I won’t be signing the petition.
The loss of British jobs caused by the decision to make the new blue UK passports abroad is a betrayal of Brexit voters, a Tory former Cabinet minister said yesterday.
Furious peers called on Home Secretary Amber Rudd to rethink giving the lucrative contract to Franco-Dutch firm Gemalto.
You can have your voice heard by signing our petition to have passports made in the UK by clicking here.
Presumably my buying a BMW motorcycle will cost jobs in Hinckley. It doesn’t matter where they are made and I don’t care.
Home Office officials have named the firm, which is listed on the French and Dutch stock exchange, as their preferred bidder for the contract to make the documents from October 2019.
Yup. That’s the way it goes. Anyone gets to tender and the best bid wins. Launching petitions and getting one’s knickers in a knot over it merely reinforces the negative stereotype of the Brexiteer.
“Yes Prime Minster” wasn’t light entertainment, it was prophecy!
Back in the ’80s, when there was still at least a degree of common sense and reality, I recall Mrs Thatcher saying that “Yes Minister” was sufficiently accurate to qualify as a documentary.
Part of me wonders if this whole ‘Passports printed in the evil EU OUTRAGE!’ thing wasn’t the work of Sir Humphrey Appleby inorder to distract from PMT.May’s dismal performance -which manages to be embarrassing to Remainers and BrexSShiteurs alike.
I’m wondering the same. Apparently Rudd signed off the contract without seeing names & full figures as Sir Humphrey recomended she did so.
I would not be in the least surprised if contract has many poison pills relating to strikes, penalties to pay set-up & termination costs if contract not renewed.
Sir Humphreys love EU and loathe Britain.
Your main point notwithstanding, I would not expect the home Secretary to pore over the minutiae of a contract. That’s what we pay civil servants for.
‘Can my noble friend not see the irony that jobs will be lost in the North East, which voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU, because the Government are arguing that a state company in France, which does not have to make a profit, should be given preference over a company that does have to make a profit and is employing people in Britain? … an extraordinary position for a Conservative government to take.’
It would be instructive to find out if that is true or not before announcing that you don’t care about the situation. Seriously, this is Gateshead we are talking about here, so it is not like the cost of labour is an issue. Further, it is not as though you can exercise a right not to buy the product here, as good luck travelling without a passport.
“Presumably my buying a BMW motorcycle will cost jobs in Hinckley.”
If the bike factory in that bastion of low-cost manufacture, Germany, is partially state owned by the regional government, and the bike is cheap, you should be very fucking suspicious about buying one, precisely for that reason. It doesn’t take much effort to find the evidence for it either. Furthermore, if you have a kid who is into motorbikes and wants to work in the industry, by that logic are you going to buy him a german textbook, and tell him he’s got to be fluent in it for when he is working in BMW’s plant in Munich?
“Anyone gets to tender and the best bid wins.”
Regardless of Brexit, good luck going to their country and bidding upon their government printing contracts then! You’re in a seriously rude awakening as to how other countries work.
It is no good quoting Adam Smith in a know-it-all tone of voice to people who’ve lost their jobs due to beggar thy neighbour mercantilism. The English, the Vanilla People, for whom nationalism is an alien concept, are the last on earth to not realise this.
None of this alters my point. The people charged with setting the tender are duty bound to get the best value for money and they did. How other countries do business is entirely irrelevant to this principle. We are not in other countries.
Nope. If the bike meets my needs and is of the quality I expect, they will get the purchase. I’m not going to buy something that is less suited to my needs just because it is made in this country. I really don’t care where something is manufactured providing it is of good quality and value for money. And I expect those spending my money to do likewise.
“How other countries do business is entirely irrelevant to this principle. We are not in other countries”
My goodness, aren’t you a bit old for the boy scouts?
Thing is, they do business here. You are dealing with other countries and their economic practices by letting them trade here. Like I said, trying going to their country and getting a government contract.
It is why the government turns a blind eye to certain forms of bribery when dealing with Pakistanis, Indians and any country full of blacks or muslims: If you don’t engage in it, you can bid any price you like and you won’t get the work.
