Talk:High Tory

Conservatism Top‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

POV[edit]

Much of this article is unsourced and the term is being applied to many figures with no sources for that application. I am concerned it serves more to illustrate a contributers opinion of the people than wider linking of them with this term.RafikiSykes (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Living people are included among these so i feel plenty of sourcing should been shown for applying the term to them.RafikiSykes (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There undoubtedly are still people who can correctly be called "High Tories", and that plainly is a matter of opinion rather than of fact. A man either is or is not a member of the Carlton Club, but in this case the matter is much more complicated. I agree that the opinion as to whether someone can be called a High Tory should be that of a reliable source and not that of a Wikipedia editor. It's fair to add ^{[citation needed]} where there is no citation. Moonraker (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch Powell was not a High Tory.[edit]

As the subject suggested, Enoch Powell was not a High Tory. The fact that he has been described as a Thatcherite before Thatcher gives the game away a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.154.50 (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He labelled himself a High Tory.--Britannicus (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph is unsourced and needs to be re-written or deleted. TFD (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, we want sources for Powell et al? Let me pull some books off the shelf. Simon Heffer, Powell's official biographer, refers to his subject as a High Tory, and there are references in Like the Roman to Powell himself describing himself as such. Jonathan Aitken mentions Alan Clark as a member of "high Tory circles" in Margaret Thatcher: Power and Personality. Anthony Burgess declares himself a high--indeed Jacobite!--Tory imperialist in his Paris Review interview. Keith Delory Lowe, in Evelyn Waugh: Man Against History, refers to Waugh's inability to "transcend sufficiently the High Tory Catholic world-view." Anyone who wants to use Google to track down links and so on (I'm hopeless at Wiki formatting) should do so.72.192.207.217 (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)stealstrash[reply]

You need a source that explains that "high toryism" has continued into modern times. Incidentally we have articles for both Ultra-Tories and High Tories. Occasionally writers will refer to modern people as high tories, but there does not appear to be any consistent usage. So Worthstone is a high tory because he is on the right, while Gilmour was a high tory because he was on the left. Powell's biographer said he combined high toryism and economic liberalism, while Aitken was refering to "high Tory circles", not "high Tory circles." Tory is another name for the Conservative Party. "High circles" are the party leaders. TFD (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are reading too much into the lack of a capital letter in Aitken. Look at those names. He's talking about the old guard of reactionary High Tories who were tepid at best about Mrs. T. Goodness, have you even been able to read this as-yet UNPUBLISHED book, which is sitting on my desk in galley form at the moment? This is why Wikipedia isn't worth reading: a disastrous, if sometimes hilarious, niggling attitude on the part of contributors who insist that something as obvious as the High Toryism of people like Powell, Clark, et al is somehow in grave doubt.70.174.155.35 (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)stealstrash[reply]

I do not remember Alan Clark being "tepid" about Thatcher, are you sure you are not confusing him with Kenneth Clarke? Also, while some sources refer to the reactionaries as "high tories", others use the term to refer to the progressives. TFD (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look: if you don't understand why High Tories (I did not say Clark specifically: again, STOP TALKING ABOUT A BOOK THAT YOU HAVEN'T READ) were not big fans of Mrs. T., then you don't know enough about British cultural and political history to be editing this article. Were you reading the Spectator, Private Eye, or the Telegraph in the '80s? Do you remember people like Andrew Wilson and Auberon Waugh and Peter Simple (Michael Wharton) denouncing her? The term nowhere means "progressive." Christ in heaven. Go edit an article about video games.70.174.155.35 (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)stealstrash[reply]

If you do not intend to write civilly I see to discuss the matter further. TFD (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]