Politics

Fraser Nelson

Wednesday, 1st July 2009

Fraser Nelson reviews the week in politics

The sun-capturing atrium of Portcullis House is no substitute for the Californian coast but it may at least help Steve Hilton acclimatise. He is now back from his year-long absence — though he is still dressed as if he is heading for the beach. It is a reminder of the inverted sartorial hierarchy of the Conservatives. The lowly MPs wear suits and ties. The party’s senior officers are resplendent in open necks. And anyone dressing as scruffily as Mr Hilton signals the status of three-star general.

There are precious few more reliable methods of working out who’s who in the Tory high command. David Cameron works with a semi-formalised network of relationships in which people’s official job titles give little idea of their true power. Major decisions can be taken at weekends and in the evenings, on an ad-hoc basis. Mr Hilton’s 3 a.m. emails from California were more than capable of sending the machine into nocturnal action. Shadow cabinet meetings are for briefing the troops, not the taking of decisions. It is a peculiar operation. But it works.

The Tory machine is powered by the personal chemistry within the team which masterminded Mr Cameron’s leadership campaign — mainly Mr Hilton and George Osborne, with a few others pitching in. This team has been transposed into the Tory hierarchy with only a few modifications. Andy Coulson, the communications chief, has been admitted to the inner sanctum and Andrew Feldman, an old friend of Mr Cameron, is chief executive of the party. The operation is run in a corner of Norman Shaw South, a building on the periphery of the parliamentary complex.

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