Vince Cable: Bombardier U-turn would make us look bad

Source Mirror.co.uk

 

THE Government has admitted it is more interested in saving face than saving Britain’s last train maker, Bombardier.

 

Business Secretary Vince Cable has ruled out a U-turn on the £1.4billion Thameslink contract because it would “cause significant damage to the ­Government’s reputation”.

 

Labour says it proves that vanity is the only thing preventing the Coalition from reversing its decision to award the carriage-making contract to German firm Siemens instead of Bombardier.

 

Shadow Transport Secretary Maria Eagle said: “It is incredible that the Tory-led Government is sticking its head in the sand when it should be doing everything possible to protect manufacturing jobs.

 

“Vince Cable has let the cat out of the bag and admitted it is the vanity of ministers that is stopping this decision from being reviewed.

 

“Instead of Transport Secretary Philip Hammond and Vince Cable worrying about what the papers might say, they should think about the thousands of lost jobs.”

 

Bombardier in Derby has already made 1,400 of its 3,000 workers redundant after losing the Thameslink bid.

 

Dr Cable said in a letter to Philip Hickson, the leader of Tory-led Derby city council: “A sudden decision to reverse a procurement decision in response to what could look like political pressure would cause significant damage to the Government’s reputation as a trustworthy counterparty.

 

“This could cause considerably increased costs for future procurements and badly damage investment in this country.”

 

The Lib Dem’s four-page letter, which has been seen by the Mirror, adds that the Government takes “the situation in Derby extremely seriously” but repeats the Coalition’s line that EU rules prevent it from changing the decision. But the Mirror revealed yesterday that a business law expert insists the ConDems could simply abort the deal.

 

Last night John Pearson, from the Unite union, said: “I’m sure another U-turn won’t make any difference. They are all being stubborn. All they have to do is admit they made a mistake and get out of this mess. Now is the time for them to do the right thing.

 

“The letter shows clearly that Vince Cable learnt nothing from his visit to Derby and shows a lack of understanding about what’s happening.”

 

Cllr Hickson, who had written to David Cameron urging him to meet an all-party delegation from Derby to discuss the Bombardier crisis, was not available for comment last night.

 

But Chris Williamson, Labour MP for Derby North, said: “The Government has betrayed British manufacturing and Vince Cable is deluding himself if he thinks the Coalition has a reputation that is worth protecting.

 

“People are not interested in his weasel words about a ‘personal commitment’ to Derby, they just want their Government to stand up for Britain.

 

“Unless the Government reverses its plans to build Thameslink trains in Germany, 2011 will be the end of the line for British train making.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sorry, but the bit in bold just makes me want to piss myself laughing... :lol: :lol: As if this government's "reputation" could actually get any worse....

 

As far as I'm concerned Cable is a Judas, he's basically sold out the working classes of this country and thrown his lot in with a bunch of upper-crust Tory Toffs who want to destroy the public sector and public services. The biblical Judas got 30 pieces of silver in return for his services, Cable got a nice cushy job, a gold-plated ministerial pension and a nice chauffeur-driven motor... But the principle's basically the same...

The full quote is "A sudden decision to reverse a procurement decision in response to what could look like political pressure would cause significant damage to the Government’s reputation as a trustworthy counterparty"

 

What World is Cable now living in it is a shame because he used to have principles.No one anywhere sees the Condems as being trustworthy other than the Chipping Norton set.Cameron is just another Thatcher he has no interest in the working class.

 

The full quote is "A sudden decision to reverse a procurement decision in response to what could look like political pressure would cause significant damage to the Government’s reputation as a trustworthy counterparty"

 

What World is Cable now living in it is a shame because he used to have principles.No one anywhere sees the Condems as being trustworthy other than the Chipping Norton set.Cameron is just another Thatcher he has no interest in the working class.

 

Indeed, it is sad, I used to have respect for Vince, he was the one who talked tough on the banks, but seems to have forgotten all that as well... He's basically been neutered like a lap-cat....

The full quote is "A sudden decision to reverse a procurement decision in response to what could look like political pressure would cause significant damage to the Government’s reputation as a trustworthy counterparty"

 

What World is Cable now living in it is a shame because he used to have principles.No one anywhere sees the Condems as being trustworthy other than the Chipping Norton set.Cameron is just another Thatcher he has no interest in the working class.

Read it carefully. He is talking about the reputation of the government as a buyer of services. If the government reversed its decision, that would deter companies from bidding for further contracts. Of course I wish the original decision had been different and that the government had taken the likely job losses into account. However, the decision has been made and here in the real world (rather than fantasy land) we're stuck with it.

Read it carefully. He is talking about the reputation of the government as a buyer of services. If the government reversed its decision, that would deter companies from bidding for further contracts. Of course I wish the original decision had been different and that the government had taken the likely job losses into account. However, the decision has been made and here in the real world (rather than fantasy land) we're stuck with it.

 

What? It's "fantasy land" to expect the BRITISH government to support BRITISH workers....??

What? It's "fantasy land" to expect the BRITISH government to support BRITISH workers....??

