Lynton Crosby and the myth of influence Those who exert power in a democracy should be accountable, writes John McDermott Downing Street has told the FT that "[Lynton] Crosby is not employed by the government. He is an adviser to the Conservative party. It says it has no records of the Australian lobbyist and electoral strategist having "official meetings." The implication seems to be that Mr Crosby should not, therefore, have to disclose his business interests, which may suggest conflicts of interest. Underlying this case is the argument that a political adviser to a party does not work on government policy - attending meetings with officials, for example, or amending drafts of policy documents. Downing Street operations of all stripes tend to have a "political office," which operates as such. It is comprised of staff paid for by head office who assist the prime minister on often mundane party matters. Otherwise, they would be "special advisers," who should adhere to strict rules. The issue, though, is less about work and more about power. Those who exert it in a democracy should be accountable. And as the FT's leader puts it, "there is a fine line between political strategy and policy planning." To think that Mr Crosby does not have influence on the making of policy, though, one would have to believe at least one of the following. First, that because Britain is run by a coalition, there is today a more meaningful distinction between advising a party and a government. But even if that were to matter, the Tories of course remain the dominant party in government. Second, that a political strategist's job - winning elections through assessing public opinion and running campaigns - does not require changes in policy for it to be successful. This is vaguely plausible, though it would be more so if Mr Crosby had been hired in 2015 - when the next general election is due - rather than 2013, mid-cycle. New policies on welfare and immigrants at least rhyme with Mr Crosby's messages. Some ministerial speeches have been explicitly about post-election policies. But one only has to look at the EU referendum for how post-2015 commitments can change a government's direction. Third, that a decision not to introduce policy is different from introducing new ones. Mr Crosby has been credited by senior Tories for a leaner and meaner Queen's Speech, which did not contain previously announced policies on minimum alcohol pricing or plain cigarette packaging. The latter issue has rightly reaffirmed the importance of reviving the lobbyists" register, given Mr Crosby's links to tobacco companies. It also had fewer of the "meh" issues that Lord Ashcroft, former Tory deputy chair and influential donor, argues have little influence on voters. A prime minister is besieged with potential and sporadically useful sources of influence. They should have the right to hear from whomever they wish. Tuesday's Guardian/ICM poll, showing the Tories and Labour in a dead heat, suggests why he may want to keep Mr Crosby. But, especially where the influence on policy is significant, the public has a right to transparency. And one must make bounding leaps of faith to think Mr Crosby is uninfluential on policy.