Why Vince Cable is no Marxist

The Business Secretary’s arguments owe more to Adam Smith than they do to Karl Marx.

The Lib Dem conference has so far produced few memorable speeches, but Vince Cable's widely trailed address should prove an exception. He will warn that the current system "takes no prisoners and kills competition where it can" and that markets are "often irrational and rigged", and he will promise to shine a "harsh light into the murky world of corporate behaviour".

Inevitably, the free-market right has interpreted Cable's speech as an attack not on unfettered markets, but on capitalism tout court. Richard Lambert of the CBI criticised Cable's "odd" and "emotional" language, and Lambert's predecessor Digby Jones accused the Business Secretary of "rabble-rousing".

Yet Cable's arguments owe more to Adam Smith than they do to Karl Marx. His words reflect the centuries-old awareness that the free market is not synonymous with competition, or with the public interest.

As Smith, that great apostle of capitalism, argued:

The interest of the dealers, in any particular branch and trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public.

Which now looks like a rather prescient comment on the British banking sector. Elsewhere, on the self-interested nature of industry, he pointed out:

Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent in regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.

What Cable's critics are too intellectually barren to acknowledge is that there are alternatives to the finance-dominated, Anglo-Saxon model beyond that of state socialism. The Swedes do capitalism, the Americans do capitalism, the French do capitalism, even the Chinese do capitalism. But they all do it in very different ways.

When Richard Lambert sneers that it "will be interesting to hear [Cable's] ideas for an alternative", he fails to acknowledge this reality. But at least some of our political class may be about to.

UPDATE: Cable left in his attack on capitalism, but added a reference to Adam Smith that wasn't in the text last night. Perhaps the Business Secretary read The Staggers over breakfast?

His words: "Capitalism takes no prisoners and kills competition where it can, as Adam Smith explained over 200 years ago."

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.