Try this as well:

“The NHS warning signs that should horrify David Cameron”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/maryriddell/8215052/The-NHS-warning-signs-that-should-horrify-David-Cameron.html

This is the second good thing Cable has done since getting into government

The first was getting on strictly.

Props to the Telegraph, though – this is some proper investigative journalism!

About time a lib Dems stood up to the brownshirts.

What is the rush to ram all this shit through? The tories have no mandate for this crap. If they want to push brownshirt policies, then make them have to call an election.

Could just be a case of Vince telling his “constituents” what he thought they wanna hear. I’m putting £1 on him resigning/being reshuffled soon, anyway.

OP: “But what’s significant is that Cable is the first senior Libdem to make signal his deep discomfort (albeit privately)…”

A sneaky interview in which Cable mentions that it is is a private conversation. I appreciate that we now live in the world of Wikileaks but I do not subscribe to that philosophy. I did not subscribe to that philosophy prior to the interview with Cable.

I would be horrified if Cable did not have worries about coalition policy. We can only hope that the revelation of Cable’s misgivings do not diminish his role as a service defender in cabinet discussions.

I’ve seen several people say he’s fighting to defend universality of winter fuel payments, but I don’t see it in the transcript, and it does seem very out of character given he’s normally fairly in favour of targetted benefits.

Cable is the first senior Libdem to make signal his deep discomfort

Um, he is? Oh, you mean that you know of. CK, Hughes, Farron, Campbell, Ashdown no longer count as senior then?

MatGB: Have you thought about about a post about Tim Farron’s election?

(Apologies for the party political aside, but Farron’s election is significant when considering the role of LibDems in the coalition.)

I would, but what’s to say, there were two people who got enough nominations, one popular, capable, well known nationally and a solid media performer. The other was Susan Kramer.

Besides, hard to be impartial, my fiancée would’ve been a candidate as well under the old rules (they were changed last year).

SRSLY, there isn’t much to read in it, Farron is exactly the President we need right now, Kramer wasn’t, nor was Scott (who stood down early, deliberately, having done what she set out to).

To be more specific Mat – I meant someone in govt. Farron is good, but not in govt. Hughes comes the nearest TBH.

The full transcript is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/8215501/Vince-Cable-the-full-transcript.html

Seeing is believing! I think that Cable will find that few people will believe tht the LibDems are fighting their corner until it is actually happening in public.

Though it would seem that Vince Cable does not consider the complete defunding of higher education to be pushing him too far. I wonder what the Conservatives would have to do to make Vince Cable object to something.

He comes across as a rather vain and arrogant tit.

When he explodes let’s hope its during prime minister’s questions. Thought. Does this mean he is a potential terrorist threat?

It’s a shame he hadn’t grown a backbone sooner; I doubt that this self-important, petulant display will do much to persuade the many people deserting the LD’s that they should reconsider.

Put up or shut Uncle Vince!

This all seems a bit to convenient doesn’t it? At the same time it appears that the Tories are backing off in Oldham East and Saddleworth, we have a delightful story about how the LibDems are fighting their corner for their supporters or supporter.

This story could easily be spun to make the LibDems look like equals in power as opposed to lackeys propping up a minority Tory government.

The Telegraph sting operation could merely be a pre-emptive move, on behalf of the right wing elements of the coalition and Tories, to influence a Libdem contribution to a cabinet reshuffle that will likely occur within the new year. I think that the Tories would clearly get along better with David Laws as opposed to Cable.

But what’s significant is that Cable is the first senior Libdem to make signal his deep discomfort (albeit privately) in a way that has been largely absent from the Libdem side.

I very much doubt that this is the first time Cable has mouthed off/voiced his deep discomfort with the coalition. If he’s prepared to do it to two unknown constitutents then he’ll have been briefing sympathetic journalists off the record for months. It is, for example, pretty clear where Andrew Rawnsley got his (absurd) ‘Maoist’ quotes from for his column this weekend.

Anyway, no-one’s indispensable, everyone who says they are forgets about George, so to speak.

16

Why would the turkeys have any interest in voting for Christmas?!

The Tories (other than the carpet biting ranters on the extreme right) can be quite content that the LD’s will continue to provide a fog-leaf for them; after all the LD’s really have nowhere else to go.

They’d far rather have Uncle Vince inside the tent pissing out, than outside it pissing in. There is nothing to be gained for the Tories in Vince exercising his nuclear option – luckily for them, he’s most unlikely to actually do it.

