+ Visit Rotherham United FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 88

Thread: O/F'ing/T Carillion

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,304
    Quote Originally Posted by gm_gm View Post
    monopolies commission only regulate market share and affect on consumer choice they dont regulate market activities, thats completely different.

    Theres also no such thing as "unregulated capitalism"
    So are you saying that by your definition, capitalism always has, to some extent, some kind of regulatory control? And that it's just a case of to what extent that control exists?

    I'd probably agree with that.

    But loosely, within that definition, isn't there a range of ideologies to the extent that regulatory controls exist - some of whom like there to be a range of quite tight government controls and others who would like to see as few controls as possible? And wouldn't that be the difference between the centre right and far right?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    10,122
    All this, once again, points to the inability and absolute inanity of contracting public services to private companies. Time and time again these company's have proved to be at best inept, at worst corrupt, and they have no regard for the taxpayer's pound unless it's going into their bank accounts (offshore, no doubt)

    We're seeing the same with the railways, where the taxpayer is bailing out several well known private companies.

    Time for change, time to stop the parasites skimming the taxpayer's money when profits are to be made, then squealing and squirmng when through their own incompetence they get in financial trouble.

    You can argue ideologies all day if you like, but if anyone thinks the current way of doings things is good for the country as a whole then you're a selfish delusionist..

  3. #43
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    39,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    The Tories have refused to bail Carillion out - quite right too. It's a business.
    They have, however, moved to ensure that the smaller companies are protected to some extent. The banks are the ones who will suffer most - they will lose the money they lent to Carillion - unwisely. The shareholders of Carillion will lose out - they speculated they got it wrong - they decided to risk their money. The shareholders in banks will suffer but they also should check who the banks that they partly own are lending money to.
    Unfortunately Carillion employees will also suffer but the Government are doing what they can to safeguard those working oversees.
    All in all - a measured response from the Government - helping those that they can who through no fault of their own are exposed and leaving the money people to fend for themselves.
    poorly run and inefficient companies need to go to the wall - many other better run companies will now step forward and get extra work filling the void left by Carillion - in fact many of the Carillion employees will carry on doing the same job but with the new company that steps in.
    Maybe, just maybe, the banks will start to learn that the smart people who work for them just aren't that smart at all - they just make deals that give themselves the largest bonuses.
    Interesting that we always get a different viewpoint when it's the mining or steel industry that is threatened (I know mining is all but gone) - the Government should always bail them out - I have never understood why.
    Although I don't disagree with a lot of what you've written there there is one massive thing that peole are missing.

    There is an argument developing which is. Carillion gave severe profit warnings and top guys went. They lost a huge slice of their value on the stock market which only recovered slightly when the government gave them the HS2 deal. They continued to give profit warnngs and the government continue to give them contracts.

    Could the government be responsible in part for this catastrophe? In the contracts they tendered for included a percentages of the work would be given to subcontractors.

    If it is found that this is the case do the banks and other businesses have a case on the grounds that the government of the day were issuing contracts to a company that they through the stringent rules for tenders must have done due diligence which would have been seen by other companies as Carillion being a stable company?

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18,189
    Quote Originally Posted by ragingpup View Post
    So are you saying that by your definition, capitalism always has, to some extent, some kind of regulatory control? And that it's just a case of to what extent that control exists?

    I'd probably agree with that.

    But loosely, within that definition, isn't there a range of ideologies to the extent that regulatory controls exist - some of whom like there to be a range of quite tight government controls and others who would like to see as few controls as possible? And wouldn't that be the difference between the centre right and far right?
    No thats what you are saying due to lack of economic comprehension

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    10,122
    Quote Originally Posted by gm_gm View Post
    Wrong.

    It’s a policy decision as opposed to a political ideology, interventionism or non interventionism is an economic ideological construct, points scoring by politicians with buzzwords and sound bites only appeal to the uneducated.
    To be fair i don't know how anyone could say this isn't political, when half the tory cabinet has shares in Carillion, the chairman/ceo are contributors to the tory party, and the chairman is an advisor to the gov't.....time this corruption was stamped on.

    This may seem radical to some, but why not put a ban on any MP having a vote on anything they have a vested interest in? instead of actually thinking they would do the honourable thing anyway...because clearly they don't do anything honourable in the slightest.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18,189
    Quote Originally Posted by millmoormagic View Post
    To be fair i don't know how anyone could say this isn't political, when half the tory cabinet has shares in Carillion, the chairman/ceo are contributors to the tory party, and the chairman is an advisor to the gov't.....time this corruption was stamped on.

    This may seem radical to some, but why not put a ban on any MP having a vote on anything they have a vested interest in? instead of actually thinking they would do the honourable thing anyway...because clearly they don't do anything honourable in the slightest.
    Thats a different question! and its a fair one. There needs to be an investigation into why the directors continued to trade on this basis and why after several profit warnings contracts were still handed out.

    Anyone involved in contract negotiations and who has shares in the company has a conflict of interest which I believe should be declared. I'd be amazed if any MP with shares had be directly involved in contract talks, if they have then I think they could be in trouble

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    10,122
    Quote Originally Posted by gm_gm View Post
    Thats a different question! and its a fair one. There needs to be an investigation into why the directors continued to trade on this basis and why after several profit warnings contracts were still handed out.

    Anyone involved in contract negotiations and who has shares in the company has a conflict of interest which I believe should be declared. I'd be amazed if any MP with shares had be directly involved in contract talks, if they have then I think they could be in trouble
    Yeh i suppose it is different, the commons is rife with it though, across party's also (though you will forgive me for saying that it's predominantly a tory thing ) there's many MP's who vote on many different subjects when they have a specific interest in it, and it's time we had some rules to prevent this, it's 2018 for crying out loud.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18,189
    Quote Originally Posted by millmoormagic View Post
    Yeh i suppose it is different, the commons is rife with it though, across party's also (though you will forgive me for saying that it's predominantly a tory thing ) there's many MP's who vote on many different subjects when they have a specific interest in it, and it's time we had some rules to prevent this, it's 2018 for crying out loud.
    There has been for a while

    https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-...ial-interests/

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    10,122
    Quote Originally Posted by gm_gm View Post
    Yeh, but the rules don't stop them voting on bills regarding said interests do they, theirin a corrupt sysem open to abuse.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    14,951
    One of their vans parked in Rotherham railway station car park today, didn't see a for sale sign on it.

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •