What does Rupert Murdoch make of Tony, Gordon, Dave and Britain?

Having boycotted the Sun with the best and nodded happily whilst media “experts” said that his Sky Television was doomed (How could it possibly succeed? Britain had the best TV in the world. It must have been true; we’d heard it on the BBC.), it’s curious that I’ve come to have a sort of half-hearted admiration for the Australian-American media tycoon. He certainly seems to have an eye for winners and, even if his views on the EU are a million miles from my own, he’s quite sound about the Royal Family.

And he’s important. This annoys a lot of people who feel that He Shouldn’t Be. That seems to me to be like complaining about the sky being blue or arsenic being poisonous. It just is, ok?

So what he thinks about British politicians is, at least, interesting. This piece in the Observer reports another piece in the New Yorker magazine.

Apparently he describes “Blair as a 'lame duck' ever since he announced he would not serve a full third term”.

He “said there was much to be said for Brown's 'Calvinistic' outlook but added: 'Is he such a micro-manager that he'd want to interfere with everything in the country? And does he still believe that the state can run everything better than private enterprise?’”

And that David Cameron “was essentially a 'PR guy' with no experience of life outside politics, other than working in television. 'He's charming, he's very bright and he behaves as if he doesn't believe in anything other than trying to construct what he believes will be the right public image,'”.

So there you are.

And he “described Britain as being 'totally hedonistic' and a nation of binge drinkers”. Oh dear.