Official - Vince is not a Marxist

I'd give it 10 mins if I was you - he'll change his mind!!!!!

Plus when Huhne talks about them being the party of working together he should check out WHAT IS REAlLY happening - they are bunch of fair weather freinds and hypocirts - i.e. impossible to work with.

I'm not surprised Downing Street were happy with it. Vince Cable is slowly digging his own political grave. Where once people thought he'd make an excellent Business Secretary it is obvious that he's completely out of his depth and is becoming a one-trick pony whose record is stuck.

Vince is a clever politicians who has a great gift for vivid language. As a result, his speech will get far more attention than it otherwise would.

If anyone seriously thinks Vince Cable believes in the inevitable end of capitalism, they are as detached from reality as some who does believe in it.

Of course the CBI is furious. They represent the 'murky' world that Vince is referring to. What is wrong with looking into it? Isn't that what we've all been complaining about? It's not marxism; its regulation and common sense.

"Marxist" is considered by most to be a pejorative term. Therefore it is used as a personal insult: a dishonest response by those afraid of discussing the issues and facts.

What is meant by the "murky world of corporate behaviour" seems crystal clear to me...

It may not be politically correct to refer to the murk, as the corporate world will always vehemently deny it and will label its oppenents as Marxists, or whatever, but the murk is definitely there...

Cable is right to say banks are a bigger threat to the country than trade unions. When an ordinary working man threatens to remove his labour unless he gets the rewards he thinks he deserves he's accused of being a trouble-maker, a bully, of being selfish or of being a socialist. Yet when a banker threatens to relocate to Switzerland or the Far East unless he's allowed to continue skimming money off the real economy to keep him in yachts and porsches we are all expected to bow down and worship them. Somehow, because bankers went to the "right" schools and do what they do in a pin-striped suit it's seen as perfectly acceptable to bully and threaten the rest of the economy and anyone who says otherwise is just jealous or ignorant. Anyone who's working class and adopts the attitude that bankers are adopting gets to enjoy the vilification of the capitalist press or an instant appointment with the riot squad. When will people wake up?

Don't talk nonsense - of course he is! And an unreformed one, what's more.

Fortunately, any ideas he floats here will be vetoed by GO and the rest of the Cabinet and., like all such people he loves the trappings of power and the delusion that people listen to what he says.

Any banker receiving a mega-bonus has already paid 50% tax + NI on it - so he gets less than the UK taxpayer does.

Not to mention all that VAT and Excise duty when they spend it.

Let's celebrate bigger and bigger banking bonuses - great for the UK taxpayer, great for UK PLC!!!

HD2 #8 -

Th higher you go, the less tax you pay. PAYE won't be coming into it.

The wealth doesn't trickle down to the poor either it gets shipped offshore or spent on luxury imports OR further inflating the London property bubble.

The bonuses are reflecting profits made by the banks sitting back and watching the taxpayer's rescue money roll in while they take their cut on every transaction - we're even borrowing a fortune from the future to throw at these corporations who are already stupefyingly rich. They're borrowing more from us at 0.5% and lending it back at 3% in gilts.

And the context is - in case you hadn't noticed or read any news for the last two years - that these world renowned financial services experts didn't understand the products they were selling and their colossal bets nearly blew up the whole economy. Tens of thousands will lose their jobs paying off the bills. By contrast they get bigger bonuses than ever while a small number of obsequious dunderheads strew their path with flowers, squeak in ecstasy and hope a tiny few crumbs blow in their direction.

We had to pump trillions into the system because the banks realised they had no idea where the next detonation would happen and they refused to trade with each other - there is no free market where there is no free flow of information. Its a rigged game, and its rigged against the sucker - us

NR 'The offending words - "I am shining a harsh light into the murky world of corporate behaviour" - have guaranteed him an appearance on several front pages. They were meant to enliven the potentially rather dry announcement of a "wide ranging consultation of takeovers, executive pay and corporate short-termism".'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seem to recall heartless, cruel, big business loving, poor people crushing, child eating Tories saying similar things in the 1980's and 1990's.

#8 HD2

Great idea! Bigger bonuses for bankers!

Outside the box thinking, I like it

Now - how do you start up a business selling yachts.....hmmmmmm

All these speaches need to be taken in context.

The coalition government is going to shortly be announcing cuts in addition to the tax rises which more or less will affect everyone and may or may not need to be further tightened depending on 'events'.

Whilst a portion of these cuts are required to offset the irrational overexuberance in spending commitments of the previous government, there is a sizeable element of these cuts which are required to offset lost revenues as a direct result of the banking crisis and corporate behaviour.

So at the precise period of time when the general population will really begin to feel the impact of their part of the pain - it is expected that the topflight bankers and corporate executive sector will be ready to announce yet another bumper year for bonuses.
The message that Downing Street and Vince I think are trying to send is this - for goodness sake show some human decency and restrain yourselves at this time.
When at the lower end of the scale you are perhaps being forced to move due to benefit changes or decide whether to eat or heat - to have a particular group waving 'loadsamoney' wads of cash in your face is just cruelty and the city needs to voluntarily try to restrain itself to avoid fuelling the flames. It is about societal responsibility to the country we all (mostly) live in.

Taxes have risen for the highest earners already, their spending does contribute something to the economy however the costs borne by others as a direct result of some of their prior behaviour outweighs this.

The Government does not want to spend time and political effort trying to reign in what is seen as excessive behaviour by banks and executives to balance out the pain felt by ordinary voters who will pick up the majority of the tab over the next half decade.

