Despite the potential similarities in wealth, the difference in background did make a difference. This is because the bourgeoisie of this period were heavily influenced by the progressive and radical literature and pamphlets of their time.

The main parties in English politics of this period were between the Liberal party (which was a fusion of old Whigs and new radicals) and the Tori/Conservative party which was aligned with nobility. One of their main disagreements was whether the mass populace should be "advanced" through welfare or whether they should be left to their traditional roles and rungs in society.

Many bourgeoisie who had gained their wealth through the early industrial period joined the Whigs and they left a tradition which brought many of the next generation into the Liberal party. This of course aligned with their own interests. A healthy and educated workforce was critical to their ambitions. Though I do think in general they were motivated by a certain amount of ideological good will.

The Tori and Conservative parties in England did not just oppose state welfare. They often opposed industrialization as it was the foundation of their opponents' power and it creates potential for shifts in the roles of individuals in society.

Interestingly this creates a persistent confusion to this day wherein Americans don't understand why the "conservative" party in England is not 1:1 a party for business as it is in America. As they have a historical interest in opposing some development and supporting conservation.