Inability to count

Word reaches Liberator of an altercation at yesterday’s parliamentary party meeting over briefing by those associated with Nick Clegg, to the effect that the unamended motion on the economy (debated by party conference yesterday morning) was supported 55-2 at a pre-conference awayday of MPs.

We hear that this greatly displeased Vince Cable, on the grounds that no such vote took place at the event concerned and that, even if it had, not all 57 MPs were present so the figures could not have been correct.

The implication was that Cable was among the two and therefore that his position on the economy enjoyed only minor support among MPs. This is believed to be a terminological inexactitude.

Liberator would be grateful for any further details of what transpired at the meeting, our usual discretion assured. Oh, and the 224-220 vote yesterday in favour of a 45p top tax rate, rather than 50p, was, it should be noted, made possible only a by frantic late whipping in of ‘payroll’ MPs, to the wry amusement of those on the 50p side.

At least 220 people understand the important political symbolism in being a party that thinks some burdens should fall on the rich, even if the leader doesn’t.

Vince Cable backs Social Liberal Forum motion?

At least that’s what it says in the Sunday Mirror. Although the Mirror’s headline is the more dramatic:

Vince Cable backing rebel Lib Dems’ call for end to Tories’ “slash and burn” policies

The Social Liberal Forum’s emergency motion at this weekend’s Liberal Democrat spring conference is titled ‘Kick-starting the economy’. Again, the Mirror prefers a more hyperbolic description, calling the motion:

...an explosive bid to rock the Coalition.

Which is all a bit odd because, of the two emergency motions to win yesterday’s ballot and thus be chosen for debate, neither is the SLF motion. First place in the ballot, predictably, was won by the motion ‘Continuing Our Opposition to Secret Courts’, while the other motion selected was ‘Implementing the Leveson Report’.

The SLF motion actually took second place in the ballot but was not accepted for debate because of a decision by the Federal Conference Committee that it would require one hour for debate rather than the usual 30 minutes allocated to emergency motions. Were it to have topped the ballot, therefore, no other emergency motion would have been taken, which would have prevented a debate on secret courts. As it came second, there was not enough time for it to be debated, hence the promotion of the third-placed Leveson Report motion onto the agenda in its place.

None of this explains why the Mirror thinks that the SLF motion is on the agenda, let alone why it reports that Vince Cable is backing it.

Later...

Gareth Epps has a theory why the FCC ruled that the SLF motion could not be debated, and it is not time limits.

Gareth Epps on Left Foot Forward

Liberator’s Gareth Epps has just published a post on Left Foot Forward, which praises Vince Cable’s New Statesman article (discussed on this blog yesterday).

Gareth mentions that the Social Liberal Forum is proposing an emergency motion (‘Kickstarting economic growth’) at this weekend’s Liberal Democrat spring conference in Brighton, and we would urge representatives to support it.

That Vince Cable article in full

Vince Cable has been in the news this morning for an article he has written in the New Statesman.

The article is important because it advocates the financing of more capital investment by borrowing, although it does so in measured tones, weighing up a “balance of risks”. It is also a lengthy and somewhat technical article on economic policy, making it too difficult for anyone with a short attention span. For this reason, it has been subject to dramatic interpretations by the media.

BBC News is an honourable exception (see also Stephanie Flanders’s blog). But the Guardian described the article as, first, “Vince Cable makes direct challenge to Cameron” then later as “Vince Cable contradicts Osborne”, while the Independent’s headline declares “David Cameron and Vince Cable at war over route to recovery”. The Spectator’s Coffee House blog attempts to up the ante with “Vince Cable’s borrowing bombshell”, compared with which the Daily Mirror’s “Vince Cable breaks Coalition ranks” seems restrained.

Is any of this hyperbole justified? One interpretation of events says that it isn’t. The budget is less than two weeks away and it seems doubtful that any cabinet minister – even Vince Cable – would be allowed to rock the boat at this stage. There will have been robust arguments within the government but these have probably been resolved by now. So what is going on?

Has Cable won the argument (as Bill le Breton suggests on Liberal Democrat Voice today)? Is the New Statesman article a curtain-raiser for a budget that will signal a change in direction? Of course, the government will want to save face and deny any failure, so any change in policy would be presented as a seamless continuation of a long-term plan. But are we about to see ‘Plan A+’?

Or is Cable out on a limb? Does David Cameron’s speech today represent a genuine determination to stick with Plan A? Cameron’s warning that changing course would “plunge us back into the abyss” suggests that it does. And what of Nick Clegg’s statement on his weekly LBC phone-in programme this morning? It was hardly a ringing endorsement of Cable’s position, although Clegg revealed that he, Cameron and George Osborne had all seen the New Statesman article before it was published.

If one had to say which is more likely, Cable’s muted optimism or Cameron’s resort to ‘TINA’ (There Is No Alternative), echoed by Clegg, the government will almost certainly opt for the latter.

Later...

I’ve been reflecting on the politics of the situation. Why did the ‘Quad’ (Cameron, Osborne, Clegg, Alexander) allow Cable to publish his article, even though it disagrees? After all, if the Quad or the Treasury had wanted to enforce cabinet discipline, they could easily have blocked publication.

This is all about positioning before the budget on 20th March. The Quad clearly plans to stick to ‘Plan A’ (even though it isn’t working) and, in the absence of effective opposition from Labour, needs Cable as a ‘defining other’. Cameron and Clegg could not have made their unrepentant statements today without being able to contrast with a prominent critic. And if Cable hadn’t said what he had said, who else could they have knocked down?