This is the context - so it really does behove those in fortunate positions to at least attempt restraint at a time which will be difficult for many. If they do not then for all the benefits brought they will further pour oil upon the flames of public opinion resulting in the government beign forced politically to act which they do not fundamentally wish to IMHO.

The twin part message is becoming a feature it seems with the Coalition - real issues the government needs to address being publicly made by whichever of the partners can make it without internal party damage but getting it out there when it is needed.

It saddens me greatly how commentators, pundits, and corporate hangers on grab hold of remarks and sell them back to source at a profit. You can sell anything, is that their motto?

I am no fan of Cable whose reputation for loose morality in politics is there for all to see. His pathetic defence of a perfectly reasonable outburst demonstrates his unease with himself and his party. But what of his critics? Are they not of the same mealy-mouthed words, double entendres, and specious corruption of languages?

Would it have been better had Cable been an academic master of the finer detail of Marx's writings? That is the trouble with people today - sound bites are great, but the truth is to be hidden away. Shame on the authors of this drivel.

I think bankers and many chief executives are overpaid and have become increasingly so. This however is not ripping off the UK, but the shareholders of the companies concerned. Remember also that big City bonuses are largely retained in the UK and reduce profits which may be sent abroad to the many foreign banks that do business here. As post 8 said, good for the UK tax take.
What amuses me in all the comments one sees is the view of the "ordinary working man", whatever that may be. I wonder how many of them would work until 1.30 am nad start again at 7 am as I did, taking a short break to look at the BBC website before continuing my day. I cannot, however, be an honest hard working individual because I am a professional, or at least that seems to be the accepted mantra.

Cable is losing the high ground he seemed to have occupied at the height of the crisis. He is sounding like a broken record full of emotive and rhetorical language. He uses catch-phrases willy-nilly without providing precise examples of what he is seeking to put right and where. It is also ironic that his rhetoric could quite easily be levelled at the world of politics which he inhabits. He might wish to be specific and measured in his accusations and get on with implementing solutions rather than keep beating the same old drum at each and every conference and public speaking ocassion.

Cable is losing the high ground he seemed to have occupied at the height of the crisis. He is sounding like a broken record full of emotive and rhetorical language. He uses catch-phrases willy-nilly without providing precise examples of what he is seeking to put right and where. It is also ironic that his rhetoric could quite easily be levelled at the world of politics which he inhabits. He might wish to be specific and measured in his accusations and get on with implementing solutions rather than keep beating the same old drum at each and every conference and public speaking ocassion.

Vince isnt a marxist, he's just a dog-whistling twerp.

Perhaps we can have an intelligent discussion about the manifold downside to capitalism but I suspect the screaming apologists will make it seem it is arguing for the end of the world as we know it. Cable a Marxist? I dont think so!

Was their ever any doubt about Cable's political orientation ? He's been steeped in the murky world of the far left all his life,moving from Labour to the Libs in the hunt for power and now he thinks it's time to come out of the closet because he has the mistaken idea that he is now in a position of power. However, his shortcomings are starting to leak out, and at the next or first cabinet reshuffle, he could find himself appointed as minister for remote highland glens.

I see the usual Have Your Say refugees have crawled in and have started squawking.... for a change!

Y'all recognise those scraps of red meat Vince is throwing at you? LMAO!

For the benefit of the CBI, here is an example of an actual Marxian statement:

"I am shining a harsh light into the murky world of corporate behaviour, which - by the way - will eventually collapse due to its inherent contradictions and give way to a period of socialism based on a dictatorship of the proletariat, after which the state will melt away, resulting in actual communism."

Not really the same, is it?

#7 davidbrent:

"When an ordinary working man threatens to remove his labour... he's accused of being a trouble-maker... Yet when a banker threatens to relocate to Switzerland... we are all expected to bow down and worship..."

That's a misleading comparison. If an individual worker decides to quit their job, no one will bat an eyelid, regardless of whether he or she is a banker or a miner. However, if a body claiming to represent all workers in some industry demands that all such workers must stop work, and yet not be sacked, and they use various forms of vilification and persecution to discourage any individual worker from disobeying the strike order, that's quite a different thing. The difference is the use of coercion to attempt to control the decisions of others, e.g. in previous major strikes some "scabs" have had threats of violence made against their children. When that happens, the line becomes blurred between industrial action and terrorism. There is also the special legal protection that stops employers from sacking workers in response - the "right to strike" is enshrined in law.

Whereas If some banker thinks they can earn more in Switzerland and wants to relocate there, they just hand in their notice in their UK job. They stop being paid in the UK. What they do next is entirely up to them - who cares? Who's business is it, apart from theirs?

Go for it Vince Cable! You are clearly the only one at a senior level who isn't influenced by corruption and greed, and doesn't have an eye on the "bigger picture" (for that read not endangering future agrandisement by offending the money-men).

He is right - unfettered capitalism destroys true competition because of its proclivity to encourage corruption. The risk-reward structure in the financial services industry is utterly perverted at the moment, and needs to change completely. It is completely incapable of doing it by itself, so it needs to be forced to change - obscene bonuses are an integral part of what has gone wrong, so they need to go. Period.

Vince Cable's comments and the reaction to them highlights the need for a national dialogue about the ownership of business.

You need more than a harsh light to see through that murk. You need to open your eyes and feel the sting.

Oh no, Vince, you shouldn't ever challenge big corporations. After all, they obviously control the press and probably most of the government too.

