GUEST POST The Lib Dems achieved a wide and remarkably deep success

Alex Folkes looks at the performance of Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens in last week's general election.

The main attack line being levelled at Labour following their success on Thursday is that their majority is broad but shallow. Corbynites point to the larger number of votes the party achieved under the former leader, whilst Tories highlight the lower share of the vote that the new government won.

Both of these are to ignore the key fact that Labour won just about the largest majority it could. And it did so through rigorous targeting. In the last few days of the campaign there were complaints from non-target seats that they were being denied access to the party canvassing software unless they moved wholesale to a designated target seat. 

Such centralised planning might have been excessive - and there were a few seats which were won despite being locked out in this way - but an election campaign is not a democracy. 

To be at its most effective, it needs to be brutal at times. The aim of the Labour campaign was to ensure the biggest number of seats, even if many of them were won by small margins. Inevitably there would be surplus votes piled up in safe seats, but the party tried its best to send activists from these to more marginal areas.

So Labour may have stored up some problems for the 2029 election, but they will (rightly) be happy with the outcome.

What is interesting is the contrast with the Liberal Democrats. Like Labour, the Lib Dems won just about as many seats as they could reasonably think possible. With the exception of Godalming and Ash - where Jeremy Hunt spent both all of his time and a considerable amount of his own money - there was no seat that the party failed to win where they were tipped by at least four of the MRP polls and many others which were much more of a shock.

But, in contrast to Labour’s broad but shallow outcome, the Lib Dems have a wide but remarkably deep success. Their 72 MPs have an average majority of 8267. Of course, this figure masks some seats which were won by just a small amount. But there are only five Lib Dem MPs sitting on majorities of less than 2000. The days of there being ‘no such thing as a safe Lib Dem seat’ are behind us.

That this success was due, in part, to the huge amount of tactical voting that took place is undeniable. But the cushion given to Lib Dem MPs by such votes and a hugely effective central campaign means that, even if many voters return to their ‘natural’ party of choice in the future and turnout improves, most should be able to survive so long as they work their patch well. 

The party won’t have the problems inherent in being a junior partner in government, as they did in 2015, and under Ed Davey they seem better at articulating a policy message that resonates with the public. The test will be whether they are able to use their new Parliamentary strength to further that.

The Greens will feel they had a similar outcome. Their four MPs were elected from the four target seats and all have a majority of 5000 or more (the average being 9,046). In addition, the party came second in a further 42 seats and, whilst many of those second places are quite distant, there is a considerable amount to build on for 2029. 

Crucially for the Greens, in none of their almost 50 held or second place seats are they battling the Lib Dems. If the next election turns out to see a lot more ‘protest’ votes against a still unpopular Tory Party and a Labour government which is perceived as under-achieving, then both parties should be set fair.

Alex Folkes is an international election observer and former campaign manager for the Liberal Democrats and single-issue campaigns.

This time the Lib Dem leadership kept its discipline during the election campaign

Embed from Getty Images

The Liberal Democrats' targeting strategy was an extraordinary success. I believe Jeremy Hunt's Godalming and Ash was the only seat to evade us.

Those who devised the strategy and communicated the rationale for it to the membership deserve congratulation.

In some quarters there was clearly a worry that the membership would lose discipline and start campaigning in their own constituencies rather than work in the target seats they were asked to.

But the striking contrast with 2019 this time round was that the Lib Dem leadership kept its discipline.

In retrospect - and Michael Mullaney said so on this blog immediately after the election - the change from backing a second referendum to a policy of revoking Brexit was a mistake. But it was approved enthusiastically enough by that autumn's party conference.

That was not true of the decision to allow Boris Johnson the general election he craved, which was described by Nick Harvey as "a catastrophic mistake".

Nor was it true of Jo Swinson's declaration at our campaign launch for the 2019 election that she could be the next prime minister.

And our targeting strategy in 2019? Liberator 397, the September 2019 issue, asked:

Are some people getting carried away by trying to extrapolate the European election results into Westminster terms and then wondering how randomly first-past-the-post might work with four parties in contention?

A briefing to peers indicated a startlingly high number of seats shown as potentially winnable in some scenarios if such trends continued. This has led to some seats suddenly being judged winnable that look, to put it politely, speculative.

These include Battersea (8 per cent), Chipping Barnet (5.4 per cent and a close Tory-Labour marginal too) and even more remarkably Cardiff North (3.3 per cent).

