Eugenics and the Tory right


3:10 pm - November 25th 2010

by Dave Osler    


      Share on Tumblr

With four nippers himself, Lord Flight presumably knows a thing or two about fecundity. And the former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party is obviously worried that while Britain’s scallies get busy knocking up their babymothers every time you let one of the little buggers out of the Young Offenders’ Institution, nice people are progressively being priced out of the sprog market.

The former deputy chairman of Conservative Party has told the London Evening Standard: “We’re going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it’s jolly expensive. But for those on benefits, there is every incentive. Well, that’s not very sensible.”

Flight is a known big mouth, of course. He was deselected as a Tory candidate in 2005 after getting caught on tape blabbing that a Conservative government would implement more cuts than they were letting on at the time. It’s just a shame no one was that honest in 2010.

Nor is there anything intellectually original in his latest outburst. As long ago as the 1880s, Sir Francis Galton advocated marking families by merit and providing monetary incentives to high scorers to enter into early marriage. That’s more or less what Flight is demanding now.

It seems that Lord F just the latest upholder of the tradition of class-based eugenics that has been a singularly ugly undercurrent in British intellectual life at least since 1798, the year in which an anonymous pamphlet entitled ‘An Essay on the Principle of Population’ first saw the light of day.

But at least author Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus believed that shortage of food would dependably cull the chavs, and did not directly advocate that this should be an object of national policy.

Flight was already a Conservative Westminster hopeful in 1974, and I am presuming that he was even then on the free market right of the party. If so, it is a fair surmise that he will have been politically sympathetic to the views of Sir Keith Joseph, the man that those who subscribed to that outlook wanted to replace leader Ted Heath.

The job could easily have been his. Then, in a single speech in Edgbaston, Joseph blew his chances by telling the world his true opinions. Britain’s ‘human stock’ was being threatened by unmarried mothers of ‘low intelligence’, he warned. These women were ‘producing problem children, the future unmarried mothers, delinquents, denizens of our borstals, sub-normal educational establishments, prisons, hostels for drifters’.

He was, thereafter, political toast. But the spirit of his message, in dumbed down terms at any rate, lives on in Flight’s observations. The Tories are still the nasty party.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Dave Osler is a regular contributor. He is a British journalist and author, ex-punk and ex-Trot. Also at: Dave's Part
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Isn’t fecundity normally said of females; fertility of males?

Leaving that aside, it is only the very rich or very poor who have large families!

I think you’re going rather beyond what he was saying.In any case if you want to start dragging ancient history up then perhaps you can justify the Fabian’s eugenics fetish.

What’s new? I’m reminded of the late Sir Keith Joseph’s ill-judged speech at Edgbaston on 19 October 1974:

“Many on the right-wing of the Conservative Party looked to Joseph to challenge Heath for the leadership, but Joseph’s chances of this were damaged by a controversial speech (written by Alfred Sherman) at Edgbaston on 19 October 1974. Covering a variety of social conservative topics, while drawing on an article written by Arthur Wynn and his wife which had been published by the Child Poverty Action Group, he warned about single parents ‘who were first pregnant in adolescence in social classes 4 and 5′, the traditional taboos against which were easing at the time. However, some of the references he made to the quality of ‘human stock’ raised the spectre of eugenics, and under fire for this, he accepted that he had no chance of winning and urged Thatcher to stand. The barrister Jonathan Sumption later admitted privately to a journalist that he had written the speech whilst working as an assistant to Joseph.”
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Keith_Joseph

After Sir Keith Joseph’s speech, some of us at the time wondered whether eugenics would officially become part of Conservative Party policy. But then HG Wells, a founder of the Fabian Society, was an enthusiastic advocate of eugenics.

When Keith Joseph withdrew from the Tory leadership race because of his eugenics speech Margaret Thatcher said: ‘If you’re not going to stand, I will, because someone who represents our viewpoint has to stand.’

And we all know what happened next ( I worked with a Tory activist at the time, on hearing Thatcher was elected leader he said “Oh God, this is the party’s Barry Goldwater moment isn’t it?” – useful reminder for all those knocking Ed Miliband now)

The speech was actually written by Alfred Sherman, who was probably the only Thatcher adviser who had served in the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War and been expelled from the CPGB for “Titoist deviationism”.

