Fishburn Hedges

22.09.2010

Ahead of his speech at the Liberal Democrat Party Conference tonight, Vince Cable has faced strong criticism for his “emotional” attack on the “murky world of corporate behaviour” and capitalism itself which, he is to argue, “takes no prisoners and kills competition when it can”.

Former minister of state for Trade and Investment, Lord Digby Jones, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that “liberal rabble-rouser” speeches of this kind are not appropriate for someone in Government. He commented: "You can't step up to the plate as Secretary of State for Business and then behave still as a Liberal campaigner, which he always has been." This view is shared by Damian Reece, writing in The Telegraph, who argues that Cable’s credibility as Business Secretary is “almost completely diminished”.

The heat of the response seen across the board today goes beyond the initial issue of bank-bashing and Cable’s assessment of capitalism, and touches on the central tensions still clear in the newly formed Coalition Government. It calls into question just how compatible the Liberal and Conservative ideologies are and if they can, or indeed should be married.

Several commentators have referenced the notion of collective responsibility and argued that Cable should be standing with his Coalition partners, presumably, even if he disagrees.

But is this really desirable? For many governments, we have had “one face politics”. There is a Party line and it is rigidly adhered to. Debates are carried out behind closed doors and a unified message is given to the voting public. The advantages of this are clear – a unified approach is a strong approach and a decisive Government is more attractive than a seemingly indecisive one.

It was the need for “strong decisive government” that brought the Coalition together in the first place, so it is understandable that it is seeking to operate by the same principles.

But can they, and should they?

The question of whether or not it is possible to align the two ideologies would require a longer analysis than this to answer, but the second we could consider like this:

Would we rather see our politicians saying what they actually think (on the basis that this is what we elected them for) and having open debate, even amongst themselves? Or would we rather hear the messages, told from different perspectives?

Politicians are not corporate bodies; they are public servants. They should be answerable to the voting public, not shareholders or colleagues. I would argue therefore that protecting internal sensitivities and not embarrassing their counter-parts should not be prioritised over frank discussion of issues. Especially in a Coalition that is supposed to represent a spectrum of ideology and have ushered in a new era of debate.

The arguments above seem to make sense, but Cable will probably find few supporters following his speech. There are, of course, practical implications to consider. Confidence in the government can be undermined and, when the dissenting voice is coming from the Business Secretary, this could have worrying implications for public sentiment at a time when confidence in the state and the economy are already low.