"Mike Smithson speculated on Political Betting that the speech is a reaching hand to Tory core vote ahead of next months local elections. The subject deliberately chosen to stop votes leaching to UKIP.
I’d go a stage further and suggest that the whole thing, including Vince’s media reaction is a plot cooked up between them to enable both parties to comfort their base. Cameron get’s pretty easily riled, and yet his reaction to question’s about Vince’s intervention didn’t have the air of a man responding to an unplanned outburst by a ministerial colleague. He was deliberate and consistent in his answers.
I’m pretty sure he knew exactly what Vince was going to say this morning before he said it."My immediate reaction is something along the lines of "well, duh". For one thing, it's the local elections, of course Cameron is going to say something about immigration to reassure the traditional tory voters. Similarly, of course the Lib Dems are going to publicly disagree - just as they did last time Cameron made a speech on immigration. This is because they also want to reassure their core voters. But to suggest it was all pre-planned? Sounds rather far fetched to me.
The main reason Hayward gives for this idea of a conspiracy is because Cameron wasn't riled by what Vince said. Well, duh. He wasn't riled the last time Clegg disagreed with him on immigration because he knows that the Lib Dems disagree with him on this and, in any event, this public disagreement benefits him anyway because it reassures the raving conservativehome crowd that he isn't secretly becoming a Liberal. Clegg and Cameron started the Coalition with a deliberate agreement to disagree on certain matters and so I do find it rather strange that Hayward can't quite grasp the concept of collegiate disagreement without immediately suspecting a conspiracy.
As for her statement that:
"I’m pretty sure he knew exactly what Vince was going to say this morning before he said it."I think that is quite possibly one of the most idiotic political statements this year. Of course Cameron fucking knew. That's because every speech by a minister is cleared by Number 10 (and Nick Clegg) beforehand. So Cable would have known that Cameron was going to make a speech and Cameron would have guessed that a senior Lib Dem was going to make a counter-speech, and would then have seen the text of that speech before he drafted his own counter-counter speech.
Just like the Gillian Duffy vs Nick Clegg thing the other day, this allegation of "conspiracy" is incredibly ridiculous and worthy of, if not derision, then at least a general shaking of the head and carrying on with life.