I think the answer to that question was yes.

Five years later it's wonderful how far we have come thanks to a leader with good judgement and a consistent strategy that has been properly communicated to members.

It's still a month to polling day, but the Conservative Party's civil war has already kicked off

From the Guardian this evening:

Jeremy Hunt has warned the Conservatives that elections are won from the centre ground, amid fears that the party could lurch to the right in response to Nigel Farage’s return to frontline politics.

In an interview with the Guardian, the chancellor suggested the party must remain a “broad church” despite concerns that Reform UK could cost the Tories as many as 60 seats at the general election.

It's several years too late, but at least Hunt has said something about his party's rapid journey to a strange planet many light years away. 

But Margaret Thatcher called moderate Tories "wets" for a reason. 

In his Guardian interview, says the paper, Hunt:

hinted that the party could promise to try to “reform” the ECHR instead, rather than withdraw entirely.

“We need to be able to have control of our borders. That has to be decided by elected politicians, accountable to voters through parliament, not by foreign courts,” he said. 

“You’ll need to wait on [the manifesto] but I think what we would all like to see is reform of the ECHR.”

This concedes three-quarters of the Reform case before any debate has begun. He's going to have to fight harder than that if he wants to save a recognisable Conservative Party.

Jeremy Hunt's voters know the Lib Dems are his main challengers but haven't heard of Ed Davey

Embed from Getty Images

News from the Blue Wall. Luke Tryl from More in Common writes in the Guardian about the findings from a focus group of voters in the in the new Godalming and Ash seat, which Jeremy Hunt will be fighting at the next election.

His conclusion?

Our focus group last night suggests the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, has his work cut out – not just to bolster vulnerable colleagues but even to win back voters in his own back yard.

And the findings on the Liberal Democrats, the challengers to the Tories in this constituency, are encouraging in a rather backhanded way:

Nor was there any love for his opposite number, with the group saying Keir Starmer wasn’t the man for the moment. 

But that lack of enthusiasm might not matter - the group were well aware that Labour were not the main opposition locally, and many were tempted instead to vote Liberal Democrat. 

Indeed, it was striking that even though fewer than half knew Ed Davey’s name, they still thought there was a good chance the Lib Dems would topple Hunt.

This finding is of a piece with those opinion polls that show the Lib Dems struggling to get into double figures even when the Tories have fallen to below 20 per cent.

Given our plan to fight the next general election as though it were a series of by-elections, some would argue that it does not matter. 

Or they would say that Davey's profile is bound to rise during that campaign. After all, one reason for the brief outbreak of Cleggmania in 2010 was that few voters had noticed him before then.

But I think it does matter. Local elections show that, in areas where the Lib Dems are not active, our core vote is tiny. We are back to being a leaflet-delivering cult.

Davey, because of his own experiences, is passionate about the need to improve social care. And that passion has led to a policy we can shout about. For a Fair Deal, the document we adopted at this autumn's conference, say we will:

Ensure no one has to sell their home to pay for care by introducing free personal care based on the model introduced by the Liberal Democrats in government in Scotland in 2002.

That is a policy that would lift an enormous burden from those who are caring for elderly relatives. As well as all the work and emotional strain of caring, you face a financial lottery.

So if we are convinced that this policy is affordable, let's hear Ed talk about it. I think the voters would take notice.

Sarah Dyke and Ed Davey say Save Our Cider

Embed from Getty Images

During the Somerton and Frome by-election campaign Sarah Dyke and Ed Davey visited Burrow Hill Cider Farm and listened to the concerns of its owners.

It must have been a memorable visit because the two have written to Jeremy Hunt calling on him to cancel a planned tax increase on cider.

Somerset Live explains:

Somerset cider farmers are facing a crisis following the introduction of a tax hike on their products which could wipe out thousands of jobs and acres of orchards. ...

From August 1, the cider industry is facing a hammer blow tax hike, the Lib Dems say, due to the government’s reform of alcohol duty. It means an 11p hike on alcohol duty for a 500ml bottle of traditional cider with a typical 6.5% ABV.

And quotes Sarah Dyke:

"I will make it my mission to stand up for the rural communities in the West Country and give them the voice that so many of this region's Conservative MPs have completely failed to do. That starts by telling the Chancellor that if he cares about the cider industry here in the West of England, he must get rid of this damaging levy."

