[News] Carillion...what would you have done?

[Beach Hut]

Funny that this didn't apply to the miners under Thatch. She just left entire communities to rot and right wingers like you lapped it up.

Naturally we should have kept coal mining going, a fuel outdated and heavily subsidised

 

[jackanada]

The joy of Tory party funding.
You bung them a few hundred grand, get a few billion in contracts paid for by public money, pay yourself and your mates tens of millions and then scarper, bankrupting individuals and small businesses (taxpayer burden), leaving pension fund empty (taxpayer burden) and work still not completed (taxpayer burden).
Got to love the party that makes our tax work so efficiently.

 

[jackanada]

Naturally we should have kept coal mining going, a fuel outdated and heavily subsidised

So like nuclear only with more jobs.

 

[Simster]

Naturally we should have kept coal mining going, a fuel outdated and heavily subsidised

Ah, a half-baked answer to cover your hypocrisy on the issue. I expected little else.

At the end of the day, how is that any different from keeping any other failing company going? Coal mining could and should have been phased out, allowing for light industry to gradually take it's place - not just shut down almost overnight in communities where the industry was heavily depended on to keep entire communities afloat.

 

[Two Professors]

The joy of Tory party funding.
You bung them a few hundred grand, get a few billion in contracts paid for by public money, pay yourself and your mates tens of millions and then scarper, bankrupting individuals and small businesses (taxpayer burden), leaving pension fund empty (taxpayer burden) and work still not completed (taxpayer burden).
Got to love the party that makes our tax work so efficiently.

Funny how you don't mention the contracts awarded by Labour,the biggest third by value.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Naturally we should have kept coal mining going, a fuel outdated and heavily subsidised

Well, its finally getting out-dated now, as renewables take over, and that's a good thing.

It is worth noting, however, that despite the UK having the world's 20th largest reserve of coal, some 3 billion tonnes, we produce about 17 million tonnes annually and import over 50 million tonnes. We're the world's 7th largest importer of coal. Which suggests that maybe, just maybe, there has been a demand during the last 30 years since Thatch took a hatchet to the industry

 

[Pavilionaire]

The main fault lies with the company's Board of Directors who ran their business into the ground, but what bothers me is the lack of expertise of Government Ministers to evaluate whether something is right or wrong.

Chris Grayling is a History graduate from Cambridge University. He did a bit of writing and worked in TV before becoming an MP. So what the f*ck makes him a suitable person to be Minister for Transport ??

Here is a guy who knows nothing about the transport or finances, yet decided to give a new HS2 contract to a company on the brink of collapse.

These ministers get reshuffled from one post where they know f*ck all to another, and it is symptomatic of a 'Wing-It Britain' that shuns expertise, knowledge and relevant experience in favour of froth and bluster.

 

[Peteinblack]

Funny how you don't mention the contracts awarded by New Labour (Tory-lite),the biggest third by value.

One from Prof to Two - corrected for you

 

[beorhthelm]

Ah, a half-baked answer to cover your hypocrisy on the issue. I expected little else.

At the end of the day, how is that any different from keeping any other failing company going? Coal mining could and should have been phased out, allowing for light industry to gradually take it's place - not just shut down almost overnight in communities where the industry was heavily depended on to keep entire communities afloat.

thats a nice idea. what happened to the plans to do this from the 60s when they started to run down the coal mines?

 

[Simster]

thats a nice idea. what happened to the plans to do this from the 60s when they started to run down the coal mines?

I've no idea, and what has that got to do with it anyway?

 

[beorhthelm]

I've no idea, and what has that got to do with it anyway?

highlighting there were no plans for communities where mines were closed down for some time before Thatcher vs Scargill. always focus on the mines, why not the docks which were closed down the previous decade? the problems there are similar to this issue, a general lack of long term policy we have in the UK going back decades.

 

[Blue3]

Nationalise Carillion as we should have done with RBS and Lloyds with these three we could have started to build our way out of austerity

 

[Simster]

highlighting there were no plans for communities where mines were closed down for some time before Thatcher vs Scargill. the problems there are similar to this issue, a general lack of long term policy we have in the UK going back decades.

Well yes, but it was Thatcher who decided to shut down the mines WITHOUT a plan for these communities wasn't it?

If you haven't got a plan, don't shut down industries, and the same goes for this scenario. It will be too expensive to let this company go bust, which in itself is a good reason not to put essential public services in private hands.

 

[jackanada]

Funny how you don't mention the contracts awarded by Labour,the biggest third by value.

