There’s been a lot in the news over the weekend about Vince Cable’s article in The New Statesman with some commentators saying that it shows he’s out of line with Osborne/Cameron and others saying it shows that he’s on board with the whole coalition thing.

I have read the article (twice) and I have to report that it’s neither.
It’s four pages of waffle with lots of mentions of the works of various economists and mentions “allowing automatic counter-cyclical stabilisers” and pragmatic non-intervention … which is Vince-speak for “do feck-all and just wait and see”.
In the end, the essay actually says nothing of note, except maybe we could spend a bit on infrastructure and we could borrow to do it because that isn’t structural deficit spending but then again that could be a risky thing to do but then again not doing it could be risky too.

No poop Sherlock.

He was also on the Today programme on R4 this morning, and that was pretty much the same echoingly empty drivel.
The interview might have been a bit better if Humphries had known the difference between deficit and debt but, as it was, Vince could ramble on, dressing-up his content-free answers with the liberal use of ifs, buts and maybes.

It’s taken him two and a half years in government to come up with this.

Before the election he was outspokenly determined that austerity was not the right direction and that growth was essential.
Then he went along with Clegg in his Damascene conversion to the Tory view that austerity was the only way to a ministerial limo.

Now that he's noticed that Clegg said a couple of weeks ago that maybe, just maybe, we should have thought a bit more about growth at the start of the government, Vince is suddenly electrified into coming up with this mealy-mouthed, maybe-this-maybe-that essay that doesn’t commit him to any definite view at all.

Admirable stuff Vince, the voters will be falling at your feet.

Vince Cable was the main man before the election, out of all three party's he was the one who SEEMED to have all the answers, any answers at all really, he talked a good war without the need to ever have to put anything into practice - before the election he had the ideal job, a politician who was respected, had an opinion on everything economic, had the ear of the media, and never had to put any of it into practice so could never be proved wrong.

He must have shat himself when his party accepted Camerons handshake and found themselves in power, only slightly relieved byt he fact that the Tories already had their own fall guy for the chancellors job.

He should keep his mouth shut and his head down and draw the Ministerial salary, but when was the last time any politician did that ?

He's just been bumbling away on BBC News.
I seriously wonder what his mindset is after having to sell his soul.
He comes across as a fairly dispirited, unhappy character.