The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Hunt's acute bias is exposed again

But the Culture Secretary is still safe for now.

By George Eaton Published 31 May 2012 11:37

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt arrives at the Leveson inquiry.

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt arrives at The Royal Courts of Justice to give evidence to the Leveson inquiry. Photograph: Getty Images.

Jeremy Hunt's appearance before the Leveson inquiry has not failed to live up to expectations. The most dramatic moment came when it was revealed that the Culture Secretary had texted James Murdoch to congratulate him on winning EU approval for the BSkyB takeover. He wrote: "Great and congrats on Brussels. Just Ofcom to go!"

Significantly, the text was sent on 21 December, the day Vince Cable lost responsibility for the bid after it was revealed that he had "declared war" on Rupert Murdoch. Hunt's defence is that the text simply reaffirmed his publicly-stated support for the bid (amusingly, he claimed that he was merely "broadly sympathetic") and that it was sent before he formally acquired responsibility for the deal (just an hour later). Had he already been given quasi-judicial authority, he suggested, he would not "have sent that text". Unlike Vince Cable, Hunt's defenders will say, he did not demonstrate bias once in post.

This defence should be enough for Hunt to retain Downing Street's support. Unless any "new evidence" (to use Cameron's phrase) emerges that Hunt may have broken the ministerial code, he will survive, leaving him with the option to leave the cabinet (or accept another post) at a later date.

Update: As Stefan Stern points out on Twitter, it will now be even harder for Cameron to defend his decision to hand responsibility for the bid to Hunt. Yet again, the Prime Minister is guilty of terrible judgement.

Tags: Jeremy Hunt Leveson Inquiry Phone hacking scandal

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

12 comments

Fri, 2012-07-20 11:23 — Goji (not verified)

Nice article..... interesting.
Goji Goji fructe goji

Thu, 2012-07-05 22:44 — ahmadnasr89

صور رمضان 2012
تحميل صور رمضان 2012
صور رمضانية 2012
نتيجة الثانوية العامة 2012

Fri, 2012-06-01 15:22 — Des Demona (not verified)

Misleading parliament aside, the fact he was given legal advice not to meet with NI but decided that that didn't apply to un-minuted phonecalls shows him to be either a scoundrel or a buffoon. In parliament that may not be construed as any deterance to ministerial office but I think the electorate have different views.

Fri, 2012-06-01 15:17 — Des Demona (not verified)

Thu, 2012-05-31 23:11 — Davidaslindsay (not verified)

Even with the distraction provided by the charity tax U-turn, Jeremy Hunt's performance has given the nation plenty of much-needed hilarity.

You can be, as Labour Governments especially have sometimes been in the past, well-meaning but incompetent. You can be, as Conservative Governments especially have usually been in the past, nasty but efficient. You cannot, however, be both nasty and incompetent.

Oh, and note that Telegraph Blogs has today been doing a passable impersonation of a competitor, rather than a wholly owned subsidiary, of News International. Are Sir David and Sir Frederick in the office this week? If so, then they should come in more often.

And Labour should take note: as also on the Mail titles, the combination of patriotism in all directions, including towards the Murdochs, with at least an openness towards socially and culturally conservative insights, and with support for the government action necessary to maintain the middle class, the countryside, the domestic manufacturing base, the traditional family, and so on, is the way to pick up newspaper endorsements and millions of votes that are both now ripe for the picking.

Fri, 2012-06-01 18:19 — Indu Pendent

LOL
"both nasty and incompetent"

Balls and Blackbuster?

Thu, 2012-05-31 22:34 — hugh markey (not verified)

Had Hunt being asked his name thirty minutes into his Leveson interrogation we doubt whether he could have recalled it without reciting 'Happy Birthday'.
What a flustered performance. It was almost as if he had been shown the instruments of torture before he was subjected to trial by ordeal in the Star Chamber of the High Court.
Economical with the truth! A complete absence, more like. Compared to the 'Guy from Impanema'. tall and tanned and super-cool, Hunt looked as if the bloodhounds were about to spring upon his exhausted self.
Go now and save us all a lot of grief.

Hung, Drawn and Quartered

Thu, 2012-05-31 21:53 — Rev Graeme Hancocks (not verified)

It is amazing to watch these people in action - they have no sense of shame.

Thu, 2012-05-31 19:22 — Celeriac (not verified)

Again we see the moral vacuum at the heart of the Tory mindset.

Thu, 2012-05-31 16:42 — rhys (not verified)

What can it possibly be said against the Aide that he was saying or doing which was in any way other than consonant with the dealings his boss Hunt had with [ and on behalf of - q.v. the Memo to the PM requesting to set up a meeting with V.Cable ] Michel / News Int'l ?