@16

Olly Grender sent the following tweet before this story broke which may support that interpretation:

“Fellow tweeps beware, over the holiday season ludicrous stories speculating re the return of David Laws to various roles – please ignore!”

On the other hand, Cable obviously wasn’t being that careful, and it’s not obvious that this revelation only has the power to help the Tory right. Coalitions are not supposed to be “everything in the (rose) garden’s lovely”. To pretend they are in order to appease the slavering media is to misrepresent their actual strengths as a form of government.

I like the phrase “fog-leaf”…!

20

Ooops.. I can spell really… I blame dyslexic fingers

Vince Cable has nother option than to stick it out. There is nowhere for the Lib Dems to go. A blind man reading Braille with a hook can see the Libs are tanking in the polls and would be largely wiped off the face of the political map if they brought the Government down.

The left of the Lib Dems really need to think about what they stand for.

It’s quite a poetic image!

Speculation of political in-fighting is always intriguing. While pushing out or demoting Uncle Vince would be unlikely due to his clout within the party, a shift in portfolios may well force his hand. David Laws has very much wanted to get a seat back at the head table. I would not dismiss the notion of musical chairs too quickly. Maybe I am just playing devil’s advocate.

Always good to see what the tory trolls think about the Lie Dems.

Maybe the lie Dems should think twice before they give away any more silly policies like reducing the house of commons so that the tories can win out right next time.

OTOH the Libdems need to start thinking very seriously about how to minimise oblivion at the next general election if they don’t do a sweetheart deal with the Conservatives.

Vince Cable and a few other frontline LibDems are a crucial factor in any strategy for presenting the LibDems as an independent party with integrity and its own values.

“OTOH the Libdems need to start thinking very seriously about how to minimise oblivion at the next general election ”

Well letting it be known that they don’t like the tory policies, but keeping on voting for them will not help them. They either put up or shut up.

So far every time the right wing media snarl at them they get in line. But they are only putting off the day they will have to stand firm and risk bringing down the whole mad project.

@ 3. sally

Not a good time for an election, Dim-Lib credibility destroyed, no alternative cuts policy from Labour all = massive majority for only one party. Old saying, still tongues live in wise heads ! As for old Vincey boy, I’m defending him. He thought he was talking to genuine constituents as their MP. That alone entitles him to speak openly.

28

Or of course one might expect him to speak openly because he thought it was the right thing to do…?

Oh wait….my bad, I shouldn’t assume he has any principles…

@ 29. Galen10

You could well be right. On the other hand most MPs are pretty straight with their constituents. It’s only party politics and good investigative journalism that buggers up an otherwise cosy existence.

30

I think he ought to be saying the same thing to his constituents as he says in public, and I don’t think that should be something different to what he is saying in government either. Whilst I accept there may be an element of “cabinet responsibility”, and even compromising within a coalition as you can’t expect to get everything you want, there must surely come a point where you have to say enough is enough?

Many former supporters like me found it hard enough to take swallowing a Lib-Con coalition in the first place, only to see it turn into a “love-in” which is even more nauseating. Not only did the LD’s sell themselves cheap, we now also see that Uncle Vince isn’t actually in sympathy with a lot of what is being done…he just doesn’t have the bottle to do the honest thing!

Those of you asking why he doesn’t speak openly in public, may I recommend a basic course in English and British governance?

The LDs exist partially to reform the system, but to do so from inside. There’s theis, very old, principle of Collective Responsibility. Do feel free to go look it up.

He can’t be too public in his concerns, he, like all other ministers, has to take the Govt line in public, but the Govt line gets agreed in private.

FFS, some of you are talking like you have no idea whatsoever of the basic principles upon which this country is governed.

Oh, Sally? You might want to look up the Lib Dem policy on reducing hte size of the Commons. 600 MPs is far too many.

“Oh, Sally? You might want to look up the Lib Dem policy on reducing hte size of the Commons. 600 MPs is far too many.”

Maybe, maybe not. But why are the lie dems backing this policy at the same time they are letting the tories stack the unelected house of lords witrh cronies. Seems very odd that you need a reduction in elected people at the same time you are stacking the unelected house.

Um, the coalition agreement said theat the HoL would have appointments made to reflect %age votes cast at the GE. That’s what’s happening. The agreement also says that the HoL would be replaced by an elected body using PR, a White Paper for which is due.

See those windmills over there? Go tilt, Don Quijote.

Can someone tell me who set up this piece of ‘investigative journalism’?

To me this all sounds like a well-calculated trap orchestrated by Cable as a way to influence the debate. He’s taking flak, but he’s getting results.