Oxford Political Review speaks with Sir Vince Cable, twice and current Leader of the Liberal Democrats, former Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, and Skills, and notable proponent of a People’s Vote in the ongoing Brexit negotiations.
Sir Vince Cable is a man with many stories to tell, with an equal number of illustrious titles and identities: Liberal Democrat stalwart, Cambridge-educated economist, a firebrand advocate of open liberalism at times when authoritarianism seems to offer an aesthetically tempting answer to the anomie of our times. Yet as we speak over the phone, Vince comes across strongly as both restrainedly phlegmatic but incredibly incisive.
We open our dialogue with a question on British politics, where I ask Vince if he sees British politics as experiencing a realignment, and what future role the Liberal Democrats have to play to the extent that such a shift is occurring. True to his academic and research-intensive roots, Vince cautiously notes that whilst British politics is certainly experiencing some degree of transformation, whether such shifts are fundamental remain to be seen. He is skeptical of sweeping theses and generalisations about politics, but quips that given the “civil wars” that the Tories and Labour Party are locked in (they are “perilously close to fracturing”), he would not rule out the prospects of these parties splintering and British politics realigning to a Brexit/Remain cleavage. Either way, Vince sees the immediate political state of affairs as untenable.
“The Liberal Democrats are a magnet for people who wish to defect from both Labour and the Tories.”
Given the failures of the recently established Change UK, he adds, the only realistic alternative for British citizens in European and local elections would be the Liberal Democrats, whose social democratic and liberal values, policies, and programmes overlap substantively with the value set of a substantial population in the UK. In many ways, the Liberal Democrats are the People’s Choice, and the answer to the failures of a select group of Westminster Elite who prioritise personalistic and ideological quibbles over the nation’s interests.
Here I press on with the burning question that many amongst my most staunchly anti-Liberal Democrat peers have always sought to ask – what does Vince think of Green Party as the potential alternative choice; it would appear a tad arrogant for the Liberal Democrats to characterise themselves as the only ‘viable’ choice in light of the recent successes of the Greens in European and local elections.
Vince is amenable to the idea that the Liberal Democrats and Greens are not antithetical enemies; they even have a healthy working relationship in certain areas. “We Liberal Democrats would claim to be the original Green Party, given that our campaigning in the 1970s – before it became fashionable – was largely centred around realistic environmentalism.” Vince observes, referring also to the extensive policy track record of the Liberal Democrats in government.
The Liberal Democrat leader sees the Greens as divided into two – including some very “practical people who just want to deliver environmentalist agenda”, and then there are the others “who would called ‘Fundies’ in Germany, who are rather off the map.” He does not hold back in his criticism of those who are unwilling to work with the Liberal Democrats, though praises the presence of amenable Green parliamentarians in both his local borough and national parliamentary elections.
Vince’s characterisation of the Green Party is perhaps understandable to a degree, yet could come across as off-puttingly indifferent to the radicals and the self-identifying progressives who seem disillusioned with the politics championed by the Liberal Democrats. Our dialogue thus shifts to the question of whether he thinks that the Liberal Democrats ought to adopt more populist rhetoric and tactics in the way they pitch their vision, so as to win back disenfranchised individuals.
In response to my brief mentioning of Corbyn, Vince articulates a stern rebuking of the style of politics embodied by Corbyn – “I don’t think there’s any point in aiming towards populism or striving for an alliance with Corbyn and anti-capitalists.” His reasoning is largely based upon his political principles – the Liberal Democrats draw support from people of both center-right and center-left; yet there is also an element of political savviness about it: the decline in Corbyn’s support and rise in Green defections from Labour is evidence that Corbyn is not necessarily the best political candidate in articulating an anti-Tory political vision for the country. That being said, Vince also does not “want to go into some weird kind of anti-capitalism; I believe in a mixed economy, in which businesses do have a constructive role to play.”
The charge of elitism and Establishment bias has frequently been levied against the pro-Remain and People’s Vote campaign led by a few figures, including Vince. He sharply rejects the suggestion that the People’s Vote is an elitist cause.
“One million marched in the People’s March, 6 million signed the petition for Article 50 to be revoked. The narrative that this is an elitist cause is little more than silly propaganda from the other side. Just look at the background of folks like Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson.”
