Conservative party

In his statement to the House of Commons, I heard no answer from Jeremy Hunt to the most serious question about his handling of the whole News Corp bid: how did Frederic Michel appear to know what Hunt would say to the Commons before he said it? If he was being given a steer on what was to be said or any advance sight then it is hard to see how Hunt can remain in post. This is not a matter that can be dealt with by the resignation of a special adviser. Hunt’s defence — and the Prime Minister’s defence of him — is that the Leveson process must be allowed to play out. But if Hunt cannot answer this question when he faces the inquiry, his position will become untenable.

There’s been a resignation this morning, but it is not Jeremy Hunt’s. Instead, it’s his special adviser Adam Smith. Smith’s departure before Hunt’s Commons statement at 12:30 is designed to put a firebreak around the Secretary of State. In his resignation statement, Smith declares that ‘the content and extent of my contact was done without authorisation from the Secretary of State’. This provides Hunt with his response to any questions about the nature of the text messages between Smith and Frederic Michel. But special adviser appointments are very personal. Secretaries of State talk constantly to their special advisers and it is remarkable that Smith and Hunt never discussed what he was telling Michel.

If anyone doubted just how dramatic the Murdochs' evidence to Leveson was going to be, then the five hours of testimony today have settled that argument. In the process, they have also turned Jeremy Hunt into the political equivalent of damaged goods. It is now hard to see how he can be Secretary of State when the Olympics open let alone Tory leader one day. The emails that have just been released show just how deep a hole Hunt is in. He and his special adviser seem to have been rather reckless in their interactions with Murdoch and his representatives, they have certainly opened themselves up to criticism. It should be noted, though, that the accuracy of Michel’s emails may well be challenged by Hunt when he appears before Leveson.

The Eurocrisis may be nagging at our political class, but it's got nothing on the Leveson inquiry. Today has been James Murdoch’s turn in the hotseat, and it has produced some of the most explosive testimony so far. There was the claim that, contrary to previous Tory insinuations, Murdoch Jr did chat about the BSkyB bid with David Cameron at that notorious Christmas Dinner in 2010. But topping that is the revelation that News Corp had all sorts of contact with Jeremy Hunt about the bid, mainly via their head of public affairs Fred Michel, as it was simmering along in 2010 and 2011. It doesn’t look good for Hunt.

Another set of bad notices for Cameron & Co. this morning, chief among them the Public Administration Select Committee’s report into government strategy. It basically says that there is none: short-term fripperies are indulged at the expense of long-term objectives. Or as the report puts it in one of its most trenchant passages, ‘We have little confidence that policies are informed by a clear, coherent strategic approach, informed by an assessment of the public's aspirations and their perceptions of the national interest.’ This is a diagnosis that many will agree with, partially if not in full. Most governments could do with more long-term thinking, let alone one that is split between two parties.