The One Nation Tories who celebrate Project Cameron were largely wrong in the 1980s

"One Nation Conservatism is back."  So says Andrew Tyrie, MP for Chichester, in a new pamphlet reported in this morning's Telegraph.  Mr Tyrie is best known as one of Ken Clarke's leading supporters - he ran the former Chancellor's 2005 leadership bid - and is the architect of the current Tory policy on increased state funding of political parties.  "The apparent certainties of the Thatcher years and the choices implied by them are being replaced by a new Conservative agenda," Mr Tyrie writes in a paper produced for the One Nation Group of 29 Tory MPs that warmly welcomes Project Cameron's first full year of modernisation.

With impeccable timing we are reminded of what One Nation Conservatism stood for when those 'certainties of the Thatcher years' were being rolled out in the 1980s.  Timothy Barnes, who edits an excellent new blog at the Tory Reform Group, has just published an archive recording of Harold Macmillan's 1985 address to the TRG in which he made his famous 'selling the family silver' critique of the Thatcherite privatisation programme.  Timothy Barnes is at pains to say - quite fairly - that Macmillan's attack was not an absolutist attack on  returning assets to private ownership but on using the proceeds of sales for current rather than investment expenditure (although I would argue that the proceeds were paying for the one-off pain of the transition from the corporatist post-war economy to a new services-led dynamism).

I have just listened to the whole 35 minute speech and encourage you to do the same - if only to savour the former Prime Minister's wonderfully textured voice.  The main reason it's worth listening to, however, is to realise how wrong the 'One Nation Tories' were during the 1980s.  Harold Macmillan talks of shift systems and shorter hours to address the problem of unemployment - the French way - and marvels at the industrial policies of Japan.  Progress, he says, won't ultimately come from scrimping, saving or selling the family silver but from the "politics of union" and working together.  He remembers fondly his bipartisan friendships in the Commons and implies that Margaret Thatcher's belt-tightening had gone too far.  One Nation Tories from Pym to Gilmour were broadcasting the same message throughout those years.  I had my own small exposure to the One Nation alternative while growing up in Germany in the 1980s.  I heard Stephen Dorrell address the Anglo-German society in Bielefeld.  I was an enthusiastic Thatcherite - mainly because of her defence policies - and listened horrified as the young Conservative speaker repeatedly talked again and again about all that British Conservatives had to learn from the German model.

Wherever possible the Conservative Party should be a broad church - embracing all of its various traditions but (1) let us not underestimate the wrongheadedness of the one nation critics of the Thatcher years; (2) let us not seek consensus or celebrate established positions when today's issues of demography, terror and social breakdown, for example, may require Thatcheresque leadership and (3) let's not allow one wing of our party to claim a monopoly on the one nation idea.  Where the so-called One Nation Tories have always been right is to remind the whole party that we cannot be indifferent to the plight of the poorest Britons.  But as IDS and David Cameron are beginning to show with the social justice policy group's work, it is not necessarily a Macmillan-minded-state that has the answers to poverty.  Modern conservatism is more likely to be effectively compassionate if it emphasises family structure, school choice, social entrepreneurship, freedom from drugs and zero tolerance policing.  It will be interesting to see what Andrew Tyrie's paper has to say about all of those issues...

Comments

[esbonio]

Tim

A good post although I have better things to do than listen to Macmillan, like post here. His speech was a wind up then and probably remains so.

I did not realise you were a forces brat during the years when our some of our so called allies tried to avoid having nukes on their turf?

Either way it means you have mentioned Europe if only tangentiallly or were you joking?

[Sean Fear]

I'm reminded of Graeme Archer's comments about the importance of aesthetics in politics. I suppose I dislike the mental picture One Nation Conservatism conjures up to me, of happy proles gratefully accepting whatever their betters give to them.

Specifically, I object to the devotion to the European Union that is the hallmark of most One Nation Conservatives I've encountered.

[Sean Fear]

Not to mention the kind of toe-curling snobbery that people like Peregrine Worsthorne displayed towards Margaret Thatcher, and people from her background.

