subscribe to this blog:
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label vince cable. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vince cable. Show all posts
Tuesday, 1 April 2014
Royal Fail, Royal Mail theft
Something many of us knew before hand anyway the but it is confirmed the Royal Mail was sold off on the cheap by the Tories.
The privatisation of Royal Mail did not achieve the best value for taxpayers because of the government's "deep caution", the spending watchdog says.
The National Audit Office said too much emphasis was put on completing the sale within this Parliament, at the expense of achieving better value for money.
Royal Mail shares are now more than 70% higher than the original sale price of 330p in October 2013.
The privatisation of Royal Mail took place amid huge public interest and the shares rose by 38% to 455p on their first day of trading, representing an increase in value of £750m for the new shareholders.
The NAO report concluded that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was too cautious when setting the sale price of 330p per share.
"The department was very keen to achieve its objective of selling Royal Mail, and was successful in getting the company listed on the FTSE 100," said Amyas Morse, head of the NAO.
L
Achieving the highest price possible at any cost and whatever the risk was never the aim of the sale”
End Quote Vince Cable Business Secretary
"Its approach, however, was marked by deep caution, the price of which was borne by the taxpayer."
A planned postal workers' strike, which was eventually cancelled after the privatisation, also affected the government's sale price.
Demand for Royal Mail shares was 24 times the maximum number available to investors, the NAO said, but the banks overseeing the sale advised there was not sufficient demand to justify a significantly higher figure.
George Godber, a fund manager at Milton Group, told Radio 4 that he was "astounded" by the low price.
"I thought it was significantly underpriced. In stock market terms, this was the London 2012 Olympic ticket moment, lots of people applied but very few got to go to the opening ceremony."
Managers from two of these advising banks - Goldman Sachs and UBS - said market uncertainty and the complexity of the deal led them to a conservative price when they were questioned by MPs in November last year.
As we seen last week the Royal Mail is already cost cutting looking to slash its workforce by 1600 predictably the CWU union makes a lot of noise but will anything be done about this? I doubt it much like the proposed strike back over privatisation which was more hot air from the likes of Billy Hayes and Dave Ward who would rather wait for a labour government.
Labour have predictably come out saying the tax payer has been sold a short one and that Royal Mail was under sold but this miss's the glaring point that it shouldn’t have been sold off in the first place.
Instead of ranting about how cheaply it was sold off how about making the case for renationalization and returning the organisation to public hands and running it for people’s needs not a few peoples profits.
Friday, 14 September 2012
New employment laws, benefiting no one
The new proposed employment laws Vince Cable is looking to introduce will benefit no one. Won’t benefit companies who complain of too much red tape as will be found out in other ways and it certainly doesn’t help workers whose rights see further erosion under this con-dem government.
Business Secretary Vince Cable has proposed a cut in how much workers can claim for unfair dismissal at employment tribunals.
He will consult on plans to cut the limit on compensation payouts to a maximum of 12 months' salary.
He also wants to bring in settlement agreements, in which staff agree to leave without being able to go to a tribunal, but get a pay-off in return.
Proposals to make it easier simply to fire workers will not be made law.
The suggested changes come on top of others made in April, which limited unfair dismissal claims to workers who had been in a job for two years, rather than one as before.
Sarah Veale from the TUC told the BBC that the proposals were still wrong.
"The clue is in the term 'unfair dismissal'," she said.
"If people have been unfairly dismissed, this means the employer has done something wrong and its right that the tribunal should then decide what sort of compensation the person deserves," she said.
Furthermore, employers need to be aware that this cap will not apply to claims brought against them in discrimination cases, where the cap on payouts is unlimited."
Which is good as many businesses will be gunning for union reps as trying to victimise any workers looking to stand up for others. Whether this will water down the chances of unions and union reps fighting back we will have to see but clearly the government has it in for workers still and this is just another attack on the working class.