Seriously, a country where even government documents are printed overseas, and has no problem with the fact that no profit is charged on the contract tender? You’re defending that? Is that even capitalism, or is it just a form of theft? Why does someone else have to have their job stolen for your High Moral Principles?
“The people charged with setting the tender are duty bound to get the best value for money and they did.”
As government purchasers, they are unlikely to have any such requirement, because where does this imperative stop where UK law does not apply? Child/Slave labour, firetrap factories? It’s partly why government contracting employs cost-plus accountancy, which for all of it’s wastefulness is an exercise in accurately documenting your expenses, submitting them in confidence and being able to then charge a pre-agreed profit on the total. You don’t bid for things up front like industry would because it is a monopsony, many suppliers, one buyer, and everyone has the incentive to lie about the cost of things to get the work. Look at HS2 and it’s initial poundshop budget.
“If the bike meets my needs and is of the quality I expect, they will get the purchase.”
…But what if they are equally good? What would you do then?
“I really don’t care where something is manufactured providing it is of good quality and value for money.”
You’re a fool then. Have you ever considered that they know that you English idiots fall for this routine every single time and deliberately and actively exploit it?
Wow, now who is getting on their moral principles? I’ve read some nonsense in my time – not least a prolonged ad hominem.
No one is having their job stolen because of my principles that’s just you bullshitting. I expect the government – who is spending my money – to get the best deal. That they frequently don’t is another matter entirely. It does not matter where the new passports are made. And I’m certainly not going to sign any petitions.
I lost my job about eight years ago because my client lost their contract. Being a contractor I didn’t have any safety nets. I could have complained about people stealing my job (which they didn’t – that’s life, win some lose some) or I could pick myself up, adapt and move on. Which was it, I wonder.
As I said, entirely irrelevant.
If they are providing a quality service that is the best value for money, then yes, that’s fine. It is not theft. Jeebus!
Actually, the BMW R1200RT and the Triumph Trophy are equally good. I bought the BMW and would again because I prefer the BMW. I do not and will never allow the country of manufacture to intrude upon my purchasing choices. Does it meet my needs? Is it value for money? Do I like it? My bikes are manufactured in Germany, my car is manufactured in France. So what? This makes me a fool? Fuck off already!
See above.
Oh and while we are at it, try to respond without ad hominens.
Let me fix it for you: “If the bike factory in that bastion of low-cost manufacture, Germany, is partially state owned by the regional government, and the bike is cheap, you should be very fucking … grateful the Krauts are so stupid as to be giving you stuff below cost of production.”
Here’s a toast to dumping, long may it give me free stuff.
Indeed. That said the BMW is around five grand more than the Triumph.
Odd… everyone claims it is protecting jobs, yet in fact it is protecting profits. I suppose the former sounds noble, the latter sounds greedy.
Hubris.
Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; the interest of the producer is to be considered only as far as it serves the interest of the consumer. (Adam Smith 1776 An Inquiry Into The Nature And Causes Of The Wealth Of Nations.)
Paying more for passports serves the producer at the consumers’ expense.
We undertake economic activity to produce goods to consume, not to have jobs.
Why should people buying passports pay more to protect somebody’s job? Why is that worker worthy of more consideration than consumers?
If consumers pay less for what they buy, they have more money to spend elsewhere in the economy supporting jobs and job creation to meet increased demand. If consumers have to pay higher prices to ‘protect’ some jobs and have less to spend elsewhere, that means other jobs will be lost or not created. Why are these jobs not important?
If we are going to protect jobs, we must – for the sake of fairness and equality – protect all jobs.
If we do that, no economic and social progress – back to the fields.
If just some jobs are protected, who decides, based on what criteria? Enter bribery and corruption… well already there, trades unions, big business, professional organisations offering grace and favours to politicians in exchange for protecting their business/profession/workers.
Subsidies: special offers in shops are subsidised by the shop owner/shareholder by reduced profits. Does that mean we should not buy them and instead buy more expensive stuff from the stores selling at full profit?
This.
