Vince Cable loses the plot?

BB good stuff - a lot of work, though.

and yes, their proper functioning affects us all...

I guess we all ultimately make money or at least interact with markets for all sorts of goods and services. Which is why its important they work properly.

vesela - yes stock, bond and comodity markets. Me and DW do it together all day every day. The last few years have been a hard grind but its the only thing me and DW know.

I am very unhappy with the way banks were bailed out and unhappy with the way they are now behaving. Nothing has been learned and Govts have been weak and complicit.

BeenBeta - Full time? Hats off to you (making living from markets, I mean).

I agree with what I have read about what he said.

There is a great deal wrong with how capitalism has worked in the UK in the last 20 years.

Much of it has not been to the benefit of wider society and a small elite of individual have made wholly unwarranted gains at the expense of consumers and taxpayers.

I am a capitalst at heart and I do not say that lghtly. I make my living from markets.

sorry, that sounds as if I have a small shop - I was just adding it to edam's list!

and as the small shop that does pay its tax...

lfn, I know it's his language you're objecting to, and spivs isn't a particularly kind word. But he's signalling his intention to be tough - and we need it. A lot of businesses affected by the credit squeeze will have taken heart from that. I don't doubt that it's not going to be able to be as tough as he'd like, but he/they can at least have a good go.

I don't see what's wrong in saying markets must work properly and must be regulated where they don't. The behaviour of businesses, especially big business, affects all of us - as investors (via pension funds if nothing else), as customers, as employees, as neighbours, as taxpayers who pick up the slack when vodafone claim they are based in a tax haven or Tesco somehow manage to pay tax on only a tiny % of their profits.

lfn - if anything, he was playing to the Liberals, since it's they that have traditionally been against lack of competition/power-hoarding etc.(including in and by the unions). There's not much point distinguishing between Liberals and SDP, though.

By no stretch of the imagination was he drumming up anti-business fervour. That's what I don't get about your accusation. Had he done so, I agree, it would have been irresponsible. I also don't see anything in there that would repel foreign investors - quite the opposite. More high-level apprenticeships? His approval of less corporate tax?

As for regulation, we had heaps of it under Labour and Cable is well-known as a fan of simplifying it. What hes talking about here, though, is a regulatory framework that ends the sort of anti-competitive indulgences that Labour was happy to create or perpetuate.

vesela

I am in favour of regulation (providing it is effective, and not overzealous). That isn't remotely contested by any serious political party though. As a rule I prefer small and medium sized businesses to big businesses too.

What scares me about Vince Cable is his ridiculous language, phrasing and positioning. He didn't actually say anything new policy-wise - he was just playing to the SDP dinosaurs in the conference crowd - but as a senior Cabinet minister he should be more responsible.

A business secretary shouldn't try to drum up public anti-business fervour and sound so chippy when we're just trying to recover from such a huge recession and need every pound of foreign investment that we can get.

It's not business which is going to make life difficult for Britain over the next couple of years - it is the unions in the bloated public sector.

huddspur - totally.

lfn, what aspects of creating a level playing field for small businesses and guarding against abuse of power in the economy don't you like? You're not penalising businesses for doing well if those businesses did well as a result of the government allowing some of them to have an easy ride.

huddspur

I am in favour of the coalition.

However, the coalition contains internal enemies on the left, like Vince Cable, as well as on the right, like Liam Fox. I don't like either much. They are the ones destroying the coalition. Not the media, who are only doing their job - after all, Red Vince's speech was leaked and briefed so extensively yesterday.

His comments have been horribly misconstrued by the media. He is making the point that if markets are not regulated or are regulated ineffectively then consumers lose out. He's paraphrasing Adam Smith one of the most free market and economically liberal economists there is.
This is another attempt by the media to mischief make and to try and cause cracks to form in the coalition.

Clegg said the other day: "If the banks pay themselves unjustified bonuses, we reserve the right to take very serious action on that."

Nick Clegg has apparently refused to repeat what Vince Cable said on Sky News.

Also Gary Gibbons of Channel 4 News thinks that the Clegg/Cable relationship is reminiscent of the Blair/Brown feuds

blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/vinces-message-to-nick/13768

I think you need to pay for talent if the market is genuinely functioning properly - if there is real competition in it. Vince Cable's argument is that there isn't enough competition in the banking sector (as the FSB also said yesterday.

I'll go again..."WTF do we think "top bankers" are doing?

there.

it isn't about being 'successful' is it? Payment out of any proportion to any sense of what's reasonable is just creaming funds off customers, ultimately 'the public'.

it is easy to find the "you need to pay for talent" arguement pretty tiresome. Esp. when unions are being accused of 'holding teh country to ransome.'. WTF d owe thing "top bankers" are doing?

you know what's really telling, though - the fact that the Labour shadow business secretary says that Cable has to decide whether he's in opposition or government. Because one of Labour's problems in government was that they let businesses - and banks in particular - get away with things they shouldn't have done. They weren't interested in having proper competition and preventing monopolies. And Pat McFadden still seems to think that that's the way things should work.

It.does.not say we want to nanny you!

What is rabble-rousing about this?

"I want to protect consumers and keep prices down and provide a level playing field for small business, so we must be vigilant right across the economy ? whether in the old industries of economies textbooks or the newer privatised utilities and cosy magic circles in auditing, law or investment banking. Competition is central to my pro market, pro business, agenda."

"The structure of banking must be reformed to prevent future disasters and promote competition."

If you were a successful foreign CEO why would you expand and create jobs in Britain after such a speech? Given Vince Cable's attitude, it is much better to set up in Poland or the Czech Republic or Shanghai or Mumbai or Singapore or wherever.

It says to the world business community: we don't want your companies and your money here. We want to nanny you and punish you for being successful.

well yes, Labour were pretty cronyistic too, so I take their criticism with a pinch of salt.

It was a rubbish speech - rabble rousing for the sake of it. He doesn't seem to realise that he is in government now. He still seems to thrive on the cheap populism he dined out on in opposition.

Even the Labour representative on the Daily Politics said it was too anti-business. He is the business secretary, for heaven's sake!

I hope he quits in a huff soon. I am glad he is being shown up for the fool he is.

lfn, I saw that (Turner's speech) but I didn't see it as critical of Cable.

Anyway, Cable's speech is up now: here.

"Capitalism takes no prisoners and kills competition where it can, as Adam Smith explained over 200 years ago." :)

Vince Cable is an arse, with an inflated sense of his own importance.