Hunt survives, but at what cost?

Jeremy Hunt escaped the most serious allegation against him with ease yesterday, simply denying the account of his position given by Fred Michel, News Corporation’s head of public affairs.

Hunt’s defence to being biased in deciding that the BSkyB bid could go ahead – provided Sky News were spun off –was that he sought and followed advice from Ofcom, the independent regulator.* The weak points in his defence were a couple of emails from Michel that suggested Hunt had sought to influence Ofcom to give him the advice he wanted.

When Robert Jay put one of these to Hunt (page 44 of the transcript), the Culture Secretary said he had been misrepresented:

Jay: You’re clear then that — I suppose the most damaging line, if that’s the way to put it, in this email [from Michel] is, “He [Jeremy Hunt/Adam Smith] made again a plea to try to find as many legal errors [in an Ofcom document] as we can”; you’re clear that that does not emanate from you?

Hunt:  We know the conversation is with Mr Smith and Mr Smith says it doesn’t emanate from him, so it certainly doesn’t emanate from me.

Later (on page 71), Hunt explained how Michel could have so distorted his views:

Hunt: I could imagine Mr Michel downloading all his views about Ofcom and trying to interpret the sort of odd grunt from Mr Smith as being agreement with what he was saying.

And that was it. I do not know what other evidence there might be that Hunt sought to influence Ofcom, but the Leveson inquiry is certainly not the place to investigate it.

Hunt keeps his job for now, then, although he still has some discrepancies in what he told the House of Commons on 25 April to explain. But he has not emerged well from the publication of texts and emails, or from the way in which he treated Adam Smith, his special adviser. That his evidence yesterday was a defensive performance I can understand, but Hunt came across as lacking character. He did not seem to be Cabinet material. That talk of his being a future Tory leader I never understood, but it seems ridiculous now.

His explanation (transcript page 94) of why he sacked his special adviser was possibly the weakest weaselling I have heard from someone who aspires to be a leader:

Jay:  Did you say to him at about 9.30 in the morning, “Everyone here thinks you need to go”?

Hunt:  Yes.  I wasn’t particularly including myself in that description of “everyone”, I was just talking about — I mean, I think I personally found the whole thing incredibly difficult.  This was someone I’d been working incredibly closely with for nearly six years, someone of whom I had the highest opinion, someone I felt responsible for and someone who is very decent and honourable, and it seemed terribly unfair but the pressure was such that it did seem that it was inevitable.

Jay:  Although the person responsible for his discipline, if I can use that term, was you, not the Civil Service, wasn’t it?

Hunt:  Well, he reported to me, yes.

Jay:  So if something had gone wrong, I’m not saying that it follows that you were responsible for that, it’s not for me to suggest that or put that question to you, but theoretically it fell within your responsibility, didn’t it?

Hunt:  You know, I do have responsibility for what he does. I actually have responsibility for whatever everyone in my department does, but I have more direct responsibility for the people who are my direct reports.

Jay:  Mm.  May I put to you this question, which I’ve obviously seen somewhere: did you originally believe that Mr Smith had done nothing wrong and tell friends that you would resign yourself rather than let a junior official go, or words to that effect?

Hunt:  I did think about my own position, but I — I had conducted the bid scrupulously fairly throughout every stage, and I believed it was possible to demonstrate that, and I decided that it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to go, but it was with an incredibly heavy heart that I felt that we just didn’t have any choice but to accept Adam’s resignation.

When David Cameron has his reshuffle, Hunt has failed to make the case for his retention.

Photograph: PA

*If you ask, Why could Vince Cable not have adopted the same protection against his own bias, the answer is one of degree. Having said that he had “declared war” on Murdoch was more biased against the bid than Hunt’s “sympathy” was in favour.

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye

• The Dawn of Time
• The Fiction of Gatsby
• Why "build more houses" is not The Answer
• Cameron on Gay Marriage Should Make Us Proud
• What Focus Groups Say About Ed Miliband

• julianzzz

  That Hunt seems like a right Jeremy! Mind you it’s nice to see dithering Dave being resolute in the face of (personal) disaster! Georgy boy is doing the Cheshire Cat-Macavity thing, a thin smile, fading into thin air…..

• julianzzz

  Vince Cable is the only one to come out of this with any credit, being humanly flawed in his dealings with inhumanity personified and apologising and resigning when caught out. If Jeremy Hunt had a fraction of Vince Cable’s honesty he would have volunteered to go months ago. I shall be watching Jeremy’s career from now on, if he is eased into a nice position after the hoo haa has died down, we shall know that he is definately acting as a fire-wall for Osborne and Cameron!

• 1pingu

  This is not just a job for the boys situation.The fever pitch coming from Hunt and Osborne as the deal was almost done, suggests a huge pile of cash at the end of it,as well as having the backing of Murdoch forever more. This lot will not leave without a fight because they are in to deep, it is more than collusion, the previous government colluded with NI up to it’s neck.For me this is more about cash being paid to deliver the goods for Murdoch

• ennuye

  Hunt should have gone.  If he knew what Smith was saying he is guilty, if he didn’t he was incompetent.

• timberanddamp

  Of course Jeremy Hunt was bias in favour of Murdoch, he should be removed from office immediately as he is wholly discredited, get him out, before his next disastrous, fully supported by his colleagues and public school chums decision, he should have as a matter of honour resigned, failing this, Cameron should have sacked him, not given him his full support, the same as he gave to Andy Coulson, Rebecca Brooks, and uncle tom Cobbly and all, these correct decisions from the Prime Minister are expected from the country, not the failure to act, and indecisiveness, back tracking, and dithering, that takes place from him without exception, there is only so many times you can go to the well Mr Cameron, failure to act with propriety, on cause with effect will eventually destroy your own credibility, right is right, wrong is wrong, whatever way its dressed up, or mitigated, The Eton, and Yale code of the 18th and 19th centuries have been overtook by the Internet, didn”t you hear ? Jeremy Hunt should borrow Rebecca Brooks horse, as Cameron did, and head for them, there hills, not Witney, in the Cotswolds.

• timberanddamp

  I wonder how the Blairs viewed the life sentence given out to their courageous mate Mubarak, this morning, and Gaddafi last year, it looks like all of his old mates are falling of their perches, its getting a little bit hot at the top, just needs a power shift in Kazakhstan, to really light the fire under him, Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to decieve. 

• Kugelschreiber

  It seems this govt can do ANYTHING & still get away with it, even break the law (as when they refused to release the Health Bill Risk Register to the public, even when the courts had ordered them to 3 TIMES!

  Shouldn’t we be getting a little worried about this?

• timberanddamp

  If this chinless no nothing David Copperfield type of fagging which is being displayed by Jeremy Hunt in the Following his Public School mentor James Steerforth, (David Cameron) it would be even more absurd that it already is, his repeating under weak cross examination of Quasi Judicial response, was pathetic, Did Alastair Cambell prepare him for this farce of an Inquiry, Leveson is becoming a joke and a public relations farce.