The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Vince Cable settles his scores

Business Secretary takes aim at Steve Hilton, the Murdoch empire and Gordon Brown in his conference

By George Eaton Published 19 September 2011 14:33

Vince Cable's speech at the Lib Dem conference (read it in full here) felt like a settling of scores. The Business Secretary took aim at the Murdoch empire, Gordon Brown and even David Cameron's policy adviser Steve Hilton. Of the latter, who once proposed abolishing maternity leave, he declared: "What I will not do though is provide cover for ideological descendents of those who sent children up chimneys. Panic in financial markets won't be stopped by scrapping maternity rights."

His attack on the economic right continued. He derided the Lafferites who believe that cutting taxes on the rich will "miraculously" generate new revenue, and asked what "solar system" those who depicted his mansion tax as an attack on "ordinary middle class owners" were living in. But the biggest applause came when, in reference to News International, Cable spoke of his pride that "we never compromised ourselves in that company."

Yet while Cable threw plenty of red meat to the Lib Dem faithful, he combined this with a robust but distinctive defence of George Osborne's deficit reduction strategy. In pursuing fiscal contraction, the Lib Dems, he said, were "following in the footsteps of Stafford Cripps and Roy Jenkins in Britain and, abroad, the Canadian Liberals, Scandinavian Social Democrats and Clinton Democrats in the USA." In a swipe at messrs Balls and Miliband, he added: "They understood, unlike today's Labour Party - that the progressive agenda of centre left parties cannot be delivered by bankrupt Governments." The word that blows Cable's argument apart is "bankrupt". Britain was never on the "brink of bankruptcy" and debt as a percentage of GDP is still lower now than it was for most of the 20th century. Hardly ideal, but then as Cable himself argued: "[W]e now face a crisis that is the economic equivalent of war."

He was admirably frank about Britain's economic woes, insisting pace Cameron that there are no "sunny uplands", only "grey skies". Indeed, whether you favour Keynesian stimulus (as the NS does) or Hayekian austerity, the truth is that the UK faces a permanently reduced level of growth (the reason why the structural deficit is £12bn higher-than-expected).

In an attempt to distinguish himself from Osborne (who was not mentioned by name), Cable made repeated references to the government's "stimulus" programme and to the need for "fairness", what he called a "more responsible capitalism". And he put some red water between himself and Nick Clegg by vowing to reduce income inequality (a concept Clegg has suggested is outdated). But for all his undoubted sincerity, Cable is a member of a government that is presiding over anaemic growth and that is likely to leave office with poverty and inequality higher than when it entered. When the time comes to assess the coalition's record, Cable's progressive rheotric will offer scant comfort.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Party Conferences 2011 Vince Cable Liberal Democrats

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

13 comments

Tue, 2011-09-20 00:08 — Indu Pendent (not verified)

@matt

Poor poor Foxy, head stuck in fox hole again - inside there do you have a colour TV or are you still on B/W (the world changed whilst you hid away).

Before 2008, Labour borrowed £350Bn but did not invest it and pissed the money away. The money +interest still needs to be repaid and there is nothing of benefit to show for it. Labour shut down UK Industry at its fastest rate since the 1970's and moved 1 million jobs out of the private into the public sector e.g. they shut Ford Dagenham Fiesta which could have been avoided. Labour created the UK's biggest peace time structural deficit which the UK can not afford to pay.

Currently we enjoy AAA and the government can borrow money from China at 2.1%. Legarde and Ed Milliband support the cuts to the UK public sector and Legarde has criticised the UK by inference for not cutting fast enough - the UK has not implemented austerity measures.

If we lost the AAA, rates would rise to 6% in line with other countries adding an extra £80Bn effectively doubling the deficit reduction task (taking account of the impact on growth of higher interest rates). Its the effect of the illusive 'credibility'.

Alistair said that Labour does not have a credible economic plan. Labours plan to borrow £250Bn more than the coalition was total bullshit made up off the cuff with no susbtance purely as a marketing excercise to win votes and would loose the AAA - all of Labour's extra borrowing would have been spent on extra debt interest because the world markets would think Labour that was hopeless looking after a piggy bank let a lone an economy.

Hey Foxy, for which part of the above is truth a casuality?

Are you coping with the split between the Eds (not knowing who to listen to)? Which Ed are you supporting (not that I need to ask)?

BTW you still did not tell me whether state borrowing should be increased or decreased (remember the comparison of Ed vs Ed?).

Thu, 2011-09-22 17:00 — Awake!

david wearing
' which in turn required them to dispense with sincerity and fall back on scaremongering'
yes- the greek riots is a cgi- it's all a hoax GDP crashing. Oh, and it's OSbornes fault cos he went to Eaton, had he gone to Pangbourne the greeks would have paid some tax- had he gone to a comprehensive the euroclowns would not have accepted the cheating Greeks in the first place (they did cheat to make the criteria, and all thepoliticians turned a blind eye- remeber that everyone?? no, u were all too busy backslapping Labour being in power and celebrating your house price rises... plate smashers? yeah let 'em in...
Cable got one thing right, banker bonus, did nothing about it. The rest of his ideas are time wasters cos they are unadministrable.

Mon, 2011-09-19 15:15 — Tommy (not verified)

Britain WAS nearly bankrupt, yes debt has been higher in the past but Britain was richer and more important back then, plus it was a lot easier to cut. After the war military expenditure (the cause of the debt) will drop off dramatically, whereas you can't just make public sector workers disappear.

And Hayekian austerity was the only choice; Labour's record since 2001 meant that Keynesian action was impossible... you can't just pick the bit of Keynes that says borrow money, you have to live within your means beforehand too.

Tue, 2011-09-20 19:48 — C Baker

Vince Cable is great. He was right about the recession. He is right about the mansion tax and the banks. I'd vote Lib Dem if he was leader.

Mon, 2011-09-19 15:50 — David Wearing1

"But for all his undoubted sincerity......."

If he sincerely thinks Britain was even close to bankruptcy then he's out of his depth. I don't think he believes it for a moment. The LibDems were desperate to prove they were a "serious party of government". That meant hitching themselves to Osbornomics, which in turn required them to dispense with sincerity and fall back on scaremongering, straw men, and all the other aspects of the "old politics" that they pretended to be against. Like the Tories and New Labour before them, they exist to win office and for no other reason. And they will say literally anything to get their hands on those nice ministerial portfolios. A spectacle which gets no less pathetic with the passing of time.

Mon, 2011-09-19 19:24 — matthew fox (not verified)

They say the first casualty of war, is the truth.

Cable signed a pledge not to increase tuition fees.

Vince is morally bankrupt, pushing people onto the dole queue, making childcare unaffordable and supporting failed Thatcherite policies.

Wed, 2011-09-21 10:06 — WearmaGer

The "war" analogy was pretty self serving. It was used to compare this coalition with the Churchill-Attlee one. The situations and solutions are massively different.

Mon, 2011-09-19 20:37 — Eddy S (not verified)

The difference now is that debt will get more expensive, much more expensive, the chinese ain't so down with paying our bills as they were in the last decade or two. Either we manage our house or we pay the consequences through higher interest as there aint too many keen on govt debt.

Mon, 2011-09-19 20:45 — Whig (not verified)

Well we know the last Labour Administration left office with both poverty and inequality higher than when it came in, the OECD figures prove it. They also left the cupboard bare because they WASTED so much money

Mon, 2011-09-19 22:39 — Freeman2

'... what he called a "more responsible capitalism".'

Well, of course none of us here are interested in that because we're socialists and know capitalism cannot be responsible. We do know that, don't we? Or do we think 'socialism' is just capitalism + nice reforms?