Vince Cable likely to have to resign

chucky

ash28 wrote: »

Why didn't Cameron sack Cable

one view is that the Wikileaks accusations that Cameron is a weak character may be the reason why he didn't sack poor old Vince

morag1202

Really2 wrote: »

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.

You forgot b and a half) Go on Celebrity Strictly Come Dancing

Really2

ash28 wrote: »

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.

If they could break the coalition it surely that would be a reason to sack him not keep him.

He is hardly a binding force.

Heyman_2

tomterm8 wrote: »

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.

I tend to agree to an extent.

I mean, what we want from our politicians is to speak their mind and have some balls, for me he was making all the right noises on the subject - he's not going to agree with everything the Tories want to do and if they push him to far he'll push the red button. Fair enough. He also doesn't like Rupert Murdoch - fair enough, not many people do.

As long as it's backed up with action and not just a bunch of posturing then I think he's justified. He's getting near the end of his career, as someone already said here he's not likely to get voted back in at the next General Election, so why not go out in a blaze of your own self-righteous glory?

I would.

lostinrates

morag1202 wrote: »

You forgot b and a half) Go on Celebrity Strictly Come Dancing

The funniest thing about this yesterday were the live updates on the news of this and in the middle came a plaintive little tweet wondering if it scuppered the Christmas dancing show.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Vince has believed his own hype. a lot of people do, most of us at one time or another I'd guess. My guess is his fall from pride and embarrassment smarts this morning. It reminds me how powerful a girlish giggle can be (etaand its relevance to ninky's thread on women and my point in the power of femininity)

PhylPho

Heyman wrote: »

>He's getting near the end of his career, as someone already said here he's not likely to get voted back in at the next General Election, so why not go out in a blaze of your own self-righteous glory?

I would.

Surely there's a difference though between being self-righteous and being self-deluded? Telling some giggly young females that you're "at war with Rupert Murdoch" and that yes, you think you're "going to win" isn't so much the utterings of an old goat indulging himself as a highly-paid Government Minister demonstrating that he's unfit for the job.

Really2

[QUOTE=lostinrates;39575760It_reminds_me_how_powerful_a_girlish_giggle_can_be[/QUOTE]

Depends who does it, If I did it it may not be so powerful.

A._Badger

Heyman wrote: »

I tend to agree to an extent.

I mean, what we want from our politicians is to speak their mind and have some balls, for me he was making all the right noises on the subject - he's not going to agree with everything the Tories want to do and if they push him to far he'll push the red button. Fair enough. He also doesn't like Rupert Murdoch - fair enough, not many people do.

A lot of commenters are missing the point. Cable had a quasi-judicial role in deciding whether Murdoch's bid for BSkyB was allowed to proceed.

As a minister he is supposed to at least pretend he is impartial.

All he has done is prove what many suspected all along: that he's a loose cannon and a vain fool.

shortchanged_2

A._Badger wrote: »

A lot of commenters are missing the point. Cable had a quasi-judicial role in deciding whether Murdoch's bid for BSkyB was allowed to proceed.

As a minister he is supposed to at least pretend he is impartial.

All he has done is prove what many suspected all along: that he's a loose cannon and a vain fool.

All he's doing is speaking the truth in that Murdoch's empire and influence needs to be reigned in a bit.

Cleaver

shortchanged wrote: »

All he's doing is speaking the truth in that Murdoch's empire and influence needs to be reigned in a bit.

In the job he's in (or was in) it's not his remit to 'speak the truth' on that issue.