He was a bit of a nutter. One of his later pieces of advice was not to privatise the railways but to “convert them all into roads”

This lot are hardly an advert for the merits of eugenics with a front bench that looks like a coach party from Innsmouth. A couple more centuries of inbreeding and their flippers won’t be able to pick up a bottle of Krug

6. Chaise Guevara

Regarding 2, I think you’re going WELL beyond what he was saying. From the quote that’s going around, he could have just been saying that we’ll see a rising number of people on benefits and a smaller pool of taxpayers. Debateable itself, but you need a bit more than that to paint him in this light.

‘I think you’re going rather beyond what he was saying.In any case if you want to start dragging ancient history up then perhaps you can justify the Fabian’s eugenics fetish.’

Quite. HG Wells was a Fabian and an advocate of eugenics. Prior to WWII most intellectuals, Left or Right, were.

@Schmidt – oh, he’s a deep one, that David Cameron…

Come to think of it, weren’t those who originally pushed for condom machines in public toilets leftish intellectuals more interested in social engineering than public health?

Eugenics has been a regular policy advocated on some leftist platforms besides the early Fabians and right-wing nutters. For example, successive Social Democrat governments in Sweden maintained an active eugenics policy:

“In Sweden, the Sterilization Act of 1934 provided for the voluntary sterilization of some mental patients. The law was passed while the Swedish Social Democratic Party was in power, though it was also supported by all other political parties in Parliament at the time, as well as the Lutheran Church and much of the medical profession. From about 1934 to until 1975, Sweden sterilized more than 62,000 people, with Herman Lundborg in the lead of the project. Sweden sterilized more people than any other European state except Nazi Germany. However, it is more reasonable to compare numbers per capita. If so, Finland has sterilised the most and the Nordic countries and the state of California sterilised about the same percentage.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Ah those Nordic social democratic paradises, eh?!

Whilst it’s true that just about everybody on both sides of the political spectrum supported various forms of eugenics at one time or another, they key difference between Left and Right seems to be that those on the Left eventually realised that they were wrong to do so, whilst many on the Right did not.

Is the fact that HG was on favour of eugenics justifiable for it in any form? Dont defend Filght by quoting another wrong because they are both wrong and doesn’t advance your argument!

@cj. No one commented on your first inane comment why try another, you feelin neglected?

Erm, is there not a difference between discussing what perverse incentives the tax and benefit system might contain, on the one hand, and enforced sterilisations on the other.

I must have missed the bit where flight proposed the latter.

@14, if at first you don’t succeed…

I quite liked this response.

“So what did Howard Flight say, exactly? Call for the repeal of the Factory Act, perhaps? Suggest William Wilberforce went too far? Call for the poorest 10 per cent of the population to be sold to the Saudis as catamites to pay off the national debt?

No, when asked about the removal of child benefits for the wealthy, he said: “We’re going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it’s jolly expensive. But for those on benefits, there is every incentive. Well, that’s not very sensible.”

Am I missing something here? I personally have no problem with withdrawing benefits for the wealthy, but Mr Flight was telling a deeper truth, something that, if I’m not mistaken, our lawmakers are supposed to do. In fact he was being positively heroic in speaking up for the squeezed middle.”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100065461/howard-flight-is-absolutely-heroically-right-the-middle-classes-are-being-socially-cleansed/

No not eally because they advocate birth control in on form or another.

We really ought to avoid exercises in re-writing history by supposing that eugenics was or is an exclusive preoccupation of some right-wing politicians. Try this on HG Wells – one of the founders of the Fabian Society:

Wells believed in the theory of eugenics. In 1904 he discussed a survey paper by Francis Galton, co-founder of eugenics, saying “I believe … It is in the sterilisation of failure, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies.” Some contemporary supporters even suggested connections between the “degenerate” man-creatures portrayed in The Time Machine and Wells’s eugenic beliefs. For example, the economist Irving Fisher said in a 1912 address to the Eugenics Research Association: “The Nordic race will … vanish or lose its dominance if, in fact, the whole human race does not sink so low as to become the prey, as H. G. Wells images, of some less degenerate animal!”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells

The modern field and term [eugenics] were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin. At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling and Sidney Webb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Bob thanks for the history lesson but I’d like to think we’ve moved on somewhat since then?

