The projected seat counts look right to me - Labour winning Scottish Westminster seats, mostly at the expense of the SNP, but also a couple from the Conservatives. (Lib Dem North East Fife klaxon!)
Turning to Holyrood, which is the politically important place in Scotland these days, a cracking poll for the Greens. The list vote is the important one for them. They should gain a few MSPs on the back of it. Labour does noticeably worse in Holyrood than at Westminster, which suggests both a personal following for Jeremy Corbyn and that Scottish Labour aren't sealing the deal with the voters. Ruth Davidson continues to do a good job of projecting moderate Unionism in Scotland while not being blighted by the corpse of the UK Conservative Party that she is shackled to. A personal following for her too, I think. The Scottish Lib Dems are doing OK on ambitions that are much reduced compared with previous times.
The SNP are seeing a major fall in support, but not having crunched the numbers, I suspect their number of MSPs may not fall as much as the vote shares would suggest, thanks to the weakness of Scottish Labour. In any case we are talking about a lower level of SNP dominance at this stage - not they will be wiped out.
what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
Because it's none of the government's business?
It's amazing how the tories' free market principles go out of the window as soon as there's a whiff of electoral grapeshot. They should be prepared to make the philosophical and ethical case for no state intervention.
The projected seat counts look right to me - Labour winning Scottish Westminster seats, mostly at the expense of the SNP, but also a couple from the Conservatives. (Lib Dem North East Fife klaxon!)
Turning to Holyrood, which is the politically important place in Scotland these days, a cracking poll for the Greens. The list vote is the important one for them. They should gain a few MSPs on the back of it. Labour does noticeably worse in Holyrood than at Westminster, which suggests both a personal following for Jeremy Corbyn and that Scottish Labour aren't sealing the deal with the voters. Ruth Davidson continues to do a good job of projecting moderate Unionism in Scotland while not being blighted by the corpse of the UK Conservative Party that she is shackled to. A personal following for her too, I think. The Scottish Lib Dems are doing OK on ambitions that are much reduced compared with previous times.
The SNP are seeing a major fall in support, but not having crunched the numbers, I suspect their number of MSPs may not fall as much as the vote shares would suggest, thanks to the weakness of Scottish Labour. In any case we are talking about a lower level of SNP dominance at this stage - not they will be wiped out.
Holyrood
" Sir John Curtice, the election expert, said that this would still allow the SNP to emerge as the largest party at Holyrood with 53 seats, down ten. The Conservatives would be second with 33 (up two); Labour third with 27 (up three); the Greens with ten (up four); and the Lib Dems up one at six. "
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
How many payment runs do you want companies to do a month ?!
Guardian are suggesting Carillion will pay just about 1p in the £. That will mean ruin for many smaller firms who have them as their main ‘customer'.
Having allowed Boris to make them the party of Trump, the Tories are also in danger of becoming the party of Carillion. Dangerous times for the Blues.
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
How many payment runs do you want companies to do a month ?!
Guardian are suggesting Carillion will pay just about 1p in the £. That will mean ruin for many smaller firms who have them as their main ‘customer'.
Well yes that tends to happen when companies go into liquidation. The issue I have was with compulsory 30 day payments. We pay 30 day, end of month. Strict 30 days would be an administrative nightmare.
When I was running a pharmacy business the aim (at least) was to pay at the end of the month following date of invoice. And same applied, largely from the NHS, the other way round. That was the norm and everyone (near enough) was happy
Didn't take long. Our very own Mr Independence RCS moves to California and within a few months he has persuaded most of the state to try to secede from the central government.
New California would be comfortably Republican, while Old California would be massively Democratic. It seems a neat device to bring two more Republican Senators to Washington.
(I believe Nigel Farage has been involved in the Calexit campaign.)
Edit to add: there is basically no chance this happens.
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
How many payment runs do you want companies to do a month ?!
Guardian are suggesting Carillion will pay just about 1p in the £. That will mean ruin for many smaller firms who have them as their main ‘customer'.
Will Boris or Rees-Mogg feel compelled to respond to the symbolic gesture of displaying the Bayeux Tapestry here? Brexit was supposed to be Agincourt, Waterloo and Trafalgar, not Hastings.
Politics aside - having seen the Bayeux Tapestry in Bayeux, I can thoroughly recommend it to everyone when it comes to the UK. It is a brilliant, hypnotic piece of propaganda, and a fascinating insight into the 11th century worldview. Do not miss it!
"Disposable household income of the poorest fifth of households is now £1,800 (15.0%) above pre-downturn level, while the income of the richest fifth is £200 (0.4%) above."
Will Boris or Rees-Mogg feel compelled to respond to the symbolic gesture of displaying the Bayeux Tapestry here? Brexit was supposed to be Agincourt, Waterloo and Trafalgar, not Hastings.
Politics aside - having seen the Bayeux Tapestry in Bayeux, I can thoroughly recommend it to everyone when it comes to the UK. It is a brilliant, hypnotic piece of propaganda, and a fascinating insight into the 11th century worldview. Do not miss it!
Is there a beaking news section with tapestrists fingers moving at lightening speed?
what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
Because it's none of the government's business?
It's amazing how the tories' free market principles go out of the window as soon as there's a whiff of electoral grapeshot. They should be prepared to make the philosophical and ethical case for no state intervention.
It would also probably result in thousands of companies going bust overnight. Holding back supplier payments is a widely used business tactic during sticky patches. Years ago Michael Heseltine got into hot water when he made this point.
The projected seat counts look right to me - Labour winning Scottish Westminster seats, mostly at the expense of the SNP, but also a couple from the Conservatives. (Lib Dem North East Fife klaxon!)
Turning to Holyrood, which is the politically important place in Scotland these days, a cracking poll for the Greens. The list vote is the important one for them. They should gain a few MSPs on the back of it. Labour does noticeably worse in Holyrood than at Westminster, which suggests both a personal following for Jeremy Corbyn and that Scottish Labour aren't sealing the deal with the voters. Ruth Davidson continues to do a good job of projecting moderate Unionism in Scotland while not being blighted by the corpse of the UK Conservative Party that she is shackled to. A personal following for her too, I think. The Scottish Lib Dems are doing OK on ambitions that are much reduced compared with previous times.
The SNP are seeing a major fall in support, but not having crunched the numbers, I suspect their number of MSPs may not fall as much as the vote shares would suggest, thanks to the weakness of Scottish Labour. In any case we are talking about a lower level of SNP dominance at this stage - not they will be wiped out.
Holyrood
" Sir John Curtice, the election expert, said that this would still allow the SNP to emerge as the largest party at Holyrood with 53 seats, down ten. The Conservatives would be second with 33 (up two); Labour third with 27 (up three); the Greens with ten (up four); and the Lib Dems up one at six. "
So a slight Unionist majority at this stage, which is pretty much mid-term territory, isn't it? That does not look too shabby for the SNP/Green independence bloc.
Guardian are suggesting Carillion will pay just about 1p in the £. That will mean ruin for many smaller firms who have them as their main ‘customer'.
I think it's a bit complex than that.
Carillion suppliers will typically have contracts with operating subsidiaries of the group. (So Carillion Group PLC will have subsidiaries, many of which will have subsidiaries of their own. Each of these subsidiaries will be separate legal entities.) Some of these subsidiaries will be heavily loss making and indebted. Others will be joint ventures, and/or have minimal liabilities and profitable contracts.
In all probability the profitable subsidiaries will be sold off, and suppliers to those entities will not notice any negative impact from Carillion's bankruptcy. On the other hand, loss making ones will see suppliers paid less. (Albeit for operating subsidiaries, I would be very surprised if the rate was as little as a penny in the pound.)
When complex group structures go bust, the lowest collection rates are almost at the holding company level. So, we can expect that Carillion Group PLC will pay its creditors perhaps a penny in the pound. But this will only be a very small fraction (less than 10%) of total group liabilities.
what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
Because it's none of the government's business?
