Over art Bagehot’s notebook blog run by the Economist, I came across a couple of sentences that the writer used that really cut like a razor through the hulabaloo in the Conservative party and it’s growing infighting.
But in truth Tory critics do not dislike the prime minister and Mr Osborne for being too posh. They like some people much posher than Mr Cameron, starting with the queen. Instead, Tory critics think that their party leaders are too grand, with a dash of liberal, metropolitan elitism. They first sensed disdain for grassroots Tory values when Mr Cameron sought to “rebrand” the party with pledges to fight climate change, increase overseas aid and embrace gay equality. Traditionalists suspect that Mr Cameron looks down on voters who prefer cheap energy bills to windmills, who think that charity begins at home and who feel unsettled rather than liberated by fast-changing moral codes.
The author touches on an idea that is fundamentally missed in American reporting, either because we just in general dont talk about it, or because we dont understand. Class and concrete-like moral codes are to previous upper class generations like wood pilings that hold up a tall building. try as they might, age makes them rot, and the codes that they feel are appropriate are in truth horribly outdated.
Cameron is many things to many people. Reasonable people can disagree with austerity and raisings of tuition fees, but on the core issues of personhood and freedom, he is a breath of fresh air and understands that the only way the Conservative Party continues to matter going forward is its ability to stay with the times.
Archbishop Williams recently scolded British society for abandoning what he saw as eternal rules for living a good life. This attack on cosmopolitan internationalism will continue until society realizes that whilst modernity is justifiably scary in that it is a fundamental change, it is a change that ought to be met and not shirked away from.