David Cameron's statecrafty revolution

Danny Kruger, writing today in The Guardian's Comment is Free, argues that the rumoured 'rift' between George Osborne and Steve Hilton is actually a creative divide that reflects the PM's own character. Definitely worth a read ahead of moving into the Prime Ministerial topic of study. If nothing else, the situation in and around Number 10 presently is worth contrasting with Gordon Brown’s short premiership, where it is safe to say that it was toxic at the top....

It seems unnatural. The intrigues, the partisan loyalties and betrayals of court life seem largely absent from David Cameron's government. A number of backbenchers are grumbling, to be sure, with one even predicting a coup next spring. Yet at the top all is peace.

You can see why. The emollient personality of the prime minister makes the atmosphere in No 10 friendly. The key players have toiled and fought together for years, in much humbler offices than the ones they now occupy. They were friends long before they were bigwigs.

And yet there is a difference in Downing Street, not of personalities or even ideology, but of strategy – of how the government should operate, by what methods and in what time frame. It is the difference between George Osborne, the PM's long-term political partner, and Steve Hilton, his closest friend and adviser. It is the tension in Cameron between the statesman – or "statecraftsman" – and the revolutionary.

Statecraft, the use of the instruments of power for particular ends, is the vocation Osborne was born to. The chancellor knows the forces at work – the media, the political parties, the civil service, the European Union – respects their power, and plays them. Hilton, the revolutionary, is exasperated by these forces, frustrated by the checks on change and, often not very deep down, wishes he could abolish them altogether.

While the revolutionary is in a hurry, the statecraftsman takes the long view. Hilton wants Cameron to govern as if this term of office might be his last. Osborne wants to govern to win another election, and win that one outright.

The difference can lead to tension in policymaking, for instance over how far and fast to reform public services, and how much control central government needs to retain. But it can also be fruitful, prompting the effective use of state power for radical – Tory – ends.

In opposition Cameron promised a national citizen service for all school-leavers. Left and right united in disdain, if for opposite reasons: too military, not military enough; too statist, too wet; a waste of money, the kids won't sign up. But the PM plugged on, launched the scheme when he got into power, and we now have the lessons from a year of operations. The scheme has been an indisputable success. Contrary to critics of the "big society", there is clear demand for social action opportunities among young people from all classes, and plenty of space for new projects to enhance, without supplanting, existing provision. One NCS scheme, The Challenge, worked with more than 3,000 young people this year, half of them non-white, a fifth on free school meals, and two-thirds having never volunteered for anything before. Some 96% completed the programme and demonstrated greater levels of trust, belonging and responsibility.

The Challenge is a classic little platoon of the sort beloved by Tories: a means of engendering respect and responsibility in the young, using local activism to link them to the national story. What do we learn? That government can do big, comprehensive, uniform things, directed to collective goals; things that are good for morale. The NCS, like national service in the old days, is rigid, a prescriptive programme designed in Whitehall and delivered by the book. But though it is organised by government, it is not delivered by government. The state can work with small charities if the remit is simple and the outcomes clearly defined.

Another instance of the Osborne-Hilton axis working well is schools. There has been a statecrafty emphasis on the content of education, especially the way in which maths, English and history are taught. Yet at the same time a revolution is under way in the structures of education, with free schools and academies sprouting like mushrooms.

Government sets the curriculum – the big, comprehensive act, imparting non-negotiable values – while communities are free to run their own schools, and to create new ones: a conservative anchor in a revolutionary system.

Tory radicalism is about to receive the biggest boost yet with the announcement next month of neighbourhood community budget pilots. At their simplest, the budgets will consolidate public spending in an area in a single pot under the control of residents, with an emphasis on the role of the third sector.

This is government acting as the catalyst of radical localism, breaking down bureaucratic silos, banging heads together, routing funding outside the normal channels – all so that communities can run themselves. This is Osborne's statecraft in the cause of Hilton's change.

Just for context: the Daily Mirror archives a convenient article dating from before the last General Election exploring the rivalry between Osborne and Hilton in gaining David Cameron's ear. Take a look!