Dr Cable is an old Labour and SDP member who wants to circumvent property rights and nationalise solvent enterprises. So, he's a natural for BBC/C4 deference.

Outside the statist media you don't have to go far for differing opinion, even at the FT:
Vince Cable, loony(Link)

One silver-lining: more Vince Cable means a little less Will Hutton.

Ah, the FT, which we should remember, supported the bail-out and does not care a fig about the ordinary taxpayer.

Cable is at least an economist. Darling and Osbourne are a pair of dilettantes who have nothing to offer.

Cable at least wants to serve the interest of the taxpayer, whereas his contemporaries are giving felatio to the Banksters.

Osbourne is a career politician, work-shy toff, and worthless hack who will do whatever Lloyds and Goldman Sachs tell him to. Then we have retards like Anatole Kaletsky, Will Hutton and Simon Heffer (a deluded bigot who apparently thinks "middle england" is people who drive porsches and own several houses).

Cable is better than all the above.

When Mr Cable says government spending committments on education and health (and so on) can not be met, he is telling the truth and he should be supported.

I wonder if you support him on that Relugus?

However, when he says Capital Gains Tax should be increased he shows that and "economist" need not know basic economics.

As for the banks.

The difference in policy is shadow play - not reality.

None of the above will let the bankrupt banks go bankrupt.

Whether it is the defacto state control of bailouts or the formal state control of nationlization is not important.

It is the old "choice" between Fascism and Socialism.

To which the reply should be "I will have neither".