Skip to main content

Cable's idiotic defence on Royal Mail

The Business Secretary Vince Cable has that unfortunate demeanour of somebody who got it right. He would have us believe that he got it right in predicting the financial collapse. He didn't of course but legends are often allowed to grow in politics. Now he insists he got it right over the sale of the Royal Mail despite criticism from the financial watchdog, the National Audit Office, that the Royal Mail was sold off too cheap.

Vince Cable defends his decision saying that the sale achieved its objective of selling the company and 'reducing the risk to taxpayer'. It is a bizarre defence. Selling the company for 1p would also have achieved that objective. What he failed to do was to get the best deal for the British taxpayer. But Vince Cable knows best. It is an idiotic defence.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...
7 comments
Read more

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. A...
4 comments
Read more

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Post a Comment
Read more