Many of these changes were dreamt and thought up and compiled by venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft who we all know a few months back wanted business’s and the boss’s to have the ability to fire any staff on the spot without any comebacks or any legal misunderstandings. This kind of free market thinking of hire cheap and fire cheaper is what free market capitalists dream of and must be opposed every step of the way by unions and workers alike.
Friday, 10 June 2011
Union shop stewards reject Cables anti trade union threat
National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) 5th Annual Conference - 11.30am-4.15pm, Saturday June 22nd - South Camden Community School, London E10 9DE
On Saturday, over 400 shop stewards and union reps will be sending a message of defiance to ConDem minister Vince Cable after he warned unions about more anti-union laws to restrict their activity. Cable suffered heckles from outraged delegates at this week's GMB conference as he lectured them about not joining the June 30th strikes against the government's attacks on public sector pensions. The NSSN will be using its 5th annual conference in London to prepare rank and file workers to build support for the 750,000 workers from the public sector unions PCS, NUT, UCU and ATL who are now balloting to take strike action.
The NSSN will be voting on a motion encouraging its supporters in unions not yet balloting to push for strike ballots so they too can take action later in the year. The conference will also be supporting trace unionist who have been victimised by their employers for trade union activities. These include Arwyn Thomas the London Tube driver. His union the RMT has just called strike action to demand his reinstatement.
Other speakers include RMT President Alex Gordon, PCS President Janice Godrich and Apostolis Kasimeris a member of the Executive Committee of the Union of Public Transport Workers in Attica (Athens and Pireaus region).
ENDS
For more information, contact contact Rob Williams NSSN chair:
Telephone: 07816134690
Email: info@shopstewards.net
On Saturday, over 400 shop stewards and union reps will be sending a message of defiance to ConDem minister Vince Cable after he warned unions about more anti-union laws to restrict their activity. Cable suffered heckles from outraged delegates at this week's GMB conference as he lectured them about not joining the June 30th strikes against the government's attacks on public sector pensions. The NSSN will be using its 5th annual conference in London to prepare rank and file workers to build support for the 750,000 workers from the public sector unions PCS, NUT, UCU and ATL who are now balloting to take strike action.
The NSSN will be voting on a motion encouraging its supporters in unions not yet balloting to push for strike ballots so they too can take action later in the year. The conference will also be supporting trace unionist who have been victimised by their employers for trade union activities. These include Arwyn Thomas the London Tube driver. His union the RMT has just called strike action to demand his reinstatement.
Other speakers include RMT President Alex Gordon, PCS President Janice Godrich and Apostolis Kasimeris a member of the Executive Committee of the Union of Public Transport Workers in Attica (Athens and Pireaus region).
ENDS
For more information, contact contact Rob Williams NSSN chair:
Telephone: 07816134690
Email: info@shopstewards.net
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Social mobility out the window as rich kids allowed to buy extra university places
News this morning of plans to allow super wealthy families and their kids e xtra university places is rightly being slammed as a insult to all the good hard working students from less well off backgrounds.
Universities such as Oxford could offer extra places to students who can pay the fees up front rather than taking out state-funded loans, under the governments plans. Photograph: Lonely Planet Images/Alamy
Teenagers from the wealthiest families would be able to pay for extra places at the most competitive universities under government proposals that could allow institutions to charge some British students the same high fees as overseas undergraduates.
Candidates who take up the extra places would not be eligible for publicly funded loans to pay tuition fees or living costs, limiting this option to all but the most privileged households who could pay fees up front.
Under the plans, the extra students may be charged as much as international undergraduates. At the most competitive universities, these students face fees ranging from £12,000 a year for arts subjects to £18,000 for sciences and more than £28,000 for medicine. Applicants would be required to meet the course entry requirements.
The changes would give more students the chance to attend their first choice of university. At present, the government sets a quota of undergraduate places that English universities are allowed to offer each year.
Employers and charities will also be encouraged to sponsor "off-quota" places under the plans to be outlined in a higher education white paper in the summer.
