Might be of interest to @asheinze.bsky.social @duncanmcdonnell.com or @psayoungpol.bsky.social. @timbale.bsky.social or @jamesbarr.bsky.social are welcome to claim credit or identify whose arguments I am interpolating/butchering - it's probably not original.

I only bumped into the connection while looking at Pirie and Butler's bibliographies while trying to explain St Andrews libertarianism so I didn't really get any deeper than what you found. But it's feels like something that could go somewhere.

A bit longer than my other digressions, and with a few more citations. In keeping with the focus on younger and student Tories, there are appearances from (relatively) young versions of Philip Norton, Maurice Cowling, Richard Rose and Patrick Seyd. www.benjaminjthomas.net/musings/cons...

As Lars identifies and is an expert, the connection to draw is between the politics of IQ, race and neoliberalism.
I'd also be interested in the sociological overlap between Mensa, neoliberals and libertarians both materially and culturally for both individualism and attitudes towards the poor.

the political rhetoric of 'working people', which tries to do some of the work of socialist strategy for the PMC without raising the political valences of socialist language but which I think also ends up losing analytical power with the lack of explicit class analysis.

I'm inclined towards 4, which aligns with my broader analysis of Labour ≠ working class takes, but I find it less compelling for explaining the weaker support at the bottom incomes. I'm unconvinced of both the vanguard and the false consciousness claims. I do wonder what this suggests about

I encourage you to look into DJ Horsegiirl, who does exist.

But now I feel like I'm on a different footing when I see discussions about doomerism in politics. We cannot lose hope or accept doom, they say, no matter how bleak the odds look or what we observe, because things cannot improve otherwise. Which strikes me as profoundly weak analysis.

I think he started with the Solidarity/Rawls connection (as a theorist) then went down a rabbit hole of Catholic social thought and Streeck, before trying to return it to theory with Polanyi - as you say, very reliant on his sources. It's not really political economy or history as we might conceive.

Glasman's thing has vaguely been CDA + Polanyi. That the CDU were on to something with the Soziale Marktwirtschaft but Erhard ruined it. Which could vaguely be a Karl Arnold or Jakob Kaiser thing. Although I can't say much about other Blue Labour figures.

To follow this a step further, the problem with climate policy, from their point of view, isn’t that it’s bad for profits per se. (Plenty of profit in green investment.) It’s that it requires shifting so much authority over production away from private property owners and into the public sector.

I believe that's a Nottinghamshire flag. Don't know why it would be in Grand Rapids.

There's often been a tendency for community policy to emphasise the voluntary sector, in part as an easy win with limited financial spend from the gov, which hurts the sustainability of initiatives and introduces significant place-based confounds.

Und ich glaube, dass Thatcher und ihr Thatcherismus keine Fans der Public-Choice-Theorie und des Homo Oeconomicus waren. Aber darüber kann man diskutieren.

Etwas kleines - Thatcher und Joseph gründeten die Centre for Policy Studies, nicht die IEA.
Aber das ist ein tolles Wortspiel.

This is my question as well. My sense was that the post-liberals had turned away from Oakeshott and towards Scruton so there's got to be a story here somewhere. Of course, neither figure really has an association with Oxford.