O/F'ing/T Carillion

[millmoormagic]

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.

And so be it, do you agree with the status quo then, because it plainly is a corrupt system full of corrupt people. To be honest, they've as much integrity as a slug in my opinion. If you wanna represent people, then do exactly that, don't use it as a vehicle to line your pocket, it's a very simple concept.....

It's been well documented that the chairman is, and still is, an advisor to the gov't on corporate affairs...go figure...

[millmoormagic]

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.

Nothing wrong with making a profit, lining your pockets though is a totally different matter, this company has paid out hundreds of millions in dividends, on top of exhorbitant salaries for those at the top (who recently moved to protect millions of pounds in bonuses despite the company's financial struggles) Now, a decent, well run company would've had systems in place to be able to manage it's debts, surely to god that's common sense? Not in the corporate world though, is it Kerr, grab what you can, screw the taxpayer over time and again, and shove your ill-gained profits into off shore accounts never to be used in the UK again.

[animallittle3]

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.

Funny I don't remember the nationalised NCB siphoning off public money to line the pockets of directors and shareholders and then screaming " bail me out guv " .

The market fell out of the coal industry , yes we fought for our jobs and communities , this seems to be a crime in some quarters , mainly by people who have never had a backbone .

I think the one thing you will find is that Carillion were hardly short of work or future projects and yet still couldn't remain in business .

The efficiency of the private sector !!! , places in a box with the finance industry rail companies and the utilities .

[KerrAvon]

And so be it, do you agree with the status quo then, because it plainly is a corrupt system full of corrupt people. To be honest, they've as much integrity as a slug in my opinion. If you wanna represent people, then do exactly that, don't use it as a vehicle to line your pocket, it's a very simple concept.....

It's been well documented that the chairman is, and still is, an advisor to the gov't on corporate affairs...go figure...

Given your lack of an answer, may I assume that you were speculating when you claimed that cabinet ministers were Carillion shareholders (you have to feel a bit sorry for them if they were) and that senior Carillion board members were Tory donors?

Which people do you have in mind when you are handing out the slug title? What evidence do you have of corruption and of pockets being lined? Is that speculation too?

If we are talking corruption, bear in mind that it was largely Labour MPs who were caught committing crimes in respect of expenses.

The opposite of the status quo is change. Change is fine if it’s for the better, but change for the sake of change results in consequences such as the election of Trump in the USA. For the reasons I’ve set out above, I don’t believe bringing government contracts in house or nationalising such bodies as the utilities is change for the better.

[KerrAvon]

Nothing wrong with making a profit, lining your pockets though is a totally different matter, this company has paid out hundreds of millions in dividends, on top of exhorbitant salaries for those at the top (who recently moved to protect millions of pounds in bonuses despite the company's financial struggles) Now, a decent, well run company would've had systems in place to be able to manage it's debts, surely to god that's common sense? Not in the corporate world though, is it Kerr, grab what you can, screw the taxpayer over time and again, and shove your ill-gained profits into off shore accounts never to be used in the UK again.

The company paid out dividends to its shareholders, 16% of which were retail investors (ouch – never try to catch a falling knife, as they say). They will have lost most if not all of their investment, which is the risk that they accepted when they bought their holdings. The senior members of staff at such a large company will have been paid generously. If they breached their fiduciary duties in relation to their shareholders and creditors they may well be called upon to answer for that.

The operation of every company, well run or not, involves an element of risk. As I understand it Carillion were operating on profit margins of around 3% on their UK construction projects and 5% on their Facilities Management contracts. What that means is that any unexpected increase in costs that exceeded 3% for the former and 5% for the latter would render those contracts loss making. That is exactly what happened and at a time when the company was having difficult in obtaining payment for work they had undertaken in the Middle East. Whether either of those eventualities could have been anticipated remains to be seen in the inevitable post mortems that will be held.

You seem to have a bit of an obsession with offshore accounts. As I mentioned above 16% of shares were held by retail investors. Amongst other big investors are the likes of Standard Life.

[millmoormagic]

Given your lack of an answer, may I assume that you were speculating when you claimed that cabinet ministers were Carillion shareholders (you have to feel a bit sorry for them if they were) and that senior Carillion board members were Tory donors?

Which people do you have in mind when you are handing out the slug title? What evidence do you have of corruption and of pockets being lined? Is that speculation too?

If we are talking corruption, bear in mind that it was largely Labour MPs who were caught committing crimes in respect of expenses.

The opposite of the status quo is change. Change is fine if it’s for the better, but change for the sake of change results in consequences such as the election of Trump in the USA. For the reasons I’ve set out above, I don’t believe bringing government contracts in house or nationalising such bodies as the utilities is change for the better.

To answer, i'll have a look but i'm pretty sure that it was from a news piece regarding members of the cabinet being shareholders....and why would anyone feel sorry for them....

Link shows the Carillion chairman as a tory party donor...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...s-tax-avoiders

See my previous answers regarding MP's with vested interests and using their votes accordingly as per the slugs...

