Ma Pipe Bour Ton Ki

A friend of mine who became chairman of a media company in the 1980s found that the appointment brought with it one unexpected privilege. Periodically he was invited into Downing Street for a private talk with the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. At one such meeting the issue of Murdoch arose. "Why are you so opposed to Rupert?" the Iron Lady asked. "He is going to get us in."

It says it all. It explains why Tony Blair went to the other side of the globe to woo Murdoch executives and why later, when he was prime minister, his government withdrew the longstanding ban on foreign companies fully owning British television stations. It explains why Gordon Brown had no fewer than 14 meetings with the media mogul and why David Cameron, on his own admission, cosied up to the Murdoch people. It even explains why I, as the then chairman of the Conservative party, was sent down to Wapping in a spectacularly unsuccessful bid to persuade the editor of the Sun, Kelvin MacKenzie, about the virtues of John Major's government.

If you have a company that owns almost 40% of British newspapers and a big chunk of a successful television company you can expect nothing less. In the main politicians are not fools. They can see where media power is and for a very long time it has been with Murdoch.

Now all that is changing. We are into the post-Murdoch era. After the revelations of the Leveson inquiry he will never hold sway in the same way he once did. Nevertheless, the issue of media ownership remains.

It is the issue that underlies so much of the evidence now being taken by Leveson on the relationship between politicians and the media and should be at the heart of the government's long-awaited communications green paper. Two reforms cry out to be made.

The government should ensure that no individual shall ever again be allowed to dominate the British media in the way that Murdoch has over the last quarter of a century. In addition, the government should remove politicians from deciding on media mergers and takeovers.

Some politicians say that there is now a consensus across the political divide that there should be clear water between them and the media. A more prudent view would be that unless you try to ensure that ownership is spread then everybody will be back to their old tricks once Murdoch and phone hacking are out of the way.

First, we need a regulator who is able to keep track of fast-moving media developments and is also committed to ensuring the widest possible ownership and diversity of view. The obvious candidate for that role is Ofcom, which is probably the only organisation with the necessary background and knowledge. We have come a long way since it was written off as a superfluous quango.

Second, we need some measure to ensure that no organisation dominates the field. Measuring share of voice is obviously difficult in a world where the public can receive the news in a whole range of ways. How can the influence of different owners be measured? One way would be to look at the revenue of the media players on the basis that, unless checked, the biggest earners will have the capacity to crowd out smaller competitors and reduce choice.

No one pretends that this part of the exercise will be easy but a government green paper has the advantage that all the options can be considered. But further delay should be avoided in the second part of the agenda for reform.

Surely, if there was ever a case of conflict of interest it comes when politicians take decisions on the future of newspaper and television companies that they have spent most of their waking hours

...