Dear Charles, we share, I think, some fundamental values and beliefs: in freedom, democracy, justice, the rule of law, also in the value of education, knowledge and art. Yet these beliefs lead us to opposite conclusions about contemporary issues such as Europe, climate change, the position of Islam in western culture and the versions of conservatism now being practised by leaders of the UK and the US. I find these differences intriguing, sometimes mystifying, sometimes troubling. Id like to get to the bottom of them.

In your biography of Margaret Thatcher you describe her versions of these beliefs, about her faith in economic liberty, her overall philosophy of everyone having a stake, also about her occupation of the moral high ground. You could say that she made a promise that if you work hard, play by the rules and trust in the market you will be rewarded but that the 2008 crash shattered that promise. It seemed that one rich and privileged group of society was entitled to break rules and get away with it, and that everyone else had to pay the price.

Since Thatcher left power in 1990 this country has been ruled either by Conservatives or by Labour prime ministers strongly influenced by her. Do you think they have achieved her ambition, as one of her policy advisers put it, to liberate people to do things?

I agree with you about what we agree about! I am not, in my ultimate beliefs, a liberal; but I strongly believe in a liberal order, with the elements you describe, as the most civilised way of governing a country.

I also agree that many people (I include myself) feel cheated as a result of the credit crunch of 2008, for the reasons you state. I would not agree that much of this should be laid at Mrs Thatchers door, 18 years after she left office.

In assessing a political leader fairly, one must understand what problems they had to confront. In 1979, in the economic sphere, Mrs Thatcher had to confront inflation, overmighty trade union leaders, loss-making nationalised industries and a lack of openness to world markets. Broadly speaking and with significant mistakes along the way she confronted them successfully.

When you free up any area, that freedom includes the likelihood that some things will go wrong. The Thatcher governments abolition of exchange controls in 1979 transformed the capacity of the world to invest in this country, because at last outsiders had the guarantee that money could move freely in and out. This action probably contributed a bit to the financial overheating of the 21st century, but if she had not done what she did, she would have missed her best chance to create a more liberal economic order.

Similarly, she had to face down the miners strike of 1984-5. If she had not won, trade union boss power would have continued to dominate our economy and our politics, with terrible results for prosperity, liberty and democracy. In 1979, 29.4m working days were lost to strikes. In 1990, the year she left, the figure was below 2m. The figure in 2018 was 273,000 working days lost. This divisive character brought industrial peace, which continues to this day.

It is to the discredit of people who think of themselves as liberals that most of them did not support Mrs Thatcher in this, but evaded the issue by moaning about her confrontational style. After she had won they quietly pocketed the gains. Many self-styled liberals hate taking responsibility for unpopular decisions. They seem more preoccupied with the display of virtue than with doing what is right.

Are you saying that a truly Thatcherite government, if it had stayed in power all that time, would have managed to avoid a crisis like that of 2008? What would it have done differently from Major and Blair? If you felt cheated by 2008, what policies or politicians offer, for you, redress?

Given that the problem is not now overmighty trades unions, how might a Thatcher of the past decade responding, as you say, to the issues of the time have responded to the problems we now have: the loss of security and stagnation of prospects for large sections of the population, compared with the concentration of wealth among a very small percentage?

I make it a rule not to speculate about what Mrs Thatcher would do nowadays. What I know she did worry about, however, especially, in her last couple of years in office, was the way that what was then the European Community (later the EU) offered much clearer benefit to its leaders and officials than to its citizens. She worried about the loss of identity, sovereignty, national independence and democratic accountability under an ever-centralising EU.

She also worried about the excessive power of bankers and central bankers opposing, unlike her followers, an independent Bank of England, on the grounds that key financial decisions affecting the lives of all citizens should not ultimately be taken by technical experts but by democratically answerable politicians.

She was ahead of her time about these matters. The alienation of general European populations from those who rule them has emerged very strongly after the creation of the euro (for reasons she predicted), and because of the 2008 crash and has spread throughout the EU.

The current right adopts tough-sounding and offensive positions on the basis that their very offensiveness and toughness must make them right

Except that we are now finding out that the EU does have clear benefits to its citizens frictionless borders, the single market, cooperation on security and medicine, freedom of movement, peace. Well miss them when theyve gone. The alienation of populations from government has hardly been unique to the eurozone, or the EU.