Read what I said. I specifically said that I would have preferred the contract to go to Bombardier. However, the decision has been made and anyone who thinks it can be reversed with no consequences is living in fantasy land.

Read what I said. I specifically said that I would have preferred the contract to go to Bombardier. However, the decision has been made and anyone who thinks it can be reversed with no consequences is living in fantasy land.

 

There may be consequences for the government, but, frankly, who gives a shit when it's jobs on the line and people's livelihoods....? I say roll the dice and consequences be damned....

There may be consequences for the government, but, frankly, who gives a shit when it's jobs on the line and people's livelihoods....? I say roll the dice and consequences be damned....

Read my first post. The concern is not about the electoral consequences. It is about whether companies will feel confident that winning a bid for a contract means they actually get that contract. Why would a company bid for a contract (whether it's a government contract or one with another commercial organisation) if they thought the awarders of that contract might change their minds after making a decision?

 

You really do have a Daily Mail-like habit of twisting the facts at times.

 

To repeat. I think the government made the wrong decision. However, reversing that decision isn't as simple as you like to think.

Read my first post. The concern is not about the electoral consequences. It is about whether companies will feel confident that winning a bid for a contract means they actually get that contract. Why would a company bid for a contract (whether it's a government contract or one with another commercial organisation) if they thought the awarders of that contract might change their minds after making a decision?

 

You really do have a Daily Mail-like habit of twisting the facts at times.

 

To repeat. I think the government made the wrong decision. However, reversing that decision isn't as simple as you like to think.

 

Well, I disagree. This government makes U-Turns whenever it suits, so why not actually do a U-Turn that would be beneficial to people..... Do you honestly think the French or Germans wouldn't do a U-turn if it was one of their companies that was about to go to the wall...? They are both far more protectionist than we are...

 

(and the fact is that the French Govt actually fears the wrath of their workers...)

The French and German governments probably wouldn't have made the same mistake in the first place. They have generally given themselves the option of considering the effect on employment. UK governments (Labour as well as Tory) haven't.

 

In your other comment, you are making my case for me. Yes, the government have made several U-turns. But they have always been when it is only their credibility with the UK electorate at stake. There is more than that at stake in this case which is why reversing the decision is more difficult.

The French and German governments probably wouldn't have made the same mistake in the first place. They have generally given themselves the option of considering the effect on employment. UK governments (Labour as well as Tory) haven't.

 

In your other comment, you are making my case for me. Yes, the government have made several U-turns. But they have always been when it is only their credibility with the UK electorate at stake. There is more than that at stake in this case which is why reversing the decision is more difficult.

 

In the real world though Internationally procurement contracts are rarely an above board, corruption free domain so it is ridiculous when so much is at stake that the Condems are worried about there reputation.This issue will hardly hang over them and cause them long term damage if they change there mind. Considering the hacking scandal, MPS expenses the reputation of politicians is not lilly white.

It is wrong to think companies would change there mind about applying for contracts as there goal is to make money, it is a disgrace that British workers are being overlooked.

The French and German governments probably wouldn't have made the same mistake in the first place. They have generally given themselves the option of considering the effect on employment. UK governments (Labour as well as Tory) haven't.

Very true, the French government especially. They came underfire from the EU during the recession for making a term and condition of their loan to Renault that no french jobs were to be lost and the next day (more or less) they cut jobs at a Slovenian plant and announced they were shifting production of one of their models to a French plant from Novo Mesto. (Yes I know the name of the firms Slovenian plant)

In the real world though Internationally procurement contracts are rarely an above board, corruption free domain so it is ridiculous when so much is at stake that the Condems are worried about there reputation.This issue will hardly hang over them and cause them long term damage if they change there mind. Considering the hacking scandal, MPS expenses the reputation of politicians is not lilly white.

It is wrong to think companies would change there mind about applying for contracts as there goal is to make money, it is a disgrace that British workers are being overlooked.

You're missing the point. When companies bid for government contracts they don't give a stuff about phone hacking or MPs' expenses. They only care that, if they win the contract, it won't suddenly be taken away from them because the government has changed its mind.

In the real world though Internationally procurement contracts are rarely an above board, corruption free domain so it is ridiculous when so much is at stake that the Condems are worried about there reputation..

 

Precisely.... I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were some "back-handers" doing the rounds... <_<

Lets hope so:

The Conservative party will pay a political price for the Bombardier trains row and will lose a seat if it does not reverse a decision to select Siemens of Germany for a £1.4bn contract, according to a poll.

Labour would win the nearby South Derbyshire constituency back from the Tories with a substantial swing because voters are angered by the looming loss of 1,400 jobs at the Bombardier factory in the centre of the city.

According to a poll by Survation, the Tories' share of the vote in South Derbyshire would slump from 45.5% a year ago to 31.9%, with Labour claiming the seat by shooting up to 45.9%. In Derby North, a Labour marginal, the incumbent would race ahead of the Tories in a general election and raise Labour's share of the vote to 51.1% compared with 33% in 2010. The Tories' share in that seat would fall from more than 31% to 23%. The Liberal Democrats would suffer heavy losses in both seats.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/au...outh-derbyshire