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. The British system, with its permanent Civil Service, is very different than the politically-appointed US bureaucracy. A No 10 chief of staff will never take on the all-powerful role of a White House equivalent (which, as Rahm Emannuel’s case shows, is not always a positive)
I have long been in favour of more political appointments and my recent time in government has only convinced me further.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in