There's more than just a narrative, here are things we need to know.
Welfarist societies don't just run on thin air. The specialist's of nursing and the caring professions make the public sector run, but National Insurance contributions don't meet the financial demands of it alone.I believe that the economy develops society of both Capitalism and welfarism in Britain, and subsidizes and pays for the total bill of both operations. In Britain International business funds our essential NHS services without any political and economic quid pro quo, and not even does it pick up on our collective radar, in fact we are barely fair weather friends.
In post-industrial Britain we subsidize the public sector through direct taxation, both individual and corporate that is unobtrusively augmented by all types of private investment income that engages with our economy. We attract talent and revenue by attracting talent and their disposable income from abroad as employees and employers, R and D, trials of products, product re-generation and all the obvious multiplier effects that guarantee permanent coffers in the public sector. Indeed, people investment too as boosts our unique economy, but we let the media claim that 'Johnnie Foreigner' is a health tourist rather than a contributor to the economy who probably pays many times over any health tourism. Today 'bankers' are low life but a notch higher in status than Johnnie Foreigner.
Public perceptions of business are disingenuous. The result? The case for foreign and domestic high performers investing in or/and working in Britain has been made by many, yet the excessive and obsessive public reaction to the business community as 'The banker's' enjoying 'playtime' with the Wolf on Wallstreet is insulting'. Let me play Devil's Advocate: hospitality tents,golf courses, champagne breakfasts, long lunches, exclusive boxes at sporting events, and lots of lobster...' are just PR packaging for the attempt at controversialising and demomnising the City. Why? Because it sells papers and it distracts people from noticing the blind spot in the nations accounts that helps bankroll public sector services. It perpetuates a non-bilateral approach that takes revenue that Business shares with the Exchequer. The British public are so consumed at 'bloody bankers' that it ignores that all public sector 'investment' relies on the wallet of the private sector. The media sucks up to this delinquency on the basis that Joe Public doesn't want to know where the money comes from as long as it gets to where it is required. This is the true grubby reality that we, the public are quite happy laundering our blessed NHS, the institution of free health care, by the same money that business frees up.
Indeed, do you think the business community likes being treated like some 'public convenience' when it is the business community that takes all the risks to make the self-same profit that fills the public sector's coffers? And what do they get in return? Taxation without representation plus being constantly criticized because of a few nobs who can't take their drink.
Give credit where credit is due. It is not just the banker's who toil and then pay national insurance, it is also the political aspect of Toryism that struggles to represent their ideological principles whilst often having to represent their constituents who are neither from the same demographic or political beliefs in something pertaining to the public sector. In the main this can be for no gain or gratitude or political capital. It maybe self-defeating and no one gives Tory MP's any credit.
Media misrepresentation and manipulation isn't just a Left wing gripe, "ideology reigns" in the allegations by the media as "Tory privatisation of the NHS", or "NHS is not safe under the Tories". In the light of the above, I think that is reprehensible and manipulative.
Unlike the climb-down of Labour in power, where rhetoric meets itself and accuses Labour of misleading the public over the delivery of a manifesto policies, Tories in power often fully grasp the non-ideological nettle and run a positive form of transformation of more inclusiveness.Indeed, only in the Tory party are their possibilities to enjoy some positive political conversion to mending fences by explanation and not hostility.
Of course there are many Tory 'shits' in our society, but who would you trust? A 'beard' (a stand-in), who is not above 'tricks of the trade', whose act of dogged nonchalance and scripted underspoken patter managed a side-stepping of the EU issue for the many remain anti-Brexiteers in the party, whilst still recruiting the youth vote by Barry-John like weaving inside peoples' he's not a politician really' vulnerability, Or, someone who knows the the rules and ways of the City, and who can communicate around the 'in-bred's' of Whitehall? Let's face it in a years time the only choice will be a PM May who can be more warm-blooded and who will ditch the 'nasty' manifesto that had undermined support from 'natural' Tory voters. 2017 was a setback that could be the making of her, especially as she's been criticized from 'total wipeout' to being 'written off. Yesterday's men might paradoxically have re-energized her supporters because she might be seen as doing the impossible by redeeming her support in the country. Why? No one likes to see a group of embittered men pull-strings to have a go at a female leader- it's just ungentleman like... This is the law that could make her recovery speedy: If you gripe then you run the risk of losing the spotlight to your enemy.
Indeed, the bookies would love nothing more than a comeback that's not expected, sweetened by an election that picks-up on the sheer courage and audacity of this woman, who turns out to be not just a stalwart Tory, but an innovative and subtle winner.