifted toward defence, alliance duties, and external economic stability, which crowded out politically sensitive domestic reforms (Wiebes & Zeeman, 1984) (Hashimoto, 2017).
Studies of British wartime and post-war planning underscore that strategic commitments to European security and Atlantic alliances, alongside emerging Cold War imperatives, drew ministerial focus and fiscal resources away from domestic asset transfers during times of geopolitical tension. Research on Britain’s involvement in the Korean conflict also suggests that these overseas responsibilities reinforced a domestic preference for industrial continuity and effective management of strategic sectors over disruptive changes at home (Wiebes & Zeeman, 1984) (Huxford, 2018).
Thus, international constraints intensified the domestic political and fiscal factors discouraging wholesale denationalisation in the early 1950s.
Conservative practice toward nationalised industries, reform rather than repeal. Detailed studies of policy in nationalised sectors indicate that Conservative administrations predominantly favoured governance-oriented reforms, such as board restructuring, financial reorganisation, investment incentives, and managerial oversight—over immediate sales or privatisation, pursuing efficiency gains within the framework of public ownership. Administrative history emphasizes that nationalised industries faced complex capital structures and service obligations, making immediate sales both technically challenging and politically risky; thus, managerial and regulatory reforms were deemed politically prudent and administratively manageable strategies for achieving Conservative objectives. This tendency toward “managerialism within public ownership” was evident in sectoral reforms, illustrating why the Conservative response to nationalisation was one of adaptation rather than outright rejection.
Nature of controversies in the Churchill-era administrations.
The so-called “scandals” of this period are better characterized as recurring controversies and policy disputes, interdepartmental conflicts over foreign and defence policies, disputes regarding immigration and health service implementation, and tensions in industrial relations and education policy, rather than episodes of corruption as has characterised governments of later decades.
Historians thus interpret these incidents as governance challenges rather than systemic illegality (Huxford, 2018) (Bivins, 2012) (Ozga, 2019). Research on foreign policy and imperial management reveals frequent intradepartmental disagreements about balancing imperial responsibilities with European and Atlantic commitments, leading to public controversies that detracted from domestic structural reform discussions.
Domestic issues surrounding immigration and post-war migration, along with education and health implementation debates, generated significant political contention, thus incentivising a moderate Conservative approach to sensitive public.
Industrial conflicts, particularly issues surrounding trade union influence and recurring strikes, presented serious governance challenges that Conservative ministers chose to manage through negotiation and incremental adjustments instead of radical policy changes that might exacerbate industrial disruption.
Education and health became exemplars of Conservative restraint. Historiographical treatments highlight education and the NHS as emblematic areas where Conservative governments in the early 1950s exhibited restraint.
Both sectors were politically significant, legally reinforced, and administratively intricate, prompting a reluctance to confront universal services directly. Scholars of education stress that secondary education and grammar school structures enjoyed widespread social support and attempts to dismantle or sharply contract these institutions would likely incur significant political costs, leading Conservatives to pursue targeted administrative reforms and funding adjustments.
Similarly, analyses of public sentiment regarding the NHS reveal that it had become an expected component of the social contract, so Conservative policy focused on managerial improvements, cost control measures, and accountability, avoiding foundational changes. These dynamics exemplify how public legitimacy and administrative entrenchment jointly constrained potential privatisation discussions in the 1950s, which Churchill was ideologically opposed to anyway as he recognised the benefits of universal healthcare as he had for many decades.
Legal and legislative obstacles to rapid denationalisation.
Legal scholars highlight that the statutory frameworks governing many nationalised entities and adjustments to the welfare state created significant legal and legislative barriers to rapid reversals, compelling governments to opt for incremental changes and administrative reorganisation instead of radical abolitions.
Several studies document the rising legal recognition of state liabilities and entitlements in the post-war period, a process that heightened the legislative complexity surrounding denationalisation and increased the costs for governments considering a return of assets to private ownership.
Accordingly, the legal institutional conditions in which the Conservatives functioned made incremental reform and managerial alteration more feasible than wholesale legislative repeal (Priel, 2013) (Richardson, 2000) (Edgerton, 2011).
Historiographical synthesis and longer-run perspective.
Historians continue to debate the specifics of the post-war consensus’s character and durability, yet a broad consensus in the literature recognises that early 1950s Conservative practices were characterised by pragmatic accommodation of Labour reforms and an emphasis on administrative and managerial solutions rather than immediate, ideologically motivated dismantling of nationalised industries (Hickson, 2004) (Heffernan, 2002) (Hay, 2007).
The long-term implications of this period lie in its solidification of public ownership and welfare arrangements as politically significant institutions whose dismantling would demand not only ideological shifts but also substantial changes in macroeconomic conditions, legal frameworks, and public sentiment, conditions that did not materialise in the early 1950s but later emerged during the political environment of the 1970s and 1980s.
Thus, a historical comparison underscores the Conservative governments’ approach to nationalisation as one of restraint that deferred, rather than eliminated, future policy conflicts regarding the ownership structure of key industries as noted by Heffernan (2002), Edgerton (2011) and Hay (2007).
Conclusion.
In integrated terms, the Conservative administrations associated with Churchill in the early 1950s have been evaluated by contemporaries and later scholars as competent practitioners of pragmatic, managerial governance prioritising macroeconomic stability, employment, and the orderly management of recently nationalised sectors. The literature supports the view that this approach, combined with institutional entrenchment, legal hurdles, electoral calculations, and international commitments, largely accounts for the absence of comprehensive reversals of nationalisation initiated by Labour during that time.