The argument for the EU is not that it is perfect, or even that it is perfectible, but that, like individuals, nations can make themselves stronger by working with others. A lot of anti-EU positions conceive a zero-sum game, in which anything that goes to the EU is automatically a loss to us, and they magnify the disadvantages and minimise the benefits to an absurd degree.

In volume three of your biography there are some striking insights into the Euroscepticism of Thatchers last years in power. What also comes across vividly is the way in which the bitterness of her removal from office, of which disagreement about Europe was the catalyst but not the only cause, has infected the issue ever since. A lot of the European debate has been a domestic drama in the Conservative party, to which the rest of us are obliged to listen.

This history matters to our current situation. It contributes to the absolutist positions, the quasi-military language and the tribalism of the current debate, and the branding (for example) of legitimate critics of the process of enabling the referendum result as enemies of the people.

I quite agree that the EU brings some benefits for its citizens. It would be incredible if, after so much expense and so many treaties, it did not; but it does not by its own theology, cannot deal with the questions I raise. It explicitly opposes national sovereignty and with it the idea that a country can choose and kick out the people who ultimately rule it. It is therefore undemocratic. The European parliament can make little headway against this problem, because there is no European demos.

If it is true that national sovereignty means little in the modern world, then democracy is also an illusion. Democracy does not mean merely the right to vote, but the fact that the vote is decisive, rather than advisory: government is formed by the wishes of the people. The Brexit debate has brought out with frightening clarity that large numbers of Remainers dislike democratic power.

This behaviour has brought out my fundamental worry about people who think of themselves as liberal. They seem terribly motivated by disapproval. They look down on people who are less well educated, and fight culture wars that they cast as enlightenment versus barbarism. This makes them intolerant, which is perhaps the least truly liberal of all dispositions.

Take, for example, the widespread belief among liberals that opposition to mass immigration is racist. This is a de haut en bas attitude which grossly misrepresents the attitudes of millions of people. Nowadays almost all liberal arguments about race, LGBT, sexism, the environment, abortion etc are framed thus. The consequence is intolerance; hence the justified popular revolt against metropolitan elites.

On climate change, the aim of the large numbers of alarmists is unprecedented government control

Youre making some assumptions here. First that the EU are/were our rulers and that the British electorate and its representatives are therefore powerless. In practice Mrs Thatchers fear that, for example, Britain would be forced to join the single currency did not come true: after due political process the British government made the sovereign decision not to join. Speaking for myself, I dont think that the era of national sovereignty is dead, but I also think that sovereignty is capable of many versions and interpretations.

Second, theres the belief that the Brexit debate can be framed as one of Remainer elites against the Leave-voting people. Id suggest that what actually happened after the referendum was this: what you might call the Leave elites exerted their influence over Theresa Mays government (which included several prominent Leavers) to exclude possibilities such as remaining in the customs union and the single market that members of the Leave campaign had explicitly said would be possible after a no vote. This disrespected both Remain voters and those Leave voters who didnt want a hard Brexit. Most of the agonies of the past few months the Commons votes, the court cases are due to opposition to what is an arrogant and dangerous position.

Who are these Leaver elites? No British institutions were dominated by Leavers in 2016, with the exception of a few national newspapers. This dominance has scarcely moved since.

All others main political parties, House of Commons, House of Lords, Bank of England, Confederation of British Industry, Trades Union Congress, civil service, BBC, Financial Times, Economist, all of academia, supreme court, bishops, Scottish government, Welsh government are dominated by Remainers. Even the Daily Mail moved Paul Dacre because he was too pro-Brexit. Remainers controlled our government until Boris Johnson became prime minister just over 100 days ago.

Obviously Remain was a legitimate point of view and commanded widespread support in the referendum. But the reaction of the elites to the result shocked me and shocks me still. With frequent expressions of contempt, they are still trying to frustrate the largest vote for anything in British history, a vote that defied all their leadership and all their pressure. Dont any of them think they might have got something wrong?

Wow. We really do see the world in different ways. I see an immensely powerful coalition of most of the national press with politicians who now form the cabinet. You see a plucky band of rebels opposing a phalanx of institutions.

