48 replies to this topic

[Northern Sol]

Dave was dead clear - He was all about "Change".

Which is easy to do when you've been in opposition for 13 years, rather trickier when you were actually a member of the last government but one.

[Bulletproof]

sorry, i didn't articulate it well enough. it seems that he spouted off to 2 women who were pretending to be lib dem voters and who were, i guess, pretending to appear 'fond' of cable. and, as anyone will tell you, if one woman, let alone two, shows any form of interest in a bloke he'll say pretty much anything to appear cool and interesting!

Right, fair point. He got carried away by ego is what your saying.

[Martyn Sadler]

The only thing Cable has done wrong is apologise for it

Judgment is important for politicians, and Cable speaking so openly and controversially to two young women he had never met before shows a terrible lack of it.

According to Robert Peston of the BBC he claimed to be winning a "war" against Rupert Murdoch, which is unfortunate when, as Business Secretary, he will be the Minister who exercises a quasi-judicial role in deciding whether Murdoch can take over the 61% of BSkyB that he doesn't already own.

If what Peston says is true, Cable's position becomes untenable.

[JohnM]

They've just played the recording and yes, he said it.

From my point of view, I regarded the Lib Dems a a bit of a joke at national politics, though they were highly popular at the local govt level.

I found most Lib Dems at parliamentary level to be well intentioned, though quite naive and weak with simplistic and unrealistic policies. I HAD hoped that their involvement in the coalition would have changed this and they they would have ( and I think they actually have) moderated the polices of the Conservatives.I think a majority Conservative Govt or a majority Labour Govt would be much worse then the coalition.

The thing is, though , right, innit, how can Labour criticise Cable now, given that he is at war with Labour's enemy Murdoch. The Murdoch haters on here must be performing some contortions as they seek to criticise Cable and agree with him at the same time on the same issue.

[Bulletproof]

They've just played the recording and yes, he said it.

From my point of view, I regarded the Lib Dems a a bit of a joke at national politics, though they were highly popular at the local govt level.

I found most Lib Dems at parliamentary level to be well intentioned, though quite naive and weak with simplistic and unrealistic policies. I HAD hoped that their involvement in the coalition would have changed this and they they would have ( and I think they actually have) moderated the polices of the Conservatives.I think a majority Conservative Govt or a majority Labour Govt would be much worse then the coalition.

The thing is, though , right, innit, how can Labour criticise Cable now, given that he is at war with Labour's enemy Murdoch. The Murdoch haters on here must be performing some contortions as they seek to criticise Cable and agree with him at the same time on the same issue.

As a Murdoch "hater" and a person who has been critical of the Lib Dems, I find it supremely easy to back Vince on this one. Murdoch needs to be controlled, limited. He already influenced the election, he controls too much of the news, and the notion of a free press is ridiculous when they are all toeing one foreigners line.

[Martyn Sadler]

As a Murdoch "hater" and a person who has been critical of the Lib Dems, I find it supremely easy to back Vince on this one. Murdoch needs to be controlled, limited. He already influenced the election, he controls too much of the news, and the notion of a free press is ridiculous when they are all toeing one foreigners line.

If Murdoch is so influential, how come Rugby League doesn't get more coverage?

And of course you don't have to buy his newspapers or watch his TV channels.

[Northern Sol]

If Murdoch is so influential, how come Rugby League doesn't get more coverage?

It doesn't particularly suit his interests to "big it up". Yes I know he owns Sky but he seems more interested in plugging the EPL through his media.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

If Murdoch is so influential, how come Rugby League doesn't get more coverage?

And of course you don't have to buy his newspapers or watch his TV channels.

because rugby league isn't influential

[Martyn Sadler]

because rugby league isn't influential

But we are claiming that Murdoch is influential. So, if he is, why isn't a sport supposedly closely associated with him also influential?

[Martyn Sadler]

It doesn't particularly suit his interests to "big it up". Yes I know he owns Sky but he seems more interested in plugging the EPL through his media.

News Limited owns half of the NRL, and his son Lachlan is a keen supporter of the Brisbane Broncos, so you might think he would want to extend his influence, such as it is, in favour of Rugby League.

[Martyn Sadler]

Vince Cable has now lost all his responsibilities for media competition. They will be transferred to Jeremy Hunt, so the idiot has lost his 'war' without Murdoch even having to lift a finger.