The so-called “scandals” of the era are more rightly understood as sustained controversies (including disputes over foreign policy, immigration, service delivery issues, industrial relations, and sectoral reforms) that consumed political capital and rendered comprehensive reprivatisation politically unattractive, rather than isolated instances of ministerial corruption; existing research situates Conservative restraint on nationalisation within structural political-economic and institutional factors rather than merely a lack of will.
For scholars examining the relationship between party ideology and policy practice, the UK case from the early 1950s serves as a potent reminder that political actors frequently place greater emphasis on governability, continuity, and electoral survival than on doctrinal purity, especially when faced with formidable institutional legacies and constrained macroeconomic conditions (Heffernan, 2002) (Hickson, 2004) (Richardson, 2000) (Fulcher et al., 2014).
Anthony Eden Government (1955 – 1957)
The Conservative government of Anthony Eden, who served as Prime Minister from 1955 until his resignation in early 1957, faced numerous challenges that shaped its economic, foreign, and industrial policies. The short tenure of Eden is characterised by tumultuous events, particularly concerning foreign relations and the economy, which reflected on the social fabric of the United Kingdom.
Economic Policies
Eden’s government initially continued the legacy of post-war economic policy, which had been characterized by state intervention and regulation. However, his government encountered various hurdles, including inflation and trade deficits. The British economy was recovering from the effects of World War II but faced challenges such as a growing balance of payments deficit and rising inflation. These issues contributed to economic instability (Algarhi & Tziamalis, 2021).
In addressing these economic challenges, the government emphasized a mix of austerity and subsidy policies to combat inflation while attempting to maintain public services. Unfortunately, the economic situation did not improve significantly during Eden’s leadership, leading to criticisms that public welfare and economic management fell short of expectations. Consequently, while Eden’s government did attempt to implement progressive economic measures, it ultimately struggled to foster significant economic growth (Algarhi & Tziamalis, 2021).
Foreign Policies
Eden’s foreign policies were markedly aggressive, particularly during the Suez Crisis of 1956. His administration’s attempt to reclaim control over the Suez Canal following Egypt’s nationalization of the waterway led to a significant international backlash, culminating in military intervention. This episode reduced Britain’s global standing and marked a decline in imperial confidence (Algarhi & Tziamalis, 2021). The crisis demonstrated a disconnect between Eden’s ambitions for Britain to maintain a leading role on the world stage and the pragmatic reality of post-war global dynamics, where the United States and the Soviet Union were emerging as dominant powers (Algarhi & Tziamalis, 2021).
The fallout from the Suez Crisis significantly impacted Eden’s administration, creating a perception of failure that contributed to his eventual resignation. Furthermore, this event starkly illustrated the limitations of Britain’s post-war foreign policy, as allies withdrew their support, leading to economic sanctions and a withdrawal of British forces from Egypt, revealing the fragility of British post-imperial power (Algarhi & Tziamalis, 2021).
Industrial Policies
In terms of industrial policy, Eden’s government did not make substantial reforms but continued to support existing industries through state intervention and control. The government’s industrial strategies were largely influenced by the context of the Suez Crisis and waning confidence in British industries after the fallout from the event. There was recognition of the need to adapt British industry to global market conditions, but efforts in this area fell short of creating a sustainable industrial foundation for future growth (Algarhi & Tziamalis, 2021).
While there were plans to rejuvenate the manufacturing sector, including incentives for modernizing production practices, the economic environment hindered effective implementation. The policies adopted during Eden’s tenure suggest an ambivalence toward a comprehensive industrial strategy, prioritizing short-term fixes over innovative long-term solutions that could bolster industrial competitiveness (Algarhi & Tziamalis, 2021).
Conclusion: Financial and Social Outcomes
At the end of Eden’s premiership, the UK was arguably in a worse position both financially and socially. The economic policies failed to achieve desired stability, with inflation and unemployment continuing to present challenges for the population. Socially, the aftermath of the Suez Crisis fostered a climate of disillusionment regarding the UK’s role on the global stage, leading to discontent among citizens and prompting a revaluation of national identity.
The combination of economic stagnation and foreign policy failures ultimately painted a bleak picture for Eden’s government, leading to questions about the efficacy of Conservative governance at this pivotal moment in British history. Thus, it can be concluded that the short-lived tenure of Anthony Eden marked a period of heightened uncertainty and decline for the UK, leaving lasting impacts that necessitated significant policy reform in subsequent governments.
Harold MacMillan (1957 – 1963)
Harold Macmillan’s tenure as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, from 1957 to 1963, was marked by a series of policies that encompassed economic management, foreign relations, and industrial development. This period, often characterized by the notion of “a never had it so good” Britain, represented a complex interplay of prosperity and underlying challenges that had implications for the socio-economic landscape of the UK.
Economic Policies
Economically, Macmillan’s government was initially marked by a fruitful period of growth, characterised by increasing consumer demand and rising wages, which led to a significant rise in living standards but also exposed the economy to inflationary pressures (Steinnes, 1998). Macmillan’s strategy involved a mix of consumer and investment incentives, manifesting in policies favouring expansion while striving to maintain a balance of payments surplus. His administration pursued policies aimed at modernising the economy through investment in technology and infrastructure to promote scientific research and technological advancement (Seidel, 2019).
However, by the end of his premiership, challenges became apparent. The British economy experienced issues of inflation and balance of payments deficits, leading to a cautious approach towards further governmental fiscal engagement (Blank, 1977). The government’s attempts at maintaining growth through public spending led to a well-documented wage-price spiral, fuelling inflationary pressures that would culminate in economic instability post-1963 (Ferm & Raco, 2020).
Foreign Policies
In terms of foreign policies, Macmillan focused on maintaining the UK’s role as a significant global player during a period marked by decolonization and increasing European integration. His government is noted for its application to join the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1961, reflecting a shift in strategy from a reliance on the Commonwealth to European orientation (Wall, 2020). This application highlighted Britain’s aim to secure a foothold in the evolving European market, albeit facing challenges from other European powers, particularly France (Auer, 2011).
