I am a loyal Conservative; very loyal, in fact, and I support the work of David Cameron specifically as Prime Minister and the Tory-led coalition generally. They are a much better government than Labour could ever have formed. However, tonight, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have made a big mistake and even loyal Conservatives have to say this.
This morning, the Cable story (I thought) was a light hearted pre-Christmas story about a puffed up LibDem in government; let's remind ourselves that Mr Cable said if he ever quit, or was forced from government, that he had the nuclear option of bringing down the administration. Tough talking (and in my view, wholly wrong, but never mind).
By this evening he has had a chance to prove himself to be correct. If any other Minister, let alone a Tory one, had done what Cable did then they would be out. The PM could have re-shuffled him, he could have quit or even been sacked. But he hasn't been - how? Do they really fear losing Vince Cable that much, or as some have suggested had they just not wanted to give into media pressure? Many are speculating that Cable fought his corner well and clung on because neither Clegg nor Cameron want a lightening-rod for the anti-coalition voices on the government side of the House.
So what now? Well, a lot depends on tomorrow's headlines ... the media will go for this, the commentators are working as a pack tonight, Labour scent blood and at the very best we have a weakened and even lame-duck Business Secretary.
Some Conservatives are lining up behind Vince tonight, but I feel that I have to say how much I believe this decision to be wrong and could potentially yet backfire on the whole government. I am not alone; Twitter is alight too, with loyal Conservatives saying the same thing.
Cable has defied political gravity today, but my feeling is that to save one man, the whole government is damaged.
Showing posts with label vince cable. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vince cable. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Could Coalition be the end of Collective Responsibility?
The sight of LibDem squirming over the tuition fees vote has not been a pleasant sight. First Vince Cable, and now Nick Clegg, have been been done over by the media and (to a lesser extent) by Labour MPs over their apparent discomfort over what to do in the lobbies. In particular the sight of Mr Cable not voting for a piece of legislation that he co-wrote and will be piloting through the Commons is bizarre to say the least.
Some LibDems are, of course, being more straight forward and honest. Jon Leech, one of Manchester's LibDem MPs, has announced he will oppose the move as has Cardiff LibDem MP Jenny Willmot. The difference is, I suppose, that Ms Willmot is a PPS and thus technically covered by collective responsibility - the idea that all Minister must back the government in a vote or resign their position. PPSs quitting is nothing new and many will simply be recycled in a few months time, so why is Ms Willmot holding on like this?
Regulars will know that I am not a fan of collective responsibility on the whole. If the legislation is yours (a la Cable) then yes, you must be duty bound to vote for it. But why can't our politics to be grown up enough for somebody to say that they disagree with X policy but still want to remain part of the government because they back the other 99% of the programme? If we know this in advance, why shouldn't MPs do the adult thing? Will be see David Lidington and Cheryl Gillan quit the government over High Speed Rail links that threaten their constituencies? I hope not; they should be free to speak and vote against that part of the government programme but work had to deliver the rest of it.
Controversial, maybe, but might the coalition agreement weaken the doctrine of collective responsibility? I hope so.
UPDATE; a friend points out the CR seems to be a problem for this government only, the previous lot used to regularly, for example, campaign against hospital closures in their areas without quitting the government that imposed them
Some LibDems are, of course, being more straight forward and honest. Jon Leech, one of Manchester's LibDem MPs, has announced he will oppose the move as has Cardiff LibDem MP Jenny Willmot. The difference is, I suppose, that Ms Willmot is a PPS and thus technically covered by collective responsibility - the idea that all Minister must back the government in a vote or resign their position. PPSs quitting is nothing new and many will simply be recycled in a few months time, so why is Ms Willmot holding on like this?
Regulars will know that I am not a fan of collective responsibility on the whole. If the legislation is yours (a la Cable) then yes, you must be duty bound to vote for it. But why can't our politics to be grown up enough for somebody to say that they disagree with X policy but still want to remain part of the government because they back the other 99% of the programme? If we know this in advance, why shouldn't MPs do the adult thing? Will be see David Lidington and Cheryl Gillan quit the government over High Speed Rail links that threaten their constituencies? I hope not; they should be free to speak and vote against that part of the government programme but work had to deliver the rest of it.
Controversial, maybe, but might the coalition agreement weaken the doctrine of collective responsibility? I hope so.
UPDATE; a friend points out the CR seems to be a problem for this government only, the previous lot used to regularly, for example, campaign against hospital closures in their areas without quitting the government that imposed them
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Cable is Wrong on Bankers
If I didn't know better, I'd have assumed that the rabble rousing speech by Vince Cable was a leadership bid in the making. He delivered it extremely well and very funny in parts it was too. And the LibDem crowd lapped it up - yellow friends of mine who were there said it was, finally, what they wanted to hear. So, good news - except for the fact that we need to stop this ridiculous banker bashing.