As for Richard Lambert, if he thinks this is "emotional language" he should think himself lucky that VC is being restrained compared to what the rest of the country is thinking.

#14 1250

Why did you do that?

You are either being exploited, in which case you should get some legal advice from a Trade Union.

Or, you have bought into the idea that life is just for the accumulation of montary wealth. When you die after a life of working for the coporate world as a slave, you will leave a lot of money for others, who will be very greatful I'm sure.

#23 D E

I think you need to work in the retail sector on the shop floor for a year to dicover the imbalance in power that exists between employer and employee.

I suppose many of the same people who loved the sound of Osborne's crackdown on "lifestyle choice" benefit claimants are those now getting upset about Vince Cable using inappropriate and emotional language. Funny.

With respect - as Cable isn't a member of the SWP, I highly doubt he believes Capitalism is the devil. He's a Liberal, and traditional liberal economic views are often more in line with the Conservatives than with Labour, but with additional spending towards the welfare state. As an ordinary person in this country, I would agree with him that the current capitalist system IS murky. I don't understand it and it's my job to understand it, it's what I study. I'm sure VC meant no offence to the owners of small and moderate, national businesses, but more to those who earn obscene amounts of money and ship their profits overseas. Why are they permitted to do so? The murky world is the one inhabited by the tax evaders; bankers who shut down credit to other banks and to the general public; international corporations who fail to take societal responsibility and reward those who take the biggest risks - with catastrophic results. The money doesn't filter back into society because half of the income in untaxed, for pete's sake!

The current system is too free, too loose. Even with Liberal economic views, VC is being realistic in that he knows, as do many of us who study history, that allowing this situation to continue can only lead to further boom and bust. A steady, slow rise in profitability is normal - banks suddenly discovering a way to make a shedload of money at the drop of a hat is dangerous and should be - should HAVE been - prevented. Investments should be monitored, risky behaviours should no longer be rewarded. To put it simply - the system is unclear and out of whack, and VC I think is the right man to put it back on track, not just a 'one trick pony'.

All that being said, though, after the formation of the ConDemNation, I'm never voting Lib Dem again.

I find it refreshing that our government is composed now of diverse opinions and views.

Vince is championing the people here and it is a good thing that he is in this position.

Thankfully, gone are the days of 'Do as I say' politics.

18#

OK - what would you replace it with that would deliver the revenues necessary for the continuation of living standards that the masses have become used to, watty?

Peston mentioned it this morning on R4 - its the least worst option. Even Adair "Socially Useless" Turner is amazingly, arguing for what many of us have been saying for three years - not necessarily MORE regulation, but BETTER regulation and that continually playing the one-stringed-bonus-banjo is ignoring many other factors. Like shouting "fire" to get peoples attention, when there isnt one.

21#

Hear hear, Daniel. Good post.

Words, words and more words. The day the government actually do anything meaningful and measurable to curb greed, profiteering and risk taking in the city I'll eat my briefcase. We can see that it's business as usual in the city so fair enough. I too have decided to look out for number one, I'll be doing more cash in hand jobs, avoiding tax where possible, backhanders where I can get them. Self interest is obviously the attitude that gets you ahead in this country.

The market is a part of a society and there should be a public debate about what we would like it to look like. It is not a natural phenomenon. The main problem for politics is trying to develop alternative ideas that have some resonance with the public and around which a debate could be developed. At present both sides of the argument seem to be fairly institutionalised.

14#

Because for some of us in the professions, that is what is expected of you. And, if you dont do it, the employer will find someone else who will. Thats the way it is.

The trade unions that you're referring to are not interested in having professional members such as him. The professions tend to have trade bodies or the such like - Law Society, The BMA, British Computer Society, Professional Contractors Group, etc, rather than trade unions. Very rarely is there the usual union practises of collective negotiation, representation, etc. And, as has been alluded to, if a professional doesnt like what they're doing, they can vote with their feet.

We're all wage slaves of a sort, e-w. Just depends who you're a slave to and for how long. This character is obviously of the opinion that in order to do what he wants to do, he has to make those kinds of sacrifices. Thats his choice. If he chooses to leave the results of his labour to others, family, charities, whatever, thats his prerogative. Its up to him to find out where the tipping point is between working and living.

What would you rather he did instead?

For heaven's sake, we really are in trouble if anti-corporate sentiments are taken as evidence of being a Marxist.
Critics on the right as well as left equally criticise corporations. In fact, there is a large number on the right that view corporations as being a sort of socialism where a single force or business oligarchy dictates and distorts what goes on in a market, at the expense of "the little guy". It is called Corporatism, which is just a step away from Fascism (where the state and corporate sector become one).
So there is nothing axiomatically left- or right-wing about criticising corporations.
Criticising corporatism is about championing the small business over the corporation, about championing ethics and good behaviour versus corporate greed and dominance. And those are things that any responsible political movement should be doing.
Now can we please have a serious debate rather than clichéd, ignorant and sophomoric analysis?

It is very simple. As with anything the better the balance, the healthier the system. And so it is with the economy. If you've got a system like ours which is becoming more out of balance, with a disproportionate amount of 'our' wealth taken by 'the financial sector', then as a society you have a problem.

I've seen some reports that suggest that in the last twenty years, the wealth of the 'bottom' 50% of our society has shrunk from 11% to 1% of the total. In other words it has been transferred to the richer 50%, and probably more to the very richest.

