James Forsyth

Boris Johnson’s victory in London is a remarkable achievement. He has won re-election in a Labour-inclined city against the backdrop of a Tory-led government making cuts and a country in recession. He has defied the national trend and, indeed, the trend in the capital itself given the results in the assembly elections. This triumph proves his vote-winning credentials in a way that his victory four years ago, secured in very favourable circumstances (Labour was in a poor state as Gordon Brown stumbled from disaster to disaster), did not. In Downing Street, there’s relief that Boris made it over the line; a Labour victory in London would have made this undeniably Ed Miliband’s night. But Boris will now be a force in the land.

During the government’s recent troubles, Cameroons have talked about the ‘window’ for action that David Cameron will have if Boris does win the mayoralty. But that window got a lot smaller with the news that Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks are appearing at the Leveson Inquiry on Thursday and Friday next week. Their appearances means that, next week, the media won’t be dominated by discussion of the Queen’s speech but by one of Cameron’s biggest misjudgments: his decision to get so close to News International. If there are anywhere near as many text messages between Cameron and Brooks as Peter Oborne alleges then it will be, at best, horribly embarrassing for the Prime Minister.

I doubt that many CoffeeHousers are planning on voting for the independent candidate for Mayor of London, Siobhan Benita. As Leo McKinstry said in this magazine recently, she’s really the civil service, establishment candidate. But fair play to her for standing for election unlike her mentor Gus O’Donnell, Jeremy Heywood or any other members of the permanent governing class. But if any Spectator reader was contemplating voting for Benita, another reminder of why you shouldn’t comes today from Jonathan Ross who has endorsed her on Twitter.

I doubt that many votes will be moved by the split report on hacking of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee. This is not a subject that sets the public's pulse racing. But all this hacking talk does create political problems for David Cameron. First, it obscures his attempt to talk about other things that matter more to the electorate. This was rather summed up yesterday when the News at Ten led on him facing questions in parliament about Jeremy Hunt rather than the speech he had had to cancel about the economy. This is a particular problem given that the next six weeks at least are going to be dominated by the appearances of various Cabinet ministers and politicians at the inquiry.

One line jumped out at me in David Cameron’s Marr interview this morning. When Andrew Marr asked him if he thought we were halfway through the Euro crisis or nearing the end of it, Cameron replied: ‘I don’t think we're anywhere near half way through it.’ Cameron clearly does not believe that any resolution to the crisis is in sight. Given that, as long as the Eurozone crisis rumbles on it is hard to see how the British economy returns to robust growth, this is immensely significant. It does, though, make me wonder if the government’s approach to the crisis should now change.

During the last election campaign, David Cameron repeatedly promised to protect pensioner benefits. In one of the most heated moments in the Prime Ministerial debates, Cameron accused Labour of telling ‘lies’ when they said the Tories would cut things like the winter fuel allowance, the free TV license for the elderly and the like. For this reason, these benefits have, basically, been protected in government despite all the other cuts. But both the Liberal Democrats and Iain Duncan Smith have been arguing behind the scenes that these benefits shouldn’t be protected, that they are not an efficient use of money. It is in this context, that Iain Duncan Smith’s intervention should be seen.

As Pete says, Liam Fox’s piece this morning calling for more supply-side reform is broadly helpful to the Chancellor and has been written with his approval. Strikingly, the former defence secretary — who still has a constituency on the right of the party — goes out of his way to back one of the most contentious Osborne decisions, increasing the British contribution to the IMF. But there is one line in the article that carries with it not the air of helpful advice but menace: ‘It must be understood that further reductions in budgets for security, leaving overseas aid untouched, would be met with fury by most Conservatives.’ This is going to be one of the big battle lines for the next spending review, what happens to the defence budget?

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.