Mark,

I don’t think I ever claimed Boris was the second coming of Lord Salisbury, but he is a splendid indicator of conservative fortunes and always has been (*pulls seniority, remembering first encounter with Boris in 1984*). He’s a Wodehousian Cicero, if you will.

In this discussion, I think we must also always remember the inherent differences between British “red-meat” conservatism and American. A British High Tory will always regard the most Buckleyite American conservative as hopelessy corrupted by Whiggery. A true Reaganite will probably look on many of Mrs Thatcher’s policies as appeasement of socialism. As you know, paternalism is actually a rightist quality in British conservatism. It’s not one I approve of (coming from the Liberal Unionist tradition meself*) but it’s unsurprising it has resurfaced recently, and I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to decry it as being “unconservative” over there.

Moreover, I think it has gone ignored in most places (mainly because it is unspoken) that we are now in Cameronism 2.0 (possibly even Cameronism 2.1). Cameronism 1.0 made the party acceptable in polite company, but advanced no conservative ideals and therefore secured no electoral advantage. It died in October last year just before the party conference. Cameronism 2.0 does advance recognizable consertavive ideals, as is evidenced by the crime, education and above all tax policies. It has secured a sustained electoral advantage. I – the author of a “red meat” book decrying green environmentalism – am willing to put up with a superficial green tinge for that.

* And therefore hopelessly Whiggered.