Youth in Politics: International Security Studies Student on the Future of Britain
Student Leader Tinahy Matéo Ramamonjiarisoa Offers His Take on UK Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy
Interview Conducted by Jett James Pruitt
The following text is an interview between Jett James Pruitt and Tinahy Matéo Ramamonjarisoa, a current postgraduate student pursuing a Masters' Degree in International Security Studies at the University of St. Andrews. Between 2023 and 2026, Ramamonjarisoa was a prominent student leader within the University of London Institute in Paris (ULIP), organizing intercollegiate public speaking and Model United Nations conferences throughout the Paris region and serving as the vice president of the university's student union. He graduated ULIP's International Politics program with First-Class Honors in Summer 2026.
JJP: Well, it's very good to hear from you my friend, and I hope your move to Scotland went smoothly.
TR: Likewise! Thank you for the opportunity to speak with The Gen Z Post.
JJP: Alright, so let's jump right in. As you’re well aware of, the UK Conservative Party has sharply dropped in popularity following the 2024 General Election. According to Politico, they are currently polling in third place behind the Labour Party and Reform UK, despite previously holding power for 14 consecutive years. In your view, where did the Tories go wrong?
TR: I think we can broadly identify two themes which led to the Conservative Party's failure in 2024, beyond the fatigue of government that effects every incumbent. The first concerns their base right-wing vote which Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg correctly identified when he said the Conservative government "failed to do conservative things", whereas the second concerns the entire voting population and pertains to economic stagnation.
In my view, the disappointment experienced by voters with conservative values has a great deal to do with the failure of the party to break with the Blairite multicultural consensus on social issues. If you read Sir Roger Scruton, you know that conservatism is about defending the familiar social and aesthetic constructs of 'home' so it may be passed on to your descendants. In contrast to this view, the Blairite perspective sees areas as zones rather than homes which can thus be governed in a remote and mathematical manner. This difference matters when we get into things like the immigration debate, as well as debates around countercultures which I am not sure I have to elaborate on here.
Lord Cameron was, by his own admission, surprised when the immigration question took hold of the Brexit debate leading up to the 2016 referendum but the fact that it did should have told the party that there was a perceived threat to home in the manner in which immigration was being handled. Though rhetoric hardened, the fact is that assimilation remained an issue after the referendum and after Brexit itself when non-EU migration drastically increased while welcoming policies largely stayed the same. Assimilation is a stronger notion to 'integration' as it implies the acceptance of a new home's culture as one's own, this contrasting with the more 'come as you are' multicultural approach Blair introduced.
That said, it is essential to preserving the familiarity which characterizes home to those born on the British Isles. The failure to adopt this assimilationist approach explains in my mind Reform's successful split of the right-wing vote in 2024. As it is the historic duty of conservatives within the Anglosphere to guard against radicalism, I should also stress that a failure to culturally assimilate newcomers into the national culture contributes to the worrying growth in popularity of ethnic politics, firstly on the left with the 2010s seeing leftists refuse a colorblind model in favor of essentializing racial identification aided by sub and counter-cultures in the name of 'social justice', but also on the fringes of the right with some accepting that left-wing premise of racial identity in order to pursue a nativist agenda.
If we now turn to the larger voting base, which may not entirely identify with the right, the question of systemic economic issues comes to mind. By now everyone knows that wages have stagnated for almost two decades, in spite of an ever-increasing cost of living. The question is what are the base issues which lead it to be so. Brexit often comes to mind, and while many authoritative and well-argued voiced have lamented the consequences of barriers to entry to the Common Market, this doesn't give us the full picture as it occurred in 2020. Energy costs have some of the largest compound effects on other goods. One notes that in spite of large investment into initiative such as the Dogger Bank Windfarm, which in all fairness was constructed far more efficiently than its European counterparts, energy costs remain stubbornly high. In addition to making people's lives more expensive, this also affects the operating cost of the businesses whose support has been the pride of the Conservative Party since Thatcher. Such hosts negatively affect the competitiveness of British products both, innovative and heritage-based, world-wide.
In fact, due to both infrastructural and incentives-based reasons, the United Kingdom is paradoxically both an energy exporter and in and energy-cost crisis. Labour capitalised in this weakness during the last election through 'Great British Energy'. If is as such evident that that the failure to address this concern weighed in the Conservative Party's 2024 defeat.
JJP: In line with the previous question, do you believe the party should shift to the centre or further to the right to win back 10 Downing Street?