Diving meticulously into the details (not, perhaps, a quality that one could expect of many politicians who are serving, for the second time, as their party’s overarching leader), Vince observes that his party has strength in relatively prosperous suburbs of London, but also a substantial base in Northern cities, such as Newcastle, Hull, and Sunderland. The Liberal Democrats’ emphasis upon deeply rooted community politics and championing quality local governance has also enabled it to capture the backing of many low-earning parts of the country, such as the Southwest.
What does Vince think of the prospects of triangulation, given that the Liberal Democrats have often been portrayed as “centrists” in British politics?
Vince remarks that triangulation politics is the politics from “twenty years ago, when Blair and Clinton were at their height.” The concept of the centre then no longer has much relevance today, he declares. More importantly, the Liberal Democrats do not aspire to be in the center, but instead has a clearly defined radical position against Brexit – there is no desire to triangulate to be spoken of here. Vince’s pronounced and self-aware positioning of his party renders him rather distinct from some of his more taciturn predecessors, such as Tim Farron, whose views on civil liberties are substantially more amorphous than Vince’s.
Turning to the European question, I ask Vince on his thoughts on how Europe could seek to instill a greater sense of solidarity so as to curb Euroscepticism. Vince offers a more caveated response here – “It’s a difficult situation, but one of the effects of the EU elections is that it strengthened the liberal bloc within the EU parliament. We intend to confront the populist extremists.”
Yet he is by no means blindly ebullient about the prospects of the Union.
“There are genuine economic and social problems that have created a lot of dissatisfaction; these, on top of the persisting long-term consequences of financial crisis, must be taken seriously by the EU.”
Vince also adds that going forward, there must be limitations to freedom of movement within the EU – though such restrictions should be introduced through “soft measures” within the rules of a single market. He does not further expand upon this approach, though mentions Belgium (where “you have to get a job within a couple of week”) as a valuable example for reference.
Would the Orange Book strand of liberalism be the solution to the confidence crisis facing the EU today?
As one of the founding contributors to the Orange Book, he notes that the Orange Book represents a certain strand of economic liberalism that emphasises market discipline and operating within fiscal constraints. That being said, since the financial crisis there has been an apparent shift away from austerity and towards a more interventionist approach to the economy, per his tenure as Business Secretary. Unlike the Tories, however, Vince argues that his economic vision places more emphasis on taxation and capital spending, as opposed to reckless spending cuts.
I take the opportunity to invite Vince to revisit the legacy of the Coalition government between 2010 and 2015. Vince admits here that there were “very damaging things” that followed from some of the joint economic decisions, but – in defense of the Liberal Democrats – notes that the junior coalition partner only had one seat per five ministers. Reflecting on some of the welfare cuts – “unnecessary and harsh”, Vince argues that his party should have fought harder in resisting spending cuts, particularly towards local governments.
Vince was adamant about particular baselines and key positions, and “argued about this [spending cuts and capital spending] extensively with the Chancellor”. Unfortunately for him, perhaps, his resistance was not always met with recognition or acknowledgment amongst the wider public.
He laments that the public “under-estimated the role that the Liberal Democrats played in moderating the rule of the Tories.” The evidence for how poor Tory governance would have been, he notes, is Brexit.
“We stopped the referendum from happening; we did a lot of positive things – certainly in my own department, such as the UK’s industrial strategy and the launching of the Green Bank, alongside other progressive social legislation.”
I potentially channel the concerns of many original Liberal Democrat supporters as I push back – surely, the Liberal Democrats could have played a greater role in constraining the damages of the Tory government had it chosen to remain as a vocal opposition party? Why should the party have joined a coalition and become complicit to the administration’s failures and blunders?
Vince is unconvinced – he sees this counterfactual as untenable; the issue of whether the party should have entered into the coalition was “endlessly debated in 2010”, but “there weren’t the numbers to provide an alternative coalition with the Labour”. He also reveals that the party leadership was worried that had the Liberal Democrats not supported the coalition, the Tories would have called a second General Election, and returned with an even larger majority.