21. Dick the Prick

We do need to disincentivise breeding though. It’s bad for the kids and bad for society. It’s all very well arguinig semantics on here but I fostered for 7 years and these are real lives.

@20: “Bob thanks for the history lesson but I’d like to think we’ve moved on somewhat since then?”

Evidently, we haven’t if prominent politicians are still making issue of the inferior classes breeding. To really understand where we are, we need to know how we got here.

Sigh… The thing that’s “not very sensible” here is imagining (a) that the withdrawal of child benefit from wealthy families will result in them being unwilling to to have children because of the additional expense, (b) that the availability of child benefit is a significant incentive for those on benefits to have children, and (c) that the presence or absence of financial incentives make that much difference to whether people have kids or not.

[Hints for the hard-of-thinking and / or sociopathic: children are very expensive, CB doesn’t come anywhere near to covering all those expenses, and most people seem to consider having children to be the single most important thing in their lives.]

You could go back to Henry VIII for selective breeding? What I hope has chnged is that comments of this nature are not given the credence they once were?

“and most people seem to consider having children to be the single most important thing in their lives”

the exception being those who abandon the mothers PDQ I guess

@21 Dunc what do you suggest ?

@26: @21 is “Dick the Prick”, not me.

@21sorry Dick T P?

@cj. Oh you do like to be provocative don’t you?

I agree with Dunc but there are a number of people who have children who for whatever reason cannot cope, putting aside your prejudice on the poor, but not all are from poor families. The child doesnt ask to be born bur surely it is incumbent on us as a fair society to give the child the best possible chance ?

Is there any evidence he’s right? I mean, people in Africa/the poorer parts Asia tend to have more children than our families and – last time I checked – their welfare system’s not exactly vast.

By the way, there’s a difference between eugenics and selective anti-natalism (the latter of which, as long as it’s arrived at voluntarily, needn’t be unwise).

“By the way, there’s a difference between eugenics and selective anti-natalism (the latter of which, as long as it’s arrived at voluntarily, needn’t be unwise).”

A fact that is often not widely appreciated is that half the population of the world has less than average intelligence.

This may help:

A timely OECD brief: Can Policies Boost Birth Rates?
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/57/39970765.pdf

“Birth rates have declined sharply in most OECD countries over the past few decades. The total birth rate was still sufficient to maintain a constant population in the early 1980s but has since declined to just 1.6 children per woman. This is well below the average of 2.1 children per woman needed just to maintain current population levels and will bring dramatic consequences – declining population levels in most OECD countries and a much higher proportion of older people.

“The most direct consequence of low birth rates is a ‘vicious circle’ of decreasing population: fewer children today imply fewer women of childbearing age 20 years from now, so the cumulative momentum of current low birth rates will be difficult to reverse.”

Child Benefit – How It Compares Across the World
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8041774/Child-benefit-how-it-compares-across-the-world.html

It’s one of them there irregular verbs, innit?

“The upper classes produce heirs”
“The middle classes have families”
“The lower orders breed”

People-as-livestock; the attitude of the unreformed gentry through the ages.

What’s the protocal for getting rid of someone from the Lords? I mean, what do they have to do to be removed?

35. Dick the Prick

@34 – I’ve got it in my head that they have to be jailed for over a year post Archer but could defo be wrong.

@ 34 I think the requirements are narrowed down to death or serious criminal conviction. I think Uddin should be first off the block but doubtless there is a considerable list of people that should go.

@35/36

Ahh, I see. Kinda. Whither elected Lords? Is it part of the referendum/electoral reform bill?

