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?