Hunt safe for now; Murdoch done for day
Not sure that between them Ed Miliband or Harriet Harman landed the killer blow on Jeremy Hunt. There will be plenty of people wondering why it took 24 hours to dump a special adviser if his actions so obviously went beyond what Jeremy Hunt had sanctioned and way outside what was proper. There wouldn’t be much to discuss, you might think, about the improper nature of releasing market sensitive information to News Corp early.
There will be an appetite amongst News International’s rival newspapers to keep at this story when many of them were so clearly committed to stopping the bid by News Corp for the 61% they didn’t own of BSkyB. All that said Jeremy Hunt’s immediate chances of survival are looking a bit better than I would’ve guessed this morning.
The edict from the PM to Jeremy Heywood to write to special advisers reminding them not to behave like Adam Smith leaves you a little open-jawed. If it is possible that any special adviser thinks it’s proper to write the sort of texts and emails that Adam Smith did they are probably unreachable through normal communications.
Back at Leveson, Rupert Murdoch has described David Cameron crossing the Med to see him on his yacht off a Greek island in 2008 as “part of the democratic process” and “part of the game” – albeit a part that Rupert Murdoch says he can’t completely remember.
Glorious contradiction (to my ears) as Rupert Murdoch, having repeatedly said he never discussed issues for commercial advantage with Prime Ministers of any colour, says, on the BBC licence fee, that he didn’t raise it with David Cameron because he’d been through that again and again with all the previous Prime Ministers and they all said they hated the BBC but carried on giving them the licence fee. Sounds like quite a few lively discussions about his interests which don’t appear in the written statement or this oral testimony.
Earlier Rupert Murdoch grumbled in his testimony that the Times hadn’t bought the MPs expenses information when it was offered to them. Has no-one in his empire told him that Rebekah Brooks at the Sun turned it down as well?
There’s been some debate behind the scenes about whether this evidence session with Rupert Murdoch might continue into tomorrow. Lord Justice Leveson has just ruled that the session will do just that. Rupert Murdoch said “thank you for your consideration” … but a little earlier Dan Sabbagh of The Guardian reports hearing himsay to his team as he left Leveson for the lunch interval: “Let’s get him to get this f***ing thing over with today.” Mr Murdoch started his session categorically denying that he resented the Leveson Inquiry happening at all.
Follow Gary’s blogs via Twitter: @GaryGibbonBlog
There are 17 comments on this post
There seem to be three question Jeremy Hunt hasn’t answered yet:
He says he didn’t know the contents of Smith’s emails until they appeared at Leveson but when he published ‘all’ the relevant papers, didn’t he ask Smith to include what he had sent? They appear to tbe the only ones missing.
He was as biased one way as Vince Cable was the other so why didn’t he distance himself from the whole procedure. He claims he was even handed, but so might Vince have been. He shouldn’t have been put in charge. To say he didn’t say he was a Murdoch cheerleader when he published an article saying just that on his own website treats the public like fools.
As Andrew Neil raised, why weren’t those opposed to the Murdoch takeover given the same information as the Murdochs?
Claiming that he made decisions that went against what Murdoch wanted is not a defence, especially as those decisions only finally halted the Murdoch bid when it became untenable because of the Milly Dowler revelations. Other than that it would have gone through.
Surely the issue is not Hunt but Cameron. If it was necessary to remove Cable because of his anti-Murdoch partiality, then the next incumbent needed to be a beacon of impartiality. The emails discussed and James Murdoch’s evidence indicate not only was Hunt clearly partial and had very recently been close to the Murdoch team, but that Cameron was well aware of it. Surely appalling judgement at best, criminally corrupt at worst.
Cameron, Hunt, the Murdoch’s. They are just unbelievable. They treat the British public with such contempt.
And despite this the British public still keep buying Murdoch’s papers and subscribing to Sky-high tv subscriptions! A good portion of the public also voted in the Hunt and Cameron brigade. Lets hope we have all learned our lesson and don’t repeat the mistake. Otherwise we probably deserve their contempt.
Very true, sue_m, but one thing Murdoch does understand is that a diet of tits-’n-bums, celeb gossip and football will always deliver a huge paying audience for whatever medium supplies it. He’s not been wrong yet.
The fact that, having access to that audience, he can also exercise some degree of influence on its voting behaviour is the trump card which enables him to dine at the top table with any politician he chooses – but of course he wouldn’t ever dream of using that for personal or corporate gain !