Ministers argue that the creation of extra places will boost social mobility by freeing up more publicly subsidised places for undergraduates from poorer homes.
But the proposals are likely to be criticised as a means for the wealthiest to "buy places" at a time when the government is to cut 10,000 publicly funded places.
The universities minister, David Willetts, told the Guardian: "There are various important issues that need to be addressed around off-quota places, but I start from the view that an increase in the total number of higher education places could aid social mobility.
"There would need to be arrangements to make sure any such system was fair and worked in the interests of students as well as institutions. But it is not clear what the benefit is of the current rules, which, for example, limit the ability of charities or social enterprises to sponsor students.
"We are inviting ideas on the whole concept and we will listen very carefully to all the responses we receive."
The proposal is most likely to be taken up by highly selective institutions, which turn away thousands of qualified candidates a year. Oxford accepted slightly more than 3,000 British and EU undergraduates out of about 17,000 who applied for the current academic year.
That demand is due to intensify as the latest application figures show the number of candidates for this autumn has risen by 2.1% to about 633,000 – another record high.
The places may not be covered by access agreements, under which universities are required to outline how they will improve their proportion of students from state schools and deprived backgrounds.
Under one version of the scheme, universities might operate a "needs-blind" admissions process, which assesses all candidates regardless of their ability to pay, but then offers places off-quota to candidates from the most privileged homes.
The expansion of places will put greater pressure on less popular universities. Ministers have warned that undersubscribed institutions could have government-funded places withdrawn.
In a speech last month, the business secretary, Vince Cable, said: "Institutions could very well find themselves in trouble if students can't see value. In circumstances where places are unfilled, we might withdraw those places, and institutions should not assume they will easily get them back."
This is more likely to happen if more sought-after universities are free to expand in response to student demand.
The government is also keen to encourage more corporate sponsorship of university places. The accountancy firm KPMG has unveiled a plan to pay fees for students at universities including Durham, in a training programme leading to an honours degree in accounting.
These students also fall outside government restrictions on numbers, chiefly because they are on bespoke courses reserved for one firm's employees. They do not need financial support as KPMG covers their fees and pays them a salary.
The current version of the scheme is, in effect, an outsourcing of corporate training, but the range of education on offer could become more diverse in future.
This sounds to me like the first stage of privatising our higher education sector. The fact that business's can buy courses for trainees is just introducing private money into the sector. This smells very suspicious much like the NHS plans by the tories.
How can they have the nerve to say this will encourage social mobility is beyond me. It is distinctly unfair and is attempting to create a usand them situation with the wealthier families paying for a better future for their sons or daughters.
It is fundementally unfair and must be opposed in my view.
Universities such as Oxford could offer extra places to students who can pay the fees up front rather than taking out state-funded loans, under the governments plans. Photograph: Lonely Planet Images/Alamy
Teenagers from the wealthiest families would be able to pay for extra places at the most competitive universities under government proposals that could allow institutions to charge some British students the same high fees as overseas undergraduates.
Candidates who take up the extra places would not be eligible for publicly funded loans to pay tuition fees or living costs, limiting this option to all but the most privileged households who could pay fees up front.
Under the plans, the extra students may be charged as much as international undergraduates. At the most competitive universities, these students face fees ranging from £12,000 a year for arts subjects to £18,000 for sciences and more than £28,000 for medicine. Applicants would be required to meet the course entry requirements.
The changes would give more students the chance to attend their first choice of university. At present, the government sets a quota of undergraduate places that English universities are allowed to offer each year.
Employers and charities will also be encouraged to sponsor "off-quota" places under the plans to be outlined in a higher education white paper in the summer.
Ministers argue that the creation of extra places will boost social mobility by freeing up more publicly subsidised places for undergraduates from poorer homes.
But the proposals are likely to be criticised as a means for the wealthiest to "buy places" at a time when the government is to cut 10,000 publicly funded places.