We then turn our attention to the question of Brexit. Vince is stern and harsh in his critique – the negotiated deal “just isn’t going anywhere in the parliament”, which constraints the options available to negotiators and the UK public. The prospects of a second referendum would only increase substantially as the public realises that either we must crash out with WTO rules (which do not exist at the moment, Vince adds, for situations such as Brexit), or remaining in the greater Union.
From a Remainer’s point of view, there is, of course, the worry that the Brexiteers would simply win again – but Vince sees this worry as unsubstantiated. A lot of Brexiteers have changed their minds or expressed apathy about a second referendum, and many of the new voters (young people) are politically conscious and in favour of remaining in the EU. Moreover, Vince is confident that the pitch of both positives about the EU integration and the additional ways of reforming the EU for the better within the system could offer an economically realistic and uplifting account of why the UK is stronger remaining in the EU.
Whilst Vince’s optimism is admirable, it is not clear if it is warranted in light of the previous election. He attributes the loss of the Remain camp in 2016 to the division instilled by Osborne and Cameorn’s aloof and perceived-as-elitist campaign, but also the notable absence of Corbyn. Perhaps Vince unduly downplays factors of economic wealth and cultural identities, but he does make the highly pertinent observation that age is also a major factor in the degree of affinity (or lack thereof) towards the EU.
“I would strongly be in favour of lowering the voting age to 16.”
With regards to domestic UK politics, Vince sees a General Election as likely to occur next Spring – but he doesn’t see it as productive. It is unlikely for Corbyn to be viewed as palatable enough for the Labour Party to send the Tories into opposition: whilst a large majority do want a change in government, most also cannot stomach the thought of a Corbyn leadership. In response, the Liberal Democrats have been reaching out to MPs from both sides of the aisle, offering to “middle-of-the-road Labour and Tory MPs” to join the Liberal Democrats.
On the Tory leadership race, Vince predicts that if Boris Johnson is indeed elected on a mandate of facilitating a No Deal Brexit, such an outcome would polarise the nation severely – and it is unclear where this would lead. He is pessimistic about the prospects of Boris’ contenders defeating him – most Tories would likely choose him because they see him as most electable. Boris’ rise, coupled with the threat of the Brexit Party, would compel the Conservative Party to shift further to the Eurosceptic right. Ironically, it perhaps is precisely the ascendancy of Boris Johnson to premiership that would offer the Liberal Democrats the much-needed further boosts in their numbers and support from the disillusioned British public.
Turning to the Liberal Democrats leadership race, Vince adeptly circumvents my attempt to gauge his thoughts on his preferred successor: he notes that in the short run, given that any General Election called is likely to concern Brexit, his successor must be clear about the party’s stance on Brexit. That being said, in a post-Brexit Britain, any leader of the party should be capable of offering a comprehensive vision that touches upon much wider agenda. Here he refers to the “Beyond Brexit” pamphlet recently drafted and circulated within the party, which sketches out the future of Britain under a Liberal Democratic leadership. He hopes that the new leader will take on some of these ideas, adding that he would wish to remain active in the party – in whatever capacity deemed fit by the upcoming leader.
To close off our interview, I ask Vince what his greatest achievement and legacy, in his opinion, would be. He is proud of the legacy he had left behind in government, which are still “operating well today and with lasting value”. Yet his most significant achievement, perhaps, would be his helming the ship of the Liberal Democrats in times of crisis.
“Twice I managed to stabilise the party and aid it in getting back to a stronger position as compared with what I had previously inherited.”
Vince closes the interview with a few words of wisdom for Liberal Democrat activists and supporters out there – particularly the youth.
“These are very volatile political times we live in, and we don’t know where it is going. People must listen and keep their minds open. We must also be very clear about our vision and principles.”
In political times as turbulent as these, it is refreshing to hear a politician who does not find pleasure in active lying, backstabbing, and populistic pandering to the public. Sir Vince Cable could be accused of being stubborn, at times a tad too concise, or perhaps too idealistic concerning the prospects of a Britain in the European Union – but there is no question that he is and has been a political figure who places the country before party, and the collective over self-interest. As a stalwart of the Liberal Democrats over the past two decades, his stepping-down as the leader of the party certainly marks the end of an epoch.