TR: If I may, I believe that the answer is more nuanced than the question would imply.
In regard to cultural matters, I believe the Conservative Party will be able to regain a strong base under the leadership of Mrs Badenoch. I mentioned in answer to your previous question the central importance of ‘home’ in the small ‘c’ conservative-conception politics, the danger multiculturalism presented to that sense of familiarity and the resonance of ‘home’ as a rallying call for the British people.
One has to recognize that Mrs Badenoch has made it evident, with a clarity and a consistency some may argue is seldom seen on the current political stage, that she acknowledges this importance of ‘home’ and will work to limit the effects of multiculturalism if asked to form a government. In fact, she has repeatedly stressed that the way to preserve and protect the Realm’s ‘multiracial’ harmony is to reject the essentializing multiculturalism that fractures British society.
One may say that she is merely saying this to get elected, but I would point out that she was one of the most vocal opponents of the far left and racializing “Black Lives Matter” movement in 2020. By her staunch opposition to multiculturalism, she is certainly pulling the Party to the right. I would argue that on a cultural basis, that is a positive and popular development.
In regard to economics, there is some nuance to be had.
Due to their belief in the organic rather than planned organisation of society, conservatives of the English-speaking world are usually sceptical of government interference in the economy. In Britain, this characteristic was significantly emphasized under Baroness Thatcher’s time who not only significantly reformed and deregulated the economy but also privatized a number of state-run companies, a tendency that would continue under following governments.
Appreciating the situation of 1970s Britain, the decade when unions had the power to blackmail the government and hold the country hostage, when a three day work week had to be imposed by the Heath government due to strikes, when the country was running grossly inefficient coal industry which was highly resistant to necessary reform and when the United Kingdom essentially became the first developed country to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund, one can see why Thatcher’s reforms were necessary.
One also notes her success which broke the union’s hold on the country, restored London as the financial capital of the world, made the United Kingdom an economic power with global esteem and would inspire generations of conservative politicians. The reforms she led were thus in large part right for the problems she faced, but it does not follow that privatisation is always the solution. Yes, it is best for the state to stay out of people’s lives, but sometimes it may be difficult to create market dynamics in certain fields. The privatisation of rail has been under much scrutiny for this very reason as it is difficult to make two train companies compete on the same track.
So, while one may argue the economy is still overregulated in this country one might also take a more nuanced view on privatization and argue that the party ought to do the same.
JJP: Very interesting. Narrowing our focus, can you explain to readers what is one-nation conservatism, how this concept influenced British politics, and what the ideology entails for future elections?
TR: So, one-nation conservatism is a term derived from one of former Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli's novels "Sybil and the Two Nations" which relates to social cohesion. The appellation 'two nations' refers roughly to the 'have' and 'have nots' of the Victorian Era, a division central to the novel's romantic plot. Now, Disraeli never used the term "one-nation conservatism”, but he did say during his famed Crystal Palace Speech that "the palace is unsafe, when the cottage is unhappy".
Disraeli saw the dangers of class division on the United Kingdom, but he offered an alternative to the destructive thoughts of his contemporary Karl Marx. Where Marx saw an inevitable confrontation between the proletariat and the newly established bourgeoisie which would result in a classless society, Disraeli hoped for the peaceful coexistence of all classes which were all essential to the British nation. Their union would be permitted by an overarching sense of national belonging and greatness in addition to the assurance of liveable standards for all. Hence, one-nation conservatism is the doctrine that seeks social cohesion through a sense of national belonging and solidarity.
I would not use the term 'ideology' to describe one-nation conservatism as conservatism itself is deeply skeptical of the 'ideal' and utopias. Indeed, just as Burkean conservatism was formed in reaction to the Jacobin quest for utopia through abstract ideals, one-nation conservatism is a doctrine formed to prevent destructive ideological and egalitarian class war.
That said, the doctrine of one-nation conservatism has had concrete effects in British politics. Unless you are amongst those who believe Blair's constitutional amendments were a revolution, which is an interesting debate but I suspect one we don't have the time to get into, the United Kingdom has been an exemplar of political stability and has held firm against radical and revolutionary tendencies since Pitt the Younger held firm against Jacobinism and in spite of several revolutions occurring in Europe since.
If we snapshot for illustrative purposes the 1930s when revolutionary ideologies, both communist and fascist, we see that the subjects of the Realm ultimately stayed true to their political system of "ordered freedom within the law" to quote Baldwin. This is both due to the natural sentiment of belonging one-nation conservatism appeals to through national loyalty, and the willingness of one-nation conservatives to change, though this change must be done in order to prevent social tension and on practical grounds rather than ideological ones.
