Tsk! If we can come to agreement, there’s hope for political debate after all!

And yes, I think that’s Cameron’s greatest asset, his realism – which unfortunately most political activists seem completely blind to. On the Right, they don’t understand what he means. On the Left, they simply don’t believe he means it.

Localism: I agree completely – I’m highly sceptical that much will happen, mainly because of realpolitik once again. If it is to happen, it has to start with understanding that areas of high-impact risk will have to remain with the central state – I think that’s where child protection may well be something worth nationalising, as a trade-off for getting the central state altogether out of the business of (say) adult social care. I also wonder whether we can ever resuscitate local problem-solving when our politicians all seem in the grip of an idea of a simplistic public-private split.

Social conservatism: this is a huge terrain, so I’ll pick and choose. Primarily, I think that the ground of personal responsibility still has traction both politically (cf. Blair) and in policy terms.

The American data should be handled with care – first, because of cause-and-effect (more troubled states get tougher), but second because the statistics mislead – you have to control for a range of variables, otherwise you see D.C. has the lowest divorce rate without realising it’s got the lowest marriage rate; or say Connecticut and Delaware have lower crime and higher marital stability while also being very prosperous. The variations between states remain very large in this regard, and for every case study going one way another can be found.

Now, I agree that many on the Right (especially libertarians) are overly optimistic about the potential for welfare reform to make people good. In fact, it’s the same temptation that conservatives always used to criticise the Left for. On the whole, I think welfare has been a propagating factor in social problems – and the drivers for those social problems (often very broad, cultural) are much trickier to tackle.

As regard the cultural questions – I think it would be a huge mistake for conservatives to seek to drive any very strong ‘family values’ agenda. Responsibility – work, saving, family – yes. But no single-parent bashing or stigmatising – there just is no consensus for it. Instead, in as much as I remain very much a social conservative, we should focus on enabling people to build strong communities, which can regenerate those ‘family values’ in ways they can exist today – which brings us back to localism.

Simon Heffer… No, I know, terrible. The Telegraph isn’t what it used to be though. But then, I think the last party leader Heffer enthusiastically backed was Blair in the mid-1990s (ok, he hated Labour – but I seem to recall he was part of Blair’s Right-wing press fan club).

Have taken a very quick read through your past postings, and just a few random thoughts.

I find myself much more relaxed about the possibility of a Tory victory now that I was a few years back. Cameron has made his party considerably more attractive (and, let’s face it, Labour has made itself ugly as sin), but I have some considerable concerns, some of which you touch on:

localism: I am hugely encouraged by Cameron’s policy statements on this issue. The overly centralised, overly interfering central state that is the legacy of the last few decades needs some serious roll back. But Cameron still has some substantial convincing to do. First, he needs to face the fact that the British are used to and (despite howls to the contrary) quite like the current centralised structure. Here in the US, no-one talks of post-code lotteries or calls on Obama to answer for police failure in rural Minnesota. But Brits have got used to getting their answers from the top and Cameron has got a huge task on his hands to change that mentality (and I wish he would at least address it; the problem is not just or even primarily with Whitehall; more crucially, it is with the political and social culture in general). Secondly (and relatedly), he needs to practise what he preaches. For me, one of his most disappointing moments as party leader was his response to the Baby P tragedy. To demand at PMQs that Gordon Brown answer for the actions of three evil people and the failures of a local authority’s social service department show at best naked political opportunism of the lowest kind, and at worst, a total failure to understand the implications of the very shift in thinking he claims he is trying to promote.

social conservatism: lot to say on this, but I’ll be brief (perhaps I should start a blog….). I am very, very sceptical that any government can or should dip its toe in these waters (or, rather, that they should expect any great return on such toe-dipping). I think many on the right are being vastly optimistic in thinking that the welfare state is at fault for the social problems we face and that therefore ‘fixing’ it will do anything to reduce these problems. Again, here in the US, those states that have the most socially conservative administrations, welfare policies and public attitudes are also those with the highest rates of divorce, illegitimacy and crime, while the ‘liberal’ (in the US meaning) states tend to fare much better. It would be facile of me to say that liberal policies automatically lead to better societies, but it would be plain wrong of me to say that socially conservative policies have any glorious track record in producing societies that behave in socially conservative ways. (That’s not to say that tackling welfare isn’t a laudable aim, but its rewards should be seen primarily as fiscal, not social).

finally, Simon Heffer, whom you briefly mention. That a writer who openly advocates the end of Britain as a country (why? because he thinks there are too many Scots in the cabinet?) is not only seen as a major right-wing voice but is a lead columnist on the country’s biggest intelligent right-wing daily pretty much beggars belief.

Must stop. Am a bit out of practice on this blogging business, so excuse the scattergun arguments, but this reminds me how much fun it is.

Re the Broken Society – I wonder if Cameron couldn’t believe his luck… Having started the first Tory social critique to find media traction for the first time in fifteen or more years, he probably doesn’t want to let up on it. Sometimes, even the shrewd among us get carried away by a bit of unexpected success.

Re Davis – it’s not that I disagree that current policy is, well, beyond parody, but I think (1) the emphasis on the critique means expectations will be diminished when some choices, sooner or later, sensibly call for a bit more authority and a bit less liberty; and (2) the harsh realpolitik that too much loosening followed by a successful terrorist attack would be political dynamite (good policy be damned, electability will come first).

A great delight to stumble on your blog after missing it these past years. We crossed swords a few times, I seem to remember, in a friendly way some time back. I gave up blogging too (becoming a dad sort of sucked up the time) but am toying with the idea of restarting.

I think you’re spot on on the Broken Society thread. It surprises me that someone as shrewd as Cameron has failed to spot (or finds it expedient to ignore) the elephant trap he is setting himself.

On Davis, I’m not sure I’m quite in agreement with you. Yes, maintaining the security of the state is fundamental to any government, but there are plenty (myself included) who would argue that the measures we currently have in place do nothing to further this aim and, often, actively harm it. I realise the political constraints that Cameron would find himself in as PM (and Obama finds himself in now), but there is a solid non-libertarian case for arguing that state intervention at the level we have now does nothing to further security. Whether Cameron has the courage to make that argument remains to be seen (my guess is that Davis will not win on this one).

I’m also fascinated with how the Tories will square the circle on Europe. Too often the loudest voices seem to be the (frankly politically illiterate) advocates of complete withdrawal. Admittedly, Cameron and his front bench are a lot more intelligent than that, but I look forward to hearing more of their vision for developing our role in the EU.

Anyway, great to have you back, and I look forward to some fruitful arguments in the future.