In respect of expenses corruption, would you care, just for once, to show a bit of fairness and list each MP who has been involved, and each party they belong to, i think you know the answer that the tory's have been far more guilty in terms of numbers than anyone, Slugs the lot....in fairness, i'd string the lot up, regardless of party colour, you?

Change for the better of the country is all that matters to me, this gov't, and those that support it, have been screwing the country over for years in the name of greed, time for change indeed.

[KerrAvon]

Funny I don't remember the nationalised NCB siphoning off public money to line the pockets of directors and shareholders and then screaming " bail me out guv " .

The market fell out of the coal industry , yes we fought for our jobs and communities , this seems to be a crime in some quarters , mainly by people who have never had a backbone .

I think the one thing you will find is that Carillion were hardly short of work or future projects and yet still couldn't remain in business .

The efficiency of the private sector !!! , places in a box with the finance industry rail companies and the utilities .

The NCB was a bottomless pit (no pun intended) down which to throw taxpayer's money.

Whatever your personal motivation, you and others opposed the will of a democratically elected government and ignored the rights of NUM members to have their say in a national ballot before seeking to demand that those subsidies for uneconomic pits continue. Irrespective of whether the NCB was publically or privately owned, I have to agree with galant that it is hard to square your views on the coal industry with those on Carillion, where your position on this thread appears to be that Carillion employees can get stuffed.

[ragingpup]

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?

To be honest Kerr if you read my original post I was trying to get straight GM's argument in my head, not dismissing it in the least. Trying to get clarification from him on what his point was. Unfortunately, he just responded by abusing me for being thick!

Not that I'm saying I'm not thick but I'm glad that you agree with me that there is regulation within capitalist economies. It means we're both thick together! Cheers GM.

As for whether I think the Carillon collapse could have been averted through more regulation, I've honestly no idea. That part of the discussion wasn't on my mind when I was politely asking GM to clarify his intriguing point and have been so busy this week I'm not up with the news... Sorry!

[KerrAvon]

To answer, i'll have a look but i'm pretty sure that it was from a news piece regarding members of the cabinet being shareholders....and why would anyone feel sorry for them....

Link shows the Carillion chairman as a tory party donor...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...s-tax-avoiders

See my previous answers regarding MP's with vested interests and using their votes accordingly as per the slugs...

In respect of expenses corruption, would you care, just for once, to show a bit of fairness and list each MP who has been involved, and each party they belong to, i think you know the answer that the tory's have been far more guilty in terms of numbers than anyone, Slugs the lot....in fairness, i'd string the lot up, regardless of party colour, you?

Change for the better of the country is all that matters to me, this gov't, and those that support it, have been screwing the country over for years in the name of greed, time for change indeed.

I await your evidence of cabinet shareholdings with interest. I feel a bit sorry for every Carillion shareholder, because they’ve lost their investment.

The link doesn't show Green as a donor it shows him as a signatory to a letter that supported government policy. Note the lack of a donation amount against his name.

Have you got an example of an MP voting in accordance with his or her personal interest or is that speculation. Do you agree that a Labour MP funded by a TU and voting in a manner that advances the interests of that union would be a slug by your definition?

Expenses prosecutions:

Elliot Morley - Labour
David Chaytor - Labour
Jim Devine - Labour
Eric Illsley - Labour
Dennis McShane - Labour
Margaret Moran - Labour

Lord Taylor of Warwick - Tory peer
Lord Hanningfield - Tory peer

For the reasons I've set out in previous threads, voting in a party that wants to repeat the failed policies of the 70s is not a change for the better.

[millmoormagic]

The NCB was a bottomless pit (no pun intended) down which to throw taxpayer's money.

Whatever your personal motivation, you and others opposed the will of a democratically elected government and ignored the rights of NUM members to have their say in a national ballot before seeking to demand that those subsidies for uneconomic pits continue. Irrespective of whether the NCB was publically or privately owned, I have to agree with galant that it is hard to square your views on the coal industry with those on Carillion, where your position on this thread appears to be that Carillion employees can get stuffed.

Once again you're being very, very disingenuous, something you're very good at.

Yes, the miner's opposed the will of the gov't, and you know what, regardless of what you think, i'd do the exact same thing again right now in the same circumstances, and i don't think i'd be on my own either. No one ignored the rights of anyone, ballots were held in Yorkshire, and nationally among the NUM delegates, maybe a national members ballot should've been held, but i know this, you don't cross the line, ever, history actually proves every word that came out of Arthur Scargill's mouth back then was the truth, indeed, he rather under played the damage the tories actually had in mind.
Rather than concentrating on the uneconomic pits (though you wouldn't know that coal mines could be economic one year and uneconomic the next, due to geological issues) the tories absolutely decimated the coal industry regardless of the profits they made. My own pit, Silverwood, broke all records, made profit year on year, and was shut in 1994, and there's countless others just the same.

That democratically elected gov't you talk about deliberately created the conditions to take the NUM on, they threw the gauntlet down, and we picked it up, put one hell of a fight up, even if i say so myself, despite the huge odds and the whole state machine against us.

To say that animal's position is that the employees can get stuffed is quite frankly ridiculous and you know it, once again using your profession of cleverly manipulating words to try and favour your argument.