[esbonio]

Sean is right.

One Nation Toryism was at least in part designed to buy off or delay the feared radicalism of the working classes. It can be argued that it appeared to work to a limited extent although social stability in the UK had as much to do with deference, shared values etc than a conservative political philosophy. I am sure no one here would argue we have retained anything like our former deferential society. It seems to me therefore that they are trying to sell a flawed concept.

[Derek]

Timing is everything in politics and Cameron has come along at the right time - just as the voters are tired of New Labour. Unfortunately this means that we're stuck with "one nation" conservatism, if that is what he is really offering - and it looks very much as though he is.

[Denis Cooper]

If the concept of "one nation" is to mean anything, surely it must be geographical as well as financial in its scope? When Yeo suggests plunging the Scots and Northern Irish into prolonged morning darkness so that his Suffolk constituents can have an extra hour to play tennis in the evening, it does attract unfavourable attention in those parts of the country.

[esbonio]

Well if Cameron wins and we are stuck with "One Nation" conservatism it will be very interesting to see what it means in reality. Will he and his acolytes practice what they preach? Will they live on sink estates, suffer crime and send their kids to the worst state schools? Don't hold your breath. Of course not and why should they. But what's good for them should be good for the rest of us. Only it won't be. So they will lay themselves open to the charge of hypocrisy. And they in turn will reply, that One Nation did not mean us all being the same, but different (on their terms with us paying).

I am reminded of the receptionist who was told by the MD that she was the most important person in the company as she was the face of the company whom visitors met first. Her reply to the MD was that it was all very well telling her she was the most important person but he did not pay her as if she was.

[Sally Roberts]

For which reply, Esbonio, I assume she got the sack?

[Graeme Archer]

Hmmm. I've not listened to the Macmillan speech, nor, let's be honest, do I have any intention of so doing, neither am I likely to read the pamphlet. (It would be nice to say "I've got better things to do" but since I'm blethering away here that's clearly a lie and so I may as well be honest and admit I have the attention span of a fruit fly).

If snobby ex-editors of the Sunday Telegraph and a disdain for monetary rigour were all that "one nation" made me feel then I'd stop there, and really try hard to find more useful to do with my time ... have you written those thank you letters yet? No. Me neither.

There is, though, something quite brilliant about the One Nation concept which I'm glad we're reclaiming. I felt physically sick when Blair appropriated the phrase at one of his pre-97 rallies, I mean, how dare this rancid little socialist start lecturing conservatives about how he was going to build a new jerusalem and call it one nation? Of course he completely missed the point: I don't think any Tory ever meant state-controlled perfection for everybody, here and now, even if it were possible, which of course it ain't.

What Disraeli got across in Sybil (sp?, it's so long since I read it, not easy for someone with the attention span of etc etc) to me, anyway, was that you can't just focus on economics, even if the utilitarian argument for so doing is completely unanswerable. I think he was wrong re Corn Laws and Peel, just as I think Macmillan was almost laughably wrong to rail (ever so politely) against privatisations, because they were ineffably the right thing to do. But you can't at the same time just tell people "gosh sorry about the short term pain, but in the long run, most people will be better off", even though that's true.

It's not a matter of policy alone, though, (as ever) it's easy to spot things that were just wrong and clearly fail when held up against a One Nation mirror, falsification is always easier than the converse isn't it? You would expect me to mention Clause 28, which did no good to anybody and made a significant number of people feel shit, for no good reason at all. Not One Nation.

When David Cameron says "we're all in this together", I hear One Nation speaking: not tax-and-spend economics, not The New Blair Jerusalem Stage II, just a recognition that utilitarianism isn't sufficient.

[esbonio]

Sally

He was far too much a gentleman to do that sort of thing.

[Ken Stevens]

Denis Cooper:"If the concept of 'one nation' is to mean anything, surely it must be geographical as well as financial in its scope? .... etc"

The concept of One Nation disappeared with devolution. You can have one or the other but not both - unless of course One Nation is defined as an independent England alone.

