Cable V Murdoch

Yet more proof that what I, and other wise heads such as myself, have been saying for ages - namely, that Vince Cable is an idiot. Why else would you put yourself in a position where you have effectively declared war on Rupert Murdoch? I mean, it is the political equivalent of walking up to the scary looking guy in the pub - the one with bruised knuckles, wide angry eyes, with the physique of a shaved ape and sporting a "you are a cunt" tattoo on his forehead - and asking him to step outside. He's going to fuck you up without evening breaking a sweat. You're going to be picking bits of your shattered teeth from your shattered face while he goes back to his pint.

Maybe Cable is self-destructing a bit - I don't know. But whatever he's thinking and trying to achieve, taking on possibly the most powerful media tycoon in the world means his days in frontline politics are coming to an end. It is just a question of how quickly...

Miliband Minor, Greed and Careerism.

In an otherwise typically whiney New Statesman article about how Red Ed isn’t red enough for him, Mehdi Hasan comes up with a couple of gems. First up, there’s his thoughts on pay:

Let's be clear. There is nothing "red" about objecting to reckless, irresponsible and unfair pay rises and telephone-number salaries.

Well, yes there is. In fact, I think that a certain level of equality of outcome – which is what this sort of observation leads to – is almost by definition left-wing, and therefore “red”. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it is wrong; but it does mean it is a left-of-centre idea.

Of course, I do believe it is wrong, and just the use of “reckless, irresponsible and unfair” is deeply problematic as all three terms are relative. But that’s a tangential, ongoing debate.

In fact, the public would be on your side if you did - polls show voters support a high pay commission and higher taxes on bonuses and object to the growing gap between rich and poor in modern Britain.

Two points – firstly, if polls (never the most accurate representation of public opinion) do suggest that, then it would be nice to see that “fact” backed up by some sort of link. After all, a failure to link or reference something leads to people being able to claim whatever they like without the inconvenience of having to back it up – just as I now claim that a majority of people in this country don’t give a fuck in the grand scheme of things about pay inequity. Nothing to back that up, mind, but if that absence of proof is good enough for Mehdi, then it’s good enough for me.

Besides, even if the polls did show public support for reducing pay differentials and higher taxes on bonuses, that doesn’t make either principle right. Tyranny of the majority, anyone?

St Vince of Cable, the Business Secretary, became spectacularly popular in opposition not just because he could dance but because he relentlessly attacked the excesses and greed of our financial elites.

Ah, Vince Cable – these days he can be used to pretty much prove anything. If you are left-wing and looking for a moderate figure to back up your left-wing desires, then Cable’s your man. Likewise, if you want to give the coalition a broader base of consensus than it might otherwise have, then the fact that Cable is a minister in that government is solid gold. In fact, given his background (economist for Shell, Labour candidate, Lib Dem Deputy Leader, Minister in a Tory led coalition)and occasionally left-wing rhetoric, Cable is so amorphous that he could be a friend to anyone politically, yet a man totally lacking principle to the discerning.

But I do have to take issue with the idea that it was Cable’s attacks’s on financial elites that made him popular under the last government. In part his popularity is down to his (largely spurious) claims to have predicted, and come up with the solutions to, the global financial crisis. But the main reason for his fame is his quip about Gordon Brown and Mr Bean. It is that which struck a chord with the people, and it is that which allowed this vacuous non-entity to become a political celebrity in this country.

Anyway, back to the article: I’ll also point out this curious phrase, which claims that Miliband Minor

…ran as an outsider…

Did he? Did he really? Because I’m pretty sure that Miliband Minor ran as the only real alternative to his brother. And I’m also sure that he really wasn’t an outsider within Nu Labour circles, having been a Nu Labour advisor, then a Nu Labour minister, and he even wrote the last Labour manifesto. I’d say he’s the very definition of an insider. The fact that he was not the heir apparent doesn’t mean he was an outsider.

But the curious desire to paint Miliband Minor as an outsider shows one of the key problems the new Labour leader has in defining himself. He doesn’t want to present himself as a Nu Labour type (despite the fact that he clearly was) because Nu Labour was comprehensively rejected at the polls, while he doesn’t want to incur the wrath of the right-wing media by actually being Red Ed. The results is we have yet another blander than bland leader. The truth is he’s an insider through and through – a careerist politician more interested in personal progression than actual principles.

Comrade Cable and Capitalism

Oooo, looky - Vince Cable - former economist to Shell - is going all anti-Capitalism:

Cable said: "Why should good companies be destroyed by short-term investors looking for a speculative killing, while their accomplices in the City make fat fees? Why do directors forget their wider duties when a fat cheque is waved before them? Capitalism takes no prisoners and kills competition where it can."

Let's be pedantic for a moment - first of all, capitalism doesn't do anything. No, really, it doesn't. It is a concept, a human construct. Capitalists make take no prisoners, and kill competition when they can - capitalism doesn't. Blaming capitalism for the behaviour of some capitalists is a bit like blaming the concept of a knife because some people stab other people.

But let's break down Cable's sudden aversion to capitalists. He is against people making anti-competitive speculative killings in investment deals. Yeah, that must be frustrating, but what's the alternative? Banning short-term investors? Limiting them to only certain types of activities of which Cable approves? The solution to what Cable considers to be a problem is government intervention and regulation. Ho-hum. He really should have stuck with the Labour party; they're the ones who lap this sort of shit up.

Then there's the notion that directors forget "their wider duties" when there's the chance to make money. But what, precisely, are their wider duties? Their sole duty, surely, is to make money for their companies. You could argue that they also have a duty to their employees, but that too is a duty best served by making money for the company. That is, after all, the nature of business. It is about making money. Talking about the "wider duties" of directors is astoundingly naive - particularly for someone who used to work for one of the world's largest oil companies.

But there is a need to be wary of the death of competition in capitalism; this creates monopolies, and these are sometimes deeply problematic for wider society. However, the problem is how we stop the growth of monopoly. I have no doubt about what Cable's answer to this problem would be - state intervention. But, of course, the problem is that state intervention doesn't end monopoly - in fact, more often than not, it creates state-sanctioned monopolies that are just as negative as the naturally occurring kind. Furthermore, government intervention creates client companies - those who exist primarily to sponge of the tax-payer's money (yes, Crapita, I'm looking at you).

Now, I don't have an answer to the problem of competition. Indeed, inherent within competition is the notion that someone will win - which could lead to monopoly. It strikes me that what Cable is belly-aching about are actually very natural - if not particularly edifying - parts to human nature; greed and competitivieness. I don't know what should be done - if anything - in order to deal with the worst excesses of these aspects to humanity. However, I am pretty sure that a recourse to crude socialism and state control is not the way to deal these potential issues. Because what Cable is saying is that greed and competitiveness are only a problem if people like him can't decide who's allowed to be greedy and who can win the various competitions within capitalism.