38. Cynical/Realist?

He wasn’t advocating selective breeding. Just saying certain policies would lead to certain sections of society being more inclined to have children. To be promoting eugenics he’d need to be advocating policies aimed at encouraging children at the top but but stoping it at the bottom. The opposite of his words on two levels.

Clearly he’s wrong. And a fuckwit of highest order (more for his comments on women’s place). But its pushing it severely to say he was advocating eugenics.

Why do we have to use such hyperbole and exageration against people we disagree with (right and left are just as bad as each other)?

Ve can’t have ze lower orders breeding like rabbits , ya?

There vil be no place for us decent people.

Ve need to build ze concentration camps immediate.

@37 I think Lords reform has been kicked, yet again, into the long grass. I think we should just throw our hands up and elect people by lot, anything else will just result in patronage or politicians.

For insights into how our betters behaved in times past do see Keira Knightley in: The Dutchess?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Duchess_(film)

Better still, the movie is based on the biography of Georgiana Cavendish, the Duchess of Devonshire, by Amanda Foreman. “She is the daughter of Carl Foreman, the Oscar-winning screen writer of many film classics including, The Bridge on the River Kwai, High Noon, and The Guns of Navarone” – and who lived in Britain as a refugee from Maccarthism.

The Duke of Devonshire was regularly unfaithful. His big complaint about his wife was that she was having an affair – with Earl Grey, who eventually became PM – before she had produced a male heir.

The aristocracy has never been inhibited by the restrictions of petty bourgeois morality.

42. Dick the Prick

@41 – nice tea though!

@41 – nice tea though!

Great tea – and it was Earl Grey who also finally pushed through the Reform Act of 1832 by persuading the monarch, William IV – a distant direct ancestor of David Cameron – to create as many peers as necessary to get the legislation through the Lords.

The reported comment of the Duke of Wellington – a notorious adulterer – on the first House of Commons elected after the franchise reform was: “I never saw so many shocking bad hats in my life.”

Disincentivise breeding? ( re: Mr D T Prick) Any ideas how that might be done? The life force is stronger than economic responsibility – even if the rotters were to bring back workhouses, ( and given some recent revealing rotter comments – I wouldn’t put it past them) it wouldn’t put a curb on breeding – it never did, however extreme the poverty-disincentivisation. By the way – children are always the innocent parties and too often the victims. Disincentivise? Do you need an un-poetic licence to use an alien word like this? God bless us every one!

Hmm… Exceptionally poor choice of words from Flight there, but to be fair to him I don’t think this necessarily indicates surreptitious advocacy of eugenics on his part.

However, to deny there is a school of thought – predominantly on the Right in this day and age – that benefit payments, or indeed fostering a comfortably-off working class in any manner somehow “encourages” procreation of any stripe would be to ignore a reasonably-sized elephant in the room. Across the pond, one of the last bastions of eugenics advocacy was the Walker-Bush family, and it definitely had an impact on the thinking of George Bush Sr – who openly stated that his economics policy was to concentrate ever larger sums of money into “higher, tighter and righter hands”, the implications of which, given a limited supply of money, are manifest. And it’s not just a matter of class or wealth. The frankly creepy fundamentalist “Quiverfull” movement openly urges its membership to procreate as much as humanly possible in order to out-breed other religions – and agnostics – in the hope of achieving their goal of a monotheistic power structure via future generations.

I know that anecdote is not the plural of data, but my experience has always been that no matter what the background, couples who want to have children (and their extended families) will always find a way to make it work regardless of financial circumstance. The idea that something as fundamental to the human condition as the desire to have children can be reduced to a simple matter of financial consideration is, on the face of it, ludicrous.

Quivefull is just one of many in the grand plan for a Christian theocratic fascist state for the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH2i3SB0tJw&feature=player_embedded#!

Please remind us, why do we need a special relationship with a Christian theocratic fascist state ?

48. Arthur Seaton

Eugenics is an evil, and a stupid evil at that, treating human beings like insects in a lab, slicing at them with a scalpel and destroying human hearts and souls. Yes, H G Wells and G B Shaw supported it, and this was typical of their technocratic elitist, authoritarian vision which had nothing other than a corrupting effect on socialism (see also their support for Stalin). Antithetical to humanist socialist values, it never had any wide support in the Labour Party. Its hierarchical, authoritarian nature is essentially right-wing, as shown at its zenith in Nazi Germany.