Macmillan also managed Britain’s nuclear ambitions, enhancing the country’s status as a nuclear power through cooperation with the United States, underscored by the Anglo-American Mutual Defence Agreement (Baylis, 2008). His administration’s nuclear policies were pivotal in shaping Cold War dynamics and establishing Britain’s position in international defence.
Industrial Policies
Industrial policy during Macmillan’s government aimed at modernizing the economy through promoting specific sectors while also fostering a more competitive industrial landscape. The government encouraged a more significant role for private enterprise in public welfare, leading to a public-private partnership approach in various sectors (Domenico et al., 2009). He actively utilized initiatives like the Industrial Development Certificate to strengthen industrial growth, particularly in regions facing economic challenges.
Despite initial successes, Macmillan’s industrial policies began to show shortcomings in addressing productivity, leading to widespread critiques of government intervention as inefficient (Catney & Henneberry, 2019). The lack of long-term strategic vision contributed to an eventual industrial decline that would manifest starkly in the subsequent decade.
Financial and Social Outcomes
Evaluating whether the UK was better or worse off financially and socially at the conclusion of Macmillan’s premiership reveals a mixed picture. On one hand, the country enjoyed significant economic growth, rising incomes, and a relatively stable labour market that contributed to an overall sense of prosperity (Ashton, 2005). Socially, there were advancements in welfare policies, and Macmillan’s government oversaw notable progress in the housing sector, addressing post-war housing shortages through extensive public and private building initiatives (Vasquez, 2010).
Conversely, by 1963, the economic imbalances became apparent, with inflation rising significantly, leading to wage freezes and increased social unrest (Heffernan, 2003). Disaffection began to grow among the working class as labour disputes surged, indicating strain within the socio-economic fabric of Britain (Mabey & Morrell, 2011). The dilemma of balancing growth and stability under the pressures of inflation would haunt successive governments and signal a pivotal shift in British politics.
In conclusion, while Macmillan’s government presided over a period of notable economic growth and modernisation, the unresolved structural issues and the inflationary environment left the UK vulnerable to future socio-economic challenges. Therefore, while better off in certain respects, the foundational problems laid during his administration foreshadowed the economic difficulties that would emerge in the following decade.
Alec Douglas-Home (1964-1965) and Edward Heath (1970-1974)
The Conservative Governments of Alec Douglas-Home (1964-1965) and Edward Heath (1970-1974) ran the UK during a time marked by various economic, industrial, foreign, and social policies that had profound implications for the United Kingdom. Analysing these policies reveals a complex landscape of challenges and reforms that profoundly affected the state of the nation by the end of Heath’s premiership.
Economic Policies
Under Heath, economic policy was characterised by attempts at income policies and significant interventions aimed at combatting inflation and boosting productivity. Heath’s administration implemented a program of voluntary wage restraint aimed at moderating inflation, which was deemed essential for economic stability. This approach was partly influenced by earlier experiences of economic turmoil during Douglas-Home’s government, which faced high inflation and labour strikes, leading to a loss of public confidence in economic management (Hodson & Mabbett, 2009).
The government also engaged in extensive public sector borrowing to finance major infrastructure projects as a means of promoting growth and employment. The belief in a ‘corporatist’ approach led to partnerships with trade unions and businesses in formulating economic strategies, which included price and wage controls aimed at curbing inflation (Davis & Walsh, 2015). However, these strategies faced criticism for being ineffective against rising inflation rates, which continued to plague the economy throughout Heath’s term (Rek‐Woźniak & Woźniak, 2017).
By the end of Heath’s premiership, the UK was effectively embroiled in an economic crisis characterised by increasing unemployment, high inflation, and reduced economic growth. Many economists considered that the financial environment was significantly worse off than at the beginning, as inflation rates soared above 10% by 1974, leading to the crippling of industrial relations and a declining industrial base (Gao et al., 2019).
Industrial Policies
In terms of industrial policy, Heath’s government faced significant pressures from industrial disputes and a declining manufacturing sector. There were efforts to restructure industry through the Industrial Relations Act of 1971, which sought to limit union power and regulate industrial actions. However, this legislation encountered fierce resistance from trade unions (Islam et al., 2021). The 1971 policy aimed to curb inflation and improve productivity through strict regulations on strikes, representing an attempt to recalibrate the power dynamics in labour relations, but it ultimately exacerbated tensions between the government and workers, resulting in widespread industrial action by 1974 (Islentyeva & Dunkel, 2022).
Heath’s government also pursued a policy of fostering new industries, marked by significant investment in technology and modernisation, particularly in the automotive and engineering sectors. However, the attempts were hampered by ongoing economic instability and the global oil crisis that erupted in 1973, significantly raising production costs and affecting economies worldwide (Boettcher, 2020).
Foreign Policies
Foreign policy during Heath’s administration was notably defined by the UK’s accession to the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973, which became a cornerstone of his government’s agenda. Heath passionately advocated for European integration, believing it would enhance the UK’s economic prospects and provide a more extensive trading framework for British industry. His government posited that EEC membership would mitigate economic isolation; however, this move was met with political contention domestically as it clashed with nationalist sentiments held by both more right leaning Conservatives and traditional Labour party activists, and at least half of the shadow cabinet. (Harrison et al., 2023) Pavlenko, 2020).
The foreign policy approach included navigating the geopolitical challenges of the Cold War and establishing a more coherent stance on global trade partnerships, but the economic difficulties encountered at home often overshadowed these international ambitions (Pay & Buszta, 2022).