Even LibDem Susan Kramer says this must come to an end. And I say so for two reasons.
Firstly because Labour are using it as a fig leaf for their disastrous tenure. Forget Brown's government, they tell us, it's all down to the bankers. Yes, every problem of the last 13 years - would you believe it! Well, actually, no I don't. What about the role of the government in setting a framework and the role of regulators in enforcing it? What about Brown's reckless spending and borrowing and spending and then borrowing some more? By reinforcing the public image that its all the fault of the bankers we let Brown, Labour and the Milibands off the hook for their role in this.
And secondly because it isn't true. The vast majority of bankers did not cause this and are not "spivs". Somehow it has been acceptable to be publicly vile to a whole profession on the basis of a minority of them. All teachers are bad!! All police officers are bent!! All politicians are corrupt!! Obviously nonsense and yet we allow people to talk about bankers in the same way. Tax them!! String them up!! Castrate them!! Hardly fair or accurate, from a party that preaches fairness. Playing to the crowd? Who'd have believed it from a LibDem?
As somebody tweeted me this evening - after agreeing with this argument - let's focus our anger on the minority that deserve it. Sadly, Cable's speech was aimed at his party and his standing rather than serious debate. I'm surprised that Cable has allowed this to happen.
Update:
I notice that not only the "establishment" but also the Director of the Adam Smith Institute (whom Cable credited with his ideas) have rubbished it now.
Update2:
This post says it rather well too
Even LibDem Susan Kramer says this must come to an end. And I say so for two reasons.
Firstly because Labour are using it as a fig leaf for their disastrous tenure. Forget Brown's government, they tell us, it's all down to the bankers. Yes, every problem of the last 13 years - would you believe it! Well, actually, no I don't. What about the role of the government in setting a framework and the role of regulators in enforcing it? What about Brown's reckless spending and borrowing and spending and then borrowing some more? By reinforcing the public image that its all the fault of the bankers we let Brown, Labour and the Milibands off the hook for their role in this.
And secondly because it isn't true. The vast majority of bankers did not cause this and are not "spivs". Somehow it has been acceptable to be publicly vile to a whole profession on the basis of a minority of them. All teachers are bad!! All police officers are bent!! All politicians are corrupt!! Obviously nonsense and yet we allow people to talk about bankers in the same way. Tax them!! String them up!! Castrate them!! Hardly fair or accurate, from a party that preaches fairness. Playing to the crowd? Who'd have believed it from a LibDem?
As somebody tweeted me this evening - after agreeing with this argument - let's focus our anger on the minority that deserve it. Sadly, Cable's speech was aimed at his party and his standing rather than serious debate. I'm surprised that Cable has allowed this to happen.
Update:
I notice that not only the "establishment" but also the Director of the Adam Smith Institute (whom Cable credited with his ideas) have rubbished it now.
Update2:
This post says it rather well too
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Campaign Diary - Day Sixteen
Today was mad and I found myself criss-crossing the City. This morning I spent time writing personal letters to all those people who had written, especially for policy information. I am keen to write my own views to local people and not just a standard template response so this always takes some time to do. In addition I wanted to carry on my phone calls to party members to thank them for their support. This afternoon it was back to the classroom, and then onto the South Park area of the City where a big team of Tory canvassers took to the streets. There was a good response and people seemed keen on talking about issues.
Then tonight all the main candidates were at the UEA for a debate hosted by the BMA - there were some very detailed questions but again we found ourselves, except perhaps the Greens, in agreement about the fundamentals of the NHS if not the specifics of policy! The audience was small but lively!
And now I'm just watching the complete demolishion of Vince Cable by the BBCs Stephanie Flanders and Andrew Neill; good to see Ken Clarke back in the frontline taking the lead in warning against a Hung Parliament.
Then tonight all the main candidates were at the UEA for a debate hosted by the BMA - there were some very detailed questions but again we found ourselves, except perhaps the Greens, in agreement about the fundamentals of the NHS if not the specifics of policy! The audience was small but lively!
And now I'm just watching the complete demolishion of Vince Cable by the BBCs Stephanie Flanders and Andrew Neill; good to see Ken Clarke back in the frontline taking the lead in warning against a Hung Parliament.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
LibDem blunder on VAT
I thought that the LibDem poster, unveiled last week, which decried the Tories for a VAT rise was completely made up. Yet nobody in the media picked up on it ... until this morning when LibDem Treasury Spokesman Vince Cable got stuck on the issue on the BBC:
JON SOPEL: I mean let’s leave aside whether or whether not there is a black hole in the Tories' finances. Leave that to one side. You don’t know factually, that they are going to raise VAT. That is your conjecture.