If the Conservative Party is reappraising its stance then perhaps the unionist element of its philosophy needs to go the same way as Labour's Clause Four!

[Tam Large]

While Dave Blameron's "One Nation" crusade continues to embrace (hug?) the emerging United States of Europe (EU for short), it will be in reality "No Nation" politics, as our nation (now only making 30% of our laws) fades away like the Cheshire cat... with only Dave's & Blair's smiles left.

[DavidTBreaker]

Macmillan: "[Privatisation is]...selling the family silver"
More like selling a load of old tat on Ebay. Either that or he has very cheap and rubbish family silver. The nationalised industries were a joke, hardly the family silver. As for funding current spending, that meant lower taxes, which creates more growth than there would otherwise have been. Lower taxes are therefore a very good investment.

Yeo: "Let's try Double Summer Time"
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, 1950-52 (?). Dozens of children died. Not an option.

Ken, I think the "One Nation" they talk about is the EU. They are very keen to see the UK break up, I'm not.

[Tory Loyalist]

Maggie summed up the ideas of these ghastly people quite simply.

"No Nation Conservatives"

It good to see that the TRG Clarkeites are at last outing themselves and loudly proclaiming what so many of us have been stating for months: quite simply that under Cameron the party has been taken over by the far-left of the party.

Their triumphalism may yet prove their undoing.

[David Cooper]

DavidTBreaker @ 19.01 - spot on about the lack of any real comparison whatsoever between family silver and the nationalised industries. Echoes the late John Junor's dismissal of Macmillan in the Sunday Express, shortly after that speech, in terms of "just as big a fraud as he ever was."

The modern day advocates of One Nation were/are arguably guilty of wanting to inflict a Two Nations regime upon us all, the Governing Classes and the Governed. Can't let the lower orders rise above their station and better themselves too much, old boy.

[Daniel VA]

"Specifically, I object to the devotion to the European Union that is the hallmark of most One Nation Conservatives I've encountered."

Among the current parliamentary party, Sir Malcolm Rifkind is probably the most prominent One Nation Conservative and one would hardly call him an unavowed Eurofederalist.

[Daniel VA]

oops... the festive period has clearly taken its toll - for 'unavowed' read 'unabashed' in my previous comment...

[Jonathan]

This will teach us not to have used a stake.

[Tory Loyalist]

I'm reminded of Graeme Archer's comments about the importance of aesthetics in politics.

Well I must say I missed that. Aesthetics in politics are generally very much a concern of the right, not to say the ultra right.

Without straying onto dangerous ground I would say, at the very least, an aesthetic sense tends to be singularly "uninclusive".

[ToMTom]

The nationalised industries were a joke, hardly the family silver

Oh I don't know - I would have loved to own the CEGB or British Gas when I see what the Russians have done with Gazprom..........and BP was not too bad - though I confess Cable & wireless has been a disaster as a privatised company, Amersham International was a goldmine that GE recognised as such.

Rolls-Royce and BAe would be super to own, and BT has been a complete basket-case in the private sector.

Royal Ordnance at least made ammunition which functioned as opposed to the stuff the Army gets today

I could have made real money with HMSO which is now a German company, and Ordnance Survey Maps was a neat business.

I am not convinced I should be paying £6 billion a year subsidy to railways from an £11 billion Transport Budget, nor why GNER passengers should pay £16/ticket tax levy to subsidise trains elsewhere.

Frankly I would remove ALL subsidy to trains into London and make them pay full economic fares for trains rather tan live off taxpayer subsidy.

[ex candidate]

Camoron "One Nation" Conservatism can be summed up as " Let them eat cake whilst we snort coke".

[PW]

Excellent post, Tim. Especially “But as IDS and David Cameron are beginning to show with the social justice policy group's work, it is not necessarily a Macmillan-minded-state that has the answers to poverty. Modern conservatism is more likely to be effectively compassionate if it emphasises family structure, school choice, social entrepreneurship, freedom from drugs and zero tolerance policing.”

