A defence of romanticism in politics

Steve Richards had an important column in the Independent last week in which he observed:

To his credit, and in spite of his instinctive pragmatism, Cameron is surrounded by a surprisingly large number of Tory romantics. They include his senior advisers, Steve Hilton and Rohan Silva, and influential ministers such as Oliver Letwin.

And at one time those romantics promised to have a strong influence on the new government:

I have notes from an address from Letwin in which he said explicitly: "If a service fails, an interview at ten past eight on the Today programme should be with the direct local provider of the service and not the Cabinet minister in Whitehall." He acknowledged, as did other aspiring ministers, how tough this would be in a centralised media culture. Cameron was in the audience modestly taking notes but ended the meetings by insisting that this was part of the Conservatives' big idea.

But as Richards argues, this approach has been hard to sustain in politics given the relentless political and media pressure demanding the centralisation and standardisation of services.

I think that is a shame, because as Richards said:

I do not describe them as romantic to be disparaging. On the contrary politics desperately need more like them on the left and the right, original thinkers driven by ideas, vision and with the courageous guile to follow through with policy implementation. Several senior Labour figures tell me they lack the equivalent now.

And I fear that British politics and British society as a whole lacks romanticism. The idea that anything other than the provision standardised services run by the state represents a return to the law of a jungle is deeply ingrained. It lies behind everything from the Children's Laureate's distrust of parents who teach their children to read to Archbishop Williams' bizarre intervention last week.

And we Liberal Democrats have to decide whether we are romantics or not. Are we offering the same centralised services as Labour (but somehow offering more of them or to run them better) or are we offering something different and a little more exciting.

Refer to The Theory and Practice of Community Politics in your answer.

Would losing Andy Coulson be so bad for David Cameron?

The idea that the editor of a national newspaper would not insist on knowing the sources of a controversial story before he published it is absurd. That is why it is so hard to believe that Andy Coulson was not aware the News of the World journalists were engaged in phone hacking.

But will it be such a disaster for David Cameron if Coulson is forced to resign?

When Coulson went to work for him, the appointment was widely seen as marking a change in Conservative strategy. Coulson would provide some red meat for the redtops, in contrast to the touchy feely approach which Cameron and Steve Hilton had hitherto adopted.

Given that I believe this approach was a touch of genius that detoxified the Conservative brand and brought the party close to the near impossible feat of winning the last election, I do not think that losing Coulson would be such a blow.

Those in the Conservative Party who were enthused by Coulson's appointment were generally those who yearned for a return to the triumphs of the Hague and Duncan-Smith years. In short, they were the people whom Cameron prospered by ignoring.

It is also worth pointing out that the Coaliton government's handling of the media has not been particularly surefooted.

Of course, Coulson's resignation might dent Cameron's clean and competent image. And the real real reason for Coulson's appointment was probably that he was in good standing with Rupert Murdoch.

But at the heart of the idea that losing Coulson would be a disaster is our modern overestimation of the importance of the press officer. As I found that I wrote five years ago:

Take Alastair Campbell. In the years before New Labour won its first election he acquired the most colossal reputation - part bully, part magician.

Yet when he acted as press office for the British Lions rugby tour earlier this year no one praised his efforts. They were either ignored or slated. No one said: "The team lost all three tests horribly, but I thought the press operation was first rate."

Similarly, Campbell acquired his reputation in the years running up to 1997 because it was obvious from a long way out that Blair was going to win. Therefore political journalists had to establish good relations with him and his future cabinet ministers. Therefore Campbell had great power over them.

In the end press officers, whatever grand titles they are given, are just not that important. So I suspect David Cameron would survive Coulson's departure with surprising ease.

The headbangers are out to get Steve Hilton

Channel 4 News reports that that Steve Hilton, David Cameron's director of strategy, was arrested after a dispute with a ticket collector at Birmingham New Street in October 2008. This follows recent press stories saying that Hilton's regular email bulletins from California have upset some shadow cabinet ministers.

I have a certain sympathy for anyone who falls foul off railway officialdom, but more importantly the sudden appearance of this ticket story suggests that there are elements in the Conservative Party who are determined to bring Hilton down.

I wish them well.

For all his love of jargon (and resemblance to Stewart Pearson in The Thick of It) Steve Hilton has grasped the need to make the Tories appeal once more to the sort of liberal-minded people who have not voted for the party since 1992.

If the headbangers in the Conservative Party manage to get rid of him it will make life a lot easier for the Liberal Democrats.