Now, I'm no communist, but that seems a little worrying. You end up with deprivation (which taxes have to deal with), crime (which taxes have to deal with), poor health ( which taxes have to deal with), etc. That's just on the economic side of things. It may just be me but actually the UK seems like a very much less pleasant place to live then it did. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the richest part of society is getting greedier and greedier and the poorest part of society is getting more and more envious and resentful.

You can't have it all ways; massive wealth in the 'financial and big business sector' and a low tax, low spending public sector, as well as a country which is 'at ease with itself'. Vince Cable is correct. We do need to limit the excesses of this 'uber capitalist' element of the economy. Because if we don't we haven't got a 'cat in hells' chance of a sustainable, lower cost public sector (beyond the obvious, glaring inefficiencies currently being looked at.), or a pleasant island to live on.

Vince Cable is now in a head to head competition with sagamix for the 'Mr Maggoo' competition.

He is beginning to sound busier and busier without having the faintest idea of what he wants to achieve; just what he doesn't want to happen.

Perhaps it will reveal itself; whatever it is that this force, or purpose, represents.

I'm looking forward to 2012 and the re-election of Boris Johnson as Mayor of London. The figures are a weeny bit disappointing for Ken and Oona King; languishing on 27% and 9% respectively they only only match together the support Ken had at the last election - 36% whereas Boris has consolidated his position and has climbed to 45% support from 42% in 2008.

The empty rhetoric of newlabour has disappeared, or at least has fallen in importance in the minds of the electorate. Vince Cable can wallow in it if he so wishes, newlabour can bask in the woolly uplands of high minded ideology but its time has passed. We were always a taciturn lot and the tide had turned against the target driven rhetoric that failed to deliver on almost every front.

Well done Boris; sagamix won't be voting for you but you don;t need his vote.

it's a great time to be a tory...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I admire Vince Cable's candour - what he says is right. Business leaders get all twitchy and have accused VC of attacking capitalism and that capitalist practices are just 'good business' and 'bad businesses get taken over by good business'. Conveniently simplistic by business leaders in their defence of capitalism.

I think what VC was driving at was some of the unethical practices that are used by corporations in their drive to eliminate competition - not all takeovers involve bad businesses. Capitalism does not, at its heart, encourage competition - it destroys competition. It's the 'all is fair in love, war and business' and the 'dog eat dog' business arguments.

The extremist capitalist mindset was the root cause of the financial crisis - an unfortunate by-product of capitalism is that it actively promotes greed, and greed encourages people to 'turn a blind eye' to good business practice in the name of the god Profit.

Whether VC's rhetoric is ever translated into actual words is another matter, but at least VC has had the courage to say what a lot of people think. That doesn't make VC a Marxist!! That means that he wants more ehtical and better regulated business practice and a leash put on the capitalism bandwagon. Is that wrong?

One of the main purposes of capitalism is not to provide ever increasing choice, but rather to eliminate the competition.*

So that is where Government can provide a useful role, by ensuring that that does not happen.

For example, back in the early 1990's, Government *knew* that despite various Competition Committee type enquiries, the four main super-market chains were unofficially colluding to destroy the competition and operate a cartel.

So, one of the very first things that Tony Blair did upon entering Government in 1997 was to invite the head of the American company Wal-Mart to visit.

Shortly thereafter, Wal-Mart bought the Asda super-market chain - so you can easily guess the content of the conversation that had gone on between Blair and Wal-Mart.

Overall though, it does seem to be the case that due to politicians bank-bashing, the 'collective memory' will blame the banks for the huge national debt, when in reality the bulk of it (£300Bn + £400Bn) was accumulated respectively by the previous Tory and Labour administrations and only around £160Bn is due the bank-bailouts - which will be money that is eventually recouped anyway, as the part-nationalised banks are sold back into the market.

* Acknowledgements to journalist AA Gill for that insight.

Looking forward to those 38 to 41 posts, Robin. Four on the bounce! Must have quite a lot to say.

But anyway, my main point ... for those who don't have their copy of the Reactionaries Dictionary to hand ... a definition you'll find useful.

"Dogwhistling" (v)

To say something vaguely left wing (ish) or to attack in way whatsoever the tories or big business or the bankers.

#21 Daniel Earwicker wrote:
“Whereas If some banker thinks they can earn more in Switzerland and wants to relocate there, they just hand in their notice in their UK job. They stop being paid in the UK. What they do next is entirely up to them - who cares? Who's business is it, apart from theirs?”

Your bias runs away with you.

If the said banker has fraudulently obtained his/her wealth then I’d say it most certainly is MY business.

And as for your misunderstanding of trade union law strikers can be sacked but the law says they must ALL be sacked and not just one or two. That is why trade unions are collectives (same as ‘gentleman’s clubs’ as bankers would know only too well).

Careful you do not trip up on the bullion you left lying around.

#35 FS

Thanks for giving me such a detailed account of 1250's life choices.

1250 doesn't describe being a wage-slave, he describes being a slave.

He won't last long if he keeps talking like that. His lords and masters don't like a threat to their friends, the big corporations and mega-powerful finance houses that ultimately rule us. Watch it, Vince. Any sign of being just a tad on the side of the underdog, of showing fairness, of demonstrating a genuine regard for smaller businesses and individuals, and you can kiss your job goodbye.

