I know it feels a bit like shooting fish in a barrel - but I really do have to marvel at the double standards and sheer stupidity that have been on display in British politics over the last week.

I'm referring, of course, to the Matt Hancock/Isabel Oakeshott WhatsApp business - a controversy that raises serious questions about the state of politics, the press, and the relationship between the two.

Neither Mr Hancock nor Ms Oakeshott emerge with any credit whatsoever from this political omnishambles - and I suspect it might prove terminal for the former health secretary's media ambitions.

To start with Ms Oakeshott. I really dislike the definition of her as a journalist because she doesn't seem to operate under any of the standards of journalism that I or any of my colleagues have ever come across.

The first rule of journalism is that you don't reveal your sources. Well that went out of the window the minute Ms Oakeshott handed over her WhatsApp records to the Daily Telegraph.

Another basic standard is that you don't break your word to a contact. Mr Hancock is adamant that she promised to only use the messages for research for his book - yet she then handed them over to a team of hacks to go through them with a fine toothcomb.

So Ms Oakeshott allegedly broke her word. But really Mr Hancock was incredibly stupid not to realise that was almost certain to happen.

Ms Oakeshott isn't so much a journalist these days as a political activist who uses her undoubted writing talents to get her views across.

Given her well-documented opposition to all covid lockdowns and her record of upsetting people in the past (Chris Huhne, Vicky Pryce, and David Cameron to name but a few) what the hell did Mr Hancock think she would do with his personal WhatsApp messages when he gave them to her?

What is also surprising is that so many politicians actually put so many really private thoughts on a platform like WhatsApp.

Most people like to have a gossip with friends or close colleagues - but how many commit their most private and gossipy comments to posterity?

When it first came in, we were advised to be very careful about what we wrote on email - clearly a warning Mr Hancock and his colleagues did not feel applied to WhatsApp!

As I said at the start, all this controversy is likely to have an effect on Mr Hancock's ambitions to follow in the footsteps of Michael Portillo and Ed Balls and develop a new media career.

They have both shown themselves to be very accomplished - and popular - television personalities. But both of them fell into their current roles after losing their seats.

Mr Hancock seems to have taken the decision to seek that kind of role in life despite having what should be a safe seat.

Because he never really looked to be in serious trouble with his constituency party until he decided to take several weeks off his day job to earn a sackful of money in the Australian jungle.

He might have been in a position to eventually make a front bench comeback - but he decided to take another pathway to maintaining his profile.

His jungle trip may have been lucrative, but it did him few favours in the court of public opinion.

And the same could be said of his Pandemic Diaries book and his decision to get Ms Oakeshott to ghost-write it for him.

Matt Hancock now knows his political career has just months to run. Has he realised yet that his celebrity career may never get off the ground?