Politicians are never "fit and proper" people to determine the ownership of a corporation!

News Corp. has been in the news a lot recently, with inquiries being held to determine how far the criminal phone hacking extended from the company's newspapers into the police and general press. Now, Hard Truths does not have the intention of commenting upon the legalities of News Corp's activities. If anybody at News Corp. broke the law, they should be subjected to due legal process. This is beyond doubt, and not the point at issue.

There was a worrying aside to the general conclusions of the U.K. House of Commons Culture Committee report. The Labour and Liberal Democrat members of the committee, led by The Rt. Hon. Tom "The Witchfinder General" Watson, voted to label News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch "not a fit person" to lead a major international company. This is a flagrant abuse of power, and must receive the strongest condemnation. It is not the place of politicians to determine who is a "fit and proper person" to lead a company, but that of the shareholders in the company. This type of statement by elected officials is completely unacceptable, given its awful implications. Once politicians are permitted to intrude into businesses and dictate issues of company ownership, it is only a small matter of time until they begin to take control of the direction and actions of the companies, creating a coercive and poisonous business environment. Corporations will feel pressured to undertake or not to undertake projects, to create or not to create products; and the consumer will invariably suffer as their choice is reduced.

Let us remember what elected officials are elected to do. Politicians are elected by the people to the stewardship of certain, very clearly delineated, areas of the public domain. In a democracy, their remit does not include determining the leadership of private organizations that already have an ownership structure. Politicians are elected by the people as glorified managers, who manage the common property and assets of the people. In a market state, politicians manage in the name of the people only that which is held in common by the people, as such management of the common market in order to provide an environment in which the people can conduct their market activity with minimal disruption. It is an affront to democracy when politicians intrude into the private sphere of private organizations.

Tom Watson and co. should remember that, in their position, they have no right to infringe upon the already fragile nature of UK democracy. Given the tendency towards overreach common on the Left, it is sadly unsurprising. Consider this a warning, then: let the people beware those who would like to see British politicians intimidate media and business organizations into compliance in a manner more commonly found in Russia.