In life, you come across lots of people with ideas but not enough capital to carry them through eg the people on Dragons' den.
Some, as those on Dragons' Den, choose to start up in business with borrowed money. Others choose to work their way to the top of an existing company, where they also have control of other peoples capital, but without the risk of losing their own. The CEO's of major companies are such examples. It's the manipulation of companies by their top 'employees' that, I think, is what Vince Cable is having a go at, but perhaps I am wrong.

27#

so, are you saying in the retail sector that there ought to be more of a balance of "power" (depending on what you define "power" to be) between employer and employed?

How would you go about achieving that?

30#

You really think those days are gone??? Ha ha ha!!!

All of this rhetoric seems very childish and unnecessary, and getting caught up in party politics and scoring points doesn't help either.
The fact is that the banks have to pay good bonuses to retain staff whilst there is a market for successful bankers. This is the situation, like it or not. The government should either impose a limit and accept the bad feeling, reduction in tax and anti-capitalist message that this would send out or it should shut up and accept the tax that it will receive and spend it on something useful.

Politics is grey and difficult and equally murky but it's the reality of life and Vince had better get used to it.

This is what Vince Cable should have said:

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."

What would he have been accused of if he had said it?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

45#

And your evidence of fraudulent behaviour is where, precisely? Who are you accusing of committing fraud that is then baled out by the taxpayer?

#29 tTurner

May I ask what you do study? You seem to mention you study capitalism which suggests economics or business studies and then later lump yourself in with historians?
On the rest of the topic I would agree that the corporate world is murky to those on the outside. However, that is a consequence of the owners (shareholders) not being the managers and the fast-paced nature of corporate life. In corporate businesses they need to make money over a cycle or they'll go bankrupt. So while they may appear to be making a lot of money in one year, with huge amounts of capital invested I may add, in other years they may have massive losses.
The thing about earning money and shipping profits overseas is simply protectionism. Some of those profits may have come from overseas companies buying off us anyway. Or have you looked at how many companies on the LSE can be called British? Here's a quick example of how international financial flows can help. HSBC can move Asian savings to the West to fund its savings and this meant it weathered the financial crisis fairly easily. As for the shutting down credit argument that's merely because banks did not know the extent of other bank's losses and in order to limit risk they reduced lending or asked for a much higher return to compensate. As for the general public, most banks suffered some sort of loss and they wanted to rebuild their balance sheet in case more losses appeared. The taxation comment is just silly. 50% of the income is taxed, the other 50% in your view disappears into thin air or is used to buy overseas? That other 50% is almost invariably spent although the rich do tend to save and invest more money helping to fund your mortgage. And that 50% that does go to taxes, a fair bit is going on debt interest (£1890 per household annually which seems a waste).

Oh dear - the financial big boys to be subject to regulation?

Just like all the rest of us - including any one struggling to run a small business.

How dare Vince Cable suggest this.

(Sheer hype? The tories are totally in the pocket of these people, so once conference season is over lets see if all the words are reflected in some action)

Oh dear - the financial big boys to be subject to regulation?

Just like all the rest of us - including any one struggling to run a small business.

How dare Vince Cable suggest this.

Actions speak louder than words.

"The unacceptable face of capitalism": Ted Heath (and look what happened to him).

Governments have always regulated capitalism in the interests of consumers and other entrepreneurs: for example antitrust legislation, and even, dare I say it, banking regulation.

Just as many people throw around the word 'Marxist' without understanding, so do many others, usually its critics, throw around the word 'capitalism' without seeming to have the faintest idea of what it is, or under what system we actually live.

It's interesting to reflect (i.e. for people who want to reflect rather than exchange meaningless slogans) how many restrictions are placed on the "capitalist system" in the UK (and US) today.

I think Cable is a confused economic liberal whose slogans often contradict his more considered analysis. Ironically he had a reputation for economic understanding and gravitas. Actually he's politically naive, an opportunist, and an egotist forever in search of a good headline. He should have stayed an opposition MP, making guest appearances on 'Strictly Come Dancing' and 'Newsnight'.

For a politician to accuse anyone in business of being guilty of short-termism is laughable.

Just shows the incredible arrogance of the CBI really, someone calls them out for what they are (a bunch of self gratifying, corrupt profiteers) and they respond with ludicrous comments. Really it's a shame Vince Cable isn't closer to being a Marxist, the current world of corporate capitalism is propelling us all on a journey of ruin.

52#

Nice bit of cut and paste.

Funny how you didnt include this bit though, from the same document which Vince's proclamations, not to mention those by other politicians could well fall under....

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

Jonah Brown, scrupulous and suspicious attention? The only thing he ever gave "suspicious attention" to was deposing Tony Blair!

I find this a little hypocritical coming from Mr Cable. I am aware a complaint was put into Mr Cable about serious misconduct breaches at A Government Quango and his staff said they were satisfied with the conduct , giving no explanation why despite the seriousness of the allegations and the compelling evidence provided.

52#

Oh and BTW, if he had said it, he would have rightly have been accused of plagiarism.

"The fact is that the banks have to pay good bonuses to retain staff whilst there is a market for successful bankers. This is the situation, like it or not. The government should either impose a limit and accept the bad feeling, reduction in tax and anti-capitalist message that this would send out or it should shut up and accept the tax that it will receive and spend it on something useful." - peter @ 51

Addressing the bank bonus culture does not send out an "anti capitalist" message. The message it sends out is we've learned from recent history and we're serious about protecting the future health of the financial system.