@AndrewM60
1. Gemalto is not “a state company in France”, it’s mostly Dutch. French Gov’t has/had ~6% equity
2. Yes, loss making, profit warnings – Carillion like
3. Thales are/have buying Gemalto following shareholder approval.
4. Thales arguably worse as French Gov’t have large equity stake and many seats on board.
Given 4, I’ve changed my opinion – PM TM should site “state security” and re-tender or reassess other bids
Oh, come on… There is no state security issue here. Thales and other French state owned or part owned companies have been operating in this country for decades. What are they going to do? Print passports. That’s it. No, we should not waste time money and effort going out to tender again.
French intel agents have long history of masquerading as other nationals when doing dirty deeds – sinking ships.
Easy access to UK passports and their anti-counterfeiting technology*, esp when UK not in EU, is a security threat.
* UK Passport anti-counterfeiting technology is an issue as De La Rue concerned at being forced to release it to Gemalto/Thales
Realistically a very low risk. Not worth worrying about.
The risk may be low as you claim.
However, De La Rue’s IP & Reputation is of high value as demonstrated by the fact ~1/3 of world’s countries use & trust them to manufacture their passports.
Saving £2 per UK person on contract value vs loss of NI, Income, Corp. Tax and long-term damage to independent, no Gov’t control De La Rue is misguided.
“National Security” is the card France always uses.
UK is in a “war” with EU, reciprocating shows strength, not protectionism.
A rethink is required to win.
The risk is so low, it’s microscopic. Intelligence agencies across the globe engage in dirty ticks including forged identity documents. This is not a reason to cancel this contract. There is no state security issue here.
The lost jobs in the northeast is standard shroud waving from a losing bidder. They have other work – as you point out.
We are not at war with anyone. There is no reason to look again at this contract and to do so would set a terrible precedent as every time a company lost a bid, they would be able to whip up the kind of pathetic jingoism the Daily Mail is currently peddling to get the decision overturned. No, Rudd needs to stand firm on this one. The tender went out, the bids came in and the matter is settled. End of.
Maybe I am wrong, but it appears you are comparing a customer purchase instead of a country purchase. Of course you may buy the German grey import bike over a UK dealer one as you benefit from the lower cost. In the case of the passport contract £490 million will leave the UK. The tender of the UK firm would have had to be that plus corporation tax plus the relative amount of employee income tax plus dividends plus an excess on top of that to be a worse deal. If that is the case, then the UK firm would have had to tender over £50 million higher to make it a bad deal notwithstanding the political fallout. The WTO also has rules that cover public contracts so I don’t know if that would affect this particular case.
Er… it wasn’t a grey import. I paid the full rate through the dealer.
I was busy earlier, so only responded to part of your comment. At one time I was involved in going out to tender for Network Rail – as a quasi government organisation, I’m aware how these things work. I’m also aware that the system can produce perverse incentives. In NWR’s case, they always go for the cheapest option, which is not necessarily the best value for money. The contractors will then cut to the bone on the tender and make it up later with added extras, so cheapest isn’t always best. One day they might learn this 😉
I don’t know if the WTO rules apply in this particular case – but again, I’m not concerned. If this deal is the best deal, I’m relaxed about it and I’m certainly not going to get worked up over it.
According to the Mail, it was £50 million over the accepted tender. They are also claiming that over ten years, it will save £120 million.
‘…comparing a customer purchase instead of a country purchase’
Countries cannot buy anything, only people do that.
Initially the taxpayer will pay the money, but the incidence of the cost will be on those who buy a passport, because the cost will be built into the end user price.
O/T but does anyone want to sign this petition?
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/203615
Yes, signed it (not the passports petition).
Thank you for making it clear it has nothing to do with the passports:) but freedom of speech. Sadly I think it was launched at the wrong time and is only up til the end of April. On the back of Mark Meechan being convicted the other day I’ve been trying to publicise it.
Hilariously The Sun are all in favour of the deal, reasoning that the £130m annual saving would pay the salaries of 500 NHS Nurses.
Nah. It’ll get pissed up the wall on fake charities.
Considering how much taxpayers money they waste I thought why not waste it all in the UK instead. An extra 120 mill over a few years might help the local NE economy a bit.
So let’s consider the ‘economics’ of that statement… if we take £120 million out of one part of the economy and put it into another part of the economy, we have £240 million?
What if…
… we left that £120 million where it was, in the pockets of the people from whom it was taken, they would spend it too or invest it to create more wealth.