It's amazing how the tories' free market principles go out of the window as soon as there's a whiff of electoral grapeshot. They should be prepared to make the philosophical and ethical case for no state intervention.
But it is the government's business when the company in question derives the bulk of its business directly from government. There is no free market in operation when government is contracting with a handful of large suppliers.
Didn't take long. Our very own Mr Independence RCS moves to California and within a few months he has persuaded most of the state to try to secede from the central government.
New California would be comfortably Republican, while Old California would be massively Democratic. It seems a neat device to bring two more Republican Senators to Washington.
(I believe Nigel Farage has been involved in the Calexit campaign.)
Edit to add: there is basically no chance this happens.
How are they proposing to persuade San Jose to be part of this harebrained scheme ?
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
How many payment runs do you want companies to do a month ?!
Guardian are suggesting Carillion will pay just about 1p in the £. That will mean ruin for many smaller firms who have them as their main ‘customer'.
That's the risk you run in business.
While I agree , and there are advantages to being self employed the small trader...and right at the bottom we’re talking about the self employed electrician or plumber...... who carries out the contrracted work and doesn’t get paid is likely to have to raid, at best, his (assumption) holiday fund and at worst attend, or his wife attend the local foodbank.
Guardian are suggesting Carillion will pay just about 1p in the £. That will mean ruin for many smaller firms who have them as their main ‘customer'.
I think it's a bit complex than that.
Carillion suppliers will typically have contracts with operating subsidiaries of the group. (So Carillion Group PLC will have subsidiaries, many of which will have subsidiaries of their own. Each of these subsidiaries will be separate legal entities.) Some of these subsidiaries will be heavily loss making and indebted. Others will be joint ventures, and/or have minimal liabilities and profitable contracts.
In all probability the profitable subsidiaries will be sold off, and suppliers to those entities will not notice any negative impact from Carillion's bankruptcy. On the other hand, loss making ones will see suppliers paid less. (Albeit for operating subsidiaries, I would be very surprised if the rate was as little as a penny in the pound.)
When complex group structures go bust, the lowest collection rates are almost at the holding company level. So, we can expect that Carillion Group PLC will pay its creditors perhaps a penny in the pound. But this will only be a very small fraction (less than 10%) of total group liabilities.
The projected seat counts look right to me - Labour winning Scottish Westminster seats, mostly at the expense of the SNP, but also a couple from the Conservatives. (Lib Dem North East Fife klaxon!)
Turning to Holyrood, which is the politically important place in Scotland these days, a cracking poll for the Greens. The list vote is the important one for them. They should gain a few MSPs on the back of it. Labour does noticeably worse in Holyrood than at Westminster, which suggests both a personal following for Jeremy Corbyn and that Scottish Labour aren't sealing the deal with the voters. Ruth Davidson continues to do a good job of projecting moderate Unionism in Scotland while not being blighted by the corpse of the UK Conservative Party that she is shackled to. A personal following for her too, I think. The Scottish Lib Dems are doing OK on ambitions that are much reduced compared with previous times.
The SNP are seeing a major fall in support, but not having crunched the numbers, I suspect their number of MSPs may not fall as much as the vote shares would suggest, thanks to the weakness of Scottish Labour. In any case we are talking about a lower level of SNP dominance at this stage - not they will be wiped out.
Holyrood
" Sir John Curtice, the election expert, said that this would still allow the SNP to emerge as the largest party at Holyrood with 53 seats, down ten. The Conservatives would be second with 33 (up two); Labour third with 27 (up three); the Greens with ten (up four); and the Lib Dems up one at six. "
So a slight Unionist majority at this stage, which is pretty much mid-term territory, isn't it? That does not look too shabby for the SNP/Green independence bloc.
Despite the Times headline and analysis, I don't think the SNP will be to concerned at this point. A particular challenge for Labour is that 25-30% of its supporters favour independence, which will be important for how it positions itself for the next Holyrood election in particular.
Will Boris or Rees-Mogg feel compelled to respond to the symbolic gesture of displaying the Bayeux Tapestry here? Brexit was supposed to be Agincourt, Waterloo and Trafalgar, not Hastings.
Politics aside - having seen the Bayeux Tapestry in Bayeux, I can thoroughly recommend it to everyone when it comes to the UK. It is a brilliant, hypnotic piece of propaganda, and a fascinating insight into the 11th century worldview. Do not miss it!
Schuldschein: the debt market linking Carillion to Taiwan
Carillion’s list of creditors is made up of institutions you would expect to lend to a listed UK company: RBS, Barclays and Lloyds, for example.
But it is not only UK or even European banks set to receive pennies on the pound after the collapse of the British construction company: a handful of Taiwanese financial institutions are also expected to be sitting on steep losses on money they lent to Carillion, according to people familiar with the matter.
This is because these Asian lenders invested in a £112m Schuldschein instrument that Carillion raised a year before its collapse, and mere months before it issued a dire profit warning.
This little-known German private debt market was once mainly the preserve of solid domestic companies, who preferred to raise money in a convenient form from local investors, such as German savings banks. But the market has seen both an influx of international companies tapping the market and foreign investors buying into the debt in recent years as they hunt for better returns.
And the collapse of Carillion — along with an accounting scandal and impending debt restructuring at fellow Schuldschein issuer Steinhoff — has underlined the risks to the market from its internationalisation.
“You wouldn’t have expected large defaults in this market even two or three years ago,” says Sebastian Zank, an analyst at Germany’s Scope Ratings.
While the basic concept of Schuldschein is centuries old, it was the financial crisis that really gave it impetus. Corporate Germany could continue to tap the Schuldschein market even as global bond and loan markets closed for borrowers.
However, the interest of non-German companies has only emerged in recent years. Foreign companies accounted for 46 per cent of issuance in 2016 and are on course for a similar share this year, according to Scope, the ratings agency. That is up from around 20 per cent to 30 per cent.
One of the main appeals for these issuers is the less burdensome documentary and disclosure requirements compared to the public bond market. Schuldschein borrowers do not require a credit rating and the company only needs to prepare a brief document to accompany a deal.
It's not just Carillion in big trouble because of the profit driven public procrement model-think Ponzi-but Interserve,Serco and others.Of course,what is going on is not subject to FOI and their bosses cry "commercial confidentiality" which means this is likely to go on for years.In a sense,it's a new UK-specific government-induced financial crisis.It will take good,brave independent journalism as shown by the FT to inform the public exactly what might be going on hidden from public view as it is fundamentally corrupt and not in the public interest.Secrecy shrouds have to be pulled away.
Schuldschein: the debt market linking Carillion to Taiwan
Carillion’s list of creditors is made up of institutions you would expect to lend to a listed UK company: RBS, Barclays and Lloyds, for example.
But it is not only UK or even European banks set to receive pennies on the pound after the collapse of the British construction company: a handful of Taiwanese financial institutions are also expected to be sitting on steep losses on money they lent to Carillion, according to people familiar with the matter.
This is because these Asian lenders invested in a £112m Schuldschein instrument that Carillion raised a year before its collapse, and mere months before it issued a dire profit warning.
This little-known German private debt market was once mainly the preserve of solid domestic companies, who preferred to raise money in a convenient form from local investors, such as German savings banks. But the market has seen both an influx of international companies tapping the market and foreign investors buying into the debt in recent years as they hunt for better returns.
And the collapse of Carillion — along with an accounting scandal and impending debt restructuring at fellow Schuldschein issuer Steinhoff — has underlined the risks to the market from its internationalisation.
“You wouldn’t have expected large defaults in this market even two or three years ago,” says Sebastian Zank, an analyst at Germany’s Scope Ratings.
While the basic concept of Schuldschein is centuries old, it was the financial crisis that really gave it impetus. Corporate Germany could continue to tap the Schuldschein market even as global bond and loan markets closed for borrowers.
However, the interest of non-German companies has only emerged in recent years. Foreign companies accounted for 46 per cent of issuance in 2016 and are on course for a similar share this year, according to Scope, the ratings agency. That is up from around 20 per cent to 30 per cent.