It's perfectly possible to recognise how the extreme/warped end of the remuneration model (large sums for "profits", no penalty for losses) leads to damaging and dangerous behaviours ... a significant contributing factor to the bank crisis, in fact ... to recognise this and address it, either via regulation or via taxation, whilst still leaving banks free to pay decent, well structured bonuses.

More than possible, actually - essential. This should be our Plan A. We should do it.

Cable a Marxist? Does this really have to be denied? What is happening to political discourse? I suppose it is OK to call Osborne a Maoist.

"FauxGeordie:

...The wealth doesn't trickle down to the poor either it gets shipped offshore or spent on luxury imports OR further inflating the London property bubble."

And who will sell them their London properties? And clean them and maintain them? Who will trim their hedges and hoover their home cinemas? Who will fix their leaky gutters and install their underground car parks?

Of course wealth trickles down.

Vince Cable is looking a little dithery ( bald Mr Bean ? ) and he should give the electorate more credit than to trot out the lie “it was the bankers wot done it”, we aren’t that stupid.

For a former economist, he clearly doesn’t understand the maths – the bulk of our structural deficit was caused by PUBLIC sector borrowing.

If his position really one of attacking high earners, then what about targeting; pop stars, film stars, formula one drivers, tennis players, footballers, former politicians, celebro-journalists and X factor winners.

If people succeed in business, in the private sector, then why shouldn’t they be well paid?

P.S. – 50% of bonuses PLUS NI contributions go to the Treasury Mr Cable, more maths, less myth please, you can only fool some of the people, some of the time.

This shows why the libs are so useful to the tories. Their rhetoric re clamping down on the likes of tax dodgers and City bonuses ... and if there's no serious action, rhetoric is all it will be ... their "intentions" on this (let's be charitable) balance out to some extent Osborne's salivating and high profile (playing to a different gallery) attack on the poor. Both being rather butch in their own ways, aren't they? Key question is which one (if either) means it. To which I hope the answer is that Cable isn't just tub thumping but Osborne is. Rather fear it's the opposite, however. We will soon find out.

Apathy is all you can expect from our once proud nation.

There will be no rioting in the streets or even sit down protests.

The vast majority in the UK just can't be bothered.

This is not just down to apathy but realisation of the facts, we have been living well above our means. And now its time to pay the piper......

For if we do not take our medicine now what is around the corner will be a lot worse.

Apathy is all you can expect from our once proud nation. There will be no rioting in the streets or even sit down protests. The vast majority in the UK just can't be bothered. This is not just down to apathy but realisation of the facts, we have been living well above our means. And now its time to pay the piper...... For if we do not take our medicine now what is around the corner will be a lot worse.

Lets whip up some rhetoric rather than face the issues, IE cuts....

I'm glad that Vince Cable's the Business Secretary.

Although I don't agree with everything he says, and some aspects of his views are slightly too left-wing for me, on balance he's an excellent man for the job, and acts as a brake on some aspects that Osborne might try to apply which are slightly too far to the right.

Also, Vince Cable comes out with policies/ideas which have been completely missed in the past, by both the right wing and the left wing; his experience in the industry means that he knows about lots of things that go on in the finance sector which career politicians simply don't know about or understand (or can't be bothered to do anything about).

A case in question being how he's highlighted the corruption regarding take-over deals, ie where the directors will initiate/advise a take-over which is often against the interests of both companies, purely because the directors of both companies involved know that they'll give each other massive bonuses once the take-over is completed.

I'm hoping that he launches a similar attack on how companies deal with pensions as he has with how companies/directors deal with take-overs. At the moment companies are willfully breaking the law when it comes to one firm taking over the pension funds of another company, yet the FSA, government, and the police simply refuse to do anything about it.

There's a huge amount of corruption in the financial sector regarding pensions and take-overs, and it's about time that someone who's had experience in the industry and seen these things happening stood up to the corruption and simply said "no; what you're doing is wrong, and you will be stopped".

I'm all for the free-market, but when corruption and breaking the law happens, it's the government's job to step in and stop it, and that hasn't been happening for the last 10 years or so.

So, although I'm a fairly right-wing person when it comes to "the market" and don't agree with some of what he sometimes says, on balance I say: "yay vince; go for it; I'm right behind you; thanks for doing what other people in the government haven't done."

Still no comment from sagamix with respect to his bogus prediction that Ken Livingstone would be opening the 2012 Olympics and happily esconced back in City Hall.

He seems to have missed the central tenet of politics in this country; govern from the centre and you stay in power. Move form the centre and you get chucked out. How exactly is newlabour, ken Livingstone or either of the Miliband glove puppets going to cope with this one?

Where are the centrist policies of newlabour? Mansion taxes? Nope. Deficit spending? Nope. Third runway? Nope.

The cupboard is bare. Newlabour are an empty shell. Their apologists are busy pretending it's only a matter of years, nay months before they are back but they know only too well it's not like that.

So here's an alternative agenda for newlabour; invade a sovereign territory; support for extraodinary rendition; triple the national debt. Everyone a winner. Oh, sorry; you already tried that.

Perhaps they should adopt the Swedish model suggested by pdavies...oops - that's a centre right coalition government.

Perhaps they should adopt the model of Angela Merkel in Germany; Europes fastest recovering economy. Ooops; that's a centre right coalition government pro business and cutting taxes.

I think we are getting the message here...newlabour will be trying to step into the centre but find that occupied by....oops; the current coalition government with it's tory leader the right noroable David Cameron, Prime Minister and Fisrt Lord of the Treasury.

