Steve hilton

The long flight from Australia should give David Cameron plenty time to think about Europe, and how it just won't go away. He didn't want this battle — not now, not ever. But in the Daily Telegraph today, the first in what will be a weekly column, I lay out the battlefield that awaits him on his return. First, this bailout is not the end. A trillion Euros needs to come from somewhere, and today the Chinese are being tapped up — God knows what we'll agree to in return. But that doesn't address what is, as Mervyn King has said, a solvency issue rather than a liquidity issue. And the tighter these Eurozone countries squeeze together, the more tension we can expect.

Westminster, today, is all a-titter about an anecdote contained within this FT article about Steve Hilton. It is, it must be said, a good 'un: "Mr Hilton’s crusade against employment legislation also saw him suggest that Mr Cameron just ignore European labour regulations on temporary workers, prompting an exasperated exchange with Jeremy Heywood, Downing Street’s permanent secretary. 'Steve asked why the PM had to obey the law,' said one Whitehall insider of a meeting in March to discuss the government’s growth strategy. 'Jeremy had to explain that if David Cameron breaks the law he could be put in prison.

The Foreign Secretary finds himself in the rather unique position today of trying to deal with the consequences of a crisis that he largely predicted. In May 1998, William Hague gave a speech warning that the single currency would lead to social unrest as governments tried to cope with one size fits all interest rates. It is a reminder of how much Hague was swimming against the tide of bien-pensant opinion that Michael Heseltine claimed this prediction was so extreme as to drive the Tories off the centre ground. But what is, perhaps, more interesting than Hague’s vindicated view that the euro, in a crisis, would be the ‘economic equivalent of a burning building with no exits’ is his view on how European governments would resolve the problem.

Not for the first time, a throwaway line in a Spectator article by James Forsyth has been picked up by Fleet St and set the hares running. It's about Steve Hilton, Cameron's best friend and chief strategist, and whether he'll quit. Hilton is a man in a hurry — rightly, in my view, as the Tories are not incapable of blowing the next election. So he wants things transformed, and — for all his faults — acutely feels the sense of urgency and tries to communicate it through government. The Whitehall machine (and, more specifically, the permanent secretary of No.10) does not share this urgency and waters down change. It poses a grave risk. Cameron's mission to change Britain could be over, before it begins.

If the expected happens today, the political debate will rapidly move to whether Cameron should offer some concessions to Clegg to bolster his position. I hear there are two camps in Downing Street on this question with Steve Hilton a particularly ardent advocate of the no more concessions line.   Hilton’s position may surprise some but makes sense when you consider how his public service reform programme has, as Ben Brogan writes today, already been diluted for political reasons.    My current expectation is that there won’t be many concessions to Clegg. One well placed Tory told me last night that "Clegg picked the question and the date. He can have no complaints.

Given that David Cameron will have a tougher fight than perhaps any postwar Prime Minister other than Thatcher, it’s a bit unfortunate that his team doesn’t like political combat. Losing to Rachel Johnson over forests last week exposed major weaknesses, and sent a message to the government’s enemies: that these guys have pretty poor political combat skills. Now word is out, the cuts protests in Liverpool today will be the first in a series of challenges. Cameron, too, is stung by the avoidable mistakes of the last few weeks – and is reshaping No.10 to account for them. Some changes are great, some less so, others downright worrying. Here's my overview: 1. The Big Society. Cameron has started from first principles.

I suspect the identity of the Prime Minister's next director of communications is of far more interest to those who work in Westminster than those in the country at large. But the identity of Coulson's successor will reveal something about the balance of power in the coalition and at the Cameron court. I'm told that the Tories are in no rush to make the appointment, they'd rather take their time and try and find the right person. Despite what Nick Clegg said on Marr this morning, I'm informed that this will be very much a Tory-run selection process. Those in the know say that as with the Coulson appointment, George Osborne will play the crucial role.

Courtesy of the ConHome tag team of Paul Goodman and Tim Montgomerie, two articles that are worth adding to your Saturday reading list. Both capture why Andy Coulson's resignation matters, if not to the general swell of British politics, at least to internal operations in Coalitionville. The wider argument of Paul's article for the Guardian is captured by its headline: "Andy Couslon had a nose for the view of the aspirational voter." But it also homes in on the point that Coulson's departure tilts No.10 in favour of Steve Hilton – something that, rightly or wrongly, will bother the Tory right far more than it does Lib Dems of any persuasion. The obvious question is whether David Cameron will choose to correct than tilt, or maintain it.

The West Wing has an amazing hold over Fleet Street. The TV series has not only taught a generation of British reporters about US politics but even influenced the way that they see the workings of Westminster. Every time centre-right writers think David Cameron is seen as having made a mistake - mistreated his back-benchers, hired a personal photographer or made a foreign policy gaffe - they trot out the same refrain: No 10 needs a powerful Leo McGarry-type chief of staff who can bring the various parts of the operation together from Steve Hilton's work to Andy Coulson' operation. An enforcer, a puller-togetherer. I have three arguments against a British Leo McGarry.

Is David Cameron just too nice? There are worse accusations to levy at a politician, but it's one I have heard suggested quite a lot recently - and I have written about it in my News of the World column today. He seems to have adopted the politics of wishful thinking. There is a "zip-a-dee-do-dah strategy" and precious little contingency if things go wrong. He makes defence cuts, because he doesn't intend to go on a massive deployment (neither did Woodrow Wilson). He will make prison cuts, because he thinks - bless him - that it won't increase crime. He signs a deal with French for military co-operation, thinking they will dump the habit of 500-years and actually agree with Britain on the next major foreign policy dispute.