Pressure mounts on "Saint" Vince Cable

Malcolm.

carolt wrote: »

I suspect if more Tories were like Nick, there would be more support for the Tories.

I rather like that he bothers to explain his convictions on a public forum; I may not agree with them, but at least he bothers to engage with the public he is committed to serve, which is more than can be said of most politicians, of any colour.

There are a LOT of questions I'd like to ask and a lot of points I'd like to make to those in a position of power; if Nick could have words with those at the top, and tell them to get over here quick, that would be absolutely marvellous!!

I blame the media, they can pick up on one sentence by a MP, and replay it time and time again. It means politicans (at the top) need to be seen to be on message constantly and can never lower their guard.

Heaven forbid should two MP's of the same party disagree with one-another. :eek:

tomstickland

I quite like Vince, but I don't believe that he is the financial messiah.

tomterm8

Vince is suffering from pedestal syndrome, the reality is that he will make mistakes like any other human.

chucky

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

That Nickmason is a Tory and posts as one is not a surprise and does not affect what he is saying. The Sopel interview did put pressure on Vince in a way the Chancellor debate did not.

i'm sure that nick 'butter wouldn't melt in his mouth' mason would be the first to highlight the fact that Osborne has made quite a few mistakes

if his intentions are as honest as he says he'll be along in a minute criticising Osborne for wanting the banks to crash, that he was against QE and when he was lambasted for his run on the pound comments.

come on Nick - these were good calls by Osborne weren't they?

lostinrates

Malcolm. wrote: »

Heaven forbid should two MP's of the same party disagree with one-another. :eek:

This is odd, isn't it, because it makes them MORE representative to disagree on some issues. I really respect the politician brave enough to say ''The party line is this, so this is how I must represent, but I personally am out of kilter with my party on this issue''.

nickmason

chucky wrote: »

i'm sure that nick 'butter wouldn't melt in his mouth' mason would be the first to highlight the fact that Osborne has made quite a few mistakes

if his intentions are as honest as he says he'll be along in a minute criticising Osborne for wanting the banks to crash, that he was against QE and when he was lambasted for his run on the pound comments.

come on Nick - these were good calls by Osborne weren't they?

One of the obvious things about the recent events is that it's not very easy to know whether the right course was taken, because the situation was unique. It looks like Armageddon has not come upon us. That doesn't mean that the Osborne suggestions would have caused Armageddon - that is a false dichotomy, the favourite trick of debaters across the world.

What you can of course do is look to the theory and see whether any of the positions, in the wisdom of the time, seem sensible or daft.

For my part, I think "wanting banks to crash" has a very strong appeal when the emotive language is taken out, and you consider whether gamblers should be rescued when their bets go wrong. This, moral hazard, has been exercising the governor of the Bank for some considerable time.

I think it's far too early to judge QE - it seems to me to be another case of putting today's troubles off until tomorrow, with interest - and the unwinding is going to be very interesting indeed. As far as I can tell, it's either inflation or burning government money - neither of which seem palatable. To that extent, I have a lot of sympathy with Osborne.

re the run on the pound comments, I'm not going to say something that can be taken out of context - but I think it's fair to say that both sides have occasionally shown an impetuosity to make political points - witness David Miliband's comments - that they probably should have resisted given the position they hold. There have been attempts to draw the Conservatives into making this mistake again, and they have resisted. It's probably worth remembering of course that the markets DO "want" a conservative victory.

There, is that close enough to a straight answer?

nickmason

Malcolm. wrote: »

I blame the media, they can pick up on one sentence by a MP, and replay it time and time again. It means politicans (at the top) need to be seen to be on message constantly and can never lower their guard.

Heaven forbid should two MP's of the same party disagree with one-another. :eek:

I think it was Ken Clarke who made this point recently, on Any Questions, that everyone wants independently minded MPs - but as soon as they go off message the media runs a story of rifts at the centre of the party. It was one of the clever bits of Blair/Brown - that they internalised the divisions within the "broad church" party.

LizEstelle

nickmason wrote: »

I think it was Ken Clarke who made this point recently, on Any Questions, that everyone wants independently minded MPs - but as soon as they go off message the media runs a story of rifts at the centre of the party. It was one of the clever bits of Blair/Brown - that they internalised the divisions within the "broad church" party.

Internal divisions?

Ken Clarke..?

Ah yes... I remember him. The But-For-His-Dreadful-Views-On-Europe Tory Shadow Chancellor...

nickmason

LizEstelle wrote: »

Internal divisions?

Ken Clarke..?

Ah yes... I remember him. The But-For-His-Dreadful-Views-On-Europe Tory Shadow Chancellor...

I'm not sure of your point - he has of course been the actual Chancellor....and by all accounts an extremely good one.

tomterm8

I think her point is that he should be shadow chancellor. Which I agree with. I would probably vote for the Conservatives if he was shadow chancellor... without, I guess Lib Dems or noone.