This morning while idly commenting with Mrs L on the NoW scandal, I said that the brand had become so toxic, that the only logical solution would be for News International to close the paper down and at some point in the future to reopen it under a different banner – such as “The Sun on Sunday” – as it had become a victim of public outrage risk.
And this afternoon…
This Sunday’s issue of the News of the World will be the last edition of the paper, News International chairman James Murdoch has said.
Psychic or what? 👿
Quick! Give me six numbers for the lottery.
Clairvoyant!
“Psychic or what?”
Yeah, either that or this blog is written by Rupert Murdoch.
You should have registered the websites!
Swift wrote “The Tale of a Tub”, the ‘tub’ in question being that which mariners threw overboard to distract an attacking whale. Perhaps Murdoch thinks that the NoTW will be his tub. I hope not. The man is utterly malignant and is a excellent counter-example to naive libertarian notions that untrammelled, unregulated capitalism is the way that liberty can be defended. It is in fact the one sure way to destroy it as the last 30 years of neo-liberal claptrap have so abundantly demonstrated. One hopes that the government might actually stop Murdoch’s take over of the rest of Sky, but I doubt it. All mainstream politicians are in fear of Murdoch and will appease him, for fear of what his papers will do them. We are fucked.
Damn Murdoch, for…errr, giving the nation what it wants…
Damn Murdoch, for…errr, giving the nation what it wants…
Apparently the nation disagrees
Stephen you may have a point about the tub. For me it is a classic response to pubic outrage risk.
As for untrammelled corporatism, libertarians oppose corporatist encroaches on our liberty as much as they oppose those by the state – the two are cheeks of the same backside. A monopoly is a monopoly whoever runs it.
As for untrammelled corporatism, libertarians oppose corporatist encroaches on our liberty as much as they oppose those by the state
And I am sure that many libertarians sincerely believe that they oppose corporatist encroachment on liberty. The problem is that our best defence against the corporation is a democratic and accountable state, and libertarians are not very supportive of that. If you sweep aside the power of the state to regulate then you don’t create a level playing field. You create a free for all in which unscrupulous and well organised people can dominate everyone else using their wealth and the power that derives from that wealth.
To take one example. Drugs testing in the workplace. In the US virtually all employers do it and there is no regulation to stop them violating the privacy of their employees. That is more tyrannical than any government sponsored scheme, for with the government you can protest and you have the law and the constitution to protect you. With corporatist power, you either accept it or you don’t work and you starve. Even if you have the ability to circumvent it by working for yourself, you may find yourself contracting with corporations that insist that you be drugs tested to do business with them.
It is a misrepresentation to suggest that we oppose a democratically elected state. Some do on the outer fringes. Most, though, want to see a smaller, more accountable state. And despite my (and others) dislike of democracy that has led to a tyranny of the minority, it still remains the least worst option.
There is nothing wrong with regulation where it is necessary – however what we have is far too much. I am, for example, favourably disposed to such legislation as the Health & Safety at Work Etc., Act (1974) as an example of well considered and sensible legislation. I am also in favour of a light touch regulatory regime that prevents monopolies that disadvantage the consumer.
It’s interesting that you use this example as I work in an industry where it has been commonplace for about fifteen years. Drugs and alcohol testing is mandatory prior to employment, following an incident and on a random basis. We accept it as the industry is dealing with the safety of the travelling public and our fellow workers. On balance, I have no opposition to it as it is – for the most part – justified. However, if there was no safety implication, then I would vigorously oppose it.
It is a misrepresentation to suggest that we oppose a democratically elected state. Some do on the outer fringes. Most, though, want to see a smaller, more accountable state
But what is a small state? For me a small state is one that lets people alone when they are in private and their actions are not affecting others. In other words, a state that acts to minimise harm to others but lets consenting adults do pretty much what they please.
But – and this is where I depart radically from libertarians, who I feel are mostly small state conservatives – is that I support a much larger role for the state in our public existences, where our behaviour does affect others and where the state must mediate relationships between individuals and corporations to protect the rights of all. Thus I am supportive of regulation on smoking in enclosed public spaces, of drink drive and speeding laws, on employment protection and health and safety laws.
Obviously it is possible to over-regulate but you have to take each case on its merits. For example, I can’t see any merit in claims of harmfulness of third or fourth hand smoke.
And despite my (and others) dislike of democracy that has led to a tyranny of the minority, it still remains the least worst option
Which is why democracy must always be tempered by a bill of rights to ensure that the rights of minorities are respected.
Actually, I agree with much of that. When I talk of small state I mean less of it. Why, for example, do we need whole departments meddling about in stuff that really should be of no concern of government – media, sport and the arts being one such. Millions of taxpayer pounds are being poured into the Olympic junket next year. This should have nothing to do with government. If private individuals and organisations want it, let them fund it, not the rest of us. Equally, it is not the place of government to fund charities on our behalf. Many of the charitable organisations my tax pounds go to, I would actively avoid funding given the choice – ASH, NSPCC, RSPCA to name just three – Africa to name a fourth.
A small state will do only that which is necessary – defence, criminal justice, a framework for health, transport and education for example. We do not need them telling us what we can say, nor do we need them spying on our every move in the name of security – and, no, we don’t need them telling landlords whether they can allow people to smoke on their premises (the one area above where I vigorously disagree).
As a commenter over at Anna Raccoons has sagely pointed out. Someone (As yet unknown) registered the domain name ‘sunonsunday.co.uk‘ two days before the News of the Screws was publicly dispatched.
A portent, perchance? 😈
Stephen.
The state doesn’t really have to legislate to ensure the rights of minorities are defended just protect a legal system that places the rights of individuals as paramount. If you start seeing people as minorities or majorities you inevitably end up with identity politics and pretty soon the state becomes the arbiter of which minority has primacy of ‘rights’ over which other or others. Eventually minorities become privileged and you are back where you started. A bill of rights, if it is necessary at all, should be about rights for all.