One of the main appeals for these issuers is the less burdensome documentary and disclosure requirements compared to the public bond market. Schuldschein borrowers do not require a credit rating and the company only needs to prepare a brief document to accompany a deal.
That will endear us to Angela Merkel while we are looking for Brexit friends.
Will Boris or Rees-Mogg feel compelled to respond to the symbolic gesture of displaying the Bayeux Tapestry here? Brexit was supposed to be Agincourt, Waterloo and Trafalgar, not Hastings.
Politics aside - having seen the Bayeux Tapestry in Bayeux, I can thoroughly recommend it to everyone when it comes to the UK. It is a brilliant, hypnotic piece of propaganda, and a fascinating insight into the 11th century worldview. Do not miss it!
Will Boris or Rees-Mogg feel compelled to respond to the symbolic gesture of displaying the Bayeux Tapestry here? Brexit was supposed to be Agincourt, Waterloo and Trafalgar, not Hastings.
Politics aside - having seen the Bayeux Tapestry in Bayeux, I can thoroughly recommend it to everyone when it comes to the UK. It is a brilliant, hypnotic piece of propaganda, and a fascinating insight into the 11th century worldview. Do not miss it!
Is there a beaking news section with tapestrists fingers moving at lightening speed?
Guardian are suggesting Carillion will pay just about 1p in the £. That will mean ruin for many smaller firms who have them as their main ‘customer'.
I think it's a bit complex than that.
Carillion suppliers will typically have contracts with operating subsidiaries of the group. (So Carillion Group PLC will have subsidiaries, many of which will have subsidiaries of their own. Each of these subsidiaries will be separate legal entities.) Some of these subsidiaries will be heavily loss making and indebted. Others will be joint ventures, and/or have minimal liabilities and profitable contracts.
In all probability the profitable subsidiaries will be sold off, and suppliers to those entities will not notice any negative impact from Carillion's bankruptcy. On the other hand, loss making ones will see suppliers paid less. (Albeit for operating subsidiaries, I would be very surprised if the rate was as little as a penny in the pound.)
When complex group structures go bust, the lowest collection rates are almost at the holding company level. So, we can expect that Carillion Group PLC will pay its creditors perhaps a penny in the pound. But this will only be a very small fraction (less than 10%) of total group liabilities.
That's in the long term. In the short term, even the "suppliers to those entities [who] will not notice any negative impact from Carillion's bankruptcy" may themselves have gone bust before then, unless they can persuade their banks to tide them over.
Interesting snippet from Carillion website: https://www.carillionplc.com/solutions/sectors/education/ Our track record in the delivery of services to schools is unrivalled. We have designed and built 150 schools (many as Public Private Partnership projects) and we provide facilities management to 875 schools...
It has always been possible for Carillion's suppliers to sell their invoices (withouit recourse) to factoring companies (at a discount) and thus get faster payment and avoid bad debts.
However, factoring companies are not keen on the construction sector so there is a high discount applied to the amount on the face of the invoice.
The factoring companies then have to collect the debt from Carillion.
Will Boris or Rees-Mogg feel compelled to respond to the symbolic gesture of displaying the Bayeux Tapestry here? Brexit was supposed to be Agincourt, Waterloo and Trafalgar, not Hastings.
Politics aside - having seen the Bayeux Tapestry in Bayeux, I can thoroughly recommend it to everyone when it comes to the UK. It is a brilliant, hypnotic piece of propaganda, and a fascinating insight into the 11th century worldview. Do not miss it!
Is there a breaking news section with tapestrists fingers moving at lightening speed?
If the taxpayer's in the business of bailing out failed private companies, perhaps it'd like to fling a few grand my way, as an unsuccessful writer. Or maybe that's my problem.
Businesses sometimes fail, and plans don't work out. It's sad, but that isn't the taxpayer's problem and it isn't the taxpayer's fault.
Schuldschein: the debt market linking Carillion to Taiwan
Carillion’s list of creditors is made up of institutions you would expect to lend to a listed UK company: RBS, Barclays and Lloyds, for example.
But it is not only UK or even European banks set to receive pennies on the pound after the collapse of the British construction company: a handful of Taiwanese financial institutions are also expected to be sitting on steep losses on money they lent to Carillion, according to people familiar with the matter.
This is because these Asian lenders invested in a £112m Schuldschein instrument that Carillion raised a year before its collapse, and mere months before it issued a dire profit warning.
This little-known German private debt market was once mainly the preserve of solid domestic companies, who preferred to raise money in a convenient form from local investors, such as German savings banks. But the market has seen both an influx of international companies tapping the market and foreign investors buying into the debt in recent years as they hunt for better returns.
And the collapse of Carillion — along with an accounting scandal and impending debt restructuring at fellow Schuldschein issuer Steinhoff — has underlined the risks to the market from its internationalisation.
“You wouldn’t have expected large defaults in this market even two or three years ago,” says Sebastian Zank, an analyst at Germany’s Scope Ratings.
While the basic concept of Schuldschein is centuries old, it was the financial crisis that really gave it impetus. Corporate Germany could continue to tap the Schuldschein market even as global bond and loan markets closed for borrowers.
However, the interest of non-German companies has only emerged in recent years. Foreign companies accounted for 46 per cent of issuance in 2016 and are on course for a similar share this year, according to Scope, the ratings agency. That is up from around 20 per cent to 30 per cent.
One of the main appeals for these issuers is the less burdensome documentary and disclosure requirements compared to the public bond market. Schuldschein borrowers do not require a credit rating and the company only needs to prepare a brief document to accompany a deal.
One of the consequences of a large current account surplus is that it needs to be recycled into foreign assets.
Turning to Holyrood, which is the politically important place in Scotland these days, a cracking poll for the Greens. The list vote is the important one for them. They should gain a few MSPs on the back of it. Labour does noticeably worse in Holyrood than at Westminster, which suggests both a personal following for Jeremy Corbyn and that Scottish Labour aren't sealing the deal with the voters. Ruth Davidson continues to do a good job of projecting moderate Unionism in Scotland while not being blighted by the corpse of the UK Conservative Party that she is shackled to. A personal following for her too, I think. The Scottish Lib Dems are doing OK on ambitions that are much reduced compared with previous times.
The SNP are seeing a major fall in support, but not having crunched the numbers, I suspect their number of MSPs may not fall as much as the vote shares would suggest, thanks to the weakness of Scottish Labour. In any case we are talking about a lower level of SNP dominance at this stage - not they will be wiped out.
The support for the Scottish Greens in the list vote has basically become a contrivance by SNP supporters switching to Green to boost the overall number of MSPs in Holyrood supporting secession and willing to keep the SNP in government. They know the SNP is grossly overrepresented in the constituency vote thanks to FPTP there, and that means that a vote for the SNP in the list vote is virtually worthless.
There should be a single vote, with the vote being used to determine the regional list allocations as well as the constituency seats. Until that is done, the system is open to manipulation.
Guardian are suggesting Carillion will pay just about 1p in the £. That will mean ruin for many smaller firms who have them as their main ‘customer'.
I think it's a bit complex than that.
Carillion suppliers will typically have contracts with operating subsidiaries of the group. (So Carillion Group PLC will have subsidiaries, many of which will have subsidiaries of their own. Each of these subsidiaries will be separate legal entities.) Some of these subsidiaries will be heavily loss making and indebted. Others will be joint ventures, and/or have minimal liabilities and profitable contracts.
In all probability the profitable subsidiaries will be sold off, and suppliers to those entities will not notice any negative impact from Carillion's bankruptcy. On the other hand, loss making ones will see suppliers paid less. (Albeit for operating subsidiaries, I would be very surprised if the rate was as little as a penny in the pound.)
When complex group structures go bust, the lowest collection rates are almost at the holding company level. So, we can expect that Carillion Group PLC will pay its creditors perhaps a penny in the pound. But this will only be a very small fraction (less than 10%) of total group liabilities.