As for Graeme Archer’s comment (1821) about Clause 28, promoting to schoolchildren alternative lifestyles to the two-adult mother & father family is surely a direct contradiction to the effective social compassion the Editor refers to. The family structure that gives children the best chance must be the two-adult mother and father family. The effective compassion that IDS and David Cameron are speaking of that seeks to help those left behind and excluded from society by dealing with the root causes of entrapment in poverty, would help build “one nation”.

As for TomTom’s complaint about GNER passengers subsidising other trains, I see this more in terms of the high premiums operators have to pay the Government to under new franchises that are being negotiated – i.e. a stealth tax on rail passengers. First Great Western and First Capital Connect and South West Trains are also companies that are being forced to pay premiums to the Government. GNER is not the only one. Theses companies, and First Capital Connect and South West Trains are mainly London commuter train operators, will, as far as I understand, be paying premiums to the Government, not receiving subsidy. Anyway I would rather my taxes subsidise railways than subsidise environmentally damaging road-building and airport expansion.

[Graeme Archer]

As for Graeme Archer’s comment (1821) about Clause 28, promoting to schoolchildren alternative lifestyles to the two-adult mother & father family is surely a direct contradiction to the effective social compassion the Editor refers to. The family structure that gives children the best chance must be the two-adult mother and father family.

In the interest of clarity, all I'm saying is that you don't make marriage stronger (great ideal) by actively making young gay people feel like shit. Which is what Section 28 did. So it was not in any sense a "one nation" concept. It was a "my nation" concept.

[malcolm]

Not sure I agree with the premise of this thread at all. Macmillan was a wonderful speaker and had a great turn of phrase but he was also a deeply pessimistic man and saw his role as managing decline.
Many of the 'One Nation' Conservatives of the 1980's (Clarke,Patten,Prior,Rifkind &Walker) were men of much greater optimism.They provided much of the intellectual vigour of the first half of the Thatcher administration and were key players in enabling the Conservative Party to win so convincingly in 1983 and 1987.
I would also argue that Perry Worsthorne was no friend at all of the One Nation tradition. The Conservative party is only successful when it reflects all shades of Conservative opinion.Mrs Thatcher recognised that very clearly witness the success of Clarke and Patten throughout her administrations. I hope David Cameron does too.

[Richard Carey]

Camoron "One Nation" Conservatism can be summed up as " Let them eat cake whilst we snort coke".

I'm presuming, "ex-candidate", that there's a reason why you're an ex-candidate. Reading the above, I can't begin to fathom what it might be, but wonder whether we should be grateful for it...

Although I haven't had the opportunity to read Andrew Tyrie's paper beyond the media quotes, PW, I thought I'd take on some of your points:

The effective compassion that IDS and David Cameron are speaking of that seeks to help those left behind and excluded from society by dealing with the root causes of entrapment in poverty, would help build “one nation”.

I couldn't agree with this more - while Labour aims to treat the symptoms of poverty with their manipulative tax credits etc, I am proud that COnservatives aim to root out the underlying causes of the condition. Poverty affects the most vulnerable and innocent, the children, far more deeply so than others, and it is a duty incumbent on all of us to do what we can to address this.

Modern conservatism is more likely to be effectively compassionate if it emphasises family structure, school choice, social entrepreneurship, freedom from drugs and zero tolerance policing

It is - however, a truly modern vision of Conservatism recognises that not all of these things can be enforced or legislated for or against by politicians acting alone. Of course government can provide resources for genuine neighbourhood policing, crack down on drug dealers and give both freedom and encouragement to social entrepeneurs. (You might note that I've listed three things that the current Government's approach has singularly failed to do!). I disagree, however, with anyone who claims that politics could or should dictate family structure.

Of course politics can and should encourage the cohesion of families of all shapes and sizes. It's a complex area in policy and political terms, however, and I'm not sure we can dictate the shape of families...

