In the lead-up to Labour’s anticipated budget announcement, the Conservative Party faces an uncomfortable reckoning. Bound to a rigid adherence to neoliberal economics—a legacy of the Thatcher era that, though revolutionary in its time, is proving less adaptable to the present day—any reconsideration of neoliberalism’s limits is being resisted. This hesitancy recalls Mill’s warning that “it is not conscience but cowardice to shrink from allowing doctrines which they think dangerous to mankind, because other people in less enlightened times have persecuted opinions now believed to be true.”

It’s not merely a matter of ideological loyalty but a reluctance to recognise where neoliberal ideals may have faltered. While Labour is primed to propose policies aimed at rebalancing economic disparities and tightening market oversight, the Conservatives hesitate to match these initiatives, fearing it would signal a surrender to a leftward economic shift. In reality, however, conservatism has historically found strength in a middle ground—where market principles endure but are tempered with regulatory safeguards—a vision of governance that Disraeli and Macmillan embraced, one of prudent intervention and cautious reform, not a doctrinal fidelity to the market.

Thames Water, an emblem of what happens when free-market promises outstrip market realities, hobbled by £14 billion in debt and drained through dividend payouts instead of reinvesting in infrastructure, raises a serious question about the effectiveness of privatisation without accountability. Yet the party remains hesitant, both in power and now as opposition, to propose even modest regulatory measures. Where Macmillan’s “Middle Way” might once have balanced market freedom with necessary oversight, today’s Tories cling to a neoliberal purity, reluctant to take the corrective actions that would support the very market system they claim to protect.

The party’s ideological fervour suggests a shift from the pragmatism that once defined Tory philosophy. Where former Conservative leaders pragmatically adjusted market policy in response to changing economic needs, the current leadership refuses to consider even moderate reforms. Robert Jenrick, the front runner of Tory leadership, who named his daughter after Thatcher, embodies this shift of not viewing Thatcherism as one chapter in conservatism’s broader history, but rather canonising it as the defining doctrine, dismissing regulation as if it were a betrayal of conservatism rather than a necessary tool for its preservation.

Today’s Conservatives seem convinced that any deviation from neoliberal economics risks conceding victory to Labour’s agenda of public investment and expanded oversight. But this is a false choice, a dichotomy that misrepresents conservatism’s potential role as a stabilising force. Labour’s budget will, no doubt, be full of populist and reckless spending as part of its “return to big government”—policies that Conservatives should outright condemn. However, elements such as the refusal to raise corporation tax, which the Tories increased thrice, should be recognised with some merit.

This Labour government is by no means radical left, and its continued perception as such continues to corrupt and undermine the waning trust of the Tories. Increased investment in public services or tighter regulation on natural monopolies in an economy where these very services are failing the British public would neither dismantle the market economy nor signal a betrayal of conservative values. Rather, such steps would align with a tradition of pragmatism that values market stability and public trust.

Neoliberal economics, as conceived in the 1980s, is fraying under modern economic and social pressures. Labour’s budget will present an opportunity for the Conservatives to acknowledge this reality and reconsider their approach. To adapt does not mean to capitulate. As the Conservatives respond to Labour’s budget, they would do well to remember that the middle ground is not a weakness but an asset. Acknowledging the failures of unchecked privatisation, embracing moderate regulation, and accepting that the market can benefit from reasonable oversight do not amount to ideological surrender. Rather, these actions would reclaim conservatism’s pragmatic heritage. For a party that prides itself on learning from history, failing to do so now may prove the most dangerous ideology of all.