That's in the long term. In the short term, even the "suppliers to those entities [who] will not notice any negative impact from Carillion's bankruptcy" may themselves have gone bust before then, unless they can persuade their banks to tide them over.
If an operating subsidiary is profitable, then its administrator will instruct it to continue making payments to suppliers.
If the taxpayer's in the business of bailing out failed private companies, perhaps it'd like to fling a few grand my way, as an unsuccessful writer. Or maybe that's my problem.
Businesses sometimes fail, and plans don't work out. It's sad, but that isn't the taxpayer's problem and it isn't the taxpayer's fault.
And yet the taxpayer has to pick up the pieces. It is the problem Ken Clarke pointed out in the Blair years of privatising profits and nationalising risks.
If the taxpayer's in the business of bailing out failed private companies, perhaps it'd like to fling a few grand my way, as an unsuccessful writer. Or maybe that's my problem.
Businesses sometimes fail, and plans don't work out. It's sad, but that isn't the taxpayer's problem and it isn't the taxpayer's fault.
And yet the taxpayer has to pick up the pieces. It is the problem Ken Clarke pointed out in the Blair years of privatising profits and nationalising risks.
That truth stretches well beyond the Carillon fiasco – indeed it is the central problem of e.g. rail franchising in a nutshell. The whole public-private interface needs a rethink.
Turning to Holyrood, which is the politically important place in Scotland these days, a cracking poll for the Greens. The list vote is the important one for them. They should gain a few MSPs on the back of it. Labour does noticeably worse in Holyrood than at Westminster, which suggests both a personal following for Jeremy Corbyn and that Scottish Labour aren't sealing the deal with the voters. Ruth Davidson continues to do a good job of projecting moderate Unionism in Scotland while not being blighted by the corpse of the UK Conservative Party that she is shackled to. A personal following for her too, I think. The Scottish Lib Dems are doing OK on ambitions that are much reduced compared with previous times.
The SNP are seeing a major fall in support, but not having crunched the numbers, I suspect their number of MSPs may not fall as much as the vote shares would suggest, thanks to the weakness of Scottish Labour. In any case we are talking about a lower level of SNP dominance at this stage - not they will be wiped out.
The support for the Scottish Greens in the list vote has basically become a contrivance by SNP supporters switching to Green to boost the overall number of MSPs in Holyrood supporting secession and willing to keep the SNP in government. They know the SNP is grossly overrepresented in the constituency vote thanks to FPTP there, and that means that a vote for the SNP in the list vote is virtually worthless.
There should be a single vote, with the vote being used to determine the regional list allocations as well as the constituency seats. Until that is done, the system is open to manipulation.
Presumably you also think that Unionist tactical voting is a manipulative contrivance?
As so often, the split between Remain and Leave voters was telling. Each side thought theirs would win such a referendum – but remainers were more certain than leavers that most people now agreed with them
Guardian are suggesting Carillion will pay just about 1p in the £. That will mean ruin for many smaller firms who have them as their main ‘customer'.
I think it's a bit complex than that.
Carillion suppliers will typically have contracts with operating subsidiaries of the group. (So Carillion Group PLC will have subsidiaries, many of which will have subsidiaries of their own. Each of these subsidiaries will be separate legal entities.) Some of these subsidiaries will be heavily loss making and indebted. Others will be joint ventures, and/or have minimal liabilities and profitable contracts.
In all probability the profitable subsidiaries will be sold off, and suppliers to those entities will not notice any negative impact from Carillion's bankruptcy. On the other hand, loss making ones will see suppliers paid less. (Albeit for operating subsidiaries, I would be very surprised if the rate was as little as a penny in the pound.)
When complex group structures go bust, the lowest collection rates are almost at the holding company level. So, we can expect that Carillion Group PLC will pay its creditors perhaps a penny in the pound. But this will only be a very small fraction (less than 10%) of total group liabilities.
That's in the long term. In the short term, even the "suppliers to those entities [who] will not notice any negative impact from Carillion's bankruptcy" may themselves have gone bust before then, unless they can persuade their banks to tide them over.
If an operating subsidiary is profitable, then its administrator will instruct it to continue making payments to suppliers.
Yes, but how long will that take? Even a fortnight might tip a small subcontractor over the edge if their own bank is unsympathetic.
ETA boring and irrelevant anecdote: back in the 20th Century, I'd once or twice be given my pay cheque along with a request to wait till after the weekend before presenting it to the bank.
If the taxpayer's in the business of bailing out failed private companies, perhaps it'd like to fling a few grand my way, as an unsuccessful writer. Or maybe that's my problem.
Businesses sometimes fail, and plans don't work out. It's sad, but that isn't the taxpayer's problem and it isn't the taxpayer's fault.
And yet the taxpayer has to pick up the pieces. It is the problem Ken Clarke pointed out in the Blair years of privatising profits and nationalising risks.
It's rather less clearcut than that, given shareholders will lose all their investment, and the lenders a substantial amount - hardly nationalising the risk.
It's not a case of PFI bad; government-run good (or vice versa). And is any government which signs deeply flawed PFI deals going to be any better at running projects on its own behalf ?
Will Boris or Rees-Mogg feel compelled to respond to the symbolic gesture of displaying the Bayeux Tapestry here? Brexit was supposed to be Agincourt, Waterloo and Trafalgar, not Hastings.
Politics aside - having seen the Bayeux Tapestry in Bayeux, I can thoroughly recommend it to everyone when it comes to the UK. It is a brilliant, hypnotic piece of propaganda, and a fascinating insight into the 11th century worldview. Do not miss it!
Seconded - but even more fantastic is the Apocalypse Tapestry at Angers - truly one of the wonders of the world, and amazingly not very well known. It's a stunning insight into the mediaeval mindset, as well as being an extraordinary piece of work in its own right:
'Worth a journey' as the Michelin guide puts it, and certainly not to be missed if you are in the area. Brush up on your Book of Revelation knowledge before going!
As so often, the split between Remain and Leave voters was telling. Each side thought theirs would win such a referendum – but remainers were more certain than leavers that most people now agreed with them
Why has he not published the Remain/Leave result, since he must have asked the question to be able to break it down like that? Unless he is splitting based on 2016 past-vote, in which case his results do not back up the spin.
If the taxpayer's in the business of bailing out failed private companies, perhaps it'd like to fling a few grand my way, as an unsuccessful writer. Or maybe that's my problem.
Businesses sometimes fail, and plans don't work out. It's sad, but that isn't the taxpayer's problem and it isn't the taxpayer's fault.
And yet the taxpayer has to pick up the pieces. It is the problem Ken Clarke pointed out in the Blair years of privatising profits and nationalising risks.
I dont think people are getting the reason why Carillion failed. They were bidding far too low for Government contracts, hence they were not making profits, hence they failed. The result of this is that future contracts are likely to cost the Government more as companies will bid more realistically.
If the taxpayer's in the business of bailing out failed private companies, perhaps it'd like to fling a few grand my way, as an unsuccessful writer. Or maybe that's my problem.
Businesses sometimes fail, and plans don't work out. It's sad, but that isn't the taxpayer's problem and it isn't the taxpayer's fault.
And yet the taxpayer has to pick up the pieces. It is the problem Ken Clarke pointed out in the Blair years of privatising profits and nationalising risks.
The taxpayer has to pick up the pieces if a nationalised industry project goes wrong or runs hugely over budget. Which happens all the time. In the bad old pre-Thatcher days, it happened almost every time.
Happens all the time at Lingfield, Southwell and Kempton in the winter.
That looks the "Apprentice Jockeys who have never sat on a horse and have no saddle" Handicap series of races - always entertaining but not good for punting.
As so often, the split between Remain and Leave voters was telling. Each side thought theirs would win such a referendum – but remainers were more certain than leavers that most people now agreed with them
Why has he not published the Remain/Leave result, since he must have asked the question to be able to break it down like that? Unless he is splitting based on 2016 past-vote, in which case his results do not back up the spin.
Guardian are suggesting Carillion will pay just about 1p in the £. That will mean ruin for many smaller firms who have them as their main ‘customer'.