In terms of the future of one-nation conservatism, while I wish not hazard concrete predictions, I can tell you about the challenges and opportunities presented to both the doctrine and the party. Both the party and the doctrine are faced with challenges. The Conservative Party lost a lot of its credibility leading up to the 2024 general election while the doctrine is hampered by the fact that national identity has become weakened and sometimes feels vague. Back during Disraeli's premiership, he emphasized the jingoism related to the strength of the British Empire as the assembling factor for Conservatives. But with the Empire gone, how ought we define the British identity? I think conservatives and the Conservative Party have an answer that avoids the homogenizing multicultural view and exclusionary racial answers. A sense of home characterized by familiar culture and aesthetics is the small 'c' conservative answer to identity which the party can emphasize as uniquely British and thus exceptional.
From a more directly political view, the rule of law which protects the individual is the historic soul of the English-speaking world and its British origins are something the British people ought to be proud of. Make no mistake, individual rights and liberty under law are the exception, not the rule. Such liberty can thus fuel British exceptionalism, which the party could capitalize on if it incorporates such exceptionalism in its policies and rhetoric. That would, however, be an internal struggle as some well-meaning members of the party seem to have emphasized in "ordered freedom," 'order' over 'freedom'. Not only is this apparent in the online surveillance pursued both by Labour and Conservative governments, but also through the seemingly bi-partisan support for facial recognition against privacy concerns.
JJP: As an international security student, what is the biggest foreign policy challenge facing Britain at the moment?
TT: Independent power projection would be my answer. I know that it is technically a defense issue, but the intertwined nature of defense and foreign policy lead me to nevertheless emphasize it. The dangers created by the war in Iran proved that the UK isn't currently capable of projecting power, in spite of its grand naval history and ability to perform joint strikes such as it did against the Houthis when the group attempted to block access to the Red Sea. The latter case-study makes one understand that the UK's focus on complementarity with allies, specifically the United States, instead of being an independently fearsome nation is to a large extent responsible.
The central problem becomes evident when comparing the Royal Navy to its valued partner and historic rival, the French Marine National. Carriers have generally been accepted as the core of naval power projection since the Cold War. The French have one, the British have two. That said, the French Charles de Gaulle can have an escort entirely composed of French frigates while the two Elisabeth Class carriers need to be escorted by foreign ships for protection. This is due to the amount of material and human resources these large warships pull away from other naval assets. This does not seem like a problem on paper if we look at things through the NATO alliance. Unfortunately, the Falklands War ought to have taught the UK that keeping an independent means of power projection is essential as allies, though sympathetic, may not always be able to assist the Royal Navy in all circumstances due to the nature of geopolitics.
Consequently, I would argue that the UK not only needs to allocate greater resources to defense, but rethink how manages its defense budget.
JJP: Shifting away from UK and European politics, a large number of American voters are currently disenchanted with the Trump administration for imposing steep tariffs on imported goods. Drawing upon your knowledge of British economic history, can you elucidate how the Corn Laws affected the UK, and what potential lessons American policymakers can learn from this legislation?
TR: You are right to pose the question in those terms as though the exact motives for Sir Robert Peel's repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 are sufficiently controversial to merit an academic research project, which I happen to have conducted, the effect of the laws in both social and economic terms on the UK was profound.
Socially, the laws, which were protectionist measures banning and then heavily restricting the import of foreign grain, were thought of in tribal terms which may remind us of today's politics. On the one hand, you had an agrarian and rural aristocracy which had established what seemed to be harmonious social roles in the countryside. Having an income directly tied to agricultural produce made them fear the price reduction an increased supply of grain through import would bring. They thus condemned repeal as an assault on British farming and the English way of life.
On the other hand, the ascendant industrialist class saw the laws as aristocratic sabotage of their meritocratic rise. A lower grain supply imposed by the protectionist Corn Laws meant higher labour costs and thus lower price competitiveness on the international market. Acknowledging that it also increased the cost of living of their workers, industrialists and their liberal allies in parliament argued that the laws composed a great tax on those who produced Britain's wealth. Their grievances would lead to the creation of the Anti-Corn League, an organization dedicated to the repeal of the Corn Laws.
