O/F'ing/T Carillion

[KerrAvon]

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.