The Sky's The Limit?

IT'S NOT winning the battle, but losing the war if you're Vince Cable. The Right Honourable Mr Cable is not the only loser, if today's announcement that the government has given the go-ahead for Rupert Murdoch's News Corp comes to fruition.

No, the losers in this particular battle are the media consumers of the United Kingdom, as well as media outlets who operate in this country. Perhaps even the electorate.

Vince Cable, as Culture Secretary, had been given the task of dealing with News Corp's bid for BSkyB until last December when it was discovered that he had told an undercover Telegraph reporter that he had 'declared war' on Murdoch. Cable was removed from the post, and replaced by Jeremy Hunt.

Apart from a juicy scoop, it remains to be seen what benefit The Telegraph got from the story, as the only party to benefit from Cable's removal was News Corp and Mr Murdoch himself. The Telegraph have challenged News Corp's bid, as have a disparate group including The Guardian, Associated Newspapers, Trinity Mirror and the BBC asking that the bid be referred to the Competition Commission.

News Corp have been given the go ahead to buy outright the remaining shares in BSkyB, meaning that Mr Murdoch has a monopoly on the media in the UK. The owner of The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun, and The News of The World can safely say that he has the British market well and truly sewn up. These titles combined give News Corp 37% of the market share for newspapers, throw in Sky and the enormous shadow it throws over the media industry and you get a slightly better picture.

In order to satisfy media plurality, Murdoch has had to place Sky News in an independent trust, which involve the news outlet having an independent chairman and board of directors. Murdoch has said this move gives him and News Corp less, not more control over the UK news media.

The appointment of Jeremy Hunt, was seen by many as a token gesture, one of cronyism between Murdoch and the government.In times of need, Mr Murdoch can usually always rely on the Conservative Party for a helping hand; indeed the mutual help they have given each other over the last 30 years is astounding.

In 1981, when Murdoch sought to buy both The Times and Sunday Times titles, he stamped his feet and threatened to pull out of the purchase if the deal was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. As ever, his old friend Margaret Thatcher, then leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister agreed to bypass the Commission as both titles - British Institutions - were making huge losses.

Murdoch endorsed the party and the leader though the 1980s, backing the winning horse in 1983, 1987 and 1991 elections. As ever, Murdoch threw his weight behind David Cameron last May, and expected the hefty favour to be returned this time round. With the appointment of Hunt as Culture Secretary, this has been duly returned.

That Murdoch should cast such influence on what the British public see and read should be enough to set alarm bells ringing for any fair politician regardless of political persuasion. Rumours abound that the British political establishment are refusing to dig too deeply in the News of The World phone hacking scandal for fear of upsetting Rupert Murdoch. That a number of politicians (and senior police) had their phone tapped should spell horror for any country with aspirations of democracy: that it should be one of the world leaders and one of the oldest 'democracies' in the world is simply incredible.

It is a safe bet then that News Corp's titles will back David Cameron and the Conservatives for the next election. One good turn deserves another. Pro-Murdoch commentators claim that Murdoch doesn't have an overt politic agenda, and that he is only doing what is good for himself and his company. 

What will happen to the landscape of the British Media remains to be seen. Many have predicted that the losses that other media groups will incur because of this will cause scaling back of resources and budgets. New talent will not be risked, new programmes will not be made.

Any broadcaster that can control such a huge chunk of the information providers available to the public cannot in any way shape or form be good for choice, quality or freedom. Proof enough that the push for power, or more of it, does not always come with a manifesto.