What really puzzles me here is why the decision on Murdoch and Sky would be up to a politician in the first place if it's supposed to be done impartially.

Politicians are not impartial. They are not supposed to be impartial.

Surely, if the decision needs to be made in an impartial way, it should be made by a court, not by a politician.

Something is wrong here. Either Cable is perfectly entitled to his opinions on Murdoch, or no politician should be judging this issue anyway.

First, even if your argument were valid, these undercover "journalists" were not constituents and so should not qualify for whatever rights true constituents may have.

Second, and in any event, the analogy with the privilege attaching to lawyer-client communications does not work here: legal professional privilege is obviously a special case. The applicable concept here is simply that of confidentiality. A simplified statement of that principle is as follows. If the circumstances of the communication and nature of the information imparted are such that a reasonable person in the position of the recipient of the information would regard the information as confidential, then the recipient has a duty not to use that information for a purpose not authorised by the person disclosing the information. I fail to see why (or what authority there is for the proposition that) what occurs in a constituency surgery should be an exception to that rule. In my view, the MPs in question have a right to see that confidential information they impart to their constituents (or indeed any third party in such circumstances) is not used for an unauthorised purpose. The fact that they do not practically bother to bring a claim in the courts against the newspaper in question is not because they do not have such a right but because they recognise that this would simply bring about more bad publicity and make them appear as if they have something to hide.

The fact that these recordings have uncovered apparent bias in a senior politician is a good thing. But the ends do not necessarily justify the means. The main consequence of this particular technique of investigative "journalism" is, as someone has said above, simply that MPs will no longer express their views frankly to their constituents. A good thing? I don't think so.

The danger of course being that the surgery, the only satisfying means of engagement between a voter and their MP will turn into another shower of meaningless soundbites as the fear seeps into the paranoid politicians mind. There's a real risk such practises could further alienate the public. Such desire to get a scoop has to consider this.

That said if today's politicians weren't so obsessed with spin you'd be able to get a straight opinion by simply asking them. Alas, towing the party/coalition line supersedes integrity.

Power, Vanity, Lack of Judgement, Deception, Faked Remorse, Spin
Pure Drama
Just Politics
Just Typical

I don't particularly like these stings whether its the FA celebsor politicians. Its underhand sneaky and cheating, but it works and worms out inconsistences in public and private faces of people in the public eye. My own view is there can be no difference between how you behave in public as to private. Its hypocritical, and the public has a right to know.
Cable is an old fool. The comments in a sense were not regardingcasework, and so were not confidential but general comments on his views not individual casework, so the DT were right to publish.
Notice how the Lib Dems made capital out of Labour splits last year but now making excuses for their own splits and differences. Hypocrites.

Vince
You have been Tangoed

Smacks of a set up to me, indiscretions aside. All a bit too convenient...

@Bill Fraser

At least a blank sheet of paper does not contain any LIES.

@ Bill Fraser
It doesn't say anything actions speak louder than words.