Stunning victory for Lib Dems in Jeremy Hunt's constituency

Waverley is one of those local authorities whose whereabouts defeats me - I tend to confuse it with Waveney and think it's in East Anglia.

In fact, it is in Surrey and Godalming and Farnham are its largest towns. Much of it falls into the South West Surrey constituency, currently represented in parliament by the chancellor Jeremy Hunt.

Last night there was a by-election in what has traditionally been a save Conservative ward - see Andrew Teale's preview for the figures going back 20 years - of Waverley Borough Council, Chiddingfold and Dunsfold.

And the contest resulted in a stunning Liberal Democrat gain, with the party receiving two-thirds of the votes cast. Congratulations to David Busby and his team.

South West Surrey, currently was briefly in Lib Dem sights as a target after Sue Doughty won neighbouring Guildford in 2001. Looking at David's result, it may be again.

This morning came news of a second Lib Dem local by-election gain yesterday - this one really is in East Anglia.

Davis Sayers took the Gaywood North and Central ward of Norfolk County Council from the Conservatives. Congratulations to all concerned.

Six of the Best 870

Nicole Goodkind reports on the scandal of Trump's El Paso detention camp for children: "'In my 22 years of doing visits with children in detention, I have never heard of this level of inhumanity,' said Holly Cooper, co-director of the University of California, Davis' Immigration Law Clinic."

Back in 2016, Ylan Q. Mui examined the tangled subject of Boris Johnson's US citizenship and tax liabilities there.

Working for Jeremy Hunt was the worst three years of my life, says Luke Turner.

Lee Brackstone mourns the early death of Gordon Burn, who would have given us "another half-dozen books that may have helped us understand the present moment: the unravelling of celebrity culture, which was always Gordon's lodestar subject".

Tim Worthington nominates 12 radio programmes that deserve to be given a proper release.

Natalie Simpson tells us how not to walk the Cumbria Way.

Lord Bonkers' Diary: Pelted with sharpened carrots

Knowing what a wise old bird Lord Bonkers is, I would not wager much against Boris Johnson's career ending just as he foretells.

Pelted with sharpened carrots

There is nothing the people of London enjoy more than a good Cabinet reshuffle. From early morning the crowds gather to see the fun: flower girls, costermongers (whatever they are) and scruffy urchins all assemble at the gates of Downing Street (in my young day you could walk into Number 10 and demand pot of tea, but times change and not for the better) to observe the comings and goings.

If a particularly juicy reshuffle is expected then temporary grandstands may be erected and, depending on the season, sellers of ice cream or hot roast chestnuts do a roaring trade.

I joined the throng this morning. How we laughed when we heard Grayling had been made Chairman of the Conservative Party! Then we laughed because it was announced when he had not been. The strange Gavin Williamson was pelted with sharpened carrots and Jeremy Hunt was roundly booed.

I did not spot Boris Johnson today, but I remain convinced that his career will end with his being running down Whitehall in polka-dot boxer shorts pursued by an angry mob.

Lord Bonkers was Liberal MP for Rutland South West, 1906-10.

Previously in Lord Bonkers' Diary

• Mooning practice on the village green
• Defying the Sprout Police

George Osborne first and 10 (whatever that means)

Last week the Guardian told us:

George Osborne wants to have an NFL franchise based permanently in London within the next five years to confirm the city’s status as the “sporting capital of the world”. 

The chancellor met with NFL executives, team owners and former players at Downing Street as the Miami Dolphins prepared to face the New York Jets at Wembley stadium on Sunday. 

Osborne said he would “love to have a team here based in the UK playing in the NFL” and he believed Britain was making steps towards that goal. “The real prize, the real touchdown for London, would be to get a team based here,” he said.

My first reaction is that Osborne should have more important things to do with his time. Bringing an NFL franchise to London is the sort of task that should consume a wacky backbencher, not the chancellor.

But this enthusiasm of his does confirm that he is not a traditional Conservative. If he were, he would be worrying about how to persuade more children to take up rugby or cricket,

To someone of Osborne's cast of mind, America is the future. His enthusiasm for elected mayors, a role unknown in British local government until recently, confirms this.

As I argued in a recent post on a cricket club in David Cameron's constituency, this sets Osborne apart from his prime minister.

But already this enthusiasm for all things American looks dated.

For the group of Tories who produced Britannia Unchained - Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore, Liz Truss - the future is Singapore.