Social Policies
Social policies under Heath were marked by attempts to address economic inequalities exacerbated by rising unemployment and inflation. The government committed to expanded welfare programs aimed at combating poverty and helping those most affected by economic downturns (Li & Heath, 2018). Nonetheless, the overall impact of social policies remained limited due to the economic strains, which saw social issues such as unemployment affecting millions. By the end of Heath’s tenure, many families were reeling from economic policies that had failed to alleviate socio-economic struggles brought on by broader financial mismanagement, especially those of the previous Labour administration. (Rek‐Woźniak & Woźniak, 2017).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Conservative governments led by Alec Douglas-Home and Edward Heath dealt with an array of complex economic and social issues, demonstrating a trend of increasing economic hardship exacerbated by ineffective policies. By the conclusion of Heath’s premiership in 1974, the UK was arguably in a worse financial and social state compared to the beginning of his term. The transformation aimed at industrial modernization, European integration, and social equity faced significant resistance and highlighted the limitations of the government’s strategies amid an overarching economic crisis characterized by inflation and labour unrest (Forero-Laverde, 2019) (Davis & Walsh, 2015).
Baroness Margaret Thatcher (1979 to 1990)
The Conservative Government led by Margaret Thatcher from 1979 to 1990 implemented a series of transformative economic, social, foreign, and industrial policies that significantly reshaped the United Kingdom. At the end of her premiership, assessments reveal mixed outcomes regarding the financial and social well-being of the country.
Economic Policies
Thatcher’s economic policies were anchored in monetarism, marking a departure from previous Keynesian approaches. The government focused on controlling inflation to foster economic growth and employed tight monetary policies, which initially led to high unemployment and economic contraction but later contributed to a period of growth in the mid-1980s. This strategy, coupled with substantial public spending cuts, aimed to reduce the state’s size and role, ultimately resulting in the privatisation of numerous state-owned enterprises (Feinstein & Matthews, 1990) (Albertson & Stepney, 2019) (Heffernan, 2005).
The government adopted a neoliberal agenda emphasising deregulation and the promotion of free market principles. This included significant tax cuts for higher earners, aimed at stimulating investments.
Critics argue that while overall economic growth improved, the policies disproportionately favoured wealthy individuals and exacerbated income inequality (Buiter et al., 1981; (Hudson, 2013).
The mixed outcomes saw initial rises in unemployment rates but eventual improvements in GDP growth and productivity, although the benefits were not evenly distributed across all demographics as noted by Daddow et al (2019) and Rek‐Woźniak & Woźniak (2017).
Social Policies
Socially, Thatcher’s government promoted the concept of ‘right to buy’ council housing, enabling tenants to purchase their homes at vastly discounted prices. This policy significantly increased home ownership and reinforced individualistic values over collectivism, altering the social fabric of British life.
Additionally, her administration implemented substantial cuts to social welfare programs, which critics have long contended weakened the safety net for the most vulnerable across society.
Thatcherism’s legacy includes a significant cultural shift towards neoliberal ideology, resulting in a more competitive society.
The perception of ‘losers’ in a globalising economy became prevalent, fostering feelings of alienation among those unable to succeed (Pascall, 1997) . The social disparities created by her policies contributed to an enduring legacy of division that has shaped British society long after her departure from power (Hudson, 2013).
Foreign Policies
On the international front, Thatcher was a staunch ally of the United States, particularly during the Cold War. Her relationship with Ronald Reagan was characterised by a shared commitment to neoliberal policies and a robust military stance against the Soviet Union (Rong et al., 2023) (Smedley, 2021).
Thatcher also played a pivotal role in the negotiation of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, which addressed the future of Hong Kong, demonstrating her capability in navigating complex international relations while safeguarding British interests (Rong et al., 2023).
However, Thatcher’s foreign policy was not without controversy. Her administration’s response to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982 was a defining moment, leading to a military conflict that bolstered her domestic popularity but raised ethical questions about military intervention (Cheung & Gomez, 2016) (Morgan, 2023). Although the decision was supported by 99% of the Falkland Island population and more than 80% of the UK population in subsequent polls.
Industrial Policies
Thatcher’s industrial policies focused on promoting privatisation and reducing state intervention in the economy. This shift aimed at fostering competition and enhancing efficiency across various sectors. However, these policies also triggered significant deindustrialisation in the UK, particularly affecting traditional manufacturing regions, leading to widespread job losses and community dislocation (Tomlinson, 2021) (Thain, 1985).
Critics argue that while Thatcher’s policies modernised parts of the economy, they did so at a severe social cost, contributing to the decline of industrial communities, especially in the North of England (Albertson & Stepney, 2019).
Conclusion
At the end of Thatcher’s premiership in 1990, the UK experienced notable economic recovery characterised by increased GDP and lower inflation rates, but the social costs were significant with whole communities decimated by industrial collapse.
Inequalities became more pronounced, and the fabric of community life was altered, igniting ongoing debates about her legacy.
The financial situation saw improvements overall, yet many citizens felt worse off due to dislocation and unemployment caused by her policies. This dichotomy, economic growth against a backdrop of increasing inequality, remains a contentious aspect of Thatcher’s legacy, reflecting the complex interplay of her administration’s enduring impact on the United Kingdom (Pascall, 1997) (Scott-Samuel et al., 2014) (McClellan, 2016).
John Major 1990 to 1997
The Conservative government led by John Major from 1990 to 1997 faced a multitude of challenges as it sought to oversee the United Kingdom’s economic, social, foreign, and industrial policies. Major ascended to power during a time of economic recession, requiring a focus on stabilising the economy while managing the fallout from earlier policies set by his predecessor, Margaret Thatcher.
