Vinnie The Socialist.......

[MiniTheMinx]

"A controversial Downing Street adviser has accused Business
Secretary Vince Cable of being a socialist who "appears to do very
little to support business".

Venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft, who wrote a report for No 10 calling for proposals making it easier to fire workers, said the Liberal Democrat's objections to his plans were "ideological not economic. I think he is a socialist who found a home in the Lib Dems, so he's one of the left," he told the Daily Telegraph.

It might be said that Beecroft having paid over £500,000 to the Tories thinks he owns them and is now throwing his rattle out of the pram.

"Downing Street has made clear that David Cameron has not dismissed the proposal out of hand." Well of course, Dave has to keep these leaches happy, where else will he find party funding, it certainly won't be from the disempowered and depressed masses, struggling on already low wages and facing a very uncertain future.

As Clegg say "I've not seen any evidence that creating industrial-scale insecurity amongst millions of workers is a way of securing new jobs"

Thank god we have Vinnie the............?

Sorry, a link to the story www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/adrian-beecroft-criticises-socialist-vince-cable-7781241.html

......human being!

Well it would be pretty boring if everyone agreed about everything, wouldn't it? The country needs growth, jobs, prosperity, commerce and, like it or not, that's going to come from big business. How to stimulate big business is the thing every country across Europe and beyond is scratching their heads over. We can't demand Cameron goes for growth and then accuse him of 'keeping leaches (sic) happy' when he takes the views of people like Beecroft into account. Beecroft won't be the only person contributing to the debate and the Business Secretary is entiteld to his opinion.

As Radio4 pointed out this morning, Beecroft also had a fairly major pop at the Treasury for being unsupportive to businesses. He's at least spreading his hissy fit around.

It is already easy enough for businesses to hire people if they have the will. The fact is they don't have the will because of falling profit margins. Up to this point they have supressed wages to maximise profits but then scratch their heads wondering where the demand is going to come from. There are huge amounts of capital which are not being invested and not being used to employ because large businesses prefer to make money from money because that doesn't entail employing people. Huge sums of money have been used to go into financial products rather than expand their core business.

If you want to hire someone, you put them on a probationary period during which time you assess whether they are up to the job.

I'm surprised it needed a newspaper article to tell us Vince Cable is a socialist.

Of course a venture capitalist would want to be able to sack people indiscriminately. It makes his line of work much easier and much more profitable. He really does want no fault dismissal, not "it's not a good personality match and you're a bit lazy and incompetent, without being bad enough to sack you under the current rules" dismissal.

Personally i think on this occasion Vinnie is right.

Whilst I'd support a consultation period of 30 days rather than the current 90, I don't see any real reason to make firing people easier. A balance must be struck between having flexible businesses who are not lumbered with labour they no longer need and the fact that people need security in employment. And right now the balance is ok, not perfect but OK.

Cable has a face liked a cats bum hole. Clearly he has hated every moment of the con dems. Easy answer mr Cable, just walk away and join the labour party where you will be made more than welcome. x

I think Clegg is right, if you create insecurity that will effect demand in the economy. People that live in fear of losing their job are highly unlikely to "splash the cash"

Well it would be pretty boring if everyone agreed about everything, wouldn't it? The country needs growth, jobs, prosperity, commerce and, like it or not, that's going to come from big business. How to stimulate big business is the thing every country across Europe and beyond is scratching their heads over.

Do you think the fact that we've been deregulating businesses and suppressing wages for three decades may have something to do with the fact that we're in the biggest financial crisis since the 1930s and there is lack of demand in the economy?

Do you think doing more of the same, only moreso, is going to be the answer to our problems?

You think that the vast majority of working people, who have already experience stagnating wages for decades, against the rising cost of living and house prices, and who only maintained their standard of living through credit - do you think these people will be spurred on to consume more, after experiencing the biggest spending squeeze of their lifetime, if they are now told that they could lose their job at any time for no reason at all?

We can't demand Cameron goes for growth and then accuse him of 'keeping leaches (sic) happy' when he takes the views of people like Beecroft into account.

We can, because there are many ways of 'stimulating growth': supply side and demand side. We've had supply-side reforms (neo-liberalism) for three decades, and it has resulted in almost unprecedented wealth and wage inequality, job insecurity, and a culmination in a financial crisis.

A growth stimulus in the form of investment in public infrastructure, tax breaks for the poorest, and generally putting more people into people's pockets might actually help be able to afford to buy things again. Until we fix the fact that nobody has any money to spend anymore because Capitalists have fucked themselves through their own contradictions, then we're not going to get out of this Capitalist recession.

Beecroft won't be the only person contributing to the debate and the Business Secretary is entiteld to his opinion.

Sure, and we're entitled to mock his opinions as absurd, deranged, nasty, cuntish, and counter-productive.

Re: Beecroft-

The guy who wrote a report for the report for the government saying bosses should be able to sack workers more easily : His name is Adrian Beecroft.

Guess what the BBC et al neglected to mention.

He is the chairman of Dawn Capital, the owners of payday loan firm Wonga?which charges interest at 4,214 percent.

A survey this week found that more than six out of ten people who get payday loans need the cash to pay for essentials like food and nappies.

Taken from 'The Resistance Movement of the UK' on fb.

Yes I read about him being chairman of pay day loans. It's little wonder he wants less security for workers, he will directly benefit.

I think Vince Cable is trying very hard to be obstructive and keep his integrity, no wonder the man's got a cats bum face. Although today Clegg has been likened to a communist in the media for daring to say top universities should consider candidates with lower grades from poor backgrounds and that more needs to be done about social mobility. Although to be honest the best way to deal with lack of social mobility is to turn Beecrofts idea on it's head and insist companies start training their staff.

Years ago, companies trained their staff, they invested in people but now they complain that they can't find suitably experienced staff. So employ them and train them. But no, they would rather further deregulate the labour market, try any means of circumventing NMW and employ people from abroad. Not because they need a certain skills set but because they want to devalue wages further.

Until we fix the fact that nobody has any money to spend anymore because Capitalists have fucked themselves through their own contradictions, then we're not going to get out of this Capitalist recession absolutely

"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."

Well on this I agree with Clegg, but then its a bit of a no brainer really.

Would the converse of this theory be that in times of prosperity the government should make it harder for businesses to sack people? Of course this is an ideological, not an economic argument.

My larger concern would be how much money was spent on the commissioning of this report and can waste be minimised by stringing it together and hanging it in the House of Commons toilets?

Good God. I never knew about Beecroft's links to Wonga.

What is it with this government and their awarding of contracts and influence to chums involved in dodgy money-making enterprises that benefit only themselves and damage the economy and society so the country has to pick up the pieces and the bill?

I'm not surprised that a govt of any colour would repay favours. But I'm astounded that any administration would be so clumsy and blatant about it and not be aware that a greedy egotist such as Beecroft could not be trusted not to blow the gaff when thwarted.

BTW we're entitled to mock his opinions as absurd, deranged, nasty, cuntish, and counter-productive.

Thanks ttosca for the summing up .

I found out today, I expect other here already know, that Vinnie was in the labour party. He left labour to join the sdp and found himself in the yellow camp by default.

Is clegg living in fear of Vinnie? Apparently Vinnie is quite cosy with Ed milliband.