So it looks like the oppostion benches for newlabour and their dogwhistle economics 'More spending! More jobs!' .. how tiresome.

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition..where did it all go wrong?

#65 sagamix

(Part 1 of 2)

For the second time in two days I largely agree with your post (this worries me considerably).

However, I think we need to recognise just how difficult this is.

Amongst people who sincerely want to improve banking regulation, and reduce the UK's exposure to our banks' liabilities, there is no real agreement as to the way forward (capital adequacy, remuneration, splitting banks by function, etc.).

New capital ratios can reduce lending. Universal banks were not the problem last time. The most damage (the takeover of ABN for example)can be done not by traders but by senior management who may be motivated not my money but by ego.

Then there is the debate as to whether the UK can and should act unilaterally. The last Labour Government, correctly in my opinion, stressed internatioanl agreement and regulation. Cable and, sometimes, the Tories, proposed unilateral action. I think Labour were correct, other than unilateral 'nudging' by the UK at the margins.

post 7, excellent!
post 23 I agree

As to VC he's just playing to the audience saying what the party faithful want to hear as a way of appeasing them after Nick Clegg's capitulation to the torys.
What did Nick Clegg do before he became a politcian, mmmmmm, oh yes he was a multi millionaire city banker!
Like anythings going to change.
youtube David Harvey if you want real insight into todays cororate capitalism

(Part 2 of 2)

The dilemma, of course, is the UK's dependency on the financial sector as a whole.

The decline of the UK's tax revenue was a major contributory to the UK's deficit, and a significant proportion was due to the financial sector, and it's knock-on impact. Law, accountancy, IT and many other sectors are heavily reliant on the banking sector.

Markets do not have to be based in the UK. This should not be seen as threatening behaviour (as Cable and his ilk seem to think), but rather a perfectly rational business decision as to where to operate, in the long-term.

There is no law that says that if we reduce the banking sector some other sector (solar panels and windmills for example) will take its place.

So the coalition government should push international organisations to reform and regulate, but should largely avoid doing so on their own.

Politically I can't see how Cable can remain in the coalition government. He should be forced out, but at the right time (during Post Office privitisation, for example).

My advice would be to get an allotment, dig a big hole, and bury a banker. Any banker will do, but the plump investment ones are best. Ensure you first remove any bonuses or share options still clinging to it.

You'll be rewarded by a very good crop of fruit and veg, and the satisfaction of knowing exactly where your food comes from.

Being retired from the bank of england i can assure everyone here that Vince is correct with his analysis and to think otherwise would be very foolish. The banks will be indeed the downfall of this country as they in general are far more educated at the top then anyone in government and you have to remember what is said in private and behind closed doors and all of their connection's across the world their capable of moving money about in which even their chairman wouldn't have a clue about let alone a politician
Banking is like playing chess you may know the moves but you cant play the game

#54 Fubar_Saunders
Wrote: “And your evidence of fraudulent behaviour is where, precisely? Who are you accusing of committing fraud that is then baled out by the taxpayer?”

The evidence is in the collapse of the market, but of course it requires a little intelligence to see it. My own evidence has already been passed to the appropriate authority and you will not be a party to it.

And, unfortunately for you, you got my “cut and paste” entirely wrong. Want another try or are you just mouth and no trousers?

#67 - David commented on my post at #9

I said "...The wealth doesn't trickle down to the poor either it gets shipped offshore or spent on luxury imports OR further inflating the London property bubble."

His reply "And who will sell them their London properties? And clean them and maintain them? Who will trim their hedges and hoover their home cinemas? Who will fix their leaky gutters and install their underground car parks?

Of course wealth trickles down."

Two points - there - what a dismal future he envisages - we used to have skilled workers who made things and generated wealth which we used to invest in making other things.

Second point - that's our rescue money they're shovelling down their throats, - our own money, right now, today, or money we have agreed to hire in the future. Why should we borrow a fortune against the future to give to wealthy tax evading corporations to settle their gambling debts, in the hope that they leave a fraction of it in this country to pay for people to clean their shoes? Why don't we just keep it and cut them out of the loop when we decide how to invest it?

If a manufacturing sector had gone stunningly, amazingly bust and demanded the wealth of the country between now and 15 years hence to keep its management in Porsches I think the City grovellers on here might have something to say about it.

The fact that Germany still makes things - lots of things - that the world wants to buy is the reason its coming out of recession so quickly. The City helped smash and flog off our manufacturing industry looking for 'churn' - 'deals'. This isn't a left/right matter - though rockRobin in #71 seems to think pointing this out is all sneering left wing envy. All recent governments have been complicit in this so that's ridiculous. I'd say its truth/lies, competence/incompetence, free market/rigged market NOT left/right and the banker apologists are going to have to get used to it because that's how the whole country is feeling now we've been handed the bill for their utterly astonishing failure.

"I am shining a harsh light into the murky world of corporate behaviour"

What on earth is offensive about those words - unless you've had your nose in the City trough for too long to recognise that behind the glossy veneer there ARE some very dodgy, unethical and anti-social activities going on in the corporate world.

HD2 #8 How wrong you are, bonuses are paid in divs etc which escape NI,
company and personal etc which is why GB brought in
IR35 to target the poorer self-employed via limited company
(turnover less than 100,000 etc )
rather than sorting out the massive NI avoidance from the banks and other sectors.

"I am shining a harsh light into the murky world of corporate behaviour"

What on earth is offensive about those words - unless you've had your nose in the City trough for too long to recognise that behind the glossy veneer there ARE some very dodgy, unethical and anti-social activities going on in the corporate world.

