Is Andy Coulson Actually Any Good?

It’s natural for David Cameron and the rest of the Downing Street team to assume he is. There’s a kind of confirmation bias at work since he’s the man tasked with running the government’s communications operation and if he weren’t the best man for the job someone else would be doing it.

Nevertheless, this stuff from Ben Brogan is a little startling. Ben brings us the view that Number 10 thinks Coulson is indispensible and that:

I am told that he is viewed as one of the three most successful occupants of that post, the other two being Bernard Ingham and Alastair Campbell. If you want a measure of the esteem in which he is held by Dave and his Team, it is to hear them elevate Mr Coulson to membership of a trio with the other two recent big beasts to hold that role. He is considered, frankly, irreplaceable, even if those around him must know that no one is. His departure, they fear, would be a crushing blow to the work of the government at a critical time. This of course, is a way of saying that his departure would be a crushing blow to the credibility of Mr Cameron and George Osborne, who have championed him.

But, just for a moment and however unfashionably, let’s ignore perception and ask about reality. Is the government’s communications operation actually any good? It doesn’t seem obviously brilliant. Now, as I’ve said before, it’s often the case that communications problems merely disguise policy problems but even allowing for that it often seems as though this government is either oddly unwilling or strangely incapable of promoting its own damned message.

The Big Society is one such area of difficulty but, frankly, I suspect we should probably give up any remaining hope it will be sold effectively. But the woes are more widespread than that. The tuitions fee brouhaha is one obvious example of a poorly-presented policy. The government had a perfectly respectable case to make but made it badly. Worse still, its planned reforms of education policy  – which should be popular – have been dogged by storms over largely inconsequential detail and confused by a less than clear sales message.

The same could be said of much of the government’s economic and fiscal policy. Only rarely does the government seem able to present a coherent message that combines advocacy of the need for – and, crucially, benefits of –  change while also offering a comforting degree of reassurance.

Perhaps Coulson really is brilliant (he may be!) but do the government’s supporters really, deep down, think it’s selling its message and policies effectively?  And if it isn’t then why isn’t it?

It’s a feature of modern politics and journalism that advisors are routinely elevated to svengali status. They are all supposed to be indispensable until the moment that they are no longer there and, amazingly, life goes on. The same thing happens in Washington: a new Chief of Staff is always supposed to help transform a President’s fortunes. This always seems faintly improbable, not least because staff turnover is a regular and unavoidable feature of political life. This too leads one to suppose that most of the time the importance of advisors and strategists and communications supremos is something that is greatly overstated.

The corollary to that, of course, is that it’s not obvious that whoever might succeed Coulson (should a vacancy arise) might be any better at selling the government either. But in the meantime perhaps it’s worth wondering if Coulson Mustard is really all that potent anyway.

UPDATE: See uber-Cameronian Fiona Melville for more and related thoughts on this.