I couldn't disagree more with this, especially the bit in bold.
For a start, saying he wants to change things from inefficient to efficient is pretty much the standard Tory line of the past forty years, and as we and the Budget have seen, its led to the government getting vastly more inefficient. In this he is like Hilton was under Cameron (another progressive pseudo-Tory who we were told was a genius, who came up with blue sky rubbish - only to end up on Fox News banging the Trump drum).
Just look at how the government have handled this response - via outsourcing (of testing sites, and the track and trace system); that isn't someone who is looking at radical solutions, just someone who is doing what they've done since 1979. Or look at his attempted recruitment of weirdos, misfits etc that somehow resulted in him recruiting someone like him. (edit) Or even the serial appointment of people associated with the Tories to the bodies responsible for dealing with this.
Secondly its really difficult to see how he can both have a real deep-rooted issue with the concept of inherited power and superiority and at the same time work for a PM who embodies those aspects more than any recent PM (including Cameron), be married to the daughter of a castle-owning Baronet and have gone through the usual public school - Oxford - politics route. His interest in eugenics comes from the same place as the interest amongst the ruling classes during the late 19th / early 20th century - as an explanation of why they were on top, one that didn't make them admit what they were doing to other people in order to stay there.
The best way to describe his ideology is 'creative-deconstruction' or continuous revolution (Joseph Schumpeter), which is not really akin to what you imply.
He's certainly not a high-Tory (Toryism within Conservatism) because they tend to be God (High Church Anglicanism) King, and Country. He's none!
Alas, to discredit this view because of the schooling he was provided in his youth*, supported by his parents, is itself a blunt and pretty-single minded argument?
He's wealthy, but again that doesn't make him Conservative or a Tory and nor does heritage and privilege: Tony Benn was a Vicount. It's a genetic fallacy.
Is he a Tory in a loose term of non-Conservatism? Again, I don't think he is: you can be conservative (little C) in nature, but not a Conservative (big C).
If I was to nail it down: he's a Euro sceptic, on the right but not a conservative because what is he trying to conserve? He wrong an essay called...
"Some Thoughts on Education and Political Priorities". Have you read it? If you have, he mentions about him wanting society being meritocratic through education.
With the latter part, it is ultimately a means to an ends: for him, the Conservative party is the best vehicle to head towards his goal rather than other parties.
He worked for Gove at the DfE yet to say they even had an amicable relationship with him would be laughable: in the end, he became the puppeteer.
In fact, there was always snippets public disdain for the "elitist" Gove and what he and much of the party stood for. His partnership with BJ follows a similar pattern.
As it was put to me (which I'll happily share by DM), he's a cuckoo in the nest, and understands that he can manipulate the views of others to support his own.
There won't be the widespread changes that may he would like or you're alluding to because again he would lose the support of the party that he still
needs.
Anyway, I'm not implying I like the man or his views, but by implying that he is something because he works with someone/something isn't really correct is it?
*Durham isn't a public school by the way - it was an independent.