Economic Policies
During his premiership, Major attempted to steer the UK towards economic recovery through a combination of monetary and fiscal policies, which were primarily aimed at controlling inflation and stabilising the currency. The government maintained a strong emphasis on the importance of a market oriented economy, evidenced by its continuation of previous privatisations and deregulation efforts initiated under Thatcher’s administration.
By 1992, the UK entered a recession, which the government initially struggled to address as interest rates surged to combat inflation, leading to high unemployment rates. Major’s administration retained a commitment to strict economic discipline, which some critiques argue led to reduced public investment and social welfare cuts, adversely affecting lower income families and contributing to increased disparities.
Following the nationwide ‘Poll Tax riots’, the Major government abolished the Community Charge but then rebranded it, with only modest structural differences, as ‘Council Tax’. The public accepted it, despite the fact that its regressive design continued to disproportionately impact the less well off.
The country experienced mild recovery towards the end of Major’s term, with a noted reduction in inflation and stabilising unemployment, creating a mixed economic legacy overall.
Social Policies
Social policies under Major’s government faced scrutiny due to economic austerity measures. The government aimed to promote social justice but achieved limited success against a backdrop of growing income inequality and rising social issues such as homelessness and poverty. Major promoted the notion of a ‘classless’ society, yet policies like the “Right to Buy” initiatives for council housing were seen as exacerbating social divisions.
Education and health services saw mixed approaches, with some initiatives aimed at increasing competition among schools and healthcare providers, promoting efficiency but often at the expense of equitable access across socioeconomic classes.
The government’s overall emphasis was on individual responsibility, which some viewed as neglecting the role of government in ensuring basic living standards and social safety nets for the most vulnerable.
Foreign Policies
On the foreign policy front, Major’s administration was characterised by involvement in international peace efforts and defence alliances. Major supported the intervention in Bosnia in the mid-1990s, aligning the UK with NATO in humanitarian efforts to protect civilians during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia.
Additionally, relations with the United States remained strong, particularly through cooperation on defence and counterterrorism efforts. The government also faced challenges with European relations, particularly following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, which sparked intense debates about national sovereignty versus European integration.
Major’s handling of the Northern Ireland peace process was a significant achievement of his tenure, leading eventually to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, although he faced immense hurdles throughout.
Industrial Policies
Industrial policies during Major’s time adhered to a conservative approach of prioritising market solutions and private enterprise. The government did support some sectors through modernisation efforts but largely allowed market forces to dictate outcomes.
The decline of traditional industries such as coal mining was prominent, with the government facing considerable criticism for not providing enough support or strategic planning for affected communities, leading to increased regional disparities, particularly in Northern England and Wales.
Overall, John Major’s government presented a complex mix of economic recovery and social challenges. At the conclusion of his premiership in 1997, the nation remained in a state of partial recovery, marked by improved macroeconomic indicators, yet it simultaneously grappled with rising social inequality and disillusionment among significant voter segments who felt neglected or underserved by the conservatism of Major’s governance style.
Whether the UK was better off financially and socially is contested; there was recovery in some financial metrics, yet social aspects such as inequality and public dissatisfaction suggested a need for a recalibrated approach to governance.
David Cameron (2010-2016)
David Cameron’s premiership, spanning from 2010 to 2016, was characterised by significant economic, social, foreign, and industrial policies that aimed to reshape the United Kingdom under a Conservative government. This period was marked by a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, a response to the financial crisis, and shifting dynamics in national and international politics.
Economic Policies
Cameron’s economic policy was largely framed around austerity measures aimed at reducing the national deficit, which had increased significantly during the financial crisis of 2007-2008. His government implemented a series of spending cuts across various sectors, including welfare and public services, which were justified as necessary for fiscal stability (Wiggan, 2012) (König, 2016).
Additionally, he aimed to stimulate economic growth through initiatives like the “Help to Buy” scheme, which sought to assist homebuyers and bolster the housing market (Corbett & Walker, 2013).
Critics argued that these austerity measures disproportionately affected the most vulnerable in society, leading to increased reliance on food banks and social unrest, as highlighted by discussions on the “Big Society” initiative (Kisby, 2010) (Dillon & Fanning, 2015).
While there were arguments that the austerity policies initially hampered economic recovery, indicators such as falling unemployment rates and gradual GDP growth were cited by Cameron as successes of his economic policy. However, the long-term implications of these policies on social equity and health outcomes remain contentious, with many arguing that economic recovery came at the cost of social justice.
Social Policies
In terms of social policy, Cameron emphasised the “Big Society,” an initiative aimed at empowering communities and promoting civic engagement through voluntary action and local solutions to social issues (Corbett & Walker, 2013) (Kisby, 2010). This concept was intertwined with his government’s approach to welfare reform, which targeted families and individuals deemed “troubled,” focusing on rehabilitation rather than punitive measures (Lambert & Crossley, 2016).
However, critics pointed out that the implementation of these policies often fell short of their ambitious ideals, leading to disillusionment among the intended beneficiaries and in fact became the very punitive measures he claimed he intended to avoid. (Newall, 2023).
Moreover, Cameron’s government faced backlash related to immigration policies and multiculturalism. His assertion that “state multiculturalism has failed” reflected a shift towards a more integration focused policy approach, which some argued exacerbated societal divisions and fostered an environment of suspicion towards immigrants (Green & Staerklé, 2013) (Mathieu, 2017).
This social climate culminated in increased support for UKIP and concerns over rising nationalism (Bale, 2018).
Foreign Policy
Cameron’s foreign policy was notably defined by the UK’s involvement in military interventions in Libya and Iraq, promoting a doctrine of liberal interventionism. The decision to engage militarily was often framed within a humanitarian context but attracted scrutiny regarding both strategic intent and the longer term stability of the regions involved.
