One of the questions that most fascinates Westminster is what would make Vince Cable walk out of the coalition Cabinet. Cable might be a diminished figure and have lost standing on the Lib Dem left by pushing through the tuition fees hike, but his departure would still shift the tectonic plates of politics.
As James Kirkup blogs today, banking reform, or the lack thereof, is the most likely cause of Cable going nuclear. Cable is a firm believer that retail and investment banking need to be separated, a view that he pretty much reiterated on Marr this morning. Osborne and the Treasury are far more cautious on this front.
Everyone in government is waiting to see what the Vickers Review recommends. But I understand from sources close to the review that it is likely to suggest something that both Osborne and Cable could live with.
Vickers is said to be increasingly drawn to the principle of subsidiarisation. This means that you could have an investment and retail arms of the same bank but that they would have to be ringfenced from each other with no cross subsidies. This would mean that, technically, the investment bank could be allowed to fail without hitting the retail part of the bank.
These would be recommendations that the coalition could accept. They would not threaten London’ standing as a financial centre, Osborne’s worry, but would enough to allow Cable to say that the banks have, in effect, being broken up. Certainly, his desire to see ‘fundamental reform’ would have been met
Comments