Fast-forward to the 70s, it is perfectly natural that only radical-right Conservatives like Keith Joseph should still harbour these inhuman fantasies. It is also equally natural that the human majority of British people would be revolted by this. Even Thatcher and co could never say it openly.

First forward to now, and Flight. He says it, it makes a media furore because we do find it disgusting, and rightly so. The likes of cjcjcjcjcj pop up and say “gosh he’s only saying what we’re all thinking though eh??” No. He’s saying what you and your hard-right Conservative mates are thinking. They don’t think what most people think which is why they have to hide their unpleasant thoughts behind fluffy rhetoric around Big Societies, devolved communities, and various other crocks of shit. That’s why he has to get swept under the carpet. It would be wonderful if Flight and cjcjcjcjcjcccccjjj were made front-bench Tory spokespeople. Their honesty about their inner inhumanity would see the party voted out overnight. Instead we get the bleating lies of Cameron and Osborne, which sadly work for a few. Flight for PM! cjccjjjjjjjcccccc for Chancellor!

Haven’t Green Party folk avercated taking child benefit from family’s with more than two sprogs ?

You would have to kill me first, but I might consider it.

After all if Mr Seaton was my opposite number I would have a pretty easy ride.

@49:

Haven’t Green Party folk avercated taking child benefit from family’s with more than two sprogs ?

Not that I’ve ever seen. The Green Party advocates replacing all benefits with a universal Citizen’s Income Scheme.

Bob B @ 31

A fact that is often not widely appreciated is that half the population of the world has less than average intelligence.

That is not a fact.

It would only be a fact if no-one in the world was of average intelligence. But some are.

53. AverageJoe23

To say that eugenics is a more right than left wing policy is either sadly mistaken or knowingly false.

Surely abortion is a branch of eugenics. And that certainly is something the right has been fighting for for ages.

@53

Er, no…

Abortion is the termination of a foetus after conception. Eugenics is an attempt to prevent people of a nominally “undesirable” nature from conceiving in the first place.

“What, for instance, have Marie Stopes, HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes and Sidney Webb all got in common? All of them are progressives from the Leftie pantheon who believed the state should forcibly sterilise large sections of the population.

Fabian socialist Harold Laski was even penpals with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who once wrote to his British friend that he had “delivered a decision upholding the constitutionality of a state law for sterilising imbeciles the other day and felt that I was getting near to the first principle of real reform”.”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100065512/eugenics-is-not-right-wing/

God you guys are so convinced not only of your own analytical accuracy but even more so of your own *virtue*.

We don’t like X, so X must be, must always have been, “right wing”.
Even if lefties mostly espoused it.

@ 53

Yes, you are right that in some circumstances abortion is a form of eugenics. The term ‘eugenic abortion’ is often used to describe abortions of foetuses with a genetic fault.

Interestingly, the campaign for abortion law reform in the 60s shared offices with the Eugenics Society.

What, for instance, have Marie Stopes, HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes and Sidney Webb all got in common?

Well, for a start they’ve all been dead for over half a century.

As such, their views belong in their proper historical context – i.e. coming from a time when eugenics was not a discredited science. We’re talking about the here and now.

And in the here and now the only programme of forced sterilisation is being conducted by the Communist Party of china. Also it might be a good idea that the true heirs to Malthus are in the green movement.

49. That is more of an Optimum Population Trust thing, but the sentiment can be found a lot in green arguments that there are simply too many people wanting requiring too many resources for the planet to sustain.

@ 8

From this morning’s Arkham Advertiser (I buy it for the tentacles on page 3)

Exposed: Britain’s biggest benefit scrounger. Shub Niggurath has ONE THOUSAND young and claims family allowance on all of them

Britain booms unter the Tories: New supplies of gold found within walking distabnce of coast

Cthulhu better looking than Chancellor shock

George Osborne’s carbon footprint: Air conditioning on full to keep temperature lower than 13C in office.

