Politics

4 July 2009

Fraser Nelson reviews the week in politics

To visit Norman Shaw South is to see a political machine whirring beautifully. It is like a British version of The West Wing: the key players walking in and out of their rooms and having 45-second impromptu meetings in the corridor. The Cameroon nerve centre was described to me by one shadow minister as a nest of ‘the wonks, the pros and the pretties’. He means policy specialists, career politicians and Tamzin Lightwater-style female aides who strike MPs as being suspiciously presentable.

If Mr Hilton had not been so useful, he would not have dared to take a year out in California. In fact, his absence has served to reinforce his importance. During his visits to London, the whole machine (most Tory staff are in a separate office, half a mile away) would become energised. His style is to produce, say, a dozen ideas of which two will be durable. While this can be tiresome for the Conservative officials who work on the ten redundant ones, Mr Cameron considers it a worthwhile process.

The question facing them all now is how to transpose this to government. Mr Coulson and Mr Hilton will move into Number 10 — but Mr Osborne’s future position in the network is less clear. Chancellors normally take up residence in the Treasury, which, of course, has an entirely separate staff and culture to Number 10. This suited Gordon Brown, who ran his own team even in opposition and would convene them in hotel rooms to keep them away from the Blairites. But Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne share staff, ideas, soundbites, weekends, everything. Their relationship is now, as it was during the leadership contest, totally collaborative.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: Fraser Nelson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (2)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

john parfitt

July 2nd, 2009 10:44am Report this comment

Fraser. Saw you this on the box: interesting. Can you explain somewhere please? Never mind which party does it to revive a failing economy means injecting money into it. True (not Gordon's) 'Investment' in things like roads/railways/factories is a suitable vehicle surely as long as it will produce a return on the money spent and not spent on consumerism/imports. Why then are all you pundits talking about cutting it? The difficult bit is finding a way of harnessing savings/taxation money into that investment I guess. Isn't it? You could answer here or in your Speccie column or just e-mail?

Regards