After examining developments in the Conservatives’ approach to the welfare state over the past 70 years, is it possible, finally, to identify what might be regarded as an unambiguous, enduring and authentic party perspective? Is there clear blue water? In theory, this might seem a possibility. Conservatives tend to concur over issues such as human nature, the inevitability and desirability of inequality, the importance of tradition and voluntary action, the necessity of personal freedom, the maintenance of social order, the undesirability of rapid change, the need for free markets and the private ownership of property. Moreover, it is certainly possible to identify some ideas about the welfare state that unite all shades of Conservative thinking, such as the duty to provide a safety net for those at risk of destitution and the inappropriateness of allowing this institution to be used for the purpose of social(ist) engineering or as a vehicle for major forms of redistribution between rich and poor. However, it is maintained here that the party's approach to the welfare state has ebbed and flowed constantly over time. As a result, the best way to understand the Conservatives’ approach to the welfare state is not on the basis of a holistic family perspective but, rather through the eyes of one of four competitive ‘siblings’ who share much in common but differ over a number of key issues. At a particular point in time the voice of one sibling will tend to dominate.

As we have seen, in the period between 1950 and 1964 One Nation Conservatism was the ascendant voice. From this perspective, the welfare state had quickly established itself as part of the national furniture. The main tasks were now to shape it in ways that complemented cherished Conservative values such as personal freedom and opportunity and ensure that the cost of welfare provision was kept in check.

During the Heath era, in which technocratic modernisation held sway, reform of the welfare state was seen as essential if the broader plan for the modernisation of Britain was to be achieved. Although Heath was personally sympathetic to the One Nation Conservative cause, he was prepared to take ideas from any shade of Conservative thinking that might aid his modernisation agenda. Heath's failure to achieve this objective provided an opportunity for the voice of another ‘sibling’ to come to the fore.