I think it's a bit complex than that.
Carillion suppliers will typically have contracts with operating subsidiaries of the group. (So Carillion Group PLC will have subsidiaries, many of which will have subsidiaries of their own. Each of these subsidiaries will be separate legal entities.) Some of these subsidiaries will be heavily loss making and indebted. Others will be joint ventures, and/or have minimal liabilities and profitable contracts.
In all probability the profitable subsidiaries will be sold off, and suppliers to those entities will not notice any negative impact from Carillion's bankruptcy. On the other hand, loss making ones will see suppliers paid less. (Albeit for operating subsidiaries, I would be very surprised if the rate was as little as a penny in the pound.)
When complex group structures go bust, the lowest collection rates are almost at the holding company level. So, we can expect that Carillion Group PLC will pay its creditors perhaps a penny in the pound. But this will only be a very small fraction (less than 10%) of total group liabilities.
That's in the long term. In the short term, even the "suppliers to those entities [who] will not notice any negative impact from Carillion's bankruptcy" may themselves have gone bust before then, unless they can persuade their banks to tide them over.
If an operating subsidiary is profitable, then its administrator will instruct it to continue making payments to suppliers.
Isn't there a problem though that nearly all contracts include a termination clause which kicks in if the group files for insolvency?
As so often, the split between Remain and Leave voters was telling. Each side thought theirs would win such a referendum – but remainers were more certain than leavers that most people now agreed with them
Why has he not published the Remain/Leave result, since he must have asked the question to be able to break it down like that? Unless he is splitting based on 2016 past-vote, in which case his results do not back up the spin.
When, other than in 2016, have people voted Leave or Remain?
They haven't, but if he wants to claim differential delusion it has to be based on current voting intention. His results could just indicate that 2016 Leave voters themselves have changed their minds.
Interestingly only 55% of 2017 Tory voters think that Leave would win a second referendum, and the only age group that thinks Leave would win are the over 65s.
Off topic: There is no way Trump is only just 17 stone.
The weight could be correct if the height is exaggerated.
Trump is 6 ft 2", so 239lb is plausible. However his girth is significantly more than the actor in the DM. That may well be true, as muscle has lower volume for mass than fat*. The abdominal and centripetal distribution (ie fat arse) of Trump would suggest a low lean body mass, and a higher fat proportion. This could be assessed by a variety of means including the Archimedes principle. BMI needs interpretation along other factors as part of health assessment.
*it is also possible that Trump is full of other low denity material, such as hot air
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
I would not wish to have to settle my accountant's and counsel's fees in 30 days, while waiting considerably longer for clients to settle their bills.
I do understand that some professions would need exemption
Yeah, heaven forbid that Counsel was paid within 30 days eh? Jeez....
As so often, the split between Remain and Leave voters was telling. Each side thought theirs would win such a referendum – but remainers were more certain than leavers that most people now agreed with them
Why has he not published the Remain/Leave result, since he must have asked the question to be able to break it down like that? Unless he is splitting based on 2016 past-vote, in which case his results do not back up the spin.
When, other than in 2016, have people voted Leave or Remain?
They haven't, but if he wants to claim differential delusion it has to be based on current voting intention. His results could just indicate that 2016 Leave voters themselves have changed their minds.
Interestingly only 55% of 2017 Tory voters think that Leave would win a second referendum, and the only age group that thinks Leave would win are the over 65s.
Another thing the Ashcroft poll shows is that there is no sense of "we've told you once" about a second referendum, otherwise people would expect a Leave victory.
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
I would not wish to have to settle my accountant's and counsel's fees in 30 days, while waiting considerably longer for clients to settle their bills.
I do understand that some professions would need exemption
Yeah, heaven forbid that Counsel was paid within 30 days eh? Jeez....
Lawyers are notoriously slow to pay for medico-legal reports. Indeed some of my colleagues will not release reports until paid for this very reason.
I am sure that you are not one of these slowcoaches!
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
I would not wish to have to settle my accountant's and counsel's fees in 30 days, while waiting considerably longer for clients to settle their bills.
I do understand that some professions would need exemption
Yeah, heaven forbid that Counsel was paid within 30 days eh? Jeez....
Most terrifying phrase.
'Oh shit, we've accidentally paid a supplier from the client account'
As so often, the split between Remain and Leave voters was telling. Each side thought theirs would win such a referendum – but remainers were more certain than leavers that most people now agreed with them
Why has he not published the Remain/Leave result, since he must have asked the question to be able to break it down like that? Unless he is splitting based on 2016 past-vote, in which case his results do not back up the spin.
When, other than in 2016, have people voted Leave or Remain?
They haven't, but if he wants to claim differential delusion it has to be based on current voting intention. His results could just indicate that 2016 Leave voters themselves have changed their minds.
Interestingly only 55% of 2017 Tory voters think that Leave would win a second referendum, and the only age group that thinks Leave would win are the over 65s.
“Current voting intention”?
We’ve had it.
There won’t be another one.
And there wasn't going to be a General Election until 2020...
Another thing the Ashcroft poll shows is that there is no sense of "we've told you once" about a second referendum, otherwise people would expect a Leave victory.
Doubtful. That would be an emotional (angry) response, and people aren't very good at predicting their own, let alone other peoples', emotional response to hypotheticals. Investors in bull markets talk a good game of having a high risk tolerance, but less so when they are down 50%.
As James Kelly (Scot goes Pop blog-still banned here, I think) points out these swings are margin of error stuff. Admittedly he is biased pro-SNP, but then so is our illustrious host who is pro-Union and actively campaigned for the Lib Dem candidate in East Dunbartonshire at the General Election.
A Government party in Scotland remains comfortably ahead of its rivals but is somehow in deep trouble?-wishful thinking unionist chaps, wishful thinking :-)
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
I would not wish to have to settle my accountant's and counsel's fees in 30 days, while waiting considerably longer for clients to settle their bills.
I do understand that some professions would need exemption
Yeah, heaven forbid that Counsel was paid within 30 days eh? Jeez....
Most terrifying phrase.
'Oh shit, we've accidentally paid a supplier from the client account'
Another thing the Ashcroft poll shows is that there is no sense of "we've told you once" about a second referendum, otherwise people would expect a Leave victory.
Doubtful. That would be an emotional (angry) response, and people aren't very good at predicting their own, let alone other peoples', emotional response to hypotheticals. Investors in bull markets talk a good game of having a high risk tolerance, but less so when they are down 50%.
There will be a campaign, and an initial emotional response from past Brexit voters could easily turn into an acceptance that a strong Remain vote would be the best thing for the country.
I dont think people are getting the reason why Carillion failed. They were bidding far too low for Government contracts, hence they were not making profits, hence they failed. The result of this is that future contracts are likely to cost the Government more as companies will bid more realistically.
Really ?
This is how outsourcing has worked for 25 years or more. Companies submit ridiculously low bids to get the work (at one time in the Thatcher/Major years Councils had to accept the lowest bid no matter how stupid it was but in time Councils were allowed to do a bit of due diligence so the ridiculous bids were usually found out) believing they are more efficient/expert than the public sector.
They would do 100% of the public work and then because they were more efficient do the fee paying work which made the money. The local authority contracts were often loss leaders but locked the Council in with various clauses in the Contract including denying the Council access to its own information and forcing them to use the Contractor's IT system.
Of course, the useless private sector Contractor soon found out the truth - one, the public sector is very efficient as it doesn't have to worry about a profit margin and second there was always more work to do so the staff couldn't go on to the fee paying stuff so cost the Contractor money. The only advantage for the staff being TUPEd over was they kept their local authority pay (though not the pension) but the Contractor offered professional development in a way the Council never could.
The problem for the Council was when they tried to bring the business back in-house all the best people stayed with the Contractor so they often had to recruit new people to make up the gap.