Do you disagree that any of the institutions I named are dominated by Remainers?

I expect that most people in those institutions have Remainer sympathies. But its insulting to them to assume that those sympathies colour all their actions. A lot of Remainer MPs voted more than once to leave the EU it was with the help of European Research Group votes that we stayed in for so long. Theresa May made a sincere if not very competent attempt to respect the referendum result. The BBC it seems to me tries agonisingly hard to maintain balance you can certainly find plenty on the left who feel it is biased against them. The unanimous decision of the supreme court was a case of the justices reading the law as they saw it ie doing their job. In the same way that the Queen was doing her job (arguably) in assenting to Johnsons request for prorogation it doesnt make her part of a leaver conspiracy.

To speak more generally about elites and populism: yes, there is such a thing as virtue-signalling, as well as the genuine and justified speaking out for minorities who, as a matter of fact, continue to suffer from prejudice and discrimination. But Id question the view that members of conservative elites such as yourself seem to have of the people as being inherently conservative on social issues and immigration.

The current right practises what has fairly been called vice-signalling. That is the adoption of tough-sounding and offensive positions on the basis that their very offensiveness and toughness must make them right. Boris Johnsons article comparing Muslim women to letterboxes and bankrobbers is one manifestation. His game here seems to be to provoke liberal outrage by using racist language while disingenuously sheltering behind the defence that he wasnt actually calling for a ban on face-coverings. Should he or anyone else be playing games with peoples lives like this?

Like you, I hate both vice- and virtue-signalling, but I do feel oppressed by a culture war in which liberal people with privileges disdain the less fortunate, particularly those people who declare themselves proud to be British. By the way, the late, great Deborah Orr wrote about the Muslim veil with views very similar to those of Boris.

It is indeed important to speak out for minorities, but the selection process is interesting. Which liberals speak out for Christians?

Also, modern liberal doctrines that are supposed to embody tolerance often operate intolerantly. Take the word diversity. In practice, it means uniformity a set of contestable opinions to which you must subscribe if you wish to work in the public service.

Your mention of Christianity is significant. I get the impression that you feel that something fundamental to western society is endangered, both by critics within and non-Christian societies outside. Am I right?

I do feel that something fundamental to western society is endangered, but much more by critics within than by non-Christian societies outside. The main exterior threats are the rise of China, the belligerence of Putins Russia and global Islamist extremism (sometimes known as political Islam), but all of these are containable if our elites would defend the western way of life.

My late friend [former Spectator editor] Frank Johnson observed 25 years ago that: The left, having failed to nationalise the economy, is nationalising people. Nowadays, liberal thought is barely distinguishable from the left. Liberals want to legislate against hate speech, inequality, Islamophobia, as if all these concepts could easily be defined by law and as if no free speech considerations applied. They are also actively hostile to orthodox Christian belief (and mainstream Jewish teaching too).

Im glad you include Putin on your list of threats. Theres a tendency on the right to go easy on him, and on Trumps complicity with him. Perhaps because both Putin and Trump are somehow seen as defenders of traditional values.

You speak in quite general terms, which makes it hard to address your points. I know what you mean by liberal intolerance. I also believe in free speech and question the urge to manage it with legislation. At the same time, racism is real. In cases where free speech serves no purpose but to incite violence against minorities, workable legislation against it shouldnt be ruled out.

But I would like to know what you think conservatism is now. Do you subscribe to the conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshotts saying that conservatism is about preferring such things as the familiar to the unknown, fact to mystery, the convenient to the perfect? It seems to me that a figure like a Dominic Cummings an idealist who likes smashing things up is the opposite of this. We currently have a Conservative party that, unlike its forebears, opposes itself to a lot of business, to agriculture, to the judiciary, and which has lost its interest in balancing budgets.

This is a version of what is happening in the US, where Republicans support a president clearly hostile to the constitution, who breaks the law, and is unconcerned about running up a huge deficit. Do you think that is a price worth paying for his pushback against liberalism?

I do feel as Oakeshott does, very much, but I dont see Brexit as a smashing of old ways. It is a restoration of national independence and democratic rights which the EU has undermined. Oakeshott opposed EEC membership for this reason, by the way.