I think that when you go there, it can lead to problems like this:

As for Graeme Archer’s comment (1821) about Clause 28, promoting to schoolchildren alternative lifestyles to the two-adult mother & father family is surely a direct contradiction to the effective social compassion

I agree that children should be allowed as far as possible to be children and not be prematurely sexualised, and that the family structure you describe is seen as the ideal. However, I agree primarily with Graeme that Section 28 was an offensive and clumsy piece of legislation from a past era. Section 28 of the LGA did nothing to promote effective family structures of any kind, but did a great deal to demonise an innnocent group.

[matt wright]

Overall, very good post. So called "one nation" people at that time tended to be wrong as we had big adjustments that had to be made. However as the article correctly says we have to be careful to remain a broad church able to address social as well as financial issues. Today we have new things that must be solved requiring fresh and sometimes totally different approaches. Cameron is broadly trying to achieve this,

Matt

[Yet Another Anon]

Timothy Barnes is at pains to say - quite fairly - that Macmillan's attack was not an absolutist attack on returning assets to private ownership but on using the proceeds of sales for current rather than investment expenditure (although I would argue that the proceeds were paying for the one-off pain of the transition from the corporatist post-war economy to a new services-led dynamism).
I think the main thing is the question regarding a particular organisation or service is whether it's structure, funding and ownership are correct for what it is doing, whether what it is doing is something which should be a state priority or whether it either never should have been or has ceased, or indeed has become for some reason something that it is desirable that the state should do - anything that is not raising revenue and is not something of strategic importance for the state should be closed or sold.

So far as how the money is used, I think it is desirable to be on a trend towards fiscal rectitude, during times of structural change in how the public sector carries out it's duties and what it does then in the short term there could be imbalances, generally if investment is desirable then it is best to do it on a sustained basis with some kind of reliable stable funding, on the other hand it is perfectly reasonable to use short term raising of revenue through asset sales either to purchase other assets or to pay off National Debt, or indeed to fund tax cuts while restructuring of the public sector towards smaller government is taking place, it is only irresponsible if taxes are cut and spending is not or even raised and this is funded through greater borrowing and/or asset sales - it has to be said that the most guilty of such a thing I can think of was John Major and Norman Lamont in the early 1990's which built up a huge deficit, Margaret Thatcher on the other hand regardless of some of the privatisations not being appropriate and many mistakes that otherwise could have resulted in a faster move towards small government, and maybe sometimes an over concern with sales to raise money rather than because they were the right thing in those circumstances, one thing that the Thatcher Administration was very good at was putting the public accounts into the black.

[Tory Loyalist]

Many of the 'One Nation' Conservatives of the 1980's (Clarke,Patten,Prior,Rifkind &Walker) were men of much greater optimism.They provided much of the intellectual vigour of the first half of the Thatcher administration and were key players in enabling the Conservative Party to win so convincingly in 1983 and 1987.

Well Malcolm, if that's how you recall the glory days of Thatcherism, you very obviously weren't there.

Those of us who were, will recall most of those you name (Prior later recanted and I never thought Rifkind was as obnoxious as the others) as the sour-faced Heathite fifth column who did all in their power to prevent Thatcher and her loyal supporters from making this country great again.

Unsurprisingly, I believe they were all members of the far-left Tory Reform Group which continues working to undermine the party right up to the present day.

[PW]

I noted Graeme Archer's and Richard Carey's comments on S28 etc. I think the Ed recently said IDS suggested to the Government (which refused) that rather than just focus such legsilation on banning promotion of behaviour of one group, as S28 did, all explicit material should be banned from schools. However I stand by my comment that promoting alternative lifestyles to the mother-and-father family (I should have said married mother-and-father family) would not help promote the family structure that various studies and IDS's work show gives children the best chance in life.

As for politics dictating family structure, I agree it is not a matter of "dictating". But politics does have a role, as politicians legislate one way or another in these matters, and determine the tax system. So why not now do what they can to promote the family structure that gives children the best chance and most strengthens society?

