Cameron and Hunt…there is no rational explanation for the Newscorp decision

On the Marr show this morning, Jeremy Hunt gave a master class on how to be deliberately obtuse while appearing bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. And Andrew Marr duly fulfilled his BBC contract in allowing him to get away with it.

I’ve had my doubts about Marr as an interviewer for some time now. He is one of the best TV historians we have, but in the contemporary arena he leaves a lot to be desired. I used to think this betrayed a pro-Left bias (especially when he let Brown off the hook in October 2009 by asking the Prime Minister whether he took ‘prescription painkillers’) but now I think that Andrew is merely hemmed in by the BBC terror of being thought controversial – aka, an organisation producing great journalism.

My email inbox is, a week after The Slog revealed some of Hunt’s past, amusingly replete with former fellow-students of the Culture Secretary keen to express their dislike of a man they clearly perceived to be oleaginous. And as Marr tried to grab hold of the Minister today, it was obvious that Jeremy Hunt had greased himself up jolly well before going on-air.

There’s widespread concern about Newscorp being given an easy ride, Marr observed. Well you know, countered Jeremy, in the end I’ve taken a very unpopular decision….as if to say, ‘wasn’t that brave of me?’

It would’ve been easy to demolish that. The decision was highly popular with Tory Central Office, Ten Downing Street, and Newscorp. There was also the small (but highly irregular) matter of ‘giving James Murdoch more time’ – why? – and not referring the bid to the MMC automatically. But Marr left all those questions unsaid.

Ah but, Andrew said, isn’t the track record of Murdoch one of signing papers and then reneging?

Ignoring this statement of the obvious –  and instead giving his preferred answer – Hunt said he was all for diversity and, by the way, as a result of this arrangement, Rupert Murdoch would have less control of the Sky News part of the operation.

The faux-innocent beam the Culture Secretary gave out as he said this had all the charm and credibility of Jeffrey Archer talking about the spots on his back. The main blemishes therein are:

1. A Murdoch cypher could buy enough shares over time to give Newscorp control back relatively easily

2. The issue is not the news bias of a minority part of the Sky offering: the issue is the share of total viewing market the BSkyB takeover would give Murdoch

3. As Marr had already pointed out, this sort of legalistic ‘hiving off’ bollocks has never stopped Murdoch from getting his own way in the past; and finally

4. The Government has just given the go-ahead for an organisation mired in corruption and illegal privacy-invasion charges to become the main competitor to the BBC. Is there any basis on which that can be justified?

As I write, negative articles about the go-ahead decision for the BSkyB takeover are appearing around the world, in every thinking newspaper from the Chicago Tribune to Le Figaro. I pointed this out to a senior Cabinet Minister last week. He has cut off all communication as a result of it.

In the recent past, the media have referred to ‘the Westminster Bubble’. David Cameron must be careful he doesn’t do a Gordon, and retreat into the Downing Street Bunker. Once in a bunker, it can be the Devil’s own job to play yourself out again.