And for the former Liberal Democrat MP Jeremy Browne in his Race Plan, the future is China. That dictatorship makes an odd beacon for 'authentic liberalism'.

Still, Jeremy is not alone. Today Jeremy Hunt expressed the hope that, thanks to cuts in welfare, we would all have to work as hard as the Chinese.

Who knows where the future will pop up next?

Lords reform: Jeremy Hunt may have cost the Conservatives the next election

Because they tend to do well in parts of the country where population is growing and badly in areas where it is shrinking, the redrawing of constituency boundaries helps the Conservatives. Because that redrawing does not happen very often, Conservatives find themselves fighting on a political battlefield that slopes against them.

They feel strongly about this. I have heard Sir John Major complain that the boundaries robbed him of a decisive victory in 1992, with the result that his majority had evaporated by the end of his time in office.

To an extent this is the Conservatives' own fault - Labour ran rings around them at the hearings last time there was a major redrawing of boundaries. And the argument that all local quirks and traditional loyalties must be sacrificed to abstract notions of fairness is an odd one in the mouth of a Conservative, but that is how they feel.

So the Conservatives wrote a radical redrawing of constituency boundaries, with little room for variation in size, written into the Coalition agreement.

This would have given them a much better chance of winning an overall majority at the next election.But it looks as though they will not get it after all.

Because an article in tomorrow's Guardian says:

Nick Clegg is expected to announce next week he has been forced to abandon Lords reform in the face of implacable Conservative backbench opposition that David Cameron has been unable to overcome. 

It is a bitter second blow to Clegg, who has already been forced to swallow abandoning electoral reform for the Commons, leaving the government's democratic reform agenda looking relatively threadbare

The same report points us to an article on the paper's website in which Chris Rennard says:

If the Lords is not to be given more legitimacy, then the case for reducing the number of MPs (and increasing the proportion of the payroll vote in the Commons) will also be weakened.

Quite. And if the Conservatives are going to pick and choose which parts of the Coalition agreement they are to support they can hardly complain if we Liberal Democrats now begin doing the same.

The Conservatives' willingness to throw away the redrawing of constituency boundaries, and thus greatly diminish their chances of a majority at the next election, is odd to say the least.

It strengthens my belief that their backbenches are simply ungovernable. As I have argued before, One of the Coalition parties is not up to government - and it's not the Lib Dems and David Cameron is the new John Major.

Some Conservatives have principled objections to reform of the Lords - or at least the reforms currently proposed. (They are, after all, Conservatives.) Others have no wish to lose the probability of an agreeable retirement job if things go wrong at the next election.

But the argument I heard most often was that the Tory backbenches were furious that the Liberal Democrats had not supported Jeremy Hunt in the Commons vote of no confidence over his conduct during News Corporation's takeover of BSkyB.

It is not so long since a man who let a young subordinate take the rap for his own misconduct would have aroused the ire of the knights of the shires. Now the Tory backbenches hero is a silly man with a silly haircut. And they are prepared to sacrifice their chances at the next election to support him.

Jeremy Hunt escapes independent investigation

"Despite Nick Clegg's decision that Liberal Democrat MPs would abstain, Conservatives easily saw off the challenge by a majority of 290 to 252," says the Daily Telegraph.

Surely that should read "Because of Nick Clegg's decision..."?

Who will be impressed by a Lib Dem abstention on Jeremy Hunt?

The answer, I fear, is probably no one.

A story on the Independent website tells us:

Nick Clegg tonight told his MPs not to back the Tories in Parliamentary vote calling for Jeremy Hunt to be referred to the ministerial standards watchdog. 

Labour will tomorrow submit a motion in the House of Commons calling for Mr Hunt to face an investigation by Sir Alex Allen, the Prime Minister’s adviser on ministers’ interests, following criticism over his handling of the BSkyB takeover. 

Mr Clegg’s aides said he had taken the decision not to back his coalition partners after “repeatedly” telling David Cameron that Mr Hunt should face an inquiry by Sir Alex.

That sounds forceful from Nick. But if at the end of it he is ignored and responds by telling his MPs to abstain, he is in danger of looking weak.

I am struggling to see whom this abstention will impress. Certainly not liberal-minder voters who care about the power of News Corp - and you would think they are just the sort of people we would want to vote Liberal Democrat.

At the start of the month I said that we should vote with Labour on this matter, and I still believe that today.

