No 10 Adviser Attacks 'Socialist' Vince Cable

StevieJ

Cameron should choose his friends more carefully if he wants another term in power. I am pretty sure I know which side of the fence most voters will position themselves in the dispute, do we really want to be lectured to by a venture capitalist

Venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft, who wrote a report for No10 calling for proposals to make it easier to fire workers, also declared that the Lib Dems are holding back the Tories.

Mr Clegg said on Tuesday: "I don't support them and I never have. I've not seen any evidence that creating industrial-scale insecurity amongst millions of workers is a way of securing new jobs.
"So far, there's just no evidence that in the highly flexible labour market that we have, comparatively speaking, for instilling greater insecurity and let's be blunt, fear, amongst workers, at a time of great economic anxiety as a way of fostering new employment."

]http://uk.news.yahoo.com/no-10-adviser-attacks-socialist-vince-cable-035511095.html

pqrdef

Cameron always wanted to lead a Tory government. Every so often he seems to persuade himself that he wants to lead a coalition government, but the feeling doesn't last.

But it's not tolerable that attacks on ministers should appear to emanate from No 10.

vax2002

If Vince cable is a "socialist" I would not mind been a few quid behind him.
But then again most Socialist Sympathisers are from private school wealthy families.

Mrs_Bones

pqrdef wrote: »

Cameron always wanted to lead a Tory government. Every so often he seems to persuade himself that he wants to lead a coalition government, but the feeling doesn't last.

But it's not tolerable that attacks on ministers should appear to emanate from No 10.

I'm not convinced Cameron is a true blue Tory, he always seems far more at home with Lib Dem decisions. I think he uses the Lib Dem's to hide behind a lot.

The Beecroft reports comes across more as a businessman's wish list than any type of unbiased evidence based report. As one of the Conservative party's biggest donors I can understand he's now a bit peeved if he can't get what he wanted on his wish list.

Joe_Bloggs

The almost full Beecroft report is here. The redacted part is probably the author/ co-author consultant etc.

In my considered view we should adopt more of an Enron style of management to employees. Automatically fire the lowest performing 10%. Bind then to non-disclosure agreements so they can't discuss their employment. Wherever possible trample employment rights because it's good for GDP despite undermining the consumer confidence of employees.

J_B.

MacMickster

To a true tory like Beecroft, anyone who doesn't share the same raving right-wing views must automatically be a socialist (or lefty as one of the regular contributors to this forum will doubtless say when she trots along soon).

In fact, Vince Cable is a realist, who understands that placing every worker in the UK in fear for their jobs regardless of how well they are performing will cause the UK economy to fall off a cliff edge. People would feel unable to make any long-term financial commitment and would also reign in any discretionary spending by saving for the now more likely rainy day.

grizzly1911

MacMickster wrote: »

In fact, Vince Cable is a realist, .

He has also lived in the real world, done a real job and has been round the block a few times.

All of which help give a more balanced perspective.

Conrad

Most of my clients are small business owners and they like me most definitely are deterred investing thier savings in hiring more staff when pretty much all of us have had months of our existence ruined by this army of people that manipulate employment laws in thier favour.

Quite simply, would any of you risk your childrens money and your own sanity and happiness on taking more people on? Or would you sometimes just go the easy route and get another B2L?

ILW

It does appear that if you employ someone, you are somehow expected to take on the role of surrogate mother in some cases. It does put people off taking on staff.

Look at the amount of posts on here about people who have been off sick for months on end due to personal issues and somehow it is the employers problem.

Conrad

ILW wrote: »

It does appear that if you employ someone, you are somehow expected to take on the role of surrogate mother in some cases. It does put people off taking on staff.

Look at the amount of posts on here about people who have been off sick for months on end due to personal issues and somehow it is the employers problem.

Yes, since when did someones dream of starting a little firm, suddenly, somehow become some sort of social enterprise public interest?

Honestly loads of folk like me would rather have a more chilled life, just be comfortable and not put ourselves out employing further people.
Why bother, when you can have way less potential downside and stress just investing in a flat or whatever.

Notice how Union types have never created a dime of real wealth or a wealth creating job in thier lives. Thier world view comes from a 6th form economics course.

adouglasmhor

vax2002 wrote: »

But then again most Socialist Sympathisers are from private school wealthy families.

One of the stupidest and least factual statements you have ever posted; and there is no lack of competition.