Going anywhere? Don't you mean going away? Anywhere suggests it's a dead in the water story when it's anything but.

Cable will be going. The Murdoch empire will decree it. Top Ministers are meeting in Downing Street and Vince will fall on his sword and no doubt feel a huge sense of relief to no longer be between a rock and a hard place.

Cable's position on this has made it impossible for him to continue and open to all sorts of legal challenges from the Murdoch machine.

It's not about calling for a resignation, it's about his position being untenable. I personally think Cable should be at war with Murdoch and doing his utmost to thwart them taking over even more of the media but as the Minister who has to make an unbiased decision, he can't possibly be seen to be doing that cometh the time. There's no choice but for him to go.

The political parties in our country should not be influenced by one man's decision. Murdoch has too much media influence as it is on the common man on the street, and by forcing Cable into a resignation or backing his views into a corner, it will just make the Murdoch press stronger.

A mere 6 months Cable was being held up has a economist of the highest order. I love the way that 6 months in government he looks like a bubbling fool who would not be out of place in a Carry on Movie.

I think it's the media declaring a war between Cable and Murdoch; the real war is the one going on within this increasingly unstable coalition.

The Daily Telegraph have released the recording here: http://bit.ly/eIaA8J

Go Vince! Goddamn that feckin "whistleblower" who leaked the story to Peston.

Apparently the Telegraph hates that turd Murdoch as much as the rest of us. Not all bad then!

Here in Sydney, Australia we have been trying to expose the fact that Murdoch declared Presidential control over a community and general public.
Read the start of an expose website - http://www.foxandchickens.org/hetty/index.html - see how it was done with the removal of regulatory laws, acts and legislation creating an Environmental disaster . Eight and half years investigation shows major holes in the deal that Sydney, Australia had to have, so they were told by a Prime Minister and a Premier. We are fighting back but need overseas support - read John Pilger's article on Murdochracry

Josephine

Personally I like Vince Cable, but am truly disappointed by how naive he is to blabber so indiscreetly to two young journalists (where they pretty girls?). I wonder, at the same time, whether Cable has done all this on purpose to bring pressure on the coalition government without actually brining it down (at least for now). He might be not so naive as he seems to be at face value. Remember that if there is a person who should be offended by how Nick Clegg has handled the coalition agreement is Vince Cable since he was completely left out of the talks between Conservatives and Lib-Dems that lead to the agreement, and this despite the fact that he was deputy-leader of the Party and that the Conservatives and Labour were represented in their separate talks with the Lib-Dems by the own Deputy leaders. Perhaps, there is much more depth to the current issue purposely created by Cable than is made to appear by the PR of the two parties in the coalition government.

I`m sorry but I just don`t understand this one ;it was suggested by Nick Robinson that Vince Cable`s declaring he was at war with Murdoch was like a trial judge saying he was at war with the defendant .Well no actually ; this is not the same at all . If the issue to be decided is ``Did Bill Smith murder Mry Brown ?`` then this is an issue we know nothing about prior to the trial and prior to hearing the evidence ; if I already have an opinion on the matter beforehand then that is irrational and such a view can only be based on prejudice . On the other hand if we are dealing with an issue of public policy such as ``Does Rupert Murdoch already control too much of the media or would it be OK to let him have some more ?`` then this is not an issue we know nothing about prior to the Ofcom inquiry ;the purpose of which is to give us more information about something we already have some knowledge of .Consequently there is nothing prejudicial about holding the view `` Yes I think the bastard probably does and it would be a good idea to stop him getting any more ``prior to the inquiry report ;such a view is based on our pre-existing knowledge . I really think people are getting two different things mixed up here .