The sadness is that our government, nation and democracy can be substantially affected by those factors. But, until the millions stop funding his empire by buying in to his products, it won’t ever change.
RM says that he never sought political favours. But we can see that he did get favours all the same.
So, how come?
Well these intangible phenomena have been well-researched. They’re often called a “mutual exchange of gifts”. So person A does person B a favour. In return, person B feels obliged to return the compliment with a favour. Doesn’t have to be a proportionate gift … any favour that balances out will do.
I imagine most C4 viewers have experience of such beneficial networking. It’s the cement that makes personal contacts work.
The proposition that all transactional relationships are negotiated bargains is for the fairy tale land of micro-economics. Life does not work that way.
As all human-beings know. And we know RM is very human.
So Adam Smith acted on his own in his dealings with News International. Jeremy Hunt was completely unaware of what was going on. Adam Smith & Jeremy Hunt never discussed any of this. ….Just seen a pig flying past my window!
What was that slip of the tongue by a presenter a while back..? Jeremy *unt! No doubt the sacrificed Adam Smith will think it most appropriate now his most ungentlemanly boss has dumped on him. Lets hope he at least got paid well for taking the rap.
For a govt not yet at its two year anniversary it is extraordinary how many scandals there have been. Even more extraordinary is the complete and utter arrogance they show in attempting to ride each one out as if it is all perfectly ok for them to behave that way. Cameron was twisting this way and that when challenged by Ed Milliband. So much for the transparency in govt that he promised – if only we had known then what one of Dave’s promises is worth.
All politicians these days seem like potential or total Hunts.
The tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth…..
I heard enough when i heard Murdoch say many times…’I dont recollect’ or ‘I dont remember’……no doubt words provided by his lawyers.
Then Gordon Brown issues a statement saying ‘the telephone converstion never took place’
As for Hunt, should be sacked for not doing his job of managing his subordinates and for the release of information to Murdoch before issuing the same info to Parliament.
Joe public will at the end of all this, and as a result of the current economic situation and coalition govt mishandling of various issues, that there is little or no respect for anyone in the UK or Europe.
It will be interresting to see the May election results
To suggest that Adam Smith alone was responsible for the feeble DCMS governance around the BSkyB bid surely comes from as reliable source as the suggestion the limited scope of News International’s phone hacking activities lay exclusively within Glenn Mulcaire’s domain. I hope that Leverson pursues it with equal vigour.
Prior to holding ministerial office, Jeremy Hunt’s apparently successful business was based on the provision of educational course products.
In parallel, it is widely known that the Murdoch organisation sees a profitable future (post dead-tree press) in using its established electronic distribution systems (Sky Satellite, Broadband Telecoms etc.) to deliver educational products to schools, colleges and academies world-wide.
It’s not a great leap of the imagination to foresee a post-ministerial situation where Hotcourses (Hunt’s company) products are delivered by Murdoch’s global transmission medium, with monster profits for both – the classic hardware/software marriage.
So maybe Jeremy Hunt’s cunning stunt is just a bit of personal forward-planning ?
tell me more
Simple maths: 2 + 2 = 5 in the politics of commerce.
Murdoch’s astute future view is that education suffers from having too few good teachers – most are just box-ticking jobsworths who enjoy long holidays.
So if you can ‘broadcast’ really good, inspirational teaching to a huge and interactive audience (which with digital broadband technology is already there for all to see), there is a huge market for selling that common service to education providers everywhere, leaving the day-to-day classrooom supervision to lower-paid, less qualified back-up staff.
Expect the new Academies to be the pathfinders in take-up – no surprise there, Michael Gove also worked for Murdoch, remember.
Not only would it be cheaper, all kids would get the benefit of the few good teachers available.
Everybody wins – especially Murdoch, and also Ex-Minister Hunt as the courseware supplier. QED.
(The current crop of teachers will lose out – but that’s no great shakes, they’ve had a good ride – or taken us for one.)
“All politicians these days seem like potential or total Hunts”.
Bravo, Sam! Perhaps “a Jeremy” might join the ranks of “a Sir Anthony”? (Sir Anthony Blunt for you youngsters.)
“It will be interesting to see the May election results.”
Yes, it will, Citizen Smith. Labour are fielding a candidate in our ward for the first time since we’ve lived here (over 20 years). Normally it’s a straight choice between Tory and LibDem, but the LibDems are absent this year, I wonder why?
It will be interesting UKIP and Green Party results