“Death is not an excuse for being unemployed” says new health secretary Herbert West.

“We must all make sacrifices. Human ones” says Nick Clegg

Editorial: Colour out of space should go back there instead of stealing the jobs of hard working British colours. Its not even white.

Vince Cable appointed Lurker At The Threshold

Stop press: Conservative Party renamed Loyal Order Of Dagon, dedicated to the worship of old ones Tht’chr and Mrd’och. Millbank tower relocated to Antarctica to avoid student riots. Shoggoth numbers to be reduced by 40%

@58

And what in the blue blazes does the totalitarian Communist Party of China have to do with the social democratic left-wing parties of the West?

62. Jeremy Poynton

Shhh. Don’t mention THE FABIANS.

63. Jeremy Poynton

Right Wing Eugenics. BAD
Left Wing Eugenics GOOD

Presumably? As in Tory cuts BAD, Labour cuts GOOD, yes? As per the election campaign. As in Introduce Tuition Fees GOOD, Increase Tuition Fees, as a result of a Labour Initiated Review {which proposed NO CAP} BAD

I’m surprised you don’t gag on your own hypocrisy.

@52 Nice pedantry but I think I can out pedant you; no one will have exactly average intelligence if you go through enough decimal points.

@57 Which would be a very fair point to make had the article not referenced something from 1798.

Arguably Flight was saying that the system we have is eugenics, and that we should stop doing eugenics. Non-eugenics would be equal incentives for having children across the income spectrum.

52
And further, not everyone in the world has taken an IQ test, so there can be no world average.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Eugenics and the Tory right http://bit.ly/edlQoQ

  2. Tina Davies

    RT: @libcon: Eugenics and the Tory right http://bit.ly/edlQoQ <– @theselflessmeme interesting from hist sci point of view?

  3. Jonathan Davis

    RT @libcon: Eugenics and the Tory right http://bit.ly/edlQoQ

  4. Lisa E

    The right to breed is a massive #disability issue. RT @libcon: Eugenics and the Tory right http://bit.ly/edlQoQ

  5. Lanark

    RT @libcon: Eugenics and the Tory right http://bit.ly/edlQoQ

  6. uarus_strabo

    RT @libcon: Eugenics and the Tory right http://bit.ly/edlQoQ

  7. Simon Buckmaster

    RT @libcon: Eugenics and the Tory right http://bit.ly/edlQoQ

  8. Rachel Hubbard

    Eugenics and the Tory right | Liberal Conspiracy: http://bit.ly/eLG7La via @addthis

  9. Brit Lefit

    #HowardFlight apology may be expedient. Hope #Cameron has the sense kick him out
    RT @libcon:#Eugenics & the #Tory right http://bit.ly/edlQoQ

  10. jennifer roberts

    RT @libcon: Eugenics and the Tory right http://bit.ly/edlQoQ

  11. Andy S

    RT @libcon: Eugenics and the Tory right http://bit.ly/edlQoQ

  12. Nick H.

    RT @libcon: Eugenics and the Tory right http://bit.ly/edlQoQ

  13. janette williamson

    Eugenics and the Tory right | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/wc1yMdc via @libcon

  14. Stuart Vallantine

    RT @libcon: Eugenics and the Tory right http://bit.ly/edlQoQ

  15. Jessica Asato

    @torybear anything to do with this: http://bit.ly/fyXBEY ? A bit much to say the British left = the Webbs.

  16. A bad pun involving the word ‘flight’ « Besy

    […] laughter – how out of touch is this repulsive idiot? And then, after a moments reflection, to use that nasty word beginning with e. Or to argue that Flight’s words were an example of class war. Both of these points are true […]

  17. Dizzy Thinks

    @libcon now says the Tories love eugenics http://ow.ly/3fI33 – great self-awareness of the Fabians there huh?

