The Business Secretary Vince Cable is the subject of a profile in today’s Guardian. In a somewhat affectionate piece, Decca Aitkenhead reports:
There has been much speculation that frugality is the only feature of this government Cable will find to his taste. Perceived as the Lib Dem furthest to the left – a former Labour party councillor and parliamentary candidate, the man Gordon Brown phoned in the frantic post-election days – Cable is widely tipped as the minister most likely to resign from the coalition. He made no secret of his preference for forming a government with Labour – but was forced by the arithmetic of the election result to abandon that dream, “and follow my head, not my heart”.
We’re so accustomed to political spin that Cable’s unwillingness to conceal his misgivings has been interpreted not as honest ambivalence, but more like tantamount to mutiny. “According to the papers,” as he says himself, “I’m miserable, alienated, and on the brink of resignation.” For many Labour voters – and a lot of disillusioned Lib Dems too – Cable’s resignation would represent some sort of moral triumph, or at the very least, a return to politics as normal. “But that’s simply not where I am,” he says.
Vince is clear about his support for the government’s programme of cuts, saying:
People forget that a year before the election, I published a pamphlet for Reform which got a flurry of publicity at the time, and was subsequently forgotten, which actually heralded a lot of the things this government has done. So we were aware that there would have to be serious cuts.
I was very careful in what I said [in the Chancellors’ debate]. I said we should approach it on the basis of economics and not political dogma, that was the phrase I used. I set out five factors which should determine when you start cutting the deficit, and one of them related to the conditions in the markets. At that time, there was no enormous urgency. But by the time of the election the financial crisis had burst in Europe, and conditions had changed.
Challenged by Aitkenhead as to whether a ministerial position means that he is now having more fun now than at any point in his political career, Vince is firm.
No, I wouldn’t say that. It’s more fun being in opposition. This is more satisfying than most of the other things I’ve done. But no, if you’re looking for fun, it’s better to be in opposition.
Read more in the Guardian’s G2 or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Tom Arms
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
13 Comments
And here is the report he mentions in the article: http://www.reform.co.uk/Research/ResearchArticles/tabid/82/smid/378/ArticleID/950/reftab/56/Default.aspx
Does none of these interviewers have the wit to ask these people why, if they had changed their minds about the timing of cuts by the time of the election, they didn’t say so, but instead publicly argued for a policy they no longer believed in.
It’s not as though they minced their words. Nick Clegg, two days before the election not only said deferring cuts was “common sense” and that his “eight-year-old ought to be able to work this out”, but also that cutting earlier would be “completely irrational” and would result in more joblessness and a higher deficit!
And now he has to gall to tell us he privately believed the opposite of what he was saying in public.
Let us see how many Labour hacks this attracts, as they seem to be unable to cope with the honesty of debate within the Liberal Democrats. Prefering as they do the petty world spin where the sins of Blair and Brown are as nothing against the supposed perfidity of Liberal Democrats in forming a coalition with the Conservatives.
Who are Labour’s heros, Jack Straw who mocked Lib Dem MPs arguing against the Iraq invasion, who then said during Chilcot thzt he had doubts about the war. John Prescott who was not to worried about the legal advice, but felt it was more important to keep the Parliamentary Labour Party together come what may.
So little Labourite when did Labour lose it’s soul, and do you even care any more?
Look, Anthony, Vince Cable is one of the most honest, straight politicians you will find in the upper echelons. And Decca Aitkenhead is one of the best press interviewers around. It is, by the way, Sara, in yesterday’s Grauniad.
Tim13
“Look, Anthony, Vince Cable is one of the most honest, straight politicians you will find in the upper echelons.”
If you think that, presumably you know the answer to the question I asked. What is it?
I’m not sure these interview comments are particularly helpful ? We should try and keep in mind that today’s Liberal-Democrats are a healthy cross section of the old Liberal Party and more recently Social Democrats from a split Labour Party in the 80s. Affectionately known as ‘the gang of four’ and their loyal supporters.
Vince Cable appears to make a strong case in favour of the Social Democrat cause ? This could be seriously damaging to today’s Liberal-Democrats and drive the Social Democrats in the Party back into the open arms of Labour. Other views ?
Teddy – How does saying “the coalition does actually work. Personal relationships are very good, very businesslike. Having worked with [the Tories] at close quarters, I’ve been pleasantly surprised that they’re not as I’d envisaged them.” equate to “driv[ing] the Social Democrats in the Party back into the open arms of Labour”?
Firstly, the SDP/Liberal split wasn’t a left/right one – if anything the SDP were to the right of the Liberal Party. I also don’t know of anyone in the party at this point who’d describe themselves as a Social Democrat. Some might advocate using means that are similar to those of social democracy, but the aims are for the most part very different, in that most social democrats would prioritise equality over freedom, whereas liberals would choose the converse – though certainly in my case I’d like both.