His attempt to negotiate a reformed relationship with the European Union and address concerns over immigration were central to Cameron’s political agenda, culminating in the controversial 2016 EU referendum that ultimately led to the Brexit fiasco and his departure of government.
Cameron’s approach to foreign affairs was marked by a desire to uphold traditional alliances, particularly with the United States, although this was complicated by rising tensions with Russia and the complexities of international relations post-Arab Spring.
Industrial Policies
Industrial policies under Cameron were reflected in initiatives aimed at fostering innovation and promoting a more competitive economy. His government sought to support traditional industries while promoting new sectors, particularly through investments in technology and green energy (Carter & Clements, 2015) (Carter, 2014).
The promotion of free schools reflected a significant shift in educational policy, aiming to decentralise control and spur competition within the education sector (Williams, 2023) (Gibson, 2015).
Critics of Cameron’s industrial policies noted a disconnect between the government’s support for certain industries and the realities faced by workers, particularly regarding job security and wage inequality (Williams & Scott, 2010).
Despite some successes in reducing unemployment, the long-term viability of these policies was debated, especially in relation to manufacturing and traditional sectors struggling to adapt to globalisation and technological advances (Corbett & Walker, 2013) (Daddow, 2014).
Conclusion
By the end of Cameron’s premiership, the country had witnessed a complex interplay of progress and regression, leading to polarised opinions on whether the UK was better or worse off financially and socially. Economically, there were signs of recovery but also significant social challenges stemming from austerity policies that exacerbated inequalities (Wiggan, 2012) (Dillon & Fanning, 2015).
Socially, debates around immigration and multiculturalism deepened societal divides, while foreign policy decisions set the stage for escalating tensions in the EU context (Bale, 2018) (Beech & Munce, 2019).
Ultimately, Cameron’s legacy remains a contested topic, embodying both the aspirations and failures of a government striving for modernization in a rapidly changing political landscape.
David Cameron will be forever associated with Brexit, the fiasco of a campaign the government ran with, the non-legally binding referendum that was a shambles and the way in which the government assumed they would win, without taking into account the mood within the nation as a whole. That arrogance and failing aptly demonstrates what was wrong in British politics then just as it does now.
Theresa May (2016 to 2019)
Theresa May’s tenure as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from July 2016 to July 2019 was a period marked by significant political turmoil surrounding the Brexit process, as well as various economic, social, foreign, and industrial policies aimed at navigating the challenges presented during and after this pivotal transition.
Economic Policies
Theresa May inherited a fragile economy transitioning out of austerity measures instituted under David Cameron, which included significant public spending cuts aimed at addressing the national deficit. May’s administration initially continued many of her predecessor’s economic policies but faced increasing pressures to stimulate economic growth post-Brexit. She emphasized the idea of a “shared society” to define her economic approach, which aimed at addressing inequality and providing better opportunities for all citizens (Silverwood & Woodward, 2018).
In her 2017 Conservative Party conference speech, May proposed an industrial strategy that marked a significant shift towards an interventionist approach, promoting sectors such as technology and clean growth to bolster regional economies and improve productivity (Silverwood & Woodward, 2018). Additionally, the “Industrial Strategy White Paper” outlined ambitions to increase spending on research and development, although some critics argued that this approach lacked genuine commitment due to the uncertainties created by Brexit negotiations (Berry, 2019). By the end of her government, mixed economic signals emerged, including some improvements in employment rates; however, concerns over cost-of-living pressures for many households persisted, contributing to a sentiment that many were left worse off (Petticrew et al., 2017)Marlow-Stevens & Hayton, 2020).
Social Policies
Socially, May’s government faced scrutiny for the implementation of the “hostile environment” policy, which was originally initiated when she was Home Secretary, aiming to reduce illegal immigration (Griffiths & Yeo, 2021).
This policy faced widespread criticism, particularly when it was implicated in the Windrush scandal, where British citizens from the Caribbean were wrongly detained and threatened with deportation (Severi, 2020). Critics argue that this approach fostered a climate of fear and mistrust among immigrant communities and undermined social cohesion (Singh et al., 2023).
May’s government also proposed various health and education reforms, but these efforts were often limited due to a constrained budget. The National Health Service continued to face funding challenges, and social care systems struggled under financial strains (Juhász et al., 2022). By the end of her premiership, social divisions appeared to be widening, with growing discontent over perceived inadequacies in public services highlighted during her administration (Feng & Yang, 2023).
Foreign Policy
May’s foreign policy was heavily influenced by Brexit, and she sought to position the UK as a global leader in trade and diplomacy. The government pursued a series of post-Brexit trade agreements, though with mixed success; many opportunities remained largely untapped while serious negotiations around the withdrawal deal with the European Union (EU) dominated her time in office (Ma’arif et al., 2023).
The government’s approach to Brexit was contentious, with May famously facing multiple parliamentary defeats over her withdrawal agreement, leading to crises in leadership and party cohesion (Martill, 2021).
Additionally, in response to significant terrorist attacks during her term, she advocated for increased security measures, balancing civil liberties with public safety. However, her insistence on incorporating more punitive measures drew criticism from civil liberties groups (Jetter & Stockley, 2023). The overall foreign policy landscape during her administration was marred by uncertainty, stemming from both Brexit and responses to global affairs such as ongoing conflicts and trade discussions.
Industrial Policies
Under May, industrial policy took a more prominent role in shaping government economic strategies. The introduction of the “Industrial Strategy White Paper” aimed to address the decline of traditional industries by fostering innovation and supporting sectors like robotics and green technology (Silverwood & Woodward, 2018).