Cummings is trying to stand up for the democratically dispossessed.

Boris has not violated the constitution. His arguably unwise attempt at prorogation was, as David Cameron put it, sharp practice, but no worse than that. He felt driven to it by Speaker John Bercows far greater subversion in which he destroyed the doctrine of the crown in parliament on which our constitution rests. We have had parliament pretending to be the government, delaying a general election and thus making our system unworkable. Any prime minister has to try to overcome that, especially when all these efforts by the elites are aimed to frustrate the result of the largest popular vote ever. So Boris is quite right to call this election.

Refusing to accept the result of the referendum is just as bad as refusing to accept an unwelcome general election result, an outrage we have never attempted in our history.

If the referendum were a general election it would have been rerun because of the Leave campaigns breaches of electoral law (about which Cummings put himself in contempt of parliament by refusing to answer questions how is that conservative?).

The point also remains that the right wing of the Conservative party keeps pushing for a version of Brexit for which there has never been a popular majority. Most of the agonies of parliament, including Bercows interventions, relate to that.

Id still be interested to know if you think Trump is conservative. Id also like to understand your position on climate change.

Sorry, but no discovery of electoral malpractice has ever overturned a margin of 1,300,000 votes. It is important not to get into the Leave didnt really win frame of mind, not only because it isnt true, but also because it avoids the need to take Leave feeling seriously.

The key question for the liberals who were defeated is: How, with your massive in-built advantages, did you manage to lose? You must, collectively, have been astonishingly out of touch. Check your privilege, as they say in PC circles.

As for Trump, no, I dont believe he is a conservative. His essential message is Trump first. The only thing I like about him is his refusal to be cowed by the self-righteousness of his opponents.

On climate change, I resist what I see as a political viewpoint masquerading as the science. The aim of the large numbers of alarmists is unprecedented government control and the relative impoverishment of western societies. Cheap energy is one of the greatest emancipations produced by our civilisation.

You asked about the current state of conservatism. Pretty bad, I would say uncreative and negative. A mirror image, almost, of the state of liberalism.

When I said at the beginning that I am not ultimately a liberal, I meant that liberalism lacks content because it has no teleology. When it sticks to its core idea of freedom, however, it is a vital element of a good society. I wish it would let the bird of freedom particularly our countrys democratic independence soar, instead of pursing its lips in disapproval.

Im sure if the malpractice had been on the Remain side you would be crying foul.

Re Trump: I wish you and your fellow conservatives would express your criticism more plainly.

Yes, I do take the Leave vote seriously. But it was a narrow vote after a flawed campaign that has been taken as a licence for whatever Brexiter politicians want it to mean. The missed opportunity was to unite the country around a way of leaving the EU that most people would be happy with. I believe Boris Johnson argued for such a thing at the time.

Re climate: if conservatives like yourself dont want the issue used against you, perhaps you should try harder to show how capitalism can be reconciled with protecting the environment. Thirty years after Mrs Thatcher raised the issue the noises from the right seem to be saying its not really happening or its not that bad or well muddle through.

What I find really striking is how strongly you feel that the world is against you and likeminded people, and unfairly so. What I see is 40 years in which the Conservatives have mostly been in power (without ever winning a majority of the vote, thanks to our electoral system), in which Thatcherism has been hugely influential, and in which the Daily Telegraph has, with an amazing blurring of editorial and news, helped to put your fellow columnist into Downing Street.

Of course, if you think you are wrongly oppressed anything is allowable Cummingss rulebreaking, Johnsons lies and betrayals but I would ask you, too, to check your privilege.

However, you have given me a clearer idea of how liberal assumptions can sound from the outside. I intend to watch myself when I fall into the lazy habits that can go with my worldview. I hope you or anyone else who feels like it will point them out to me.

As for teleology, thats a discussion for another day.

Snap: we both feel oppressed! But I must add that I do not feel personally so at all. I have been lucky. My worry is that normal British people are scorned by many liberals for the non-crime of believing in democratic self-government.

Perhaps we at least agree that it would be much better if a more liberal disposition which is not the same as a liberal ideology prevailed on both sides of the Brexit divide.

Read more:

Oh, brother! Rowan and Charles Moore debate Brexit, global heating, liberalism and beyond - The Guardian