Vince: Cameron is “100% behind” my graduate tax proposals

Lib Dem Business Secretary Vince Cable is interviewed in the Sunday Telegraph (“in open-neck pink shirt and slippers”, intriguingly).

The paper chooses to headline it, Vince Cable: ‘I’m not having fun in government’, trying to feed into the narrative that Vince is a semi-detached member of the coalition government, though he’s certainly loyal in all his utterances. Incidentally, the headline quote set in context reads rather more uncontroversially: “People sometimes ask me ‘are you having fun?’ ” he says. ” No! It’s hard work and it’s tough, but it’s important.”

The paper largely ignores what seems to me a far more interesting part of the interview – when Vince asserts again his belief in replacing university tuition fees with a form of ‘graduate contribution’ (to be honest, though, Vince – I think the term graduate tax will stick):

… his view [is] that university funding must be paid for by a form of graduate tax (he prefers the phrase “graduate contribution”) despite this idea having come under serious fire from Conservative cabinet colleagues in anonymous briefings. He denies that “Number 10 sources” were behind the briefings and insists that the Prime Minister is “100 per cent behind” his plans, which he intends to flesh out in more detail once Lord Browne, the former BP chief executive, publishes his report on higher education funding in the autumn.

And Vince defends the principle behind it in these words:

What we are trying to inject into the argument is that if you become a very highly paid investment banker you finish up paying more than if you’ve gone off and become a voluntary worker or become a physicist in the National Physical Laboratory, or whatever. I want to make it progressive in that sense.”

He also asserts his progressive belief in redistribution, which he defines precisely as “a tax system that means people at the bottom end of the scale pay less and at the top end of the scale pay more.” And he points out that that is what the government is delivering:

I worked for some years to get us committed in our party to what we call fair taxes, lifting low-paid people out of tax, we got that in the coalition agreement and it was in the first budget. So I’m content that that’s being carried forward.”

Those looking to Vince as a malcontent, the person most likely to be the first to walk away from the coalition, will look in vain for off-message sniping. Would, for example, a defeat of the alternative vote in next year’s electoral reform referendum signal the coalition’s demise?

Nobody’s ever suggested that that’s an issue which will see us [the Lib Dems] collectively walk out if we don’t get what we want. As I see it, it’s a five year partnership, this is quite an important part of it but there are an awful lot of other things going on as well.”

However, in a far more coded way than Simon Hughes, he signals his disagreement with David Cameron’s suggestion that there might be an end to permanent council house tenancies:

I would say let’s have a debate about social housing, no just the point the PM raised – there’s obviously no harm in discussing those ideas – but let’s look at supply.”

Hmmm, supply: in other words, building more council houses. Well, David Cameron is said to admire his predecessor-but-seven Harold Macmillan, so perhaps a repeat of his 1951 ‘Great Housing Crusade’ is close at hand.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in News.


  • The current system is a graduate contribution in which investment bankers pay more than voluntary workers. In fact voluntary workers don’t pay anything!

  • It doesn't add up... 8th Aug '10 - 10:57am

    Nadine Dorries also raised questions about the idea of ending council houses for life – it isn’t just a Lib Dem thing. She did at least have a sensible suggestion to make, which Simon Hughes appears to have seized upon as yet another avenue to demonstrate that he really belongs in opposition, not in government. Vince has at east responded a little more intelligently, and raised a different issue. Perhaps eventually we’ll get the real debate we need on these issues (which in reality cover housing more generally, and deflating the property bubble).

  • Anthony Aloysius St 8th Aug '10 - 11:00am

    “Well, David Cameron is said to admire his predecessor-but-seven Harold Macmillan, so perhaps a repeat of his 1951 ‘Great Housing Crusade’ is close at hand.”

    How on earth could it be, given the magnitude of the planned spending cuts?

  • Rob Sheffield 8th Aug '10 - 12:21pm

    which Simon Hughes appears to have seized upon as yet another avenue to demonstrate that he really belongs in opposition, not in government

    Good on him: but he is not being oppositionalist it seems to me, rather trying to retain a progressive viewpoint.

    Politicians get judged by their actions: merely saying you are ‘liberal and progressive’- mouthing those words at every conceivable opportunity- does not actually mean you are our perceived as such.

    So if you continue to do things like undermining the security of some of the most vulnerable people in society then expect to be seen as you are: penny pinching right wingers with a streak of routine nastiness masquerading as ‘realism’.

    Crikey not only Dorries but EVEN Janet Daley in the Torygraph recognises that.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Brad Barrows
    @Keith Legg I’m afraid “the reason why Scottish Lib Dems don’t presently have coalitions with the SNP is simply because of numbers” is not supported by...
  • Keith Legg
    @BradBarrows the reason why the Scottish Lib Dems don't presently have coalitions with the SNP is simply because of numbers. In 2007, we were in coalition i...
  • Michael Berwick-Gooding
    Michael Meadowcroft, Indeed, I am glad you have posted some comments in the comments section. I am disappointed that you don’t address all of my points. ...
  • Stewart
    We *now* know Fukuyama was wrong? I think we knew from the moment he published. Living proof that even an incredibly smart person can be a bit of a f-wit....
  • matt
    @Lorenzo Thank you for your comment, there is much sadness, but I am also angry and trying so very hard not to get bitter as I know that is not going to help...