Despite this, the effectiveness of these policies was often questioned, particularly in the context of ongoing anti-automation sentiments and the dual challenge of maintaining competitiveness in a post-Brexit trading environment (Berry, 2019).
By the conclusion of her premiership, while there were ambitious frameworks for future industrial growth, the political instability surrounding Brexit diminished the government’s ability to implement these strategies effectively (Coulter, 2022). Many industries remained in limbo, with significant investments postponed or diverted amidst uncertainties about future regulations and market access (Petticrew et al., 2017).
Conclusion
In summary, Theresa May’s government presented a complex legacy characterised by initiatives aimed at fostering a fairer, more productive economy while simultaneously being hampered by the existential crisis brought on by Brexit.
Economically, the country faced growth challenges, but employment rates showed resilience amidst increased living costs. Socially, divisions deepened under the weight of controversial immigration policies, and frustrations with public services remained high.
May’s foreign policy initiatives struggled to gain traction amid severe parliamentary and party divisions. Ultimately, while there were advancements in industrial strategy, the impact of Brexit hampered any real gains and proved a stumbling block the government could not get over – government, as in Parliament, simply could not get out of its own way, demanding the cake, but then refusing to eat it.
Boris Johnson (2019 -2022)
The Conservative government led by Boris Johnson, from July 2019 to September 2022, was characterised by its distinct political, economic, social, foreign, and industrial policies that left a substantial impact on the United Kingdom. Each of these policy domains interplayed significantly, creating both challenges and opportunities for the nation.
Political Orientation and Governance Style
Boris Johnson’s leadership style was marked by a highly personal approach that resonated with a populist political ideology. His government focused strongly on centralising power and responding promptly to crises, notably Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Critics voiced concerns about diminishing parliamentary accountability and a tendency towards executive overreach during his tenure (Ward & Ward, 2021). The unlawful prorogation of Parliament to facilitate Brexit epitomized this centralisation of power, revealing a willingness to bypass traditional norms in pursuit of political objectives (Davies et al., 2024).
Economic Policies
Johnson’s economic strategy frequently emphasised “levelling up,” aimed at reducing regional inequalities and rejuvenating economically disadvantaged areas, particularly in the North of England (Connolly et al., 2021) (Newman, 2021).
The government sought to bolster economic growth through a series of fiscal measures intended to increase public investment and stimulate local economies, particularly amidst the challenges presented by the pandemic (Triansyah et al., 2022).
However, there were extensive discussions regarding the effectiveness of these policies. Key analyses indicated that the government’s economic management was shaped by monetary policies and fiscal constraints, which ultimately faced scrutiny regarding whether they contributed adequately to post pandemic recovery.
Economically, the country faced substantial challenges, notably exacerbated by the uncertainty surrounding Brexit and the financial implications of the pandemic. The initial phases of the Johnson administration saw a significant decline in GDP due to continued pandemic restrictions, with evidence suggesting that stricter policies may have severely hampered economic growth.
However, supportive measures like the furlough scheme aimed at alleviating immediate economic impacts demonstrated a commitment to citizen welfare amidst the crisis (Steenberg & Reyhé, 2020).
Social Policies
Socially, Johnson’s government focused on public health, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The government’s management of the crisis became a defining feature of his premiership. The handling of the pandemic was marked by frequent policy reversals and a perceived lack of coordination, which led to public disenchantment and declining trust in government leadership (Ward & Ward, 2021) (Lilleker & Stoeckle, 2021).
Moreover, long-standing issues related to NHS funding and social care became increasingly prominent, revealing systemic vulnerabilities exacerbated by austerity measures enacted prior to Johnson’s tenure (Alderwick, 2022).
In terms of social inequalities, although Johnson’s ‘levelling up’ agenda sought to address these issues, the societal effects of austerity remained significant. Even with spending pledges, many critics pointed out a continued neglect of essential services and the exacerbation of existing inequities among vulnerable populations.
Overall, social indicators reflected stagnation or decline in certain areas, with rising concerns over mental health and wellbeing coupled with economic instability (Alderwick, 2022).
Foreign Policy
On the international front, Johnson’s government adopted a distinctly tilted approach post-Brexit, prioritising bilateral agreements over multilateral frameworks. The anticipated trade deal with the United States did not materialise in the expected timeframe, leaving many to question the efficacy of the government’s foreign trade strategies (Khorana & Kerr, 2023).
Furthermore, the UK’s foreign policy during Johnson’s leadership was characterised by staunch support for Ukraine under Russian aggression, marking a significant pivot towards a more assertive global stance (Humeniuk, 2022).
Industrial Policies
Industrially, the Johnson administration aimed to overhaul the UK’s industrial strategy to address emerging challenges posed by the pandemic and Brexit.
The government emphasised the importance of innovation and green technology, aiming to transition the economy towards sustainability while enhancing local industrial capabilities through new strategies (Newman, 2021).
While this focus on sustainable industrial policies was widely supported, critics argued that actual implementation often lagged behind, with mixed results appearing in tangible outcomes for job creation and economic revitalisation (Shutt & Liddle, 2020). Many critics pointed to empty promises with no real foundation.
Summary of Impact
At the end of Johnson’s premiership, the UK found itself in a complex situation. Financially, the economy had recovered somewhat from the depths of the pandemic, but significant challenges, including inflation and rising living costs, persisted (Steenberg & Reyhé, 2020) (Alderwick, 2022).
Socially, the country remained divided, grappling with the aftermath of both the pandemic and the decisions made during Brexit negotiations.
In conclusion, Johnson’s government operated within a framework that sought to synthesize populist appeals with practical governance during crises. However, the resultant policies and their execution often led to questions regarding the country’s betterment, suggesting a mixed legacy at best regarding financial and social improvement.
