“Unacceptable for any LD MP to abstain during the vote on tuition fees; It’s Vince’s policy for goodness sake! In Gov or not?” Nadine Dorris MP, Conservative
“I spoke in tuition fees to confirm I would vote against rise in fees & to say the Govt should delay any vote & come back with new proposals.” Greg Mulholland MP, Lib Dem
“If he votes against, that is the only principled position; if he abstains, it is a cop-out; if he votes for, it is a sell-out. Which is it?” Harriet Harman MP, Labour
Some people seemed to have missed that we now have a coalition
government, or at the very least that this arrangement means there is a new type of politics. Vince Cable is being criticised for considering abstaining on increasing tuition fees, a policy emanating from his department. This position is certainly unusual but it is also completely compatible with coalition politics.
Tim Montgomerie makes the reasonable point:
“On the issue of the Coalition Agreement allowing the Lib Dems to abstain on tuition fees, this is the actual text: “If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote”. Given that Vince Cable, with David Willetts, crafted the response to Browne, events have moved on since that Agreement was written.”
I would argue that ‘new politics’ means the agreement on tuition fees is still very valid. Vince Cable, member of the executive, and Vince Cable, member of the legislator, are not necessarily the same thing. As the head of dBIS he has a duty to implement – and shape – the Government’s programme. As a Lib Dem MP he has a duty to up-hold the coalition agreement between his party and the Conservatives.
The boiling cauldron that is contained within the Westminster bubble encourages tribalism, thus issues are invariably always painted black or white. This is why we have the above narrative, which places Vince Cable into old style partisan politics. In my opinion the ordinary folk who inhabit the real world understand that life necessitates compromise, that many issues are grey, and things aren’t always consistent. Those politicians who do not move with the country’s mood by understanding that the rules of the political game have adapted since 6 May risk creating the perception that they are on the margins of the mainstream.
Related posts:
Not sure I agree with you, for a few reasons. One of them alone might let Vince off the hook – but all of them combined do, I think, imply that he probably has to vote for.
Firstly, the Agreement says that Lib Dems can abstain if they disagree with Browne – fine, BUT they have been trumpeting how they have made the proposals fairer (see, for example, the agreement to cap the total).
Secondly, Vince, as the minister responsible, did have influence over the finer details as well.
Thirdly, this is a coalition government and even they have to be bound by collective Cabinet responsibility.
And finally, both partners in this coalition have to do – and be seen to do – unpleasant things. Tories voting for a referendum on AV, Lib Dems voting to put student finance on a sustainable footing. Both parties voting for a rise in VAT.
It’s how this has to work – governing in the national interest does not mean just doing things you like and evading responsibility for the things you don’t.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Platform 10 » Blog Archive » Get With the Coalition Programme -- Topsy.com
Hi Fiona,
For the moment we will have to agree to disagree, though I do understand the points you are making.
In answer to the issues you raise:
The official Lib Dem policy is that they are against tuition fees, thus it can be argued that they disagree with this element of Browne. The fact that the party’s policy is unstainable and doesnt stand up to the rigours of government is another matter!
Vince the minister has different responsibilities to Vince the Lib Dem MP. Many other countries don’t so closely link the executive and legislator as we do. For me Coalition politics makes the difference between the two more important than it has been in the past.
I would argue that the Coaltion agreement is above collective Cabinet responsibility in importance, though I suspect you would disagree. The agreement is the contract that underpins the Government and first and foremost both parties have to be loyal to it.
To be continued im sure
No, I think the Coalition agreement is vital – see here: http://www.platform10.org/2010/07/oliver-and-danny-up-a-tree/ for how the agreement itself is a useful reminder of what has been agreed (for ministers, MPs and civil servants). But the cabinet agrees things after the Coalition Agreement – so they can’t really sidestep this one, particularly as it says arrangements will be made for abstention IF LIB DEMS DISAGREE WITH THE CONCLUSIONS – by definition, having worked on and modified the Browne proposals, the Cabinet has agreed the Bill, and therefore the 5 Lib Dem Cabinet ministers are, along with all the Tories, deemed to have agreed.
More important, though, in the longer-term is your underlying point – the difference between Vince the member of the executive, and Vince the member of the legislature. That has been a serious problem for a long time, and isn’t going to be in any way resolved by the refusal to cut the number of ministers along with the number of MPs…
Pingback: Platform 10 » Blog Archive » The Blogosphere’s Best Thinking – Must Reads Wednesday 1 December
Despite what you say, it still seems to me that Vince Cable is living a somewhat schizophrenic existence! What you mentioned about tribalism made me aware of one of the reasons why French politics are so interesting; because there are so many parties, there are more ideas flying around as each party tries to differentiate itself from its nearest rivals. Here of course ministers are often not MPs. Not a very good thing from the representative point of view. Can you imagine having a PM who has never won any election in his life (de Villepin)? But it does mean that the President has a limitless choice of possible ministers.
No-one anywhere on the political spectrum – apart from maybe Simon Hughes – agrees with me. Oh well…. This suggests that Vince, Clegg and probably the other Lib Dem frontbenchers have to support the whole bill otherwise they will be criticised by everyone. Either way they need to make their decision ASAP, to stop the speculation building up or to give them time for arguing their case.
ooh imagine that – Vince has told his local paper that yes, indeed, he will be voting for his own department’s own policy… well done. This is what grown-up politics is about.
Pingback: Platform 10 » Blog Archive » Policy pass but process fail