  18. Why have the Tories abandoned social mobility? « Left Outside

    […] or a prophet, in any case, but what soon-to-be-Lord Flight said is certainly open to interpretation.Dave Osler hears tones of Keith Joseph’s eugenicism, something which cost him a chance to be Tory […]

  19. Do Tories not believe social mobility any more? | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] or a prophet, in any case, but what soon-to-be-Lord Flight said is certainly open to interpretation.Dave Osler hears tones of Keith Joseph’s eugenicism, something which cost him a chance to be Tory […]

  20. Spir.Sotiropoulou

    RT @libcon: Eugenics and the Tory right http://bit.ly/edlQoQ

  21. Broken OfBritain

    Eugenics and the Tory right | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/dncMewg via @libcon

  22. John Edginton

    RT @BrokenOfBritain: Eugenics and the Tory right | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/dncMewg via @libcon

  23. GOVManslaughter

    RT @BrokenOfBritain: Eugenics and the Tory right | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/dncMewg via @libcon

  24. Nick H.

    RT @BrokenOfBritain: Eugenics and the Tory right | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/dncMewg via @libcon

  25. Kyron Hodgetts

    http://t.co/eZmd61pW Eugenics and the Tory Party. http://t.co/YE7Jfwgh… The false pseudo science of the Fascist Tory Party #spartacusreport

  26. TheCreativeCrip

    http://t.co/eZmd61pW Eugenics and the Tory Party. http://t.co/YE7Jfwgh… The false pseudo science of the Fascist Tory Party #spartacusreport

  27. Kanjin Tor

    "Coalition announces sterlisation for welfare claimants"? Beleive it or not the Tories did discuss this in the past.. http://t.co/HHFefWuU

  28. IRejectFPTP

    The hidden agenda behind all Tory Thinking – they plan to use #Eugenics on the disabled and the poor http://t.co/eZmd61pW… #spartacusreport

  29. Kanjin Tor

    The hidden agenda behind all Tory Thinking – they plan to use #Eugenics on the disabled and the poor http://t.co/eZmd61pW… #spartacusreport

  30. keith davis

    The hidden agenda behind all Tory Thinking – they plan to use #Eugenics on the disabled and the poor http://t.co/eZmd61pW… #spartacusreport

  31. Kanjin Tor

    The hidden agenda behind all Tory Thinking, the plan to use #Eugenics on the disabled and the poor http://t.co/eZmd61pW… nothing changes

  32. keith davis

    http://t.co/eZmd61pW Eugenics and the Tory Party. http://t.co/YE7Jfwgh… The false pseudo science of the Fascist Tory Party #spartacusreport

  33. tirmit

    RT @keithdavis36RT @xugla: http://t.co/b1YaucDc Eugenics and the Tory Party. http://t.co/DCk1tFYH… The false pseudo science of the Fa…

  34. Keith Davis

    The hidden agenda behind all Tory Thinking – they plan to use #Eugenics on the disabled and the poor http://t.co/eZmd61pW… #spartacusreport

  35. Kanjin Tor

    Ask yourself why Lord Freud hates the disabled so much, the truth lays in the Eugenics and Facism of the 1930s http://t.co/HHFefWuU

  36. Kanjin Tor

    This is why Lord Freud hate the disabled so much http://t.co/HHFefWuU #Eugenics

  37. Kanjin Tor

    This is why Lord Freud hates the disabled so much http://t.co/eZmd61pW…#Eugenics

  38. Kanjin Tor

    @LDNSI was just one of many comments these bastards have made in the last 2 years http://t.co/HHFefWuU

  39. Kanjin Tor

    @BienSoeur
    "Benefits should stop after 2 children" sounding an awful lot like eugenics to me. #wrb #wrbliveblog http://t.co/HHFefWuU CORRECT

  40. Martin Shovel

    @anthonypainter @j_freedland Eugenics has its fans on the right too, I believe! ;o) http://t.co/uAWGTF1V

  41. Kanjin Tor

    @bendyleopard @jimatbiggin @petersmam Check out a recent bit of do dah on http://t.co/HHFefWuU it will give you an idea of where to start

  42. ??WorldWideWatcher??

    Eugenics and the Tory right | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Z2fRWSbq via @libcon

  43. MANOMACHINE

    Eugenics and the Tory right | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Z2fRWSbq via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.