The Independent reports by suggesting:

It is still possible that some Lib Dem MPs might go further and back the Labour motion but senior Liberal Democrats said they were confidence that the majority would obstain.

Some Lib Dem votes for that motion will cheer the party's activists, but now it will do nothing to make our position look coherent.

Observer: Nick Clegg refuses to back Jeremy Hunt

Last night I wrote a post saying that the Liberal Democrats should vote with Labour if there is a Commons division on the conduct of Jeremy Hunt.

An article in tomorrow's Observer suggests that this may happen.

Toby Helm and Daniel Boffey write:

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, has refused to give unequivocal backing to Jeremy Hunt over his handling of the BSkyB takeover controversy as senior Liberal Democrats broke ranks to demand a new investigation into whether the culture secretary has broken the ministerial code. ...

Labour will call a Commons vote on whether Hunt should be investigated, claiming he misled parliament about his role in News Corp's bid for BSkyB and failed to keep his adviser Adam Smith, who quit over his contacts with Murdoch executives, under control. 

A Lib Dem spokesman refused to say whether Clegg would order his MPs to back Cameron. "No decision has been taken," he said.

They go on to name three Liberal Democrat parliamentarians who have publicly criticised Hunt: Adrian Sanders, Lorely Burt and Matthew Oakeshott.

The Lib Dems should vote with Labour on Jeremy Hunt

Labour, says BBC News, is to force a Commons division on whether Jeremy Hunt broke the ministerial code.

The Liberal Democrats, of course, should vote with Labour on this.

If you want to know why, read Martin Bright on the Spectator Coffee House blog:

Has there ever been such a woeful performance at a public inquiry as Jeremy Hunt’s yesterday? There has rarely been a frontline politician as vain and primping as the Culture Secretary and it is hard to imagine one with so little self-knowledge.

And:

It is now beyond question that Jeremy Hunt was batting for the Murdochs. The sight of an elected politician fawning to the hereditary heir to a billionaire media mogul is repellent enough

And:

In keeping Jeremy Hunt in post, the Prime Minister has decided to back a man who used his young special adviser as a human shield, ratted on a Cabinet colleague when he was the victim of a newspaper sting and then has the audacity to represent himself as a man of principle.

Six of the Best 251

Congratulations to Lib Dem blogger Mark Cole on becoming Chairman of Ceredigion County Council.

Alex's Archives prepares to fight Iain Duncan Smith's reported intention to expand the government's mandatory work programme: "At the moment long-term unemployed people are likely to be out-competed for jobs by those who are recently unemployed and therefore job-ready. In a period of high unemployment beating unemployed people around the head with a stick may give some form of sadistic pleasure, but it is unlikely to do a great deal for either their self-worth or the unemployment statistics."

Ceasefire is rightly outraged that Talha Ahsan, Babar Ahmad, Gary McKinnon, Richard O'Dwyer and other UK citizens are facing the real prospect of extradition to the US for alleged crimes committed in the UK for which most have been detained for years without charge or evidence.

"Beleaguered Culture Minister Jeremy Hunt is in the midst of another 'omnishambles' which threatens to open David Cameron’s Government up to further accusations of cronyism and dodgy backstairs deals with lobbyists and Tory insiders," writes archaeology blogger Mortimer of the 'HMS Victory scandal'.

Whirled Peas sat through the Eurovision Song Contest so you didn't have to.

"So now I’m off to search eBay for some old editions of Enid Blyton tales — Dicks and Fannies and all." Free-Range Kids is against the bowdlerising of old children's books.

Who has won my Boris Johnson finger puppet quiz?

Good evening from the Ballroom at Bonkers Hall. It is used for numerous functions throughout the year - that's a lot of balls - but surely none as glamorous as tonight's ceremony?

The cream of Rutland society is mingling with the great and good of the Liberal Democrats. On the stairs, the elves of Rockingham Forest are attempting to share a joke with Sarah Teather. Through the French windows I can see Meadowcroft chasing stray guests off his lawn with a broom.

In a few minutes the winner of the quiz will be drawn from the correct entries received. Lord Bonkers has decided to ask Vince Cable to make the draw: someone suggested asking Jeremy Hunt, but his Lordship replied that he wanted someone he trusted to be impartial.

