Following on from an Lj conversation with JFS

[smokingboot]

Talking about the likelihood of Cameron's associations making Tory toxicity more evident to the public... I read this article some time ago, and though its header is misleading , it is quite smart in outlining the ideological divisions within the Conservative party. Using the author's definitions, it seems clear that DC's resignation would strengthen 'The National party,' conservatives, weaken the 'One Nation' conservatives and god knows with the 'Small State' conservatives, though there is probably a clue in the name. This would be no ordinary bun fight.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/how-jeremy-corbyn-is-splitting-and-thereby-destroying-the-conservative-party/

To quote:

"There’s undoubtedly a Ukippy strand in Toryism — and there’s more of them in than out. They are, in good and bad ways, somewhat reactionary. They’re deeply patriotic, fierce about defence and hostile to the EU. They’re morally conservative (no gay weddings for them). Their instinct is to support the bosses rather than the workers, they hate tax and are not overly sensitive to the woes of the poor, but they’re not wholly free-marketeers. An orderly market rather than a free-for-all appeals to them. For this group I shall use Tim’s name: the National party.

Then you have a gang that Michael Gove’s former adviser Dominic Cummings could lead, small in number but strong in the power of their energising philosophy. They’re dominated by dislike of government and bureaucracy. They have confidence in the unshackled market. They read Hayek. They were patronised (but less often heeded) by Margaret Thatcher. I’ll call them the Small State party.

Finally you have what I’ll call the One Nation party. We’re a bit wishy-washy, economically fairly liberal but quick enough to intervene if things go wrong; and we worry about the poor. Morally we’re on the permissive side. We may not be mad keen on the EU, but on balance we’d let well enough alone."