In my experience, large UK companies are generally fairly good at paying suppliers within a reasonable time, although there are some sectors where that's not the case. Large US corporations, on the other hand, routinely insist on 120 days net, meaning in practice that you don't get paid for up to five months. We even had one very large US corporation (a household name) which gave us an order on which they'd not only given themselves six months to pay, but had the cheek to offer themselves a discount if they paid more quickly than that. We pointed out that we'd quoted on the basis of 30 days net, and that if they wanted to borrow money from a tiny UK company we'd be happy to oblige for a fee, but that they could borrow much more cheaply than we could so it wouldn't be sensible from their point of view. In the end we compromised on 90 days.
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
I would not wish to have to settle my accountant's and counsel's fees in 30 days, while waiting considerably longer for clients to settle their bills.
I do understand that some professions would need exemption
Yeah, heaven forbid that Counsel was paid within 30 days eh? Jeez....
Lawyers are notoriously slow to pay for medico-legal reports. Indeed some of my colleagues will not release reports until paid for this very reason.
I am sure that you are not one of these slowcoaches!
I pay disbursements as swiftly as I can. But, sometimes, it takes me a while to get paid. If, say, there's a dispute over a will, and the only asset of the estate is a house, and the client doesn't have much money, neither the solicitor nor counsel will get paid until an agreement is reached, and the house has been sold.
I dont think people are getting the reason why Carillion failed. They were bidding far too low for Government contracts, hence they were not making profits, hence they failed. The result of this is that future contracts are likely to cost the Government more as companies will bid more realistically.
Really ?
This is how outsourcing has worked for 25 years or more. Companies submit ridiculously low bids to get the work (at one time in the Thatcher/Major years Councils had to accept the lowest bid no matter how stupid it was but in time Councils were allowed to do a bit of due diligence so the ridiculous bids were usually found out) believing they are more efficient/expert than the public sector.
They would do 100% of the public work and then because they were more efficient do the fee paying work which made the money. The local authority contracts were often loss leaders but locked the Council in with various clauses in the Contract including denying the Council access to its own information and forcing them to use the Contractor's IT system.
Of course, the useless private sector Contractor soon found out the truth - one, the public sector is very efficient as it doesn't have to worry about a profit margin and second there was always more work to do so the staff couldn't go on to the fee paying stuff so cost the Contractor money. The only advantage for the staff being TUPEd over was they kept their local authority pay (though not the pension) but the Contractor offered professional development in a way the Council never could.
The problem for the Council was when they tried to bring the business back in-house all the best people stayed with the Contractor so they often had to recruit new people to make up the gap.
I once worked for Rotherham council/British Telecomm (Some RBT connect thingy). Just looked like BT creaming cash off the top of Rotherham council to my lowly temp eyes.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
I would not wish to have to settle my accountant's and counsel's fees in 30 days, while waiting considerably longer for clients to settle their bills.
I do understand that some professions would need exemption
Yeah, heaven forbid that Counsel was paid within 30 days eh? Jeez....
Lawyers are notoriously slow to pay for medico-legal reports. Indeed some of my colleagues will not release reports until paid for this very reason.
I am sure that you are not one of these slowcoaches!
Well not anymore because counsel don't deal with that sort of thing. Full disclosure would involve me admitting that when I was a solicitor and funding a litigation for a client payment of doctors fees was not my top priority. It was obviously preferable to pay them when expenses had been recovered from the other side. In fairness, most doctors who did a fair amount of that kind of work accepted that and made sure their fee was padded accordingly.
Its a good example of horses for courses which is why a strict 30 day provision would not work. Similarly the 1998 Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act which basically gives a right to interest at 8% over base after 30 days is very rarely utilised, at least by anyone looking for work from that source in future.
The projected seat counts look right to me - Labour winning Scottish Westminster seats, mostly at the expense of the SNP, but also a couple from the Conservatives. (Lib Dem North East Fife klaxon!)
Turning to Holyrood, which is the politically important place in Scotland these days, a cracking poll for the Greens. The list vote is the important one for them. They should gain a few MSPs on the back of it. Labour does noticeably worse in Holyrood than at Westminster, which suggests both a personal following for Jeremy Corbyn and that Scottish Labour aren't sealing the deal with the voters. Ruth Davidson continues to do a good job of projecting moderate Unionism in Scotland while not being blighted by the corpse of the UK Conservative Party that she is shackled to. A personal following for her too, I think. The Scottish Lib Dems are doing OK on ambitions that are much reduced compared with previous times.
The SNP are seeing a major fall in support, but not having crunched the numbers, I suspect their number of MSPs may not fall as much as the vote shares would suggest, thanks to the weakness of Scottish Labour. In any case we are talking about a lower level of SNP dominance at this stage - not they will be wiped out.
Holyrood
" Sir John Curtice, the election expert, said that this would still allow the SNP to emerge as the largest party at Holyrood with 53 seats, down ten. The Conservatives would be second with 33 (up two); Labour third with 27 (up three); the Greens with ten (up four); and the Lib Dems up one at six. "
So a slight Unionist majority at this stage, which is pretty much mid-term territory, isn't it? That does not look too shabby for the SNP/Green independence bloc.
2 seats short of an Indy majority? Have I done my sums right?
The Government is at a watershed moment that could go either way.
It is to be hoped they take urgent and immediate action to stop directors abuse of their companies with punitive prison sentences for riping off the shareholders and employees and enact legislation that all companies have to settle their accounts within 30 days unconditionally and if they intend disputing the invoice it still has to be paid, pending any review of the charges.
Furthermore maintaining sub contractors viability in this immediate crisis within reason needs to be considered together with a root and branch review of services that should be in the public sector and those rightly continue in the private sector.
The problem for labour to sustain the charge that these were profit driven private businesses is they have failed largely by under cutting tenders and the shareholders have worthless shares
This sounds a "what would the public like us to do and what would keep us popular" type of response. Massive State intervention via legislation into business and questioning the entire basis of outsourcing within the public sector.
It's the sort of thing Corbyn and McDonnell could support.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
I would not wish to have to settle my accountant's and counsel's fees in 30 days, while waiting considerably longer for clients to settle their bills.
I do understand that some professions would need exemption
Yeah, heaven forbid that Counsel was paid within 30 days eh? Jeez....
Most terrifying phrase.
'Oh shit, we've accidentally paid a supplier from the client account'
I'm sure your firm, like my old firm, kept a surplus on the client account to cover such administrative oversights.
Will Boris or Rees-Mogg feel compelled to respond to the symbolic gesture of displaying the Bayeux Tapestry here? Brexit was supposed to be Agincourt, Waterloo and Trafalgar, not Hastings.
Politics aside - having seen the Bayeux Tapestry in Bayeux, I can thoroughly recommend it to everyone when it comes to the UK. It is a brilliant, hypnotic piece of propaganda, and a fascinating insight into the 11th century worldview. Do not miss it!
Odd. Why is waiting to hear whether he's to be charged worthy of suspension, but waiting to go to trial isn't?
Firstly, the charge is not as serious as it might have been. Secondly, Ben Stokes has said he is disputing it and going to trial. Thirdly, did you not watch any of the Ashes? We need him back.
As James Kelly (Scot goes Pop blog-still banned here, I think) points out these swings are margin of error stuff. Admittedly he is biased pro-SNP, but then so is our illustrious host who is pro-Union and actively campaigned for the Lib Dem candidate in East Dunbartonshire at the General Election.
A Government party in Scotland remains comfortably ahead of its rivals but is somehow in deep trouble?-wishful thinking unionist chaps, wishful thinking :-)
An SNP government which faces a Unionist majority at Holyrood as this poll suggests sees any hope of indyref2 killed off and is then forced to focus only on Scottish domestic policy
I hope we're not missing the bigger picture. France and Germany are possibly the biggest obstacle to a post-Brexit trade deal, and have been pushing the harder line.
Whilst the Germans have been distracted by their own political problems, the British and French Governments have clearly been doing quite a bit of work behind the scenes on a cordial post-Brexit relationship. The Bayeux tapestry and rumours on an imminent deal over Calais, both May on payments, and Macron on not slowing down speed of entry, are part of that.
