No 10 Adviser Attacks 'Socialist' Vince Cable

Fella

pqrdef wrote: »

Of course. Everybody knows that slavery provides the most job opportunities.

Grow up. Do you seriously think every employer is a closet slave-owner & the only thing stopping them is regulation?

Try making an adult point if it's not beyond you.

MacMickster

Fella wrote: »

I implied nothing of the sort. You're accusation borne out of nothing is exactly the kind of pathetic attitude that is keeping this country on it's knees. So many people who can't wait to think the worst of anyone who supports anything remotely in favour of private enterprise.

Our employers were treated exceptionally well & paid way above the market rate. We were happy to operate in this way for a variety of reasons not least of which was we considered all of them friends and we were making plenty of money ourselves anyway.

It was the endless, pointless beurocratic hassle heaped upon employers by Nulabour (with plenty of help from the EU) that we couldn't stand. Why bother with it when I could make very good money any way with zero hassle & red tape. Expecting a 5-10 man company to operate identically to a 20,000+ employee company is beyond dumb & anyone with a brain agrees. Lots of VIs like the Unions will clamour to say the opposite though. And Vince Cable is their cheerleader.

Go on then. Quantify the amount of time weekly that was required from you by this red tape and hassle to administer 5 to 10 employees, that wouldn't be required under your ideal system, and which wouldn't leave you open to being uncompetetive with other less scrupulous employers.

It must have been a huge amount to make you consign your "friends" to the dole queue in order to avoid it.

Fella

MacMickster wrote: »

Go on then. Quantify the amount of time weekly that was required from you by this red tape and hassle to administer 5 to 10 employees, that wouldn't be required under your ideal system, and which wouldn't leave you open to being uncompetetive with other less scrupulous employers.

It must have been a huge amount to make you consign your "friends" to the dole queue in order to avoid it.

Wow you're tedious. Do you really think I feel the need to justify myself to you? Especially since even if I did you'd no doubt come out with something equally pathetic in line with all your previous responses. Believe we consigned our "friends to the dole queue" if you like. It'll just be one further incorrect belief you have to keep you warm at night.

Rather than give you a sensible answer, I'm going to recommend you try taking your head out from up your own !!!!!.

BTW I shant waste any more time replying to you so feel free to have the last word, I rather suspect you're the type that needs it.

MacMickster

Fella wrote: »

Wow you're tedious. Do you really think I feel the need to justify myself to you? Especially since even if I did you'd no doubt come out with something equally pathetic in line with all your previous responses. Believe we consigned our "friends to the dole queue" if you like. It'll just be one further incorrect belief you have to keep you warm at night.

Rather than give you a sensible answer, I'm going to recommend you try taking your head out from up your own !!!!!.

BTW I shant waste any more time replying to you so feel free to have the last word, I rather suspect you're the type that needs it.

Of course I'll have the last word. The moment someone resorts to abuse rather than reasoned argument you know that it is the point at which they have lost the argument. You can go back and do some "consulting". With your considered and insightful opinions I'm sure that you'll be in great demand.

Although it is now almost 4 years since I retired from my business, and I never had more than 4 employees, I never found the "red tape" particularly onerous. It may be that Call Me Dave has significantly increased that in the last couple of years, but I doubt it.

adouglasmhor

Conrad wrote: »

I see today yet another supposed believer in levelling and re - distribution has been found out.

Will Self, another socialist with a £1m+ home.
Ken Livingston barracking people over Tax, then actively paying as little as he can.

Billy Bragg and his £1.8m house overlooking the channel.

Shirley Williams (I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, particularly when it comes to the poor), with her 2 Hertfordshire mansions.

Tony Ben with his Essex mansion and farm, plus £4m Holland Park home.


At least Tories dont pretend not to like money.

Being a greedy grasping parasite is not the exclusive preserve of public school FPs and vice versa. But even if we count only supporters of Labour, SNP, SWP, SSP and Respect how many of their voters (and therefore suporters) are middle class ex public shool types. Which is what had been suggested.

adouglasmhor

The_White_Horse wrote: »

but you don't need to jeapordise all workers do you? you only need to relax the laws for those with under 12 months service, or maybe 24. this way firms will feel able to hire new staff if they feel they need it, but get rid of them immediately if they feel they cannot afford them anymore.

people already in work are not the issue.

STUPID LEFTIES.

I am agreeing with you again, do you know how dirty I now feel.

adouglasmhor

Joe_Bloggs wrote: »

@Conrad and entirely theoretical.

Consider an alternative way of life. Let's say that every worker had a ten week rolling contract. After that they could be re-hired /fired or choose to move on. How would you be able to sell mortgages to these people ?

It would not surprise me if these people then used their collective political will motivated by joint suffering to eventually change the government that allowed this system to theoretically exist in the first place.

J_B.

I once worked for over 2 years on 13 week rolling contracts in the public sector. It was not the best situation I have been in but it was better than having a gap on my CV and being on benefits while quite capable of working. If it had fallen through I had a plan B and a Plan C.

pqrdef

Fella wrote: »

Try making an adult point if it's not beyond you.

It's already been made. You say you didn't take part in the race to the bottom. Many don't. So what? Many others do. And many of those would like the bottom to be lower.

Their political lobbyists say that this would lead to the creation of more jobs. But it wouldn't really. It would just lead to bigger profits.

ILW

pqrdef wrote: »

It's already been made. You say you didn't take part in the race to the bottom. Many don't. So what? Many others do. And many of those would like the bottom to be lower.

Their political lobbyists say that this would lead to the creation of more jobs. But it wouldn't really. It would just lead to bigger profits.

And your problem with bigger profits is?

adouglasmhor

ILW wrote: »

And your problem with bigger profits is?

Where does he say he has a problem with bigger proffits? He said it would not create more employment which is the mooted reason for the changes.