There were several scandals during the short tenure of the Johnson government that seriously undermined the trust the public had in government, several of which are still rumbling on today, especially surrounding the £7.1 billion Covid fraud issue.
Rishi Sunak (2022 to 2024)
The Conservative Government led by Rishi Sunak, who came to power after the disastrous 49 days of the Liz Truss fiasco, and began its tenure in late 2022, aimed to continue the party’s focus on economic recovery, social policies, and international engagement amid the significant challenges brought about by Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Economic Policies
Rishi Sunak’s government operated within a complex economic environment characterised by high inflation, a cost-of-living crisis, and a pressing need for fiscal stability. The government’s approach included a commitment to measures intended to stabilise national finances, amidst austerity discussions stemming from the economic impacts of COVID-19 and prior governmental policies (Sowels, 2024).
Sunak’s policies included tax adjustments aimed at balancing public revenue while managing social expenditures against the historical context of austerity in the UK. The Budget included reforms aimed at controlling inflation and promoting growth, particularly through investment in local economies and innovation (Diamond et al. 2023).
The “Levelling Up” agenda persisted, focusing on addressing regional inequalities but continued to face criticism for a lack of measurable outcomes in fields like economic opportunity and health equity.
Critics pointed out that austerity measures may undermine responsibilities regarding growth in public services and social security spending, exacerbating existing disparities in health outcomes among specific demographics (Walsh et al., 2022) (Kevins & Lightman, 2024).
Overall, while some economic indicators may have shown preliminary stabilisation, public perceptions regarding financial wellbeing and rising inequality were evident (Johnson et al., 2024).
Social Policies
Under Sunak, social policy continued to address persistent issues such as housing affordability, healthcare access, and the management of social services. The government faced notable challenges concerning social care systems, with significant dissatisfaction reported, particularly among the “sandwich generation,” who care for both children and elderly relatives (Kevins & Lightman, 2024).
The governmental approach towards welfare reform was primarily characterised by austerity, especially in policies like Universal Credit, which has received considerable criticism for not adequately supporting vulnerable populations (Kim et al., 2022) (Koch & Reeves, 2021).
Further, there was an increased focus on integrating mental health services within broader health policies, with social prescribing initiatives proposed to enhance community health (Thompson, 2021). All this has achieved is to further water down access to effective and necessary mental health service for vulnerable populations.
Nonetheless, broader critiques indicated that the Conservative government’s policies often inadequately addressed systemic inequalities and access challenges in healthcare, negatively impacting many citizens’ quality of life (Stewart, 2023) (Diamond et al., 2023) (Blackstock et al., 2023).
Foreign Policies
In the foreign policy arena, Sunak’s government adopted a notably pragmatic stance, particularly regarding China, contrasting with the more confrontational approach of his predecessor. This shift aimed to balance economic interests against security concerns, recognising escalating geopolitical tensions while seeking partnerships that could facilitate the UK’s recovery (“Sunak’s China policy will be less hawkish than Truss’s”, 2022) (Ananieva et al., 2023).
Sunak’s administration aimed to sustain strong ties with the United States while reassessing relationships within Europe, grappling with Brexit’s ongoing impact on trade and diplomacy (Schalkwyk et al., 2021).
Industrial Policies
Rishi Sunak’s industrial strategy has been described as ambiguous, often perceived as lacking coherent direction, although it includes substantial interventions designed to enhance economic performance post-Brexit (Silverwood & Woodward, 2024) (Diamond et al., 2023).
The government emphasised innovation and local industry support, especially in technology and green sectors, aligning with global sustainability trends. Critiques persisted that the lack of clear industrial strategies represented a retreat from proactive policymaking necessary for progressing toward net-zero emissions by 2050.
Overall Impact on Society
At the conclusion of Sunak’s premiership, the societal landscape in the UK was characterised by significant economic and social polarisation. Although macroeconomic indicators such as inflation and employment rates showed marginal improvement, public sentiment reflected persistent concerns about equity and the effectiveness of social safety nets (Walsh et al., 2022) (Johnson et al., 2024).
On a social level, disparities in health and overall well-being continued, with indications that quality of life standards declined for vulnerable populations (Stewart, 2023) (Kim et al., 2022).
In conclusion, Rishi Sunak’s Conservative Government attempted to navigate substantial challenges across various policy areas; however, the effectiveness and outcomes of these measures have been a subject of ongoing debate. The balance between fiscal discipline and social equity remains a contentious issue, prompting questions about whether the UK was better positioned at the end of his tenure.
Overall conclusion
Since 1950, the Conservatives have run the majority of the Parliaments of the UK and one would hope that the story would be one of continual, if incremental, improvement, but when you read the above synopsis, albeit an overview, you can see a decline in effective performance, and we need to ask why.
1. Is the quality of the politicians worse that during the post war period?
2. Is the ideology of the world so changed that they cannot do their job anymore?
3. Are the public expectations too high?
4. Is media reporting with 24/7 news part of the problem?
5. Is the quality of the education system partly to blame?
6. Is our political system systemically flawed by short termism?
7. Is our political system flawed by the current whip system?
8. Is our political system flawed by the current election system?
9. Is our political system flawed by the current party leadership system?
10. Is the civil service out of control behind the scenes and undermining government policies it doesn’t like?
The answer to all those questions is yes, in every case, but the fact remains, the Conservative Party has, overall, sunk, in its ability to govern and provide leadership to the nation.
As we can see in the graph below, which is consolidated from a series of polls of the public approval ratings of the party leader, policies, government performance and the government overall rating that are available from polling organisations. It shows a clear trendline downward over the years, even when they have been the government, in fact, even when in government, their overall approval was not better or worse than when they were not, a rather damning indictment of both the party and the state of British Politics.