As so often, the split between Remain and Leave voters was telling. Each side thought theirs would win such a referendum – but remainers were more certain than leavers that most people now agreed with them
Why has he not published the Remain/Leave result, since he must have asked the question to be able to break it down like that? Unless he is splitting based on 2016 past-vote, in which case his results do not back up the spin.
When, other than in 2016, have people voted Leave or Remain?
They haven't, but if he wants to claim differential delusion it has to be based on current voting intention. His results could just indicate that 2016 Leave voters themselves have changed their minds.
Interestingly only 55% of 2017 Tory voters think that Leave would win a second referendum, and the only age group that thinks Leave would win are the over 65s.
Almost all pre 2016 EU referendum polls had a clear majority of voters expecting a Remain victory
I see that Jon Trickett is being completely irresponsible, as well as irrational, in respect of Interserve. Quite how a profit warning is evidence that 'shareholders cream off the profits' is a mystery, but then Labour prides itself on its economic illiteracy so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.
There are times when events change narratives and this is one.
Are you saying that directors should be exempt from criminal charges for riping off their Companies and what is wrong with 30 day compulsive payment of invoices
I would not wish to have to settle my accountant's and counsel's fees in 30 days, while waiting considerably longer for clients to settle their bills.
I do understand that some professions would need exemption
Yeah, heaven forbid that Counsel was paid within 30 days eh? Jeez....
Lawyers are notoriously slow to pay for medico-legal reports. Indeed some of my colleagues will not release reports until paid for this very reason.
I am sure that you are not one of these slowcoaches!
Well not anymore because counsel don't deal with that sort of thing. Full disclosure would involve me admitting that when I was a solicitor and funding a litigation for a client payment of doctors fees was not my top priority. It was obviously preferable to pay them when expenses had been recovered from the other side. In fairness, most doctors who did a fair amount of that kind of work accepted that and made sure their fee was padded accordingly.
Its a good example of horses for courses which is why a strict 30 day provision would not work. Similarly the 1998 Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act which basically gives a right to interest at 8% over base after 30 days is very rarely utilised, at least by anyone looking for work from that source in future.
I do some medico legal work occasionally. It depends on the nature of the case. Personal injury ones done on a "no win, no fee" basis often drag on for ages, and are very slow to pay for the reasons that you outline. The Inland Revenue take the view that work should be taxed on the date that the work was done, rather than when the payment was recieved. Potentially then, I am out of pocket in terms of income tax while awaiting eventual payment. This is a significant disincentive to take on this sort of work
Payment as an expert witness, or on behalf of the NHS litigation authority tends to be a bit more prompt.
I see that Jon Trickett is being completely irresponsible, as well as irrational, in respect of Interserve. Quite how a profit warning is evidence that 'shareholders cream off the profits' is a mystery, but then Labour prides itself on its economic illiteracy so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.
One of my girlfriend's uber Corbynista friends thinks profits warnings are just a capitalist tool of deflating the share price allowing the directors and banks to buy the shares on the cheap and make a profit in the future.
As so often, the split between Remain and Leave voters was telling. Each side thought theirs would win such a referendum – but remainers were more certain than leavers that most people now agreed with them
Why has he not published the Remain/Leave result, since he must have asked the question to be able to break it down like that? Unless he is splitting based on 2016 past-vote, in which case his results do not back up the spin.
When, other than in 2016, have people voted Leave or Remain?
They haven't, but if he wants to claim differential delusion it has to be based on current voting intention. His results could just indicate that 2016 Leave voters themselves have changed their minds.
Interestingly only 55% of 2017 Tory voters think that Leave would win a second referendum, and the only age group that thinks Leave would win are the over 65s.
Almost all pre 2016 EU referendum polls had a clear majority of voters expecting a Remain victory
It's hard to see how May's ratings and the result of GE2017 isn't dragging down the Brexit numbers.
I dont think people are getting the reason why Carillion failed. They were bidding far too low for Government contracts, hence they were not making profits, hence they failed. The result of this is that future contracts are likely to cost the Government more as companies will bid more realistically.
Really ?
This is how outsourcing has worked for 25 years or more. Companies submit ridiculously low bids to get the work (at one time in the Thatcher/Major years Councils had to accept the lowest bid no matter how stupid it was but in time Councils were allowed to do a bit of due diligence so the ridiculous bids were usually found out) believing they are more efficient/expert than the public sector.
They would do 100% of the public work and then because they were more efficient do the fee paying work which made the money. The local authority contracts were often loss leaders but locked the Council in with various clauses in the Contract including denying the Council access to its own information and forcing them to use the Contractor's IT system.
Of course, the useless private sector Contractor soon found out the truth - one, the public sector is very efficient as it doesn't have to worry about a profit margin and second there was always more work to do so the staff couldn't go on to the fee paying stuff so cost the Contractor money. The only advantage for the staff being TUPEd over was they kept their local authority pay (though not the pension) but the Contractor offered professional development in a way the Council never could.
The problem for the Council was when they tried to bring the business back in-house all the best people stayed with the Contractor so they often had to recruit new people to make up the gap.
Companies want to work for Councils and Government bodies because they pay. As a M & E contractors there are dozens of builders that we would not work for as they deliberately do not pay for months and employ numerous underhand tactics. Carillion was on our list of a company not to work for as they took down an Electrical Contractor who was working for them on the QA Hospital in Portsmouth by not paying them. Therefore when bidding for Council work companies bid significantly lower than normal. This clearly has a benefit for the tax payer, however if a company continues to do this it will never make a profit and may go bust. I know of socres of council tenders in the local area where the winning bid was for actually less than you can buy the products for, yet alone pay for the labour. Its something that happens all the time. Councils are currently obliged to accept the lowest bid no matter how daft it is.
The projected seat counts look right to me - Labour winning Scottish Westminster seats, mostly at the expense of the SNP, but also a couple from the Conservatives. (Lib Dem North East Fife klaxon!)
Turning to Holyrood, which is the politically important place in Scotland these days, a cracking poll for the Greens. The list vote is the important one for them. They should gain a few MSPs on the back of it. Labour does noticeably worse in Holyrood than at Westminster, which suggests both a personal following for Jeremy Corbyn and that Scottish Labour aren't sealing the deal with the voters. Ruth Davidson continues to do a good job of projecting moderate Unionism in Scotland while not being blighted by the corpse of the UK Conservative Party that she is shackled to. A personal following for her too, I think. The Scottish Lib Dems are doing OK on ambitions that are much reduced compared with previous times.
The SNP are seeing a major fall in support, but not having crunched the numbers, I suspect their number of MSPs may not fall as much as the vote shares would suggest, thanks to the weakness of Scottish Labour. In any case we are talking about a lower level of SNP dominance at this stage - not they will be wiped out.
Holyrood
" Sir John Curtice, the election expert, said that this would still allow the SNP to emerge as the largest party at Holyrood with 53 seats, down ten. The Conservatives would be second with 33 (up two); Labour third with 27 (up three); the Greens with ten (up four); and the Lib Dems up one at six. "
In fairness I suspect very few of them knew who Leonard was. He has been invisible so far. The enthusiasm for Mrs May was somewhat restrained. 4/234 thought she was doing very well.
Comments
Turning to Holyrood, which is the politically important place in Scotland these days, a cracking poll for the Greens. The list vote is the important one for them. They should gain a few MSPs on the back of it. Labour does noticeably worse in Holyrood than at Westminster, which suggests both a personal following for Jeremy Corbyn and that Scottish Labour aren't sealing the deal with the voters. Ruth Davidson continues to do a good job of projecting moderate Unionism in Scotland while not being blighted by the corpse of the UK Conservative Party that she is shackled to. A personal following for her too, I think. The Scottish Lib Dems are doing OK on ambitions that are much reduced compared with previous times.
The SNP are seeing a major fall in support, but not having crunched the numbers, I suspect their number of MSPs may not fall as much as the vote shares would suggest, thanks to the weakness of Scottish Labour. In any case we are talking about a lower level of SNP dominance at this stage - not they will be wiped out.