[malcolm]

I was very much there and saw how well many of those people worked with Mrs Thatcher for many years which was why she so consistently promoted many of them. Mrs Thatcher was generally very pragmatic and it was this pragmatism that enabled the party to do well for so long.
Even the most cursory reading of the history of that time would show your post Tory Loyalist to be as distorted as usual.

[houndtang]

For a Tory Loyalist you do seem to hate fellow Tories quite a bit?

[DavidDPB]

Of course, it is possible that the Thatcherites might be wrong now.......

The strength of the monetarists et al was that they recognised that a new direction was needed to meet new circumstances. Sticking exactly to the same policies falls into that trap that they so succesfully avoided.

[Richard Carey]

So why not now do what they can to promote the family structure that gives children the best chance and most strengthens society?

For what it's worth, PW, I agree with this. The thing that causes me most head-scratching on this topic is usually how to encourage this without unwittingly discriminating against other family structures in the process. It's always worth repeating that these don't always arise by choice. I think for example very few young girls grow up thinking they want to be a single mother when they are older, but there are many of them who do a fantastic job of raising their children while asking for and receiving no special recognition, while their counterparts who struggle are villified.

In policy terms, I think many of IDS's suggestions are thoughtful and worth considering. The danger of some policy tools to my mind is that they are blunt instruments. A married couples tax break is not suddenly going to cause me to get married (CF not having been in recent times the premier marriage bureau I am assured it was in the past!). The policy tools at our disposal need to become far more sophisticated and subtle in this area.

[Richard]

"I would also argue that Perry Worsthorne was no friend at all of the One Nation tradition."

Agreed. He comes across as a right-wing authoritarian who opposes Thatcherite economics on the basis that they disturb the existing social structure. However, seeing as he was certainly no fan of socialism I'm not sure what sort of system he would have wanted. Something similar to Japan's developmental state perhaps?

[ThePrince]

Thatcherism was doomed to fail becuase it was never as consistent, nor did it achieve what it intended to be, Thatchism is and was a cult of personality not a consistent philosophy. It had some wonderful successes but also some terrible failures, but One Nation Conservatism will always be victorious in the long term as it is not built around an individual.

Please note I am a bif fan of hers before I get shouted at.

[TomTom]

Anyway I would rather my taxes subsidise railways than subsidise environmentally damaging road-building and airport expansion.

I find railways rather inconvenient and frankly the network is at 1861 levels and very sparse. Had North Sea Oil money been used to build a complete new network with East-West trains and not just North-South I might have agreed...................but it is still the same rickety old track with cheap overhead electrification and carries such a small proportion of freight and passenger-traffic as to be unworthy of £6 billion taxpayer subsidy in place of the £1 billion British Rail received.

[Serf]

Macmillan: "[Privatisation is]...selling the family silver"

As a working class lad, I found this phrase rather amusing. To the toffs, selling the family silver might seem to be a bad thing. When you grow up without money, you wonder why anyone would want to be surrounded by useless silver, which could be sold and the money used more pragmatically elsewhere.

Family silver is inherently useless, even if it does have sentimental and monetary value. So it was actually a very good analogy to make, and I am glad we sold it off.

[Chris]

What worries me more than anything is how few Tory MP's (and other hangers on) appear to have any principles at all - they simply mouth whatever catchphrases they think the leadership wants.

[John Irvine]

"I was very much there and saw how well many of those people worked with Mrs Thatcher for many years which was why she so consistently promoted many of them"

Utter rubbish. Is Malcolm asking us to believe he was a member of the shadow cabinet?

Mrs Thatcher was unfortunate enough to inherit a mob of Eurofanatic Heathmen who worked against her for years. One by one she got rid of them but of course there were always more in the background working against her until she was finally betrayed.

They worked not only to betray her but to betray the contry also and David Cameron is the latest of their breed.

[Sean Fear]

Worsthorne moved a long way to the Left in the 1980s, where he remains. He loathed Margaret Thatcher's lack of "class", despises people who make, rather than inherit, their money, believes politcal correctness is "good manners", hates America and Israel, believes that the London tube bombers were "soldiers", and is an enthusiast for EU integration, on the grounds that the EU economic model keeps capitalism under control.