VINCE CABLE: It is a conjecture and it’s a reasonable assumption and I wouldn’t claim anymore than that.
JON SOPEL: And that £389 is a rough figure plucked –
VINCE CABLE: It’s a ball park estimate of what it would require in order to fill that gap, and it seems a reasonable way of expressing that argument."
...JON SOPEL: Would you rule out raising VAT?
VINCE CABLE: No, I don’t. It’s something –
JON SOPEL: So therefore your position is no different to them."
So, in short, the LibDems completely make up a Tory policy, attached a fantasy figure to it and try (again) to scare people. I don't know if I find their behaviour more or less worrying than the journo's who failed to dig deeper on this earlier in the week.
JON SOPEL: I mean let’s leave aside whether or whether not there is a black hole in the Tories' finances. Leave that to one side. You don’t know factually, that they are going to raise VAT. That is your conjecture.
VINCE CABLE: It is a conjecture and it’s a reasonable assumption and I wouldn’t claim anymore than that.
JON SOPEL: And that £389 is a rough figure plucked –
VINCE CABLE: It’s a ball park estimate of what it would require in order to fill that gap, and it seems a reasonable way of expressing that argument."
...JON SOPEL: Would you rule out raising VAT?
VINCE CABLE: No, I don’t. It’s something –
JON SOPEL: So therefore your position is no different to them."
So, in short, the LibDems completely make up a Tory policy, attached a fantasy figure to it and try (again) to scare people. I don't know if I find their behaviour more or less worrying than the journo's who failed to dig deeper on this earlier in the week.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
"Lessons to be learnt" admit LibDems as Cable's tax policies fall apart
The BBC reports on a very stormy meeting of LibDem MPs and frontbenchers who collectively tear apart the shambolic tax policies announced by Treasury Spokesman Vince Cable. Apparently they say that lessons will be learnt - will the first lesson be that not everything Cable says is gospel and, despite being the most influential LibDem in the country, he cannot carry the whole party and his own disasterous leader along.
Monday, September 21, 2009
5 steps to an acceptable tax hike ... but can it actually work?
Want to raise tax? Want to avoid the unpopularity that comes with wanting to raise tax? Follow these easy steps and you won't go far wrong!!
1. Only tax the "rich"
2. Define "rich" as anybody with a "million" of something
3. Make the tax rise sound small; only do things in demonination of "1%" or "2%"
4. Say the cash is for something very important indeed - so rich people are supporting good projects
5. Completely over-value the tax rise to make people think it is a great way of raising money
The trouble is that even if you do all 5 of these, most tax plans of this ilk tend to fall apart quite easily. Unless, of course, you think people will believe anything you say and do...
Obviously St. Vince of Cable has been taking the advice but already there are concerns about it. Even some LibDems are worried about this - they are worried because the people it hits live in some of their marginal seats in the South West and also South West London, and others remember the fate of Guildford in the 2005 over the "local income tax" policy (which shared a number of the criteria 1-5 too).
However I worry more that policies like this tend not to work. This one will hit house prices and independent financial experts have already said it won't raise anywhere near the figure that Cable claims. Houses that fall into the tax band will suddenly fall just under it - that is just one way to get around it. Many more will no doubt will be worked out later.
Cable has a position in politics where he feels and acts like he's untouchable. I think this may be a policy too far and not even his soft press can cushion the blow if it all falls apart in the wind.
1. Only tax the "rich"
2. Define "rich" as anybody with a "million" of something
3. Make the tax rise sound small; only do things in demonination of "1%" or "2%"
4. Say the cash is for something very important indeed - so rich people are supporting good projects
5. Completely over-value the tax rise to make people think it is a great way of raising money
The trouble is that even if you do all 5 of these, most tax plans of this ilk tend to fall apart quite easily. Unless, of course, you think people will believe anything you say and do...
Obviously St. Vince of Cable has been taking the advice but already there are concerns about it. Even some LibDems are worried about this - they are worried because the people it hits live in some of their marginal seats in the South West and also South West London, and others remember the fate of Guildford in the 2005 over the "local income tax" policy (which shared a number of the criteria 1-5 too).
However I worry more that policies like this tend not to work. This one will hit house prices and independent financial experts have already said it won't raise anywhere near the figure that Cable claims. Houses that fall into the tax band will suddenly fall just under it - that is just one way to get around it. Many more will no doubt will be worked out later.