What on earth is offensive about what Cable said - unless you've had your nose in the City trough for too long to recognise that behind the glossy veneer there ARE some very dodgy, unethical and anti-social activities going on in the corporate world.

Vince Cable is right and I believe he means what he says. I would agree that he is digging his political grave in the coalition, but that is a condemnation of the coalition and praise for Vince. Lets hope he can remain long enough to make some change. Someone needs to stand up.

F_S @54
Perhaps your confusing this definition of fraud

fraud noun ( CRIME ) /frɔːd//frɑːd/ n [C or U] the crime of getting money by deceiving people

with the alternative one (equally valid)

fraud noun ( FALSE ) /frɔːd//frɑːd/ n [C] someone or something that deceives people by saying that they are someone or something that they are not

To paraphrase The Life of Brian; 'They're not Masters of the Universe. They're just very naughty boys!'
Arf! Were you ever a reader of The Daily Mirror?

Are we truelly so naive to not see what Cable is upto ?

He is grandstanding, he utters soft soap words of righteous indignation against the bogeyman de jour i.e. the bankers, this perhaps allows him to live with himself it definitely does him no harm in the rank and file of his party and the witless public at large.

Meanwhile in the real world, there have been no meaningful sanctions against the bankers and nor will there be, they have the government by the financial crown jewels and they know it.

Let me translate the VC speech:

This is party conference season, politician sexs up a policy review announcement to appeal to looney left/rancid right (delete as appropriate) wing of his party and get some cheap headlines.

And we fall for it every time.

Of course according to Yes Minister, policy reviews are a device to kick any real change into the long grass

One of the main purposes of capitalism is not to provide ever increasing choice, but rather to eliminate the competition.*

................

* Acknowledgements to journalist AA Gill for that insight.

That's strange; I thought he was a restaurant and TV critic and a pretty strange one at that!

I wonder how many of those who apply the term marxist as an insult actually have the first clue as to what are marxist ideology is actally about.

In reality the truth about capitalism and marxism have long since been lost in the fog of each others spin and propaganda.

Robin@ 28 wrote:
The figures are a weeny bit disappointing for Ken and Oona King; languishing on 27% and 9% respectively they only only match together the support Ken had at the last election - 36% whereas Boris has consolidated his position and has climbed to 45% support from 42% in 2008.

>>

Interesting figures. The reverse of what is happening nationally. Since forming the coalition government, the Conservative lead over Labour in the opinion polls has pretty much evaporated. Why is that, do you think? Surely if it's such a good time to be a Tory, they should be gaining support rather than losing it.

Is it ime to take a punt in the pitchfork business?

80#

It was a direct Adam Smith quote from The Wealth Of Nations.

As was my one, underneath it.

Oh and you see the collapse of the market as evidence of fraud... Just as well you're not investigating British Aerospace for the SFO then eh?

You're not Yates of The Yard are you, by any chance? Or Lord Hutton posting icognito???

Arf!

The problem with bankers' bonuses is not the immorality of earning vast amounts; it's the fact that they were designed to reward - and therefore encourage - high-risk speculating. Since the banks were rescued when the speculation failed, they were effectively like high stakes gamblers who pocket their winnings but get a refund (from the tax-payer) when they lose. This is clearly unacceptable and nothing to do with envy.

80#

"My own evidence has already been passed to the appropriate authority and you will not be a party to it."

Mmmm, I bet it has. Had to stand in the middle of Westminster Bridge on one leg and take your tinfoil hat off for five minutes so they could beam in and get the information on the qt, eh?

Or was it a dead letter drop near a bench in Hyde Park?

Me, All Mouth and No Trousers? When you make an accusation like that of systemic fraud resulting in the collapse of the markets (funny how they seem to have recovered since, innit?) and dont back it up..? You're funny. Michael MacIntyre should take you on tour!

87#

Maybe so, maybe so. But if there has been crimes, why has there not been charges brought?

You mean Gordon didnt save the world and the banks after all? Saga will be gutted....

87#

Heavens no, Melody Maker, in the 1980s ("Its Enough To Make A Dog Laugh"), in particular one David Stubbs, AKA Mr Abusing. Top notch music journalism.

FG#

"Second point - that's our rescue money they're shovelling down their throats, - our own money, right now, today, or money we have agreed to hire in the future. Why should we borrow a fortune against the future to give to wealthy tax evading corporations to settle their gambling debts, in the hope that they leave a fraction of it in this country to pay for people to clean their shoes? Why don't we just keep it and cut them out of the loop when we decide how to invest it?"

So, let me understand you correctly - you're saying we should have let Northern Rock, HBOS and RBS collapse instead? Blimey, if thats what you're saying, the left will be up in arms, particularly those who think that Gordon saved the world.

Dont get me wrong, I'd have been perfectly content to have let them go under. But I'm not totally sure thats what you're saying. Can you clarify please?

#81 FauxGeordie wrote: “that's our rescue money they're shovelling down their throats” etc

I salute you Sir/Madam. You are like a breath of oxygenated air in the stifling heat generated by the Devil’s own workforce. I am sick to death of this pantomime being played out in front of supposed adults. Supposed adults mark my words. They laugh at the childish jokes and they scream, hiss and boo at the villain. They think the pantomime is for real.

I am afraid education must have really been the pits from the seventies onwards.

Thank you for giving me hope and belief there are some people still using their grey matter.