It's amazing how the tories' free market principles go out of the window as soon as there's a whiff of electoral grapeshot. They should be prepared to make the philosophical and ethical case for no state intervention.
" Sir John Curtice, the election expert, said that this would still allow the SNP to emerge as the largest party at Holyrood with 53 seats, down ten. The Conservatives would be second with 33 (up two); Labour third with 27 (up three); the Greens with ten (up four); and the Lib Dems up one at six. "
That was the norm and everyone (near enough) was happy
(I believe Nigel Farage has been involved in the Calexit campaign.)
Edit to add: there is basically no chance this happens.
https://www.ft.com/content/96a67e4a-fac0-11e7-9b32-d7d59aace167
Office of National Statistics
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2017
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/heseltine-admits-late-payments-to-creditors-1317410.html
https://twitter.com/UKDefJournal/status/953396553183526912?
Carillion suppliers will typically have contracts with operating subsidiaries of the group. (So Carillion Group PLC will have subsidiaries, many of which will have subsidiaries of their own. Each of these subsidiaries will be separate legal entities.) Some of these subsidiaries will be heavily loss making and indebted. Others will be joint ventures, and/or have minimal liabilities and profitable contracts.
In all probability the profitable subsidiaries will be sold off, and suppliers to those entities will not notice any negative impact from Carillion's bankruptcy. On the other hand, loss making ones will see suppliers paid less. (Albeit for operating subsidiaries, I would be very surprised if the rate was as little as a penny in the pound.)
When complex group structures go bust, the lowest collection rates are almost at the holding company level. So, we can expect that Carillion Group PLC will pay its creditors perhaps a penny in the pound. But this will only be a very small fraction (less than 10%) of total group liabilities.
There is no free market in operation when government is contracting with a handful of large suppliers.
FT today
Schuldschein: the debt market linking Carillion to Taiwan
Carillion’s list of creditors is made up of institutions you would expect to lend to a listed UK company: RBS, Barclays and Lloyds, for example.
But it is not only UK or even European banks set to receive pennies on the pound after the collapse of the British construction company: a handful of Taiwanese financial institutions are also expected to be sitting on steep losses on money they lent to Carillion, according to people familiar with the matter.
This is because these Asian lenders invested in a £112m Schuldschein instrument that Carillion raised a year before its collapse, and mere months before it issued a dire profit warning.
This little-known German private debt market was once mainly the preserve of solid domestic companies, who preferred to raise money in a convenient form from local investors, such as German savings banks. But the market has seen both an influx of international companies tapping the market and foreign investors buying into the debt in recent years as they hunt for better returns.
And the collapse of Carillion — along with an accounting scandal and impending debt restructuring at fellow Schuldschein issuer Steinhoff — has underlined the risks to the market from its internationalisation.
“You wouldn’t have expected large defaults in this market even two or three years ago,” says Sebastian Zank, an analyst at Germany’s Scope Ratings.
While the basic concept of Schuldschein is centuries old, it was the financial crisis that really gave it impetus. Corporate Germany could continue to tap the Schuldschein market even as global bond and loan markets closed for borrowers.
However, the interest of non-German companies has only emerged in recent years. Foreign companies accounted for 46 per cent of issuance in 2016 and are on course for a similar share this year, according to Scope, the ratings agency. That is up from around 20 per cent to 30 per cent.
One of the main appeals for these issuers is the less burdensome documentary and disclosure requirements compared to the public bond market. Schuldschein borrowers do not require a credit rating and the company only needs to prepare a brief document to accompany a deal.
https://www.carillionplc.com/solutions/sectors/education/
Our track record in the delivery of services to schools is unrivalled. We have designed and built 150 schools (many as Public Private Partnership projects) and we provide facilities management to 875 schools...
However, factoring companies are not keen on the construction sector so there is a high discount applied to the amount on the face of the invoice.
The factoring companies then have to collect the debt from Carillion.
Businesses sometimes fail, and plans don't work out. It's sad, but that isn't the taxpayer's problem and it isn't the taxpayer's fault.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5277767/Girther-movement-questions-Trumps-real-weight.html
If he needs to slim down, clearly he should take up morris dancing.
https://twitter.com/PJStringfellow/status/953407448173379584
There should be a single vote, with the vote being used to determine the regional list allocations as well as the constituency seats. Until that is done, the system is open to manipulation.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/01/parties-stand-second-eu-referendum/
ETA boring and irrelevant anecdote: back in the 20th Century, I'd once or twice be given my pay cheque along with a request to wait till after the weekend before presenting it to the bank.
https://twitter.com/Globalgallop/status/953401102577287170
You weigh only ~9 stone?
It's not a case of PFI bad; government-run good (or vice versa).
And is any government which signs deeply flawed PFI deals going to be any better at running projects on its own behalf ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_Tapestry
'Worth a journey' as the Michelin guide puts it, and certainly not to be missed if you are in the area. Brush up on your Book of Revelation knowledge before going!
Edit: I see that he has published the tables and he is indeed breaking it down based on 2016 vote, so it can't be interpreted the way he does. - http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Political-poll-Jan-18-Full-tables.xls
That looks the "Apprentice Jockeys who have never sat on a horse and have no saddle" Handicap series of races - always entertaining but not good for punting.
Interestingly only 55% of 2017 Tory voters think that Leave would win a second referendum, and the only age group that thinks Leave would win are the over 65s.
Miss Anazina, a few pounds over. I used to weigh a lot less (I was about 6.5st when I was 14 or so). We morris dancers are lean and fit fellows.
*it is also possible that Trump is full of other low denity material, such as hot air
We’ve had it.
There won’t be another one.
I am sure that you are not one of these slowcoaches!
'Oh shit, we've accidentally paid a supplier from the client account'
A Government party in Scotland remains comfortably ahead of its rivals but is somehow in deep trouble?-wishful thinking unionist chaps, wishful thinking :-)
Also No EU ref, and no 2nd Scots ref are both sound bets if you can find anything over a 6-7% IRR for either of them.
This is how outsourcing has worked for 25 years or more. Companies submit ridiculously low bids to get the work (at one time in the Thatcher/Major years Councils had to accept the lowest bid no matter how stupid it was but in time Councils were allowed to do a bit of due diligence so the ridiculous bids were usually found out) believing they are more efficient/expert than the public sector.
They would do 100% of the public work and then because they were more efficient do the fee paying work which made the money. The local authority contracts were often loss leaders but locked the Council in with various clauses in the Contract including denying the Council access to its own information and forcing them to use the Contractor's IT system.
Of course, the useless private sector Contractor soon found out the truth - one, the public sector is very efficient as it doesn't have to worry about a profit margin and second there was always more work to do so the staff couldn't go on to the fee paying stuff so cost the Contractor money. The only advantage for the staff being TUPEd over was they kept their local authority pay (though not the pension) but the Contractor offered professional development in a way the Council never could.
The problem for the Council was when they tried to bring the business back in-house all the best people stayed with the Contractor so they often had to recruit new people to make up the gap.
Its a good example of horses for courses which is why a strict 30 day provision would not work. Similarly the 1998 Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act which basically gives a right to interest at 8% over base after 30 days is very rarely utilised, at least by anyone looking for work from that source in future.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/une1vahaj1/TimesResults_180116_Westminster_Scotland_VI_w.pdf
Whilst the Germans have been distracted by their own political problems, the British and French Governments have clearly been doing quite a bit of work behind the scenes on a cordial post-Brexit relationship. The Bayeux tapestry and rumours on an imminent deal over Calais, both May on payments, and Macron on not slowing down speed of entry, are part of that.
Long way to go, but that's important.
Ditto Mrs May.
Payment as an expert witness, or on behalf of the NHS litigation authority tends to be a bit more prompt.
The enthusiasm for Mrs May was somewhat restrained. 4/234 thought she was doing very well.
My wife took part in this poll, apparently.
The change in the Corbyn figures over just three months, on the other hand, is striking. I wonder what has driven it?