Is Cameron, the de facto champion of Mr. Murdoch?

[Gromit]

Do you agree with this New York Times assessment of the dangers for Cameron of the on-going scandal at News International and bSkyB?

// Mr. Cameron’s Conservative members of Parliament voted against the report because of the insistence by the Labour and Liberal Democrat majority on including a condemnation of Mr. Murdoch as “not a fit person” to run a major international company. That carries the risk of Mr. Cameron being cast as a de facto champion of Mr. Murdoch, and the possibility of being tarred by association with the wrongdoing at the Murdoch-owned tabloids. //

http://www.nytimes.co...al-wears-on.html?_r=1

[FredPuli43]

Strictly, of course, they didn't vote against the report; the bulk of it was unanimous , according to one of them; but it would be embarrassing to Cameron, who may be thought to have been not averse to the BSkyb takeover, to have his own side declaring that Murdoch was not a fit and proper person. It's all bad enough for him already, as set out in the link, without that.

[pdq1]

When leaving politics politicians may be looking for a well paid job. If Blair hadn't sided with the Americans he would not be in the Times rich list. That's why you have to hand it to Gordon Brown because sticking by his principles he relies on charitable donations.

[emmie]

so he doesn't get paid for his lectures, speaking engagements.?

[DTCwordfan]

Didn't the report go a step too far? - are there any legal ramifications for such potential libel made by Mr Watson and his cronies?......bear in mind Murdoch runs an empire of >100 rags and all the rest. Also it has been put that Watson and the Labourites did this to try and embarrass DC ahead of the local elections, so it was a case or unnecessary puerile point scoring and may have damaged the overall credbility of an otherwise good report out.

[rojash]

"are there any legal ramifications for such potential libel made by Mr Watson and his cronies?"
No - they are protected by parliamentary privilege.