Cable fires a warning shot at the bankers (and Osborne)

Business Secretary attacks the banks as "disingenuous in the extreme" for attempting to delay reform

Vince Cable built his reputation in opposition as the hammer of the bankers, so it's no surprise that he's taken exception to their recent behaviour. In an interview in this morning's Times (£), the Business Secretary criticises the "special pleading" of those banks attempting to use the eurozone crisis to delay structural reform. He declares: "It is disingenuous in the extreme to use the current context to argue against reform. Banks are in a way trying to create a panic around something which they know has got to happen".

While the likes of Angela Knight, the chief executive of the British Bankers' Association, argue that reform should be postponed until the economy has recovered, Cable takes a diametrically opposed position: recovery is impossible without reform. As he argues: "The fact that we continue three years after the 2008 crisis to still have anxieties about big financial institutions is all the more reason for grappling with this issue."

In other words, banks' retail and investment arms must be split, or at least ring-fenced, in order to ensure that institutions are no longer "too big to fail". As Mervyn King recently noted in an interview with the Daily Telegraph, it is the knowledge that the state will bail them out "on the downside" that allows banks to pay their staff such extravagant bonuses.

The context for Cable's intervention is the imminent publication (12 September) of the final Vickers report into banking. The Business Secretary is willing to accept the imposition of a ring-fence between banks' retail and investment divisions (the solution proposed by Vickers' interim report and endorsed by George Osborne in his Mansion House speech) but only on the condition that it can be "as effective as a full separation". But while the banks accept that some kind of structural reform is inevitable, they are prepared to do everything in their power to delay it. The fear among Lib Dems is that Osborne is prepared to appease them. As the FT reported earlier this month, the Chancellor is considering a plan to endorse ring-fencing but give banks until 2019 to implement the changes.

Should Osborne agree to an eight-year delay, he will find himself on a collision course with Cable. The Business Secretary accepts that any changes would require legislation and would not take place immediately. But it's safe to say that 2019 is not the date he has in mind. As Lord Oakeshott, Cable's representative on earth, told the Independent: "The banks are like car-makers who say they cannot afford proper brakes. There is no possible excuse for delay. Every day that goes by with no action on the Vickers report puts the British economy at more risk."

Cable's fear is that the banks view the postponement of reform as a prelude to its abandonment. But should the status quo survive, a repeat of the crash is not just possible but inevitable. The stakes could not be higher. For the sake of the economy, Cable must prevail.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Who will win in Stoke-on-Trent?

Labour are the favourites, but they could fall victim to a shock in the Midlands constituency.  

The resignation of Tristram Hunt as MP for Stoke-on-Central has triggered a by-election in the safe Labour seat of Stoke on Trent Central. That had Westminster speculating about the possibility of a victory for Ukip, which only intensified once Paul Nuttall, the party’s leader, was installed as the candidate.

If Nuttall’s message that the Labour Party has lost touch with its small-town and post-industrial heartlands is going to pay dividends at the ballot box, there can hardly be a better set of circumstances than this: the sitting MP has quit to take up a well-paid job in London, and although  the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs voted to block Brexit, the well-advertised divisions in that party over the vote should help Ukip.

But Labour started with a solid lead – it is always more useful to talk about percentages, not raw vote totals – of 16 points in 2015, with the two parties of the right effectively tied in second and third place. Just 33 votes separated Ukip in second from the third-placed Conservatives.

There was a possible – but narrow – path to victory for Ukip that involved swallowing up the Conservative vote, while Labour shed votes in three directions: to the Liberal Democrats, to Ukip, and to abstention.

But as I wrote at the start of the contest, Ukip were, in my view, overwritten in their chances of winning the seat. We talk a lot about Labour’s problem appealing to “aspirational” voters in Westminster, but less covered, and equally important, is Ukip’s aspiration problem.

For some people, a vote for Ukip is effectively a declaration that you live in a dump. You can have an interesting debate about whether it was particularly sympathetic of Ken Clarke to brand that party’s voters as “elderly male people who have had disappointing lives”, but that view is not just confined to pro-European Conservatives. A great number of people, in Stoke and elsewhere, who are sympathetic to Ukip’s positions on immigration, international development and the European Union also think that voting Ukip is for losers.

That always made making inroads into the Conservative vote harder than it looks. At the risk of looking very, very foolish in six days time, I found it difficult to imagine why Tory voters in Hanley would take the risk of voting Ukip. As I wrote when Nuttall announced his candidacy, the Conservatives were, in my view, a bigger threat to Labour than Ukip.

Under Theresa May, almost every move the party has made has been designed around making inroads into the Ukip vote and that part of the Labour vote that is sympathetic to Ukip. If the polls are to be believed, she’s succeeding nationally, though even on current polling, the Conservatives wouldn’t have enough to take Stoke on Trent Central.

Now Theresa May has made a visit to the constituency. Well, seeing as the government has a comfortable majority in the House of Commons, it’s not as if the Prime Minister needs to find time to visit the seat, particularly when there is another, easier battle down the road in the shape of the West Midlands mayoral election.

But one thing is certain: the Conservatives wouldn’t be sending May down if they thought that they were going to do worse than they did in 2015.

Parties can be wrong of course. The Conservatives knew that they had found a vulnerable spot in the last election as far as a Labour deal with the SNP was concerned. They thought that vulnerable spot was worth 15 to 20 seats. They gained 27 from the Liberal Democrats and a further eight from Labour.  Labour knew they would underperform public expectations and thought they’d end up with around 260 to 280 seats. They ended up with 232.

Nevertheless, Theresa May wouldn’t be coming down to Stoke if CCHQ thought that four days later, her party was going to finish fourth. And if the Conservatives don’t collapse, anyone betting on Ukip is liable to lose their shirt. 

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