Vince Cable's leaked letter: the reaction

The Business Secretary's harsh criticism of government economic policy hurts because it is true.

In a remarkable leaked letter, the Business Secretary Vince Cable has ripped apart the government's strategy on growth and other key economic policies.

The four page letter (which you can read in full here) was published yesterday by the BBC. Date 8th February and addressed to David Cameron and Nick Clegg, the private letter warns that "market forces are insufficient for creating the long term industrial capacities we need" and says there is "no connected approach across government". In a brutally frank assessment, Cable writes:

I sense however that there is still something important missing: a compelling vision of where the country is heading beyond sorting out the fiscal mess; and a clear and confident message abut how we will earn our living in future... We can be more strategic and the economic backdrop will increase demands that we are ambitious.

He makes several suggestions, the most radical of which is that the majority taxpayer owned Royal Bank of Scotland is broken up to create a "British Business Bank with a clean balance sheet and a mandate to expand lending rapidly to sound business".

But, predictably, it is not Cable's suggestions which have drawn the most attention, but his tough criticism of the way his own government -- and in places, his own department -- have handled the economy. This lays bare tensions in the coalition, at a particularly crucial time as the Budget draws near.

There was some irritation in the Treasury at the timing of the leak, as tense negotiations over the Budget continue. Downing Street and the Deputy Prime Minister's office both downplayed the importance of Cable's intervention, but a range of Conservative MPs - amongst whom the Business Secretary is already unpopular - expressed their annoyance.

Brian Binley, a Tory member of the Business Select Committee, summed up the feelings of many, telling the Times (£):

I am bitterly disappointed that the man put in charge of the growth agenda feels there is a problem with the agenda.

I find him a pleasant person to deal with. But if he is disappointed by the lack of growth, he is in as good a place as anybody in the Commons to make that clear. If he is struggling to do that, perhaps he should step aside and allow someone else to have a go."

Commentators across the political spectrum have been quick to notice that Cable's suggestions -- interventionism, patriotism, and supporting winners -- closely echo Labour's line. Yesterday, Ed Miliband gave a speech on "industrial activism". My colleague George Eaton noted the concordance between the views touted publically by Miliband and Cable yesterday.

This letter will strike a nerve with Tory top command precisely because it is close to the bone. The charge they are most sensitive to is that they have failed to articulate a strategy for growth, or indeed any economic strategy beyond deficit reduction. It is more damaging because it comes from within the government, even if it is from Cable, Liberal Democrat and eternal discontent. Yet, on the other hand, many Conservative commentators are raising the question: as Business Secretary, isn't Cable at least partly responsible for creating this situation? The shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna has been fast to say that the letter shows that "David Cameron and George Osborne have become roadblocks to the modernisation and reform needed to create a more productive economy."

The blame game will continue in Westminster, but outside it is largely irrelevant. What matters is that these criticisms sting because they are founded in fact, and the government does not have any decisive answers.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Leaving the cleaning to someone else makes you happier? Men have known that for centuries

Research says avoiding housework is good for wellbeing, but women have rarely had the option.

If you want to be happy, there is apparently a trick: offload the shitwork onto somebody else. Hire cleaner. Get your groceries delivered. Have someone else launder your sheets. These are the findings published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, but it’s also been the foundation of our economy since before we had economics. Who does the offloading? Men. Who does the shitwork? Women.

Over the last 40 years, female employment has risen to almost match the male rate, but inside the home, labour sticks stubbornly to old patterns: men self-report doing eight hours of housework a week, while women slog away for 13. When it comes to caring for family members, the difference is even more stark: men do ten hours, and women 23.

For your average heterosexual couple with kids, that means women spend 18 extra hours every week going to the shops, doing the laundry, laying out uniform, doing the school run, loading dishwashers, organising doctors' appointments, going to baby groups, picking things up, cooking meals, applying for tax credits, checking in on elderly parents, scrubbing pots, washing floors, combing out nits, dusting, folding laundry, etcetera etcetera et-tedious-cetera.

Split down the middle, that’s nine hours of unpaid work that men just sit back and let women take on. It’s not that men don’t need to eat, or that they don’t feel the cold cringe of horror when bare foot meets dropped food on a sticky kitchen floor. As Katrine Marçal pointed out in Who Cooked Adam Smiths Dinner?, men’s participation in the labour market has always relied on a woman in the background to service his needs. As far as the majority of men are concerned, domestic work is Someone Else’s Problem.

And though one of the study authors expressed surprise at how few people spend their money on time-saving services given the substantial effect on happiness, it surely isn’t that mysterious. The male half of the population has the option to recruit a wife or girlfriend who’ll do all this for free, while the female half faces harsh judgement for bringing cover in. Got a cleaner? Shouldn’t you be doing it yourself rather than outsourcing it to another woman? The fact that men have even more definitively shrugged off the housework gets little notice. Dirt apparently belongs to girls.

From infancy up, chores are coded pink. Looking on the Toys “R” Us website, I see you can buy a Disney Princess My First Kitchen (fuchsia, of course), which is one in the eye for royal privilege. Suck it up, Snow White: you don’t get out of the housekeeping just because your prince has come. Shop the blue aisle and you’ll find the Just Like Home Workshop Deluxe Carry Case Workbench – and this, precisely, is the difference between masculine and feminine work. Masculine work is productive: it makes something, and that something is valuable. Feminine work is reproductive: a cleaned toilet doesn’t stay clean, the used plates stack up in the sink.

The worst part of this con is that women are presumed to take on the shitwork because we want to. Because our natures dictate that there is a satisfaction in wiping an arse with a woman’s hand that men could never feel and money could never match. That fiction is used to justify not only women picking up the slack at home, but also employers paying less for what is seen as traditional “women’s work” – the caring, cleaning roles.

It took a six-year legal battle to secure compensation for the women Birmingham council underpaid for care work over decades. “Don’t get me wrong, the men do work hard, but we did work hard,” said one of the women who brought the action. “And I couldn’t see a lot of them doing what we do. Would they empty a commode, wash somebody down covered in mess, go into a house full of maggots and clean it up? But I’ll tell you what, I would have gone and done a dustman’s job for the day.”

If women are paid less, they’re more financially dependent on the men they live with. If you’re financially dependent, you can’t walk out over your unfair housework burden. No wonder the settlement of shitwork has been so hard to budge. The dream, of course, is that one day men will sack up and start to look after themselves and their own children. Till then, of course women should buy happiness if they can. There’s no guilt in hiring a cleaner – housework is work, so why shouldn’t someone get paid for it? One proviso: every week, spend just a little of the time you’ve purchased plotting how you’ll overthrow patriarchy for good.

Sarah Ditum is a journalist who writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman and others. Her website is here.