It’s been quite a week on the right-of-centre of British politics. I have been mulling over the reasoning behind – and the merits or demerits of – Robert Jenrick’s defection to Reform UK.

In the wake of Robert’s switch, I had a lengthy discussion with my good friend David Starkey which you can watch here. My analysis in this note is both a restatement of my ideas in that discussion and a few further thoughts which build upon it.

I think I have now more or less worked out the dividing line between those who are sticking with the Conservatives and those who are part of the Reform rising tide – and especially what is motivating those switching from the former camp to the latter.

It essentially comes down to your answer to the question, “Is Britain broken?”. Now, let’s concede at the outset that this isn’t a straightforward nor a binary question to answer. Amazingly, over recent years, a good number of the political elite have struggled when being asked, “Can a woman have a penis?”. I have no sympathy with those who prevaricate about that question. However, the issue of Britain’s brokenness invites answers across a spectrum.

That said, according to Robert Jenrick’s account of events, the final straw for him came at a Tory Shadow Cabinet awayday where “broken Britain” became a topic of conversation. Robert himself instinctively said that Britain was indeed broken. One or two others agreed with him. But a majority did not and some even adopted a third position – that although Britain was indeed broken, the Conservatives should not state this publicly as they were complicit in breaking it.

Kemi Badenoch has actually taken a more nuanced position – arguing the country isn’t “completely broken” and that she wants to project a message of hope rather than despair.

Danny Kruger responded to Kemi on social media, putting forward his view that Britain needed much more than a “lick of paint” and a “cheery tune”.

The Conservative view seems to be that they did indeed make a number of mistakes in government – some of them very serious – and what the country needs is some detailed and very well-planned surgery. Perhaps not merely cosmetic surgery, but something along the lines of keyhole surgery.

Reform are more likely to approach Britain’s travails with a bazooka rather than a scalpel. In their interpretation of events, the country is slipping away. We are approaching the point at which we have an incurable and potentially terminal illness. A very radical programme of treatment and rehabilitation is required. We need to be honest with the electorate about this as the country can only be saved if the public are persuaded of the need for such dramatic change.

I have some sympathy with both positions and wish we could pluck the best parts of each. The Reform narrative that Britain needs full scale change – and a restoration of core democratic principles – is correct. The “blob” needs to be destroyed. The judiciary needs to have its increasing political powers stripped away.

Conservatives might respond that this is all well and good – but you need to move beyond broad-based analysis and catchy slogans and actually have some fully worked up and watertight plans. Hence, saying “we must leave ECHR” is a robust enough stance – but it needs to be complemented with serious policy work, such as that undertaken by Lord Wolfson for the Tories on exactly how such a commitment can be carried out.

I’m not suggesting Reform think policy and planning is unnecessary – indeed getting that element of the equation right is the core work of Danny Kruger and Zia Yusuf, both very serious and thoughtful men.

However, the Reform approach is to essentially broadcast the broad, desired destination and then work out how to get there. The Conservative approach is to assess the viability of the journey before heading out of the front door.

There remain real differences, of course, in agreeing on the final destination. I would take the Conservative position broadly to be that Britain is damaged and needs some major repair. The Reform proposition is that Britain is truly broken and we need to completely refix the foundations. Those are, for sure, different programmes of government. But they aren’t necessarily a million miles apart.

I still suspect that if more of a consensus can emerge on where we are trying to get to then the means by which we get there will become obvious – even if at present it can feel, electorally at least, things are as clear as mud.

Keep the flag of freedom flying!