Secondly, the left of the party, among whom I count myself – people like the Social Liberal Forum – have been among the most vociferous critics of the Labour Party. Left members of the Lib Dems aren’t happy – *at all* – about working with Tories, but speaking only for myself here I wouldn’t exactly be happy with working with mendacious war criminals who destroyed civil liberties in this country while deepening inequality. For every one thing that Labour did during their 13 years in power with which I agreed, I can think of literally dozens which are utterly abhorrent.
And thirdly, the arms of Labour aren’t open – since the election Labour have been doing everything they can to annoy Lib Dems and make it more difficult for the two parties to ever work together in future, which hardly seems welcoming to me.
When I read the headline I laughed out loud, but actually this article is far more poignant than I’d expected.
It is true that Vince, and the Lib Dem parliamentary party more generally (though not many in the grass roots, sadly), had already recognised and admitted that fiscal retrenchment would be necessary long before the election. That disgruntled voters can think we were not honest about that is unfair, but I think I understand where the confusion arises.
When Vince says that, at the time of the Chancellor’s debate “there was no enormous urgency…[b]ut by the time of the election the financial crisis had burst in Europe, and conditions had changed,” he highlights an important point. In March the Lib Dems really did believe that early cuts – such as those the Conservatives were proposing – were not necessary. But by the end of April they had come to realise that they were necessary.
Unfortunately, political expediency prevented Vince, Nick and co. from admitting that (to quote that favourite of Lib Dem conference speeches) “when the facts change I change my mind”; so instead we continued to campaign publically against something that we had come to realise privately was necessary, with the result that when we accepted the early cuts as part of the coalition government, we were going back on what we had said – though for perfectly good reason.
I think we need to be more honest about this. At least, we need to say “We were wrong to think that we would not need to cut as early as we did. We made a mistake.” After all, we spent plenty of time in opposition arguing that the government should just admit to its mistakes rather than pretending it had not made any. It behooves us to do the same.
Teddy,
“…today’s Liberal-Democrats are a healthy cross section of the old Liberal Party and …Social Democrats … [A} strong case in favour of the Social Democrat cause … could be seriously damaging to today’s Liberal-Democrats and drive the Social Democrats in the Party back into the open arms of Labour. Other views ?”
Definitely! If anything, the Social Democrats are the dominent force in the party and are less accomodating of liberal views. All too often, those with a more whiggish leaning are encouraged to leave to join the Tories (an ahistorical, philosophically nonsensical suggestion if ever there was one!). It may be the case that the leadership is currently more liberal (though that is a recent phenomenon – Charles Kennedy was a Social Democrat, and Menzies Campbell talked about “The Centre Left” constantly) – but the activists for the most part are more social democrat than liberal.
Having said that, those distinctions are only so obvious in our party because of the recent merger. The Tories are just as divided between their paternalistic and their Thatcherite wings, and Labour between their social democrats and their socialists. But with the Lib Dems, we have the legend of the two parties to help the press label us (not to mention our Social Liberal Forum friends, who have fed the fires of this particular divide).
Andrew is right that “the SDP/Liberal split wasn’t a left/right one – if anything the SDP were to the right of the Liberal Party” (though I deny the use of the terms Left and Right), but I don’t agree that there is not “anyone in the party at this point who’d describe themselves as a Social Democrat”. The do, and they refer to the Party as social democratic. What is more, the egalitarians definitely have the upperhand over the libertarians within the party (note deliberate use of lower case letters!).
“Left members of the Lib Dems aren’t happy – *at all* – about working with Tories, but speaking only for myself here I wouldn’t exactly be happy with working with [Labour}”
All true, but too many members of the SLF and others “Left leaning” (so hard to avoid the nomenclature!) members would be. A few (and they were a few, a tiny, tiny few) actulally argued at the Special Conference (and I assume voted that way, too) that we should have pursued a Rainbow Coalition. Personally, I hate being in coaltion with the Tories, but they were far closer to where we were in 2010 than Labour.
“the arms of Labour aren’t open”
Not to the Party – why would they. It’s our voters they are after. Labour’s arms are open to our members, but only if they renounce their “error” and embrace an unreconstructed New Labour.
“I think we need to be more honest about this. At least, we need to say “We were wrong to think that we would not need to cut as early as we did. We made a mistake.””
The problem is that they didn’t just make a mistake – if it really was a mistake – they lied to the electorate during the election campaign. That’s if they are telling the truth now about having changed their minds then, of course. We can only guess about that.
“they lied to the electorate during the election campaign”
I doubt if they intended it that way. I suspect they could see a coalition agreement of some sort up for grabs. We all know the websites were teeming with the word ‘coalition’ long before May 6th.
That said, the Conservative Thatcherite mob appear to have got the worst end of the whole coalition deal. They voted for ‘Right …Right and Right again. They appear to have got Centre – Left and (maybe) Right !!
“I doubt if they intended it that way.”
What do you mean? Did the words just slip out by accident – some kind of political Tourette’s Syndrome? Did it never occur to them that during the campaign they were saying the opposite of what they believed?
“some kind of political Tourette’s Syndrome?”
Unfortunately I don’t know for sure what the truth is but I like your definition of political double speak !
As for the cuts, if my instincts are working they are going to be a great deal worse than imagined at present.