The British general election of 1945 and the return of the nation's first ever majority Labour government was a profound turning point in Britain's political history. The scale of Labour's victory, and the belief in its inevitability, has, however, obscured important developments in British Conservatism. Historians have subsequently characterized the Conservative party as either unwilling to develop their own distinct plans for the post-war future, or divided between those who were willing to embrace the policies of social democracy and those with a neo-liberal approach to political economy. This article challenges this depiction by examining the thoughts and actions of those within what it terms the wartime ‘Conservative movement’: the constellation of fringe and pressure groups that orbited around the Conservative party during the period. In examining this movement, it identifies three major traditions of Conservative political thinking, and three sets of activists and parliamentarians all committed to developing radical Conservative plans for post-war Britain. The article demonstrates how these different traditions built upon but also radicalized pre-existing currents of Conservative thought, how the language of social democracy was co-opted and reinterpreted by those within the Conservative movement, and how the war changed Conservative perception of the British people.

No abstract

Between 1931 and 1947, the American industrialist Henry Ford financed a British agricultural experiment at the Fordson Estate in the Essex countryside. This article analyses the Fordson experiment as it developed from a limited attempt to test the merits of American farming methods into a wider model for remaking British industry and society. Focusing closely on Sir Percival Perry, a Conservative Party activist and Ford's partner in the venture, it explores the extent to which the experiment sought to harmonize modern technology with traditional patterns of life. In doing so, the article places the history of the Fordson Estate within the paradigm of interwar conservative modernity. By tracing Perry's participation within a network of industrial paternalist organizations and delineating his connection to the interwar conservative movement, the article demonstrates that conservative modernity stood largely outside formal party politics but was central to the praxis of interwar conservatism. It highlights an experimental, radical, and utopian form of conservative politics that aimed to foster conservative rural citizens. F ew places differ so much as the Essex countryside and the Amazon rain forest: compare the gently undulating fields and mild temperate climate of Essex, a county bordering a great capital city, with the sticky stifling heat and human isolation of the Amazon's dark, foreboding jungle. Yet, for all their differences, during the 1930s both locations shared a number of similarities. In the midst of a global recession, their native industries-mixed farming in Essex and rubber tapping in Brazil-faced acute financial difficulties. As a result, both areas witnessed pronounced rural depopulation. In both locations, those left behind faced the gradual encroachment of modernity, ushering in changes that were altering traditional patterns of life. Moreover, both attracted the attention of the carmaker Henry Ford, the most famous industrialist of the era. In both Brazil and Essex, Ford embarked upon bold schemes designed to reverse these trends and show how the techniques of mass production, scientific management, and high wages that he had used to revolutionize the car industry could be adapted to serve the interests of agriculture and the rural community.Kit Kowol is a lecturer in history at Christ Church, University of Oxford. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the North American Conference on British Studies, the Oxford Modern British History Seminar, and the University College History Seminar. The author would like to thank James Vernon, Richard Toye, Marc Stears, Clarisse Berthezène, Otto Saumarez Smith, Melissa Turoff, and the editors and peer reviewers of the Journal of British Studies for their comments and suggestions. The research was generously funded with grants from University College (Oxford) and the Henry Ford Museum.

British academia today is overwhelmingly left‐leaning in its political orientation and especially pro‐Labour. This article examines what impact this is having on British political history. It begins by demonstrating just how recent this left‐wing preponderance is and how, as late as the 1990s, there remained a strong grouping of right‐leaning political historians. This, the article argues, helps in part explain the relative vibrancy of political history in that era compared to today. Turning to the advantages a larger number of conservative voices would bring to the sub‐discipline, the article identifies how those on the right are more likely to subscribe to different methodological approaches, have different historical interests and be interested in different kinds of political questions from their left‐leaning colleagues. Most of all, it stresses how political diversity would help historians of every persuasion better recognise the ideological frameworks that inform their own work.