You are here:   Reputations >  Overrated > Steve Hilton
 
Steve Hilton
February 2009

Hilton's past overshadows Cameron's future. The man whom safe seats wouldn't select became the most determined foe of association autonomy. The green evangelist for social responsibility now commutes from California. The apostle of clarity and repetition of message is now presiding over a platform that is hopelessly diffuse. Cameron's pledge to maintain Labour's spending plans was supposed to be axiomatic; now it has been dumped. Even Ken Clarke is back - an admission that the Hilton strategy has failed. Though Cameron has maintained a precarious poll lead, he should be much further ahead of a PM whose economic strategy has been so discredited. Though public criticism has focused on the shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, privately there is disquiet about Cameron's reliance on Hilton.

One disgruntled Tory MP says: "When Dave looks into a mirror, he sees Steve because he knows he's not there himself." If that was ever true, it is no longer the case. Cameron doubtless felt he needed Hilton when the task was to "decontaminate the brand". Since 2005, however, Cameron has matured into a capable leader with confidence in his own judgment - but little in his party. Yet he is still saddled with an adviser who is utterly out of touch with the nation. All previous Conservative eminences grises have been servants, not masters. Hilton is a guru without a doctrine, a winner without victories - and a spin-doctor whom Cameron should by now have outgrown.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Patrick Benson
February 1st, 2009
12:02 AM
It's a cute critique of Steve, but not from a witness - from someone that hasn't registered Mr Hilton's preposterous authority to make unilateral whimsical decisions on media spending, campaigns and announcements. Cameron's most glaring fault is the total absence of contrarians in his fold. Nobody challenges Hilton's wild guesses. Coulson sort of does, but isn't a political operative, and wastes far too much time on irrelevant newspaper coverage. The others are Friends of Dave who agree with pretty much anything. To be taken seriously, there should be a stringent system of internal accountability with robust non-hierarchical intellectual argument outside of social history references to Dave.

bert
January 31st, 2009
12:01 PM
Additional gutlessness: the belated fawning on Cameron in the final paragraph, entirely at odds with the rest of the piece. Pipsqueak stuff.

Simon Harley
January 31st, 2009
9:01 AM
Unless you were born with that name Floating Voter, I'd think twice about calling anyone a coward.

G. Marshall
January 30th, 2009
1:01 PM
I have to agree with the previous commenters - an anonymous article pushing these sort of personal, virulent views, doesn't encourage any confidence in its credibility. We should at least be able to weight the personal prejudices of the author against their very individual message. I'm surprised you were prepared to publish it.

Floating Voter
January 30th, 2009
10:01 AM
Hmm, anonymous hatchet-job. Coward. If you really think this then stand up and be counted.

Matthew Cain
January 29th, 2009
2:01 PM
I'm a Labour party member and met Steve Hilton a few times whilst working at ippr. Aside from being likeable, I always respected his brilliant mind, imagination and commitment to his principles. This article is anonymous so I can only conclude that the author is gutless as well as being nasty, vindictive and lacking in political nous.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.