The universities minister, David Willetts, told the Guardian: "There are various important issues that need to be addressed around off-quota places, but I start from the view that an increase in the total number of higher education places could aid social mobility.
"There would need to be arrangements to make sure any such system was fair and worked in the interests of students as well as institutions. But it is not clear what the benefit is of the current rules, which, for example, limit the ability of charities or social enterprises to sponsor students.
"We are inviting ideas on the whole concept and we will listen very carefully to all the responses we receive."
The proposal is most likely to be taken up by highly selective institutions, which turn away thousands of qualified candidates a year. Oxford accepted slightly more than 3,000 British and EU undergraduates out of about 17,000 who applied for the current academic year.
That demand is due to intensify as the latest application figures show the number of candidates for this autumn has risen by 2.1% to about 633,000 – another record high.
The places may not be covered by access agreements, under which universities are required to outline how they will improve their proportion of students from state schools and deprived backgrounds.
Under one version of the scheme, universities might operate a "needs-blind" admissions process, which assesses all candidates regardless of their ability to pay, but then offers places off-quota to candidates from the most privileged homes.
The expansion of places will put greater pressure on less popular universities. Ministers have warned that undersubscribed institutions could have government-funded places withdrawn.
In a speech last month, the business secretary, Vince Cable, said: "Institutions could very well find themselves in trouble if students can't see value. In circumstances where places are unfilled, we might withdraw those places, and institutions should not assume they will easily get them back."
This is more likely to happen if more sought-after universities are free to expand in response to student demand.
The government is also keen to encourage more corporate sponsorship of university places. The accountancy firm KPMG has unveiled a plan to pay fees for students at universities including Durham, in a training programme leading to an honours degree in accounting.
These students also fall outside government restrictions on numbers, chiefly because they are on bespoke courses reserved for one firm's employees. They do not need financial support as KPMG covers their fees and pays them a salary.
The current version of the scheme is, in effect, an outsourcing of corporate training, but the range of education on offer could become more diverse in future.
This sounds to me like the first stage of privatising our higher education sector. The fact that business's can buy courses for trainees is just introducing private money into the sector. This smells very suspicious much like the NHS plans by the tories.
How can they have the nerve to say this will encourage social mobility is beyond me. It is distinctly unfair and is attempting to create a usand them situation with the wealthier families paying for a better future for their sons or daughters.
It is fundementally unfair and must be opposed in my view.
Monday, 21 February 2011
Leader of the NUS Aaron Porter to step down at last
SO news is breaking that the president of the NUS Aaron Porter is to not stand again for re-election in April. After months of dithering and inaction Aaron has taken it upon himself to stand down. This will be greted with relief from many students across the land who now see Aaron as a student hate figure. I do not personally have anything against the guy think he's alright as a person but as a leader of a movement of students he has ultimatly failed. It has not been a easy job of course with the unleashing of a radicailasation within students with teh hiking of tuitian fees to university.
The farce with Lib Dem ministers who signed a pledge not voting for raising of tuitian fees.
What also didnt help his cause was an internal NUS memo urged students to stop protesting against fees and described elements of the Government’s package as ‘progressive’. Vince Cable bragged about this on the BBC’s Question Time, giving Aaron the kiss of death
To date, the NUS Presidency has proved a fairly pain-free launchpad for a glamorous political career that ends in a Labour Cabinet: ask Jack Straw, Charles Clarke and Phil Woolas. Yes, you can expect a bit of sniping from the left, but in the past NUS Presidents have relished it while being easily able to marginalise radical elements.
But Aaron Porter chose the wrong time to be a Blairite at the helm of the student movement. If the joint NUS/UCU demo on November 10th had been half as big, Porter would still be in office. But it lit a torchpaper. No-one on left or right had a real sense of the burning anger on campuses and in sixth forms across the country. Unlike previous generations, many of today’s young people feel they have no future; they feel lied to and betrayed by a cynical political elite; and they believe they’re up against a Government with no mandate.