But first the answers to the questions:

1. Which magazine did Boris Johnson edit between 1999 and 2005? - The Spectator
2. Which Westminster constituency did he sit for between 2001 and 2008? - Henley
3. What did Johnson call "an inverted pyramid of piffle"? - Accusations of an affair with Petronella Wyatt
4. Which city did he describe as "too full of drugs, obesity, underachievement and Labour MPs"? - Portmouth
5. Which London Borough of Camden primary school did both Boris Johnson and the Miliband brothers attend? - Primrose Hill

Now Vince Cable is rummaging among the correct emails that have been tipped into Lord Bonkers' second-best top hat. And the winner he has picked is...

Jim Kelleher

Congratulations to him and thanks to everyone who entered.

Six of the Best 245

"Cameron started his premiership by placing great emphasis upon adherence to the Ministerial Code as a mechanism to deliver higher standards of behaviour in Government. His refusal to refer the Hunt case to Alex Allan to investigate whether the Code has been breached looks hypocritical." Alex's Archives ponders the latest development in the case of Jeremy Hunt.

John Pugh, Lib Dem MP for Southport, calls for Vince Cable to be made Chancellor on PoliticsHome.

Fleet Street Fox writes on the inexorable rise in the cost of the Olympics: "None of this was mentioned in 2005. Then it was all property prices, David Beckham in a suit and 10-year-old children saying they wanted to win a gold medal."

It's worse than that. On Ceasefire Ashok Kumar reveals a consistent pattern of the Games being used to restructure the host city to the exclusion of its working class and ethnic minority residents.

Go Litel Blog, Go... samples the gentler sporting fare of county cricket at Trent Bridge. But there is always Steve Kirby: "In his maturity, his act is now more like a wrestler in the Mick McManus mould, prowling the boundary and engaging in pantomime banter with the crowd. He did shape up to throw the ball at the batsman a couple of times, but you know he isn’t actually going to do it these days."

In other news, Andrew Millard proves that you are almost certainly descended from Edward III.

Jeremy Hunt "on the brink"

Another story from this morning's Independent:

Jeremy Hunt today stands accused of misleading Parliament over his dealings with the Murdoch empire, an offence which would trigger the Culture Secretary's immediate resignation. 

As the Prime Minister battled to save his minister, an Independent on Sunday investigation has established that Mr Hunt appears to have misled the Commons on three occasions in his handling of News Corp's takeover bid of BSkyB. 

In what could turn out to be the final blow to the under-fire Culture Secretary, a letter written by his permanent secretary, Jonathan Stephens, seen by this newspaper, challenges Mr Hunt's version of events.

Jeremy Hunt: A better idea for Nick Clegg

Today's Guardian quotes Nick Clegg as saying of Jeremy Hunt:

"Unless anyone has got a better idea I think having a judge where a cabinet minister needs to give evidence under oath is about the best context to really get down to find out what happened or what didn't happen."

I have a better idea: let's ask Sir Alex Allan, the prime minister's independent adviser on the ministerial code, to investigate the affair. That's what he is for.

It's not a terribly original idea. The same Guardian report quotes Simon Hughes and Lorely Burt as calling for Sir Alex to be called in.

Hell, the idea has even occurred to Ed Miliband.

What does surprise me is that Cameron and Clegg thought that Lord Leveson would fall in with their plans. He is clearly his own man and determined that his inquiry will be seen to be independent of government or anyone else. What made them think for a moment that he would agree to rewrite his programme of witnesses to suit their and Jeremy Hunt's convenience?

If I can see that from far-off Market Harborough, why couldn't they see it from Downing Street?

Lord Leveson puts Jeremy Hunt in his place

From the Guardian website this evening:

Lord Justice Leveson has rebuffed the government by making clear it was not his inquiry's role to rule if the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has breached the ministerial code by his handling of the News Corp bid for BSkyB. 

The firm refusal from the Leveson inquiry is embarrassing to David Cameron, who claimed on Wednesday that the inquiry was the best forum to determine whether Hunt, as well as his special adviser Adam Smith, had handled the bid in a partisan manner. Instead, Hunt may now have to face a separate, and potentially more painful, investigation by an independent watchdog set up to police the behaviour of ministers. 

Leveson's spokesman also denied claims by the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, that he was going to bring forward the date of Hunt's appearance at the inquiry so his case could be fast-tracked. Clegg said: "I think we've already got an agreement Jeremy Hunt will go the Leveson pretty quick." Leveson's spokesman said this was inaccurate.