5 reasons why Vince Cable would be a disaster as Chancellor

Yesterday, Rachel Sylvester suggested in The Times(£) that Labour figures were considering Vince Cable as a potential Chancellor in the event of a Lab/Lib coalition. It’s an absolutely dreadful idea – and fortunately one that has been denied by the party today in The Sun(£). But it’s also evident that some within the party have let their annoyance at Ed Balls spill over into dangerous and foolishly wistful imaginings of a Vince Cable flavoured future. It’s worth remembering just how bad an idea that would be for the Labour Party – here are just 5 of the reasons why Vince Cable would be a disaster as Chancellor.

It would hand Lib Dems control over government – the main reason why you’d never hand Vince Cable the Chancellor’s job is because it’s political suicide for the Labour Party. If you don’t control the treasury you don’t really control the government (ask Tony Blair). So for a Labour politician to hand the Treasury to a Lib Dem politician would basically put Britain’s 4th party in charge of huge swathes of the government – that’s a Lib Dem party that has been enthusiastic cheerleaders for austerity too, by the way. And what happens if Vince Cable – not a young man – were to step down as Chancellor to be replaced by another Lib Dem?  Would Labour accept Danny Alexander as Chancellor? David Laws? Over my dead body…

His decision-making in government has been suspect – for this one you only need to see the front page of today’s Independent, or PMQs this afternoon. This is the man who sold the Royal Mail on the cheap, and handed a windfall to hedge funds in the process. This is the man who allowed Matthew Oakeshott to go way beyond “outrider” and into the territory of official mouthpiece/agent provocateur. This is the man who thought he had a “nuclear option”, but whose indiscretion meant that the real damage was to his own credibility. A quip about Stalin and Mr Bean doesn’t really make up for his ineptitude in government, or mask his manifest failings as a politician and an operator.

He’s serially disloyal – first, he split from the Labour Party to join the SDP in 1982. For many in the Labour Party – including your author – that’s a lifelong unforgivable offence. But it’s not his only act of political disloyalty. Ask the Lib Dem leaders he’s worked with – he was responsible for the delegation of  Lib Dem MPs who told Charles Kennedy to resign and then he was allegedly responsible for a “pearl-handled revolver moment” when his friend Ming Campbell was forced out. The next Lib Dem leader – Nick Clegg – has barely been out of Cable’s sights, with briefing about how great he’d be as leader followed by how disgruntled he is in government. And that’s before we mention the spectacular 2010 u-turns on the economy and tuition fees. Would you trust Vince Cable to play nice in the Treasury? Would you hell…

It would split the party – the predictable focus of the Cable story was that this would be a snub to Ed Balls, and that’s certainly true. For Miliband to replace Balls with Tory-stooge Vince Cable would have a far greater impact than unleashing an angry Ed Balls and his allies on the Labour leader. Placing a Lib Dem in the Treasury would split the party and the PLP. Coalition is one thing – and difficult to stomach for most – but placing someone who voted consistently for austerity at the head of a Labour government’s economic team could rip the party in two, inside and outside of Westminster.

Shockingly – Miliband and Balls actually work well together – here’s the real reason why this couldn’t/shouldn’t/won’t happen though – Miliband and Balls actually work pretty well together. Whilst many within Westminster would be happy to renew the Blair/Brown wars (it’s good for business, it’s easy to write about, and it’s damaging for Labour), the reality is that the two Eds have worked together for 20 years, have fallen out less than most would during such a long relationship, and whilst not being on the same page about everything, they’re broadly looking for the same thing post-2015 – a Labour government delivered balanced growth and a more rounded economy. Vince Cable might profess to want that too, but he’s a Lib Dem, and being a member of this government is achieving the exact opposite result.

Vince Cable won’t be the Chancellor in a majority Labour government, because he’s not suited to the job, and because there’s a better candidate – Ed Balls.