You were absolutely bloody right, of course. Someone's got to resist Murdoch, and it might as well be the Lib Dems. After all, it's not as if any part of his evil empire was ever going to publish a favourable opinion of you lot, was it? And let's face it, the Tories and Labour are too busy forelock-tugging to keep an eye on him.
Now there's very little to stop Murdoch taking over the rest of Sky (like he didn't dictate its line anyway) and turning it into the UK equivalent of Fox News.
One slip of the tongue, and you've lost a huge chunk of your department, and responsibility. A bit knee-jerk, I think, transferring 70 civil servants essentially in the interest of not pissing Murdoch off too much, but there you go, that's how the Tories work.
Well, maybe Jeremy "Rhymes With" Hunt might grow a backbone, and actually stand up to the gnarled old Aussie.
But would it matter if Rupert Murdoch owned two TV news channels in Britain? "The important thing is not whether a particular owner owns another TV channel but to make sure you have a variety of owners with a variety of TV channels so that no one owner has a dominant position both commercially and politically.
"Rather than worry about Rupert Murdoch owning another TV channel, what we should recognise is that he has probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person because of his huge investment in setting up Sky TV which, at one point, was losing several million pounds a day.
"We would be the poorer and wouldn't be saying that British TV is the envy of the world if it hadn't been for him being prepared to take that commercial risk. We need to encourage that kind of investment."Ok, maybe not.
Vince, Vince, Vince. Thanks a bunch.