Vince Cable likely to have to resign

Graham_Devon

Ed Milliband looks like the tell tale kid at school, smirking while telling on "what they did".

Vince is a lucky boy though!

tomterm8

PhylPho wrote: »

Serious question, tomterm8: what other options might sensibly have been pursued? I'm not trying to be sarky or post a provocative comment but am genuinely interested in knowing what those options might have been. Unlike so many of the earlier posters on here, you seem to remember very well the May 2010 political context within which the Conservative-Libdem coalition came into being.

(Just to recap: Conservative 307, Labour 258, LibDem 57, Democratic Unionists [Northern Ireland] 8, Scottish Nationalists 6, "others" 14.)

Realistically? The maths don't add up. The options were:
(a) Conservative coalition with Lib Dems
(b) Conservative coalition with Labour
(c) A national government with Lib Dems, Labour and Conservatives
(d) A supply and confidence arrangement with Lib Dems and
(e) An election.

Since b and c were unlikely, and I think a supply and confidence agreement would have eventually lead to a election that would wipe out the lib dems...

We have a lib dem and tory coalition.

Probably the only thing that made any sence, due to electoral mathematics.

I think the supply and confidence option was the best choice for the Lib Dems, but not for the country.

tomterm8

I guess I should also say that none of the comments Vince Cabel said are shocking, or surprising, and that I am not sure why anyone would think saying the simple unvarnished truth is a resigning issue.

Everything he said was honest...

I am amazed we have got to this point, that we expect our politicians to lie, and if they tell the truth, they have no place in our government.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

The problem was that the Tories didn't get an overall majority and one has to ask the question why?
.

Because they shot themselves in the foot by preaching the "austerity agenda".

chucky

shortchanged wrote: »

This is the problem Phylpho in that the Tories have very few natural alliances in Parliament.

forget alliances - it is the support of voters that gains seats in parliament that's important and is representative of the country not these "alliances"...

shortchanged wrote: »

The problem was that the Tories didn't get an overall majority and one has to ask the question why?

because they are a very average group of politicians who couldn't get a majority against a very below average Gordon Brown.

shortchanged wrote: »

With Labour and Gordon Browns lack of popularity, realistically the tories should have walked the general election.

the country thought otherwise... that the realism, not your biased view...

shortchanged wrote: »

Yes the tories won the general election but they didn't get enough public backing to govern outright

and there you have your answer - they're as bad and could probably be worse than the previous incumbents...

Sapphire

Storm in a teacup. Our gutter press will do anything to get 'a story' (and in the process damage the country). To me, it's a non-story.

PhylPho

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

honourable is standing your ground and if a mistake is made then correct it. I hardly think its falling on sword time, though the crowd always likes drama

Sabretoothtigger: my post wasn't made to represent my personal opinion that Vince Cable should fall on his sword.

It was made to convey my belief that plain-speaking man-of-the-people honest-to-goodness Vince would have called for exactly that had he been the LibDem Shadow Secretary for Business and his counterpart in the governing administration had displayed similar immaturity and misjudgment.

As to whether or not *I* think he should have quit, the answer's yes -- not solely because of this daft display of macho-man for the benefit of a giggly young female in his constituency surgery, but because this is another episode (after the student fees will-he-won't-he?) which questions whether the calibre of the man really is equal to the calibre of his office.

As to crowd-pleasing drama, it's Vince Cable himself who specialises in that: you don't get more crowd-pleasing or more dramatic than declaring you're "going to war against Murdoch".

chucky

Sapphire wrote: »

Storm in a teacup. Our gutter press will do anything to get 'a story' (and in the process damage the country). To me, it's a non-story.

yeah course, anything to get a "story"?? -

here's the "story" - he said this to two giggly female "constituents" that he was trying to impress.

he's getting a bit of a habit of putting his foot in it poor old Vince.

i'm not too sure but declaring "war" on a successful business man trying to buy part of his own company back isn't the way for a senior minister to act

I have declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win.

whose next Shell or is he going for the Marks and Spencer bosses. that's without mentioning the massive chip on his shoulder ,the way he's carrying on with the banks too.

Really2

chucky wrote: »

- he said this to two giggly female "constituents" that he was trying to impress.

That's the best bit, no wonder they call politics is fame for the talentless & Ugly.

Vince Cables guide to impressing women part one.
a) pretend you can bring down the government
b) wage war on Rupert Murdock

What was next,
c) Say you can walk on water
d) Tell them you are going to the moon
e) You once beat the PM in an arm wrestle

And finally,

Look like a seedy old letch infront of the whole world...priceless.

It is like the things you would do at the age of 16, not his age. Sorry Vince you look a knob.

ash28

PhylPho wrote: »

Sabretoothtigger: my post wasn't made to represent my personal opinion that Vince Cable should fall on his sword.

It was made to convey my belief that plain-speaking man-of-the-people honest-to-goodness Vince would have called for exactly that had he been the LibDem Shadow Secretary for Business and his counterpart in the governing administration had displayed similar immaturity and misjudgment.

As to whether or not *I* think he should have quit, the answer's yes -- not solely because of this daft display of macho-man for the benefit of a giggly young female in his constituency surgery, but because this is another episode (after the student fees will-he-won't-he?) which questions whether the calibre of the man really is equal to the calibre of his office.

As to crowd-pleasing drama, it's Vince Cable himself who specialises in that: you don't get more crowd-pleasing or more dramatic than declaring you're "going to war against Murdoch".

The trouble is he isn't alone - the latest Telegraph revelations show that Vince Cable isn't the only Libdem minister to be "stung" by journalists from the Telegraph pretending to be constituents.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/8218224/Liberal-Democrat-ministers-condemn-scrapping-of-child-benefit.html

And there's more to come in the coming days. Shades of the expenses - drip - drip - drip.

Does the Telegraph want to derail the coalition? It seems to be doing it's best.

Why didn't Cameron sack Cable? Is it that Cable and the other disaffected Libdem ministers could really end the coalition? I didn't think it would be possible but now I'm not so sure.