[E.O.M.S.]

Hurrah for the more than 40 performers – on the website at least Stephen Frears has signed twice – who wrote to the Observer last weekend pointing out that an incoming Conservative government is likely to serve the interests of the BBC's commercial rivals. No slogan in this election is more chilling than Vote Cameron, Get Murdoch.

My purpose in having coffee with Jeremy Hunt, the personable young shadow culture secretary, was to obtain reassurance, not least because mention of the arts, culture and broadcasting is entirely omitted from the 118-page Conservative party manifesto. Hunt sees nothing sinister in this. "There are lots of things which aren't in the main manifesto," he says. But he is humorously resigned to the suspicion aroused by Tory arts spokespeople. "Rupert Murdoch is not responsible for Conservative media policy. I am responsible, with David Cameron."

What did he feel about the letter? "I thought it was a shame that a group of artists for whom I have great respect were taken in by Labour party spin. I wish they'd written to me. The Conservative party are strong supporters of the BBC. We founded it in 1927, not a fact that widely known, or widely admired by certain elements of the Tory right. We are as proud of founding the BBC as Labour is of founding the NHS."

There are questions, Hunt says, about the specific ways the licence fee is spent. "We don't think it's right that the director general is paid £840,000." But he promises that the Tories "have set the principle. Because of changes to technology, we may have to think of new ways to collect the licence fee, but there will be a household tax which pays for public service broadcasting. That's something we accept".

He adds: "David Cameron will protect the BBC, he sees it as a very important part of his brand of modern conservatism. He loves the BBC programmes. He's a huge fan of Top Gear."

Talking about broadcasting, Hunt is pragmatic. But when he addresses arts subsidy, then, to my old ears, his fantasies of changing an entire culture seem as sweeping and unrealistic as those of any 70s Trot.

Are you ready to use the words 'subsidy works', I ask. "Yes. I'm very happy to say 'subsidy works', although I would tend to say 'public support works'. In fact because I'm feeling quite combative this morning, I will say that I believe funding for the arts will be significantly greater under a Conservative government than it would be under a Labour government."

How is that possible? As soon as Hunt answers by referring to "things in the tax system we can do to boost private giving", I tell him that I see flashing red lights. In the US there is a strong tradition of people making fortunes during their own lifetime and therefore expecting to give something back. But also, Americans have a religious notion of tithing which our culture lacks. The aristocracy here sets an atrocious example by holding on to everything it's got. Or stolen.

'I think, if I may say, David, that's quite an old-fashioned view. My concern is that people who do make their own money aren't, with some exceptions, as generous as they might be. And I would like to encourage them. I don't see it as a panacea. I see it as a 20-year project. If we could make it a social norm that people gave 10% of their legacy to an artistic or charitable organisation, that would be wonderful."

Jeremy Hunt comes across as cleverer than David Cameron, and on first meeting he's certainly way nicer. But I fear his fundamental analysis is wrong. Explaining why Thatcher's government was always so hostile to the arts, he claims we've moved out of a sharply ideological time. But surely, on the contrary, we're just about to move into one. If public service cuts are as severe and damaging as predicted, inclusive politics will soon belong to the past.

The first deal done in a smoke-filled room by representatives of a hung parliament should be as follows: the monarchists get to keep the monarchy, everyone else gets to keep the BBC.

David Hare @'The Guardian'