I do actually feel sorry for Porter in a way he has obviosly been thrusted into a difficult situation he wasnt prepared for but i do think he could have done a lot lot more.
I fully expect him to turn up in a safe labour seat though one day as a MP. He has the air of a careerist polititian to me and that wouldnt surprise me to see him as a MP one day. But for now the NUS must move on and try to fidn its next leader who can harness this growing anger within students at all levels. It will be a tough job for anyone stepping into it. I dont envy them but i do hope they get the right person for the job as the next few years could be crucial.
The farce with Lib Dem ministers who signed a pledge not voting for raising of tuitian fees.
What also didnt help his cause was an internal NUS memo urged students to stop protesting against fees and described elements of the Government’s package as ‘progressive’. Vince Cable bragged about this on the BBC’s Question Time, giving Aaron the kiss of death
To date, the NUS Presidency has proved a fairly pain-free launchpad for a glamorous political career that ends in a Labour Cabinet: ask Jack Straw, Charles Clarke and Phil Woolas. Yes, you can expect a bit of sniping from the left, but in the past NUS Presidents have relished it while being easily able to marginalise radical elements.
But Aaron Porter chose the wrong time to be a Blairite at the helm of the student movement. If the joint NUS/UCU demo on November 10th had been half as big, Porter would still be in office. But it lit a torchpaper. No-one on left or right had a real sense of the burning anger on campuses and in sixth forms across the country. Unlike previous generations, many of today’s young people feel they have no future; they feel lied to and betrayed by a cynical political elite; and they believe they’re up against a Government with no mandate.
I do actually feel sorry for Porter in a way he has obviosly been thrusted into a difficult situation he wasnt prepared for but i do think he could have done a lot lot more.
I fully expect him to turn up in a safe labour seat though one day as a MP. He has the air of a careerist polititian to me and that wouldnt surprise me to see him as a MP one day. But for now the NUS must move on and try to fidn its next leader who can harness this growing anger within students at all levels. It will be a tough job for anyone stepping into it. I dont envy them but i do hope they get the right person for the job as the next few years could be crucial.
Monday, 20 December 2010
Vince cable under pressure ?
Not a paper i read much but over recent times ahve presented us with some interesting leaks and revelations.
the latest one is our good friend VInce cable of the lib dems the business secretary stating if he gets pushed too far with policies in government he can quit and bring down the government.
in this article here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/8215501/Vince-Cable-the-full-transcript.html
it outlines what vince thinks about some of his tory coalition friends and some of the strains that are starting to appear there in the coalition.
As i have said many times before i think this is a wak government with lots of weak pointsa nd fault lines are easily defeated i think.
If Vince seriously thinks he can bring down the governemnt he is sorely mistaken, it will take more than a loose cannon in the lib dems to take down this governemnt sadly
Although weak they are strong in the upper reaches of this gov the likes of cameron, clegg and danny alexander are all very close.
But what i'm wondering is how far is too far for Vince cable, is turning the lib dems blue and turning them into supporting the tories and backing their ri ght wing cuts agenda not far enough i do wonder waht will be .....
the latest one is our good friend VInce cable of the lib dems the business secretary stating if he gets pushed too far with policies in government he can quit and bring down the government.
in this article here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/8215501/Vince-Cable-the-full-transcript.html
it outlines what vince thinks about some of his tory coalition friends and some of the strains that are starting to appear there in the coalition.
As i have said many times before i think this is a wak government with lots of weak pointsa nd fault lines are easily defeated i think.
If Vince seriously thinks he can bring down the governemnt he is sorely mistaken, it will take more than a loose cannon in the lib dems to take down this governemnt sadly
Although weak they are strong in the upper reaches of this gov the likes of cameron, clegg and danny alexander are all very close.
But what i'm wondering is how far is too far for Vince cable, is turning the lib dems blue and turning them into supporting the tories and backing their ri ght wing cuts agenda not far enough i do wonder waht will be .....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)