Ironically, the Telegraph is also vociferously anti-Murdoch and didn't print that element of his 'interview' with its two jouralists. It was left to someone to send the tape to Robert Peston for those comments to be exposed.

[shrek]

Amused at how its back fired on The Telegraph, another broadsheet dumbing down to tabloid levels, but badly.

Not really seeing the issue with Murdoch owning the whole of BSkyB, if its Sky News people are worried about, do they have just cause? Its hardly well watched and as for the rest of the content, there isn't much there from what I can see to justify much debate.

As for Cable, position to me looks totally untenable, if he had any dignity he'd have stepped down, if he's been caught saying this to random strangers, one can only imagine what he must say to close allies behind closed doors. What odds on a January reshuffle, Cable stepping down/moving aside and David Laws being brought back?

Also amused to hear John Denham, so keen to stick the boot in he sounded awfully pro-murdoch, be interesting to see how it gets toned down tomorrow when the spin doctors have drawn up the official party line.

[Northern Sol]

But we are claiming that Murdoch is influential. So, if he is, why isn't a sport supposedly closely associated with him also influential?

Because the NRL and SL don't have the power to make decisions that would effect the profitability of his organisations. Cameron could put up corporate tax tomorrow. That's why the dirty digger takes an interest in UK politics.

[Northern Sol]

News Limited owns half of the NRL, and his son Lachlan is a keen supporter of the Brisbane Broncos, so you might think he would want to extend his influence, such as it is, in favour of Rugby League.

It might if he didn't own substantial other interests. If you look at it from an economics point-of-view, it is "efficient" to push those companies that get you the biggest bang-for-your-buck and presumably RL isn't one of them.

[Trojan]

They've just played the recording and yes, he said it.

From my point of view, I regarded the Lib Dems a a bit of a joke at national politics, though they were highly popular at the local govt level.

I found most Lib Dems at parliamentary level to be well intentioned, though quite naive and weak with simplistic and unrealistic policies. I HAD hoped that their involvement in the coalition would have changed this and they they would have ( and I think they actually have) moderated the polices of the Conservatives.I think a majority Conservative Govt or a majority Labour Govt would be much worse then the coalition.

The thing is, though , right, innit, how can Labour criticise Cable now, given that he is at war with Labour's enemy Murdoch. The Murdoch haters on here must be performing some contortions as they seek to criticise Cable and agree with him at the same time on the same issue.

Guilty right - like init.
However (init) I think the Telegraph should be censured (init) for what effectively are underhand tricks. Entrapment by pretending to be bent businessmen looking to suborn (innit) an MP for gain is fair enough. Pretending to be constituents to me is unethical. If a MP can't be frank in his surgery with constituents when they ask him questions then the whole system will grind to a halt. After all they (the consituents) are the people he's supposed to be representing. Apparently Cable isn't the only Lib/Dem they've tried this dodge on with. (innit) (I used a preposition at the end of that sentence BTW)

[Steve May]

sorry, i didn't articulate it well enough. it seems that he spouted off to 2 women who were pretending to be lib dem voters and who were, i guess, pretending to appear 'fond' of cable. and, as anyone will tell you, if one woman, let alone two, shows any form of interest in a bloke he'll say pretty much anything to appear cool and interesting!

When you hear the taped conversation you can hear the woman giggling in a flirty manner. Cable has been done up like a stuck pig by the oldest trick in the book. It's rather pathetic really.

[Steve May]

As for Cable, position to me looks totally untenable, if he had any dignity he'd have stepped down, if he's been caught saying this to random strangers, one can only imagine what he must say to close allies behind closed doors. What odds on a January reshuffle, Cable stepping down/moving aside and David Laws being brought back?

David Laws the self-admitted thief?

[shrek]

David Laws the self-admitted thief?

Reckon he'll be back in at the first opportunity, maybe he'll be the coalitions Mandelson..................

[Millman]

Cable seems to have provided enough material to last all week.

Murdoch will get Sky now, or his lawyers will cry foul.

[getdownmonkeyman]

Could somebody be kind enough to explain the reasoning behind the Telegraph, a pro-Conservative paper, seeking to undertake such an expose?

Are they pro-Conservative whilst being anti-coalition?