The whole embarrassing and cringe-making details of the mutual suckings-up between Mr Hunt [ ie himself, not his Advisor ] and Mr Michel plus the very detailed Memo H wrote to the PM way back make clear beyond peradventure that Adam Smith was indeed acting purely as His Master's Voice in all his dealings with Mr Michel : this recently disclosed evidence shows that he cannot validly be accused of going off on a frolic of his own on the subject.

It is thus utterly despicable for Mr Hunt and the Perm. Sec. to seek to make him responsible for the fiasco. [ Though I have little doubt that in exchange for going quietly he will soon be re-cycled as a SPAD or whatever for someone else. Certainly if this were not the case he could take them for a fortune on Unfair Dismissal grounds in any Tribunal.]

2] The bizarre, teenager-ish, nature of the texts [ the ones between Hunt and Michel are far more cringe-making than those between his Aide and Michel ] and the fact that a Government Minister can be impressed by insincere simpering flattery ' you were SOooo good at the Despatch Box / on Telly ' and such, and the fact that sweeteners are still being offered [ which must mean that they are actually appreciated ! pathetic as they are ] in the form of such as tickets to pop concerts is both nauseating and surprising.

[ Note to journalist looking for a subject : how does the British Establishment system of declaring what inducements you have received make them any less of an inducement to act favourably towards the person/ organization providing you and / or your staff with the inducement ? ? Why should police officers now be banned from accepting such inducements but not politicians and civil servants? ]

3] How can there even be any room for debate as to whether this particular, or any other, Advisor, was or was not acting within the limits of his / their role?

Was he not - as is virtually universal in all office-based employment - given a written job description stating what his functions were and to whom he reports ?

In particular to whom he reports any difficulties that he is encountering ?

And if it is a Department which has quasi-judicial responsibilities then why are Special Advisors not given specific legal advice at the start explaining what that means in terms of the administrative law rules re impartiality / audi alteram partem nemo judex and so on ??

This would appear to be a failing at the very top of the Department not to anticipate an entirely predictable situation.

If even a Law Lord got the rules against bias wrong [In the Pinochet case] then any non-lawyer coming into a situation where such rules inevitably arise should certainly receive training. If he did not receive it and was then sacked for contravening the rules ( that he had not been educated about) that alone would found a case for Unfair Dismissal.

If it is now stated that Mr Smith got in too deep because he was overwhelmed by Mr Michel's persistent importuning - then why did Mr Smith not complain about the importuning to an official in the Department who could have written formally to Mr Michel telling him to in future contact only a named official ( civil servant) in the Department ?

4] If the answer is Mr Smith was simply too young and inexperienced to realize that he needed to refer the matter to a higher level then this example itself raises the issue of just on what basis are Political Advisers chosen?

Accepting entirely that there is a valid role for Ministers to have a political appointee in addition to the whole civil servant set up : what is the reason for choosing 20-somethings who may have good degrees from Oxford but who have zero experience of the world of work ?

Just what advice do they proffer ? Can we see some actual examples of their advice ? ( We are paying for it, after all.) What political issues do they raise exactly which have not occurred to the - generally older and more experienced - politician they serve ?
Surely they are not chosen for their eye-candy / bag carrying qualities ? Heaven forfend.

More Generally, post Hunt:

Accepting that it is perfectly proper for individuals and companies to lobby Government Ministers, seeking to persuade them of the rightness of their case - why does this lobbying ever need to take place outside the context of written submissions to OFFICIALS in the Department concerned, supplemented where necessary by Meetings which are minuted - to protect all concerned against later accusations of 'he said / she said' ?

I accept that there cannot be a ban on social gatherings where individuals may seek to bend the ear of a Minister but if the culture were that this was the exception to the rule the Minister could always make his own burden that much less by fending them off at such gatherings with advice that ' you need to send a memo / fix up a meeting ' and such like.

Thu, 2012-05-31 16:02 — Barrie J (not verified)

For thirty or more years, governments have relied on the public 'perceiving' them to be honest, competent and incorruptible.
Copious 'spin' encouraged this belief and provided a blanket to cloak their venality.
This view has proved to be without any integrity and their exposure as cheats, liars and self interested parasites has now become the accepted and perceived view.
They have been hoist by their own petard but have no idea how to address the problem.
I am sure no one will come out of the Levenson enquiry with their character sullied, yet those of the public who give a t#ss feel they already know the truth of it.
The trough will continue to be filled with taxpayer largesse, our politicians will drink deep and long at it and will continue to sell public policy to whatever interested party provides the biggest bung.
It's what they were born and bred to.

Thu, 2012-05-31 14:01 — anothermutteringidiot (not verified)

I think that is the main point from the latest evidence: that Hunt wasn't merely 'broadly sympathetic' but positively enthusiastic about Murdoch's bid and therefore Cameron was not only wrong in appointing him but shows hypocrisy in relation to removing Cable from overseeing it. If Cable was deemed too biased, how was Hunt not, given his concession that it was 'widely known' that he was sympathetic towards Murdoch's bid before his appointment? Cameron is both disingenuous and incompetent given that context.