The main response to the nomination of Lord Hill for European commissioner was widely described as incomprehension. This was literally true; nobody understood who he was. But they didn’t fail to understand because Hill is so obscure, but rather because they were ignorant.
Martin Schulz, for example, made a fool of himself as follows:
“I cannot imagine Hill, whose views – in as far as he’s got any – are radically anti-European, getting a majority in the European Parliament,” the parliament president had said….”Today friends told me that Mr Hill is a rather pro-European person by UK standards. I’m very pleased with that,” the German Social Democrat said.
If you asked me I’d have said that as a minister, he was a significant gatekeeper for lobbyists, the 4th highest on that metric among UK-wide ministers. This was especially telling as his network degree was relatively low – people could probably access him fairly easily and get escalated to somebody important.
Financial Times predicts that hearing of designate UK Commissioner "Lord" Hill may focus on Hill's past as a lobbyist http://t.co/MFN2qjM11a
— Erik Wesselius (@erikwesselius) July 15, 2014
The explanation for Hill’s lobby-ability turns out, per FT, to be that he is a professional lobbyist himself, having represented Bell Pottinger or rather its clients before founding his own lobbying firm, Quiller, which he later sold to Huntsworth for a lot of money. Now I didn’t know that, but at least I correctly diagnosed the problem.
Also, David Cameron’s appointments process is still unimprovably awful:
Two former financial journalists, Patience Wheatcroft and Sarah Hogg, were also considered by Mr Cameron but were deemed not to have the political skills needed to work in Brussels.
No confusion with this Lord Hill, I presume?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hill,_Baron_Hill_of_Luton