Cable has a position in politics where he feels and acts like he's untouchable. I think this may be a policy too far and not even his soft press can cushion the blow if it all falls apart in the wind.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Was the media narrative over Brown's crisis performance wrong?
For the last 2 weeks covering the major economic turmoil, the media seem to have worked out what the story was. Brown was a superhero; a master of the universe, who would bravely sort out all this mess and lead international opinion. Cameron and Osbourn were to be silent and Cable played the wise sage on the sidelines of this all.
In fact, in order to get noticed the Tory Leader has to tear into the PM - and an effective speech is was too.
However, today's polls blow a hole in this theory. Apparently, although Brown still has a lead over the economy, this doesn't translate into votes and the Tories have (in some polls) actually extended their lead. Meanwhile the LibDems continue their slide showing that whilst some people are fooled by Cable, the overwhelming majority fear a Clegg-led government. In fact the most worrying fact is that only 7% of people believe Clegg-Cable are best to run the economy; that means only roughly half of all LibDem votes trust their own side. As for Brown he can take some comfort in the economic figures but he's still on for a drubbing at the polls. And the later surveys, which take into account Cameron's speech, show a better position for the Conservatives.
So what does all this mean? Well, once again the media and the Westminster Village have gotten the modd of the British people wrong. People may think Brown has part of the solution but clearly feel he is the problem too. They do, of course, have form over this - the media said David Davis was bonkers over 42-days; trouble is that the public backed him.
Will they learn from this? Of course not, because they like to continue to have an inflated view of their own self importance. When the judgement of the people is in, though, they will continue to have their bubble pricked.
In fact, in order to get noticed the Tory Leader has to tear into the PM - and an effective speech is was too.
However, today's polls blow a hole in this theory. Apparently, although Brown still has a lead over the economy, this doesn't translate into votes and the Tories have (in some polls) actually extended their lead. Meanwhile the LibDems continue their slide showing that whilst some people are fooled by Cable, the overwhelming majority fear a Clegg-led government. In fact the most worrying fact is that only 7% of people believe Clegg-Cable are best to run the economy; that means only roughly half of all LibDem votes trust their own side. As for Brown he can take some comfort in the economic figures but he's still on for a drubbing at the polls. And the later surveys, which take into account Cameron's speech, show a better position for the Conservatives.
So what does all this mean? Well, once again the media and the Westminster Village have gotten the modd of the British people wrong. People may think Brown has part of the solution but clearly feel he is the problem too. They do, of course, have form over this - the media said David Davis was bonkers over 42-days; trouble is that the public backed him.
Will they learn from this? Of course not, because they like to continue to have an inflated view of their own self importance. When the judgement of the people is in, though, they will continue to have their bubble pricked.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Bi-partisanship is a brilliant partisan idea
A great line from Danny Finklestein on Newsnight tonight to suggest that the Tory plan to back the government is a political ploy. Well, at least the Conservatives have a ploy and are sticking to it. Yesterday LibDem Vince Cable issued a damning press release attacking both the Tories and Labour; but within hours had changed his story and said all parties need to work together. Come on, Cable - you're the great white hope when Clegg gets slaughtered at the next election. Tut, tut. Must do better.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Vince Cable: "Barking Mad" ideas
Some of us believe that the legend of Vince Cable is, well, just that - a legend. He had a couple of good PMQs and made a reasonable stand-in leader and now most LibDems and a few commentators brand him as the greatest leader they've never had. Now Clegg, rather than being undermined by his more popular colleague, basks in his so-called glory. He claims that Cable forsaw all of this happening. That is, of course, true - he did - but so did a wide variety of financial leaders and a lot of experts including those in other parties. Cable has a good grasp of his portfolio but his ideas to save the nation are hardly rigerous and totally untested. In fact, you might go so far as to say some of them are "barking mad".
Not my words - the words of Cllr Richard Kemp, Leader of the LibDems in the LGA when describing Cable's policy of forcing £100k Chief Execs and the like to reapply for their jobs and accept pay cuts. He also says this idea is "probably illegal" too. At last; somebody willing to take on some of the loonier ideas coming out of the new serious LibDems.
Cable got the headlines, but clearly Kemp got the headache.
Not my words - the words of Cllr Richard Kemp, Leader of the LibDems in the LGA when describing Cable's policy of forcing £100k Chief Execs and the like to reapply for their jobs and accept pay cuts. He also says this idea is "probably illegal" too. At last; somebody willing to take on some of the loonier ideas coming out of the new serious LibDems.
Cable got the headlines, but clearly Kemp got the headache.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)