I suppose he is a parody of the ultra-Wet Conservative, rather than a serious political commentator.

[malcolm]

'Is Malcolm asking us to believe he was a member of the Shadow Cabinet'-John Irvine.Even by your standards John a very stupid thing to say.
As regards the rest of your post I suggest you wake up. Both Ken Clarke and Chris Patten were not sacked but were promoted by Mrs Thatcher. During her 'golden period' (1983-89)she tended to promote on merit rather than only those who shared her ideology.

[Sean Fear]

That said, Malcolm, I think there's pretty good reason to believe that Patten at least simply did what he had to, to get on. He certainly didn't approve of Thatcherism, and really doesn't approve of very much that her party stood for. Both he, and Clarke, stuck the knife into her in 1990.

[esbonio]

What intrigues me is where did the enthusiasm
for a united states of europe (albeit for some by stealth) and by implication a dislike for the nation state which had served this country so well for hundreds of years come from? It cannot be simply due to the wish to avoid war at all costs, can it?

[malcolm]

I'm sure you're right Sean.My point is that the Conservative party is generally only successful when most shades of Conservative opinion are included. A point that Mrs Thatcher for the vast majority of her administration well understood.
I have no idea how to answer your question Esbonio. Both Patten and Clarke threw away their political careers for their love of the EU. What a truly bad cause for which to do that!

[Tory Loyalist]

Both he, and Clarke, stuck the knife into her in 1990.

Exactly, Sean. Malcolm has clearly outed himself as a Wet.

He tells us he was a wet who was loyal to Thatcher. I suppose there were the Whitelaws of the time, but most of this element, especially the likes of Peter Walker, were malignant enemies of everything we were trying to achieve.

For a Tory Loyalist you do seem to hate fellow Tories quite a bit?

Firstly as a Christian I don't hate anybody. Secondly as a Tory I dislike socialists - especially when they pose falsely and deceitfully as Tories.

[Daniel VA]

The only person posing 'falsely and deceitfully' as a Conservative, is you, Tory Disloyalist.

[Daniel VA]

Sorry, that's not fair. You're not the only Hefferite doing that.

[esbonio]

What is that old saying about being a socialist at 21 and a Tory at 30?

[Tory Loyalist]

Sorry, that's not fair. You're not the only Hefferite doing that.
_________________________________________________________________

So why should you suppose that a "Hefferite" isn't a Conservative?

Is there a copyright on the term these days?

[Michael McGowan]

Tory Loyalist, I can assure you that Malcolm is not a "wet", even if he is more indulgent than I am towards David Cameron. For all the fine rhetoric, the One Nation track record in office since 1945 is poor and far from compassionate. For much of that period, it consisted of the orderly administration of terminal decline as first Churchill and then MacMillan appeased the unions every bit as much as Labour and presided over a stagnating, highly-taxed and regulated economy. Their track record in relation to the public services they claim to love is also very poor. They (and Mrs Thatcher also) helped Labour destroy the one genuine ladder of social mobility, the grammar school system, which this country has had in the last hundred years. Why? Because the self-perpetuating caste which runs the Tory Party didn't want the bright children of the lower orders threatening their inherited privileges. There is nothing that the left of the Tory Party fears more than open elites.

Ken Clarke's spells at health and education paved the way for the super-centralised way in which both Labour and the Tories have run health and education since the mid-1980's. The disastrous results for pupils and patients who cannot afford to go private are plain for all to see. Patten is of course the opportunist par excellence. Lawson's biography is especially scathing about how he failed to back Lawson's strenuous opposition to the poll tax when he had a golden opportunity to kill it off.

David Cameron doesn't want people to "bang on" about Europe, presumably because he doesn't want attention focusssed on the Tory left's contempt for democratic accountability, which is every bit as developed as Labour's. I note that Tyrie and Michael Heseltine were in the forefront of last year's crude attempt by Maude to disenfranchise Tory members.