Historians like Norman Gash would argue that the economic effects of both the Corn Laws and their repeal were exaggerated due to the highly politicized nature of the debate. That said, the repeal of the Corn Laws did advantage all involved in the long run as not only did it increase the productivity of industrial workers, but it also increased the productivity of the agrarian sector by allowing Britain to develop its industrial base which resulted in the mechanization of agriculture.
I certainly am not saying that tariffs are never justified, there are times in which the competition is simply too imbalanced to permit free trade, there are occasions where one wishes to protect nascent industries and there are circumstances where one simply wishes to lead a calculated trade-based pressure campaign on an adversary.
That said, tariffs do tend to increase the cost of living and thus reduce domestic consumption which affects both economic output and directly impacts the livelihoods of a country's citizens. In extreme cases like the years leading up to 1846, this can lead to social tension between those that seem to benefit from the tariffs and the wider population. Thus, I would argue that tariffs should remain a measure used with caution.
JJP: I fully agree with you on that point.
To wrap up our conversation, do you think the underlying causes for the decline of the Conservative Party is specific to Britain, or a microcosm of an international shift away from centrist politics?
TR: Well, I would first like to nuance your question by saying that recent polling shows that though the standing of the Conservative Party is yet to reach its pre-pandemic esteem, the terminal decline which some had predicted was proven to be a premature assessment.
As I mentioned in answering your previous questions, there were genuine failures of the Party in its last period of government and that contributed to a particularly strong public sentiment against it in the last election. However, it is true to say both that these are being internally addressed and that there is more to the story.
Centrist governments in general are seen as having trouble with interpreting the mandate on which they were elected or respecting mandates already elucidated by their people. This leads to a rise in populist alternatives. One thinks of the dissolution in France caused by things such as the circumvention of the referendum on the European Constitution. The British conservative base being attached to a ‘home’ and the party failing to defend that attachment is something that can again be mentioned here.
To his credit, I would argue Lord Cameron was not entirely in ignorant to this, perhaps due to the then rise of UKIP, which is why he gave the United Kingdom the choice to leave or remain in the European Union. I will say that though some may disagree with the referendum’s results and others may question the party’s record in other areas, it is at the very least to its credit that it followed through with the popular mandate on this occasion as another path would have worsened confidence in centrist politics.
This leads me to my second point which is that if the farther ends of the political spectrum are more visible today, it might have something to do with the well documented effects of social media.
Social media affects politics in three key ways. Firstly, it diminishes one’s attention span by recommending ever shorter content. This encourages entrenchment in one’s own position why favouring the viewing of short clips that confirm one’s view, make one’s political opponents seem ridiculous, or showcase interactions where an individual with one’s own political views got the rhetorical upper hand on an opponent. Secondly, it fractures society into algorithmically defined tribes. One enters a sphere where the encounter with someone of a different political tradition is rare and when one is exposed to a different view it is often a radicalised and simplified form of one’s pre-existing political instincts. Thirdly, the political opponent is dehumanised by the nature of the interaction. Instead of being face-to-face with another person, one sees the other as an object on one’s screen, an obstacle to be surmounted rather than an individual to be taken seriously. The net result is polarisation and entrenchment in one’s own position, perhaps even seeing more nuanced arguments as compromising or wet.
Critics of the Conservative Party and other centre-right and centre-left parties who bring up these two characteristics are not rare. What I would say to them is that even though there is nothing inherently wrong with having a strong position and that the political centre certainly does not have the ‘monopoly on rationality’ some liberals have tried to claim or portray, democracy presupposes we are able to talk with one another regardless of political disagreement as fellows who belong in the same polity and can take each other seriously. So, to answer your question, the Conservative Party’s woes are both the result of factors specific to the UK and the wider English-speaking world.
That said, because these factors are diagnosable, they are not terminal.
JJP: Tinahy, always a pleasure speaking with you, my friend.
TR: Likewise. Thank you very much.
Tinahy Matéo Ramamonjarisoa is a current International Security Studies student at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.
What are your thoughts? Please share this article with your comments.
Jett James Pruitt is a Native American, Pulitzer Prize-nominated author of the bestselling book THROUGH THE EYES OF A YOUNG AMERICAN. He is the founder and editor-in-chief of TheGenZPost.com and a political strategist specializing in Generation Z voter trends. He is currently a B.A. International Politics student at The University of London Institute in Paris. His next book, THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE: What America's Political Parties Must Do To Win Over Generation Z, will be released in major bookstores worldwide early 2027.
Comments