politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Three Tribes Go To War – the historical divides within the Tor
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Three Tribes Go To War – the historical divides within the Tory Party
“I support this measure as a measure of reform; but I support it still more as a measure of conservation … the voice of great events is proclaiming to us, “Reform, that you may preserve”
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
новосунильск, россия
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWSr1Aw0EBA
And they were utterly and profoundly wrong. Brexit was a betrayal of their people, albeit in some cases with good intentions.
The problem is that the PM has ignored the One Nation strand of Conservatism and allowed the Ultras and Radicals to set the agenda - perhaps thinking that she could control them. In my view that cost the Tories their majority in June and could yet cause the country many long-term problems. Hopefully, May's eventual Phase One pragmatism is a sign that she is shifting to the One Nation wing.
On-topic: interesting take on the history and current state of the Conservatives. The Big Society was actually a very good idea which sadly didn't fly.
Or Thatcher as she governed with a dash of Cameron.
However nothing in this article at all contradicts my premise that the Tories have always been the party of constitutional (not absolute) monarchy and the Union. Indeed on the Union the Tories have always defended it and will do so up and until any part of it breaks away, if ever. As for Carson never forget his famous phrase 'Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right!'
I would also certainly not rule out Rees-Mogg as a future leader of the opposition, it would be a mistake to say the Ultras have never produced Tory leaders before as the likes of Bonar Law and IDS and Wellington would attest.
Radicals like Osborne and TSE could be equally at home in the Orange Book LDs along with the likes of Laws as the Tories, although even most of them tend to be monarchists and unionists. David Davis is not really a Radical, Gove would be more in that mould.
It is true to say that One Nation leaders e.g. Macmillan, Heath, Major and Cameron have produced most modern Tory election winners and probably comprise the bulk of Tory voters. With the phase 1 deal done May is likely to stay on post transition until 2021 leading to a contest between a Remainer, I still think Rudd more likely than Hunt in the One Nation tradition and a Leaver either in the One Nation tradition like Davis or Boris or the Radical tradition like Gove. If and when the Tories then lose power the way will be open for an Ultra like Mogg.
Now, all has been subordinated to Brexit. The Ultras demand radical change, the radicals have abandoned Britain's global role and the One Nation Conservatives are upending social stability.
For now Brexit gives them a common purpose. But what next? By allowing themselves to be taken over by the fruitcake and loony wings of UKIP, they have abandoned their own broad church.
While Thatcher had radical rhetoric and well understood the value of salami slicing (as does the EU) - and was also the first 'environmentalist' PM, grasping the threat of global warming as a scientist would - despite the sharp edges she was a One Nation Conservative.
Wellington was not an Ultra (he pushed Catholic Emancipation through Parliament) and nor was Bonar Law - he was a bridge between Walter Long and the protectionists and Austen Chamberlain. IDS is more of a Radical than anything else: just look at his reforms to the welfare state.
www.wpp.com/wpp/companies/fitch/
FPT:
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/942488461495369728
Wellington opposed the Great Reform Act of 1832 and the expansion of the franchise which would suggest he was an Ultra. Bonar Law backed tariffs and an imperial customs union and opposed Irish Home Rule. IDS imposed a 3 line whip opposing gay adoption as leader and is a hard Brexiteer.
@Charles Jess Philips hasn’t commented on it yet from what I’ve seen, although she has previously made statements of support for those who have made accusations regarding sexual harrasment in Labour.
THE broadcasting watchdog has launched an investigation into Alex Salmond’s TV show.
Ofcom is examining whether the former First Minister’s debut show on a Kremlin propaganda channel breached guidelines on accuracy and “materially misled” viewers.
The November 16 episode of the Alex Salmond Show on RT proved controversial because of a series of “tweets” Mr Salmond read out on air.
Mr Salmond claimed there had been an “avalanche” of messages from the public.
However one tweet was attributed to an account that had never posted, another to an account that had yet to post the tweet, and one was from the show’s series director
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15779190.Watchdog_launches_probe_into_Salmond_TV_show/?ref=twtrec
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/942717030091943936
Were we able to get the CAP fixed or anything else?
- Non.
As for Wellington:
the Ultra-Tories were united in their antipathy towards the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel for what they saw as a betrayal of Tory political and religious principle on the issue of Catholic Emancipation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Tories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Tories
They could even have their own 'firms':
CBC - Conservative Brexit Casuals
LRC - Liberal Remain Casuals
Sorry, I think I'm losing it...
The fact that there are only 11 traitors willing to sell out their nation and party to the EU is actually something to celebrate. It shows how dedicated the rest of the party is to democratic values, even though many have previously disagreed with leave, they have put the public view above their own. The 11 traitors have not been able to do that and should be purged for that reason. Not that you support democratic values, of course.
I see Momentum types coming out with anti-Semitic bullshit about the Jews of Goldman Sachs and N M Rothschild & Sons Limited then we get this today...
https://twitter.com/goddersbloom/status/942664507939319809
Afree all there is no room for dissent in pursuit of democracy.
My reading would be that the membership is increasingly Ultra, to use your term: fearful of change, seeking to turn the clock back to a time of fewer foreigners living in our country and telling us what do. They reject the radical free trade agenda but go further than the pragmatic one nation position of wishing to preserve stability, and want to undo what they see as negative changes at any cost. A one nation Tory is one who will die in a ditch to defend the continuation of a status quo whose introduction they previously opposed.
On the other hand the party was hijacked by the radicals for the last parliament and while Cameron never really have any sign of any convictions about anything, his theoretical one-nationness was overwhelmed by his willingness to appoint a load of radicals to key roles and to allow them to pursue ideologically-driven change agendas. I’m not making a point about whether those agendas were bad or good, but the focus on globalisation and marketisation combined with destructive cuts to the social fabric helped to give the Ultras more to react against.
Funnily enough, within your definitions I think May is a proper One Nationer and her weakness against both factions suggests this group is smaller/less powerful than it has been. I’m not sure it is split as you argue, it looks more like it just contains fewer people than it used.
Although I’m betting Hunt will be the next leader so I want to agree with your logic, I’d have him firmly in the radical camp given his approach to the NHS etc and globalising views more generally - am I being unfair to him?
There is that, but arguably the strain of pragmatism is also present in the other two sections - indeed the line between pragmatists and non-pragmatists is perhaps a separate division in the party.
Sir Hunky Dunky, who works with him reportedly referred to him with a four letter word beginning with 'c'.....
https://twitter.com/spectator/status/942739977330417664
But Kippers =/= Brexiteers
Peel was a Radical not an Ultra no but Wellington led Ultra resistance to the Great Reform Act
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/942472772684582912
"The problem is, [Thatcher] lamented, the Queen is the kind of woman who could vote SDP.”
On Wellington I've given you the link, but I can't make you read it! The Ultras didn't have a common position on the Reform Act
I agree with Southam and Ms Apocalypse; it's a pity to see people referring to Grieve et al's actions as 'treachery'.
Democracy is a process, not an event. We are leaving the European Union after 25 years odd of being a member. The 'how' and the destination are legitimately up for debate, argument and parliamentary scrutiny.
Of course there are Tories who would like BINO; it's a view, and it shouldn't be proscribed - particularly as the cabinet (to my astonishment) hasn't actually agreed our desired end state.
I think we should all be more intolerant of intolerance. All major parties are coalitions of interests and views (not all of which are savoury), and we should strive to keep them that way.
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/940670486639464448
https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/942710283461591040
But you do get a prize for being the first person to pick up on the Ditcher/Hedger reference to Lords Reform!
Edit, oh, and thanks for the threader. Very interesting.