Fine. PFI. Introduced by John Major, shamefully continued by Tony Blair despite opposition from majority of the party, made even worse under David Cameron etc.
Didn't include above as the revolving door of MPs and company directorships wasn't as bad under labour and the point was that while the Tory party is the best funded every £1 they are given costs the taxpayer £1000. (Broad speculative figures I fear are entirely reflective of the truth)

 

[Two Professors]

One from Prof to Two - corrected for you

Very kind of you,I'm sure,but they were elected as Labour Party,not Labour Lite Party,or SDP,or Blair's Babes,etc.Are you suggesting that Corbychev runs the only real Labour Party,and all previous sins should be swept under the carpet?

 

[beorhthelm]

Fine. PFI. Introduced by John Major, shamefully continued by Tony Blair despite opposition from majority of the party, made even worse under David Cameron etc.

in what way were they made worse? and further, coming on the points about planning, are PFI inherently at fault? couldn't PFI as originally devised provide long term ownership and financial interest in the delivery of infrastructure, separated from the underlying services?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I was listening to a very interesting call on the radio yesterday and a lot of people made very good points, but one particular lady raises a very interesting point that hasn't really been answered.

The scenario is that carillion had been in trouble for a while and was dependant on the support of the banks. So it was obvious it was teatering....they were paying people between 60 and 90+ days to keep money in the business and to service their debts. They hadn't paid VAT and PAYE deducted for many months and were under negotiated payment plans.

So, the government has a set of contracts that carillion had bidder for and were the cheapest ( remember we are in austerity and everyone wants something as cheap as possible) So to keep the company going and as they are running the country's biggest developments, would it have been economically practicle of the government to award the contracts elsewhere and let the company go six months ago, or was it pragmatic that they thought that if the contracts were awarded, at least it could keep the company going and people would remain in employment?

So, and I suppose it depends on your politics, but what would you have done if you were in government. Would you have tried to help the company out by continuing support and awarding contracts and extensions to contracts, or would you have cut them loose and seen them crash and burn earlier than now?

Virtually all companies run with a large debt, it all comes down to how it is serviced. when a company fails to service that debt then if goes broke and often out of business unless taken over.

New contracts won would have helped them to deal with their cash flow, and to keep working and therefore keep its staff employed, its suppliers unaffected, etc.... and may have eventually helped them get out of the hole they were in (but it wasn't to be)

If they hadn't won those contracts, it's far more likely that they would have gone under a lot sooner as their only way out was by trying to trade their way back into the black as how else could they make any money to try to cover their debts service charges for each month?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Fine. PFI. Introduced by John Major, shamefully continued by Tony Blair despite opposition from majority of the party, made even worse under David Cameron etc.
Didn't include above as the revolving door of MPs and company directorships wasn't as bad under labour and the point was that while the Tory party is the best funded every £1 they are given costs the taxpayer £1000. (Broad speculative figures I fear are entirely reflective of the truth)

PFI is only as good as the person agreeing the deal, if you have people who are rubbish at it and do not get a good deal but still sign up, then that's the problem, not that PFI existed in the first place

It can come down to incentive to get the best value from a deal for the taxpayer and not, as sometimes happens in the public sector, we have a budget that needs to be spent, so if we will have just spent that money elsewhere anyway so why push for the best possible deal for the taxpayer? (no incentive to save cash if it still has to be used anyway)

 

[jackanada]

PFI is only as good as the person agreeing the deal, if you have people who are rubbish at it and do not get a good deal but still sign up, then that's the problem, not that PFI existed in the first place

It can come down to incentive to get the best value from a deal for the taxpayer and not, as sometimes happens in the public sector, we have a budget that needs to be spent, so if we will have just spent that money elsewhere anyway so why push for the best possible deal for the taxpayer? (no incentive to save cash if it still has to be used anyway)

The point of PFI was to massage borrowing figures, even working exceptionally well it would be far less efficient than the government simply borrowing the money for capital investment.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

I was listening to a very interesting call on the radio yesterday and a lot of people made very good points, but one particular lady raises a very interesting point that hasn't really been answered.

The scenario is that carillion had been in trouble for a while and was dependant on the support of the banks. So it was obvious it was teatering....they were paying people between 60 and 90+ days to keep money in the business and to service their debts. They hadn't paid VAT and PAYE deducted for many months and were under negotiated payment plans.

So, the government has a set of contracts that carillion had bidder for and were the cheapest ( remember we are in austerity and everyone wants something as cheap as possible) So to keep the company going and as they are running the country's biggest developments, would it have been economically practicle of the government to award the contracts elsewhere and let the company go six months ago, or was it pragmatic that they thought that if the contracts were awarded, at least it could keep the company going and people would remain in employment?

So, and I suppose it depends on your politics, but what would you have done if you were in government. Would you have tried to help the company out by continuing support and awarding contracts and extensions to contracts, or would you have cut them loose and seen them crash and burn earlier than now?

Maybe it was the call on R2 J/V show from the lady who was chasing up money owed to their business by Carillion and if it was the same lady absolutely bang on.