[Closed] the equality of sacrifice

this has been tory policy as long as I have known politics

Although in essence this is true, I have grossly oversimplified the point for molgrips sake as he appears to be in complete denial.

There have been considerable changes in Tory policies over recent decades. Just to shoot down my own argument, Harold Macmillan was an aristocratic Eton-educated Tory Prime Minister. And yet he was best described as a (business-friendly) social-democratic. He clearly believed in a more benevolent form of capitalism. Indeed he was nicknamed "the council house builder" due to the sheer volume of affordable housing he provided for ordinary working people. In the history of the British aristocracy there are many examples of benevolence towards those less fortunate.

The change of direction in the Tory Party and the ditching of the postwar consensus, occurred when Tories from working-class/lower middle-class backgrounds seized control of the party - the Thatchers and Tebbits of this world. They have always been the most vicious and callous Tories.

It is precisely for those reasons that I had hoped a Tory government under Cameron would have steered a more One Nation path - looking after themselves, yeah sure, but not necessarily kicking the working classes in the guts quite so viciously whilst doing so.

It seems however that they have not left their youthful arrogance, viciousness, and hooligan traits, at Oxford. And we will all pay the price for that.

Thanks for reminding me of that video noteeth - love it 8)

Clearly Bullingdon Club members are particular type of persons who have a particular type of ideology.

Clearly. But you seem to think that they want poor people to stay poor and downtrodden. It would seem more likely (but I don't know) that they want private enterprise to do well and HOPE that the benefits pass down to the poor. I doubt very much if they actively want the poor to stay disadvantaged.

Which seems to be what you are thinking - or at least, that's what I got from reading you.

Yeah, right, whatever, molgrips. The news concerning Jahwomble has taken the wind out of my sails and I can't be bothered any more.

I thought that tragic death of his child had made Cameron realise that even someone as privledged as he requires the state to support him in times of greatest need... he used the NHS , social workers etc ...looks like I was wrong.
One nation tories are right wing but at least they care about the poor and accept that they have a responsibility to them

good article here by a tory one nation MP but long 30 ish pages

brief overview here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537995/Cameron-heir-to-Disraeli-as-a-One-Nation-Tory.html

He says that One Nation Toryism was built on the belief that the party should be striving to maintain a "national community from which no citizen is excluded" and argue that the Conservative leader appears to have signed up to such an approach

It would seem more likely (but I don't know) that they want private enterprise to do well and HOPE that the benefits pass down to the poor. I doubt very much if they actively want the poor to stay disadvantaged.

probabl;y better ways of achieving this than putting a disproportionate burden on them via the budget and reducing their income. Perhaps they think wealth will trickle down but it does not in reality, I prefer horse and sparrow to describe this feed a horse enough oats and some will pass out of it to feed the sparrow, perhaps they dont care. Easier ways to help the poor than making them poorer I would have thought.
[img] [/img]

Surely if you were rich, and made money out of the less wealthy, you'd want them to have [i]more[/i] money so that they would be able to buy more of your stuff/services etc....

Yeah, right, whatever, molgrips

I posted that before the Jahwomble news. I feel the same way tbh.

probabl;y better ways of achieving this than putting a disproportionate burden on them via the budget and reducing their income.

Yep.