Presumably, in the case of News Corporation, we can read Vince’s ‘deeply unhelpful’ as ‘not fully part of my favoured liberal-left media consensus’. How dare individuals own large numbers of newspapers and influence the British political scene. Disgraceful. Anyway, our dear Business Secretary went on to add:

We have learned from the past that having media moguls dominating the British media is deeply unhelpful, not simply in terms of plurality but because of the wider impact on the political world.

What I want to see is a very clear set of unambiguous rules… about market shares, that we don’t have dominant players and a presumption against cross-ownership between press and television.

It isn’t simply an issue of Rupert Murdoch, there are other big media companies who could have the same influence in future and we’ve got to stop that happening.

This, you may remember, is the same man who ‘declared war’ on Rupert Murdoch and News International before the phone hacking scandal re-broke (remember it was old news until the Guardian and BBC dug it out again for their own ends), and was consequently stripped of his status over media policy on the BSkyB bid. This is not about phone hacking and never was – it is about ensuring the stranglehold grip of the liberal-left over the media establishment.

Of course, a fantastic way of ensuring greater plurality of media in Britain, which Saint Vince says he so desires, is the abolition or significant downsizing of our beloved national broadcaster. The BBC is a huge, sprawling organisation, owned by the state and funded by the television licence fee. What better way of opening up the media playing field than taking apart the BBC monopoly? But will Vince be seeking to break up their dominance over the broadcast and online media? Not likely.

The media, obsessed as they are with their cult of youth, never really took to the elderly Sir Menzies, despite his left-wing liberal credentials – and I suspect this lack of media coverage, endorsement and appraisal played a significant role in his eventual downfall.

So, who will rise up to clasp the soiled Lib Dem leadership crown in their grubby hands in any forthcoming leadership elections? In many respects, does it really matter, and frankly who cares? Whoever takes over will be as useless as those that preceded them – just a little more youthful, which in today’s image rather policy driven media age will probably make all the difference.

With that in mind, I suspect the early running will be made by Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg, who, laughably, Jon Snow on Channel Four news just a while ago referred to as the most ‘right wing’ of the candidates likely to throw their hat into the ring. I assume that means the extremely socially liberal, and economically socialist Mr Clegg is left-wing rather than very left-wing then?

As for Ming, it very much appears that he was surplus to requirement and obsolete technology in the party that supposedly prides itself on being in no way discriminatory.

The Ming Dynasty (if it ever truly began that is) has been stumbling along now for the past two years since the Lib Dems deposed former leader and drunkard Charles Kennedy. Yet, despite murmurings of discontent, Ming’s equally incompetent underlings chose not to challenge his flagging and failing leadership.

Never mind though. The Liberal Democrats are a third-rate backwater political party full of far-left socialists, rubbing shoulders with anti-Semites and anti-capitalist eco-loonies – so it doesn’t really matter who leads them because nationally they’ll always be an electoral obscurity.

Despite the lack of any change in the Lib Dem leadership, Ming Campbell provided his opponents with an enlightening interview on the BBC’s Newsnight programme where he managed to elaborate on a number of his party’s non-policies, including crucially his opposition to an EU Referendum.

When watching the interview it’s also worth noting some more blatant BBC bias by comparing and contrasting the previously hostile questioning of David Cameron by Newsnight’s stuck-up Economics editor, Stephanie Flanders, with her latest meek examination of the Meaningless Lib Dem leader.

At the BBC studios, Ming was asked why the Liberal Democrats did not support a referendum on the EU Constitution Treaty, to which he replied:

Well, the Government opt-outs – it’s a substantially different document from the so-called Constitution. But actually I want to go further – what I’ve said is the I don’t think this is a document that requires a referendum – but I want to go further than that now because I think we’ve reached a point in our relationship with the EU that we really ought to ask the people of Britain the big question.

You see the Maastricht treaty turned the community into the European Union. Conservatives refused a referendum on that, and everything that has happened since has been an implement of the creation of the European Union. But if you’re under fifty in this country then you didn’t get a chance to vote in the last referendum in 1975.

I think we should now have a referendum – big question, in or out. Now I want to lead the pro-European case in that referendum because the benefits of Europe are in my view are so enormous, so overwhelming that that’s a referendum we can win, and it will stop this phoney war, of which eurosceptics line up behind the referendum on this particular document when they’re actual purpose would be to get Britain out. Let’s call them out.

Ah, there we go. We have it. The real reason why the pro-EU Lib Dems don’t want a referendum on the Constitution – because they know full well that they’d be on the losing end of any vote, and therefore want to try and change the direction of the argument.

Ming’s attitude is generally indicative of British Europhiles and our ruling elites who have complete contempt for the people of this country. Gordon Brown in particular is foremost among those, with his arrogant insistence that British people will not be given a direct say in how they are ruled.