+ Visit Rotherham United FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 88

Thread: O/F'ing/T Carillion

  1. #51
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    39,318
    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.
    Anyone who has a private pension will have shares in it. Not personally but bought on their behalf by the pension companies.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    10,122
    Quote Originally Posted by frogmiller View Post
    Anyone who has a private pension will have shares in it. Not personally but bought on their behalf by the pension companies.
    Rather a different issue though isn't it....

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,309
    Quote Originally Posted by gm_gm View Post
    No thats what you are saying due to lack of economic comprehension
    You may well be right there! Or you could just be talking bollo! 😀

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18,189

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by ragingpup View Post
    You may well be right there! Or you could just be talking bollo! ��
    Or I could have taken, passed exams in banking, economics and finance

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    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.
    I think the word you may be looking for is hypocrisy.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,296
    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?
    Of course there is regulation within economies run upon Capitalist principles. Do you believe that the Carillion collapse could have been averted by more regulation though? If so, what would the nature of that regulation be?

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,296
    Quote Originally Posted by frogmiller View Post
    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?
    I think the 'why did they continue to be given government contracts' line being advanced by the Labour Party is a bit of a red herring. The company was trying to reach an arrangement with its creditors and as late as Saturday it looked like it might be rescued by a debt for equity swap. If the government had stopped them tendering for government contracts last year it would simply have made any sort of rescue impossible and hastened the company's collapse. It would have been like a medical team stopping a blood transfusion whilst the patient was being operated on, because he wasn't well and they didn’t want to risk wasting more blood.

    It's a nice bit of politicking though.
    Last edited by KerrAvon; 16-01-2018 at 08:08 PM.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,296
    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.
    Where did you get your information from concerning the shareholdings of the cabinet and the political contributions of senior Carillion board members?

    Stopping MPs voting on matters they have vested interests in would be an interesting one. Presumably that would mean that the whole of the Labour Party would be barred from voting on Trade Union legislation, or, at the very least, that RMT sponsored MPs would not be allowed to vote on matters concerning the railways, Unite sponsored MPs being stopped from voting on health matters etc.? It might leave Labour in a bit of difficulty in enacting a lot of its manifesto promises.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,296
    Quote Originally Posted by millmoormagic View Post
    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..
    In what way do you say that the Carrilion collapse 'points to the inability and absolute inanity of contracting public services to private companies'?

    The imperative to try to create a profit drives efficiencies when a private company is engaged to deliver public services. Compare that to directly managed government projects where the lack of any such pressure results in flabby over manned operations that invariably deliver late and many times over budget. The outsourcing of public services is certainly not without issues, but I think it infinitely preferable to a return to the bad old days.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    8,182
    Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
    Where did you get your information from concerning the shareholdings of the cabinet and the political contributions of senior Carillion board members?

    Stopping MPs voting on matters they have vested interests in would be an interesting one. Presumably that would mean that the whole of the Labour Party would be barred from voting on Trade Union legislation, or, at the very least, that RMT sponsored MPs would not be allowed to vote on matters concerning the railways, Unite sponsored MPs being stopped from voting on health matters etc.? It might leave Labour in a bit of difficulty in enacting a lot of its manifesto promises.

    Don't single out one party - you could say the same for all of them. It's the SME's and ordinary folk taking the hit yet again. These senior board members have moved to tighten policy to protect their own payoffs and bonuses a short while back. Perhaps not illegal, but definitely immoral, and not how I run my businesses at all. When we had to make changes back in 08/09, everyone, myself included, took 5 weeks unpaid leave. I traded two extra weeks with one employee so that he only had to take three. My policy was that it was better that we all took a bit of a hit rather than a few take a massive hit i.e. job loss.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •