10 Questions for Vince Cable, post-Question Time

An open letter to the Business Secretary following our debate on BBC1.

Dear Vince,

Nice to see you last night in Liverpool. I just got home!

You've had a great week, with a strong speech to your party members at the Lib Dem conference followed by a fluent performance on Question Time. (You were also, I hear, a big draw at the NS fringe on "progressive austerity" in Liverpool on Monday.)

But QT is just too short for me. Sixty minutes? Call me greedy, but I wanted more time to continue our debate and discussion on the economy. If we'd had longer, and it'd just been you and me, here are the questions I'd like you to have answered for me:

1) You have referred to "slashing now" as "an act of economic masochism" (13 March 2010) and have said that "cutting too soon and pushing the economy back into recession will make the deficit worse, as tax receipts fall and benefit payments rise" (24 April 2010), so how can you now claim that your opponents are "deficit deniers" for making precisely the same case as you made only months ago?

2) You claimed last night on television that we were facing a financial "emergency" and that the deficit had to be confronted and cut down. But in your book, The Storm, you wrote that UK debt is "moderate in comparison with those of other countries" (p25) and that budget deficits of 13 or 14 per cent in the US and the UK were "not a great cause for alarm" (p144). How do you explain the disconnect?

3) You referred in your conference speech to the "spivs" and "gamblers" in the City, and denounced bankers' bonuses on Question Time, but bank shares rallied after your coalition's "emergency Budget" in June and Deutsche Bank, for example, described the Budget as a "good outcome for banks". Again, how do you explain the disconnect?

4) Nick Clegg said five days before the general election: "My eight-year-old ought to be able to work this out -- you shouldn't start slamming on the brakes when the economy is barely growing." How is it that eight-year-old Antonio Clegg has a greater grasp of economic theory, and of the lessons of economic history, than you, Clegg or Danny Alexander?

5) Do the latest figures from the Republic of Ireland worry you? Make you doubt your support for immediate and widespread "austerity"?

6) How about the news from the eurozone?

7) You have said that John Maynard Keynes is your hero, but isn't Keynes turning in his grave right now? Why is it that all the leading Keynesian economists (Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, David Blanchflower, Robert Skidelsky, etc) are so opposed to your coalition's cuts?

8) Can you tell us when exactly you switched your position on cuts? The date and time, please?

9) In the green room before the programme was recorded, you and I discussed how much Liverpool had changed and progressed in recent years. So do you agree or disagree with the Lib Dem leader of Liverpool City Council, Warren Bradley, when he says that northern cities like his own "could be set back ten or 20 years" by the impact of your coalition's cuts?

10) You condemned monopolies and "rigged markets" in your conference speech. Will you promise to launch a review, on public-interest grounds, of Rupert Murdoch's bid to take full control of BSkyB? Or will you have to check with Andy Coulson first?

I hope you had a safe journey back to London.

Regards,

Mehdi

 

 

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Theresa May missed an easy opportunity on EU citizens' rights

If the UK had made a big, open and generous offer, the diplomatic picture would be very different.

It's been seven hours and 365 days...and nothing compares to EU, at least as far as negotiations go.

First David Davis abandoned "the row of the summer" by agreeing to the EU's preferred negotiating timetable. Has Theresa May done the same in guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living here indefinitely?

Well, sort of. Although the PM has said that there have to be reciprocal arrangements for British citizens abroad, the difficulty is that because we don't have ID cards and most of our public services are paid for not out of an insurance system but out of general taxation, the issues around guaranteeing access to health, education, social security and residence are easier.

Our ability to enforce a "cut-off date" for new migrants from the European Union is also illusory, unless the government thinks it has the support in parliament and the logistical ability to roll out an ID card system by March 2019. (It doesn't.)

If you want to understand how badly the PM has managed Britain's Brexit negotiations, then the rights of the three million EU nationals living in Britain is the best place to start. The overwhelming support in the country at large for guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens, coupled with the deep unease among Conservative MPs about not doing so, meant that it was never a plausible bargaining chip. (That's before you remember that the bulk of the British diaspora in Europe lives in countries with small numbers of EU citizens living in the UK. You can't secure a good deal from Spain by upsetting the Polish government.) It just made three million people, their friends and their families nervous for a year and irritated our European partners, that's all.

If the United Kingdom had made a big, open and generous offer on citizens' rights a year ago, as Vote Leave recommended in the referendum, the diplomatic picture would be very different. (It would be better still if, again, as Vote Leave argued, we hadn't triggered Article 50, an exit mechanism designed to punish an emergent dictatorship that puts all the leverage on the EU27's side.)

As it happens, May's unforced errors in negotiations, the worsening economic picture and the tricky balancing act in the House of Commons means that Remainers can hope both for a softer exit and that they might yet convince voters that nothing compares to EU after all. (That a YouGov poll shows the number of people willing to accept EU rules in order to keep the economy going stretching to 58 per cent will only further embolden the soft Brexiteers.)

For Brexiteers, that means that if Brexit doesn't go well, they have a readymade scapegoat in the government. It means Remainers can credibly hope for a soft Brexit – or no Brexit at all. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496