Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, maybe not the populated bits. But we could just dump them all slap bang in the middle?

Get a middle aged, middle class Lord of the Flies going on. We could televise it and all. That'd be good for a laugh?

Why bother sending them that far? Use that Scottish island that's infected with anthrax. Or that farmho0use between the carriageways of the M6; they could subsist on service-station sandwiches thrown by passing motorists.

We're not sullying any part of Scotland with them. That's right out.

Herzlos wrote:
Even then we're only the 10th largest cheese exporter. So whilst we may have invented some of it (if one invents cheese), we're not really a world leader.

The earliest records of confirmed cheese making go back to the 5500BC in Poland. It is likely it goes back way before then though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
He's only out for himself here - if there's another referendum and he loses, he avoids being demonised for destroying the country and can claim he's been stitched up; que tv interviews all over the place, and maybe a book.
Or if it's somehow a clear vote for leave, he can press on talking about the EU having been validated by people. Queue tv interviews all over the place, and maybe a book.
Maybe he'll become part of that establishment.

I think we need to think wider here. This is a political play. Lets think about what has happened since the Wrexit vote.

Voters have flocked to two parties. Remainers have generally tended towards Labour as the party that it is trying to minimise the damage from leaving (free movement and trade) vs Leavers that have generally flocked to Conservative (because they are hard right view of we can do anything we want and be OK). (Please note the generally comment).

UKIP has been gutted, they have left by voters like yesterday's chutney to join newUKIP.

So what happens with a new referendum. For Tories that opens up the divisions in the party. May has to make a stance somewhere eventually (though I expect lots of robotic procrastination). That likely means hard right supporters leave as May takes a flopping around somewhere in the middle approach. Labour has to take a stance and being predominantly pro-EU will probably align along that. However that will lose them votes in very anti-EU areas (though pick up students/SE votes). Most of these that leave will go to UKIP. All of a sudden UKIP have 15% of the vote again and can start being a play maker. At the moment they are nothing party.

I think Farage has realised that politically for him and his party it is better that the country continually argues with itself about the EU rather than giving people in the Remain camp the ability to point out just how idiotic the whole thing is (and eventually damn him). HE probably also likes his EU salary for doing the square root of nothing at all.

-------------------------------

In other news the Department of Destroying the Country are advertising for new jobs in how to undertake this in the fastest and most spectacular fashion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-briefing-nigel-farage-referendum_uk_5a5794c9e4b018a4f8b6ba15?utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

The specification includes the statement "hopefuls do not need any previous experience or knowledge of the EU or to speak other languages - but the department says it would “welcome applications from candidates with a background in management consultancy". I think we can see that David Davis has a taken a direct role in these job descriptions as it isn't going to work very well when you employ people with no idea how of what you are talking about. Although that sums up David Davis pretty well.

How do they still cling to power??

Because they're good at it. They're literally born and bred to do it, and they're good at getting the general public to vote against its own best interests to keep them in power.

On the Brightside, The Scum has made a £24,000,000 loss.

So hopefully at least one strand of media cancer will be going away.

So, about 1% of the amount the Murdoch will make from selling Fox to Disney? It's a start, I suppose.

Hey, if it means Dingo Wucker shuts it down, so much the better.

Doesn't strike me as the type to throw good money after bad, no matter how much he's making off Disney.

I wonder what the parasites' playing at here

Apparently Farage is 'warming' to another referendum, to silence remain voters for once and for all.

Personally I reckon he's getting cold feet from all the negative aspects of Brexit and is praying the electorate will bail him out so they never experience the true depths of crud we're sliding into. After all, better to live with losing a referendum, than being responsible for destroying a country.

Probably just his usual attention seeking twaddle.

Plus, he really wants his EU pension, the double standard bearing toad faced weasel.

.. odd definition of "we're" here no ?

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/new-eu-rule-will-ban-charges-for-using-credit-card-35949337.html

July 20 2017
New European Union rules will ban the charge that can add 2pc to the cost of goods or services.

The worst offenders currently are airlines and ticket sellers, and small businesses which typically add a fee for cards.

But the revised EU Payment Services Directive will ban surcharging on all payment cards covered by the EU Interchange Fee Regulation.

It comes into force on January 13, according to a spokeswoman for the Department of Finance.

Meanwhile Bojo, who one can only assume knows he is currently unsackable, mouths off again.

No10 clarify that Boris is speaking in a political capacity, and not on behalf of the Government.

Despite him being the Foreign Secretary.



There's times I despair but at least things cannot get any dafter.




.. oh.


oh dear.

Ah yes, PSD2.

Quite aware of that one!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42675427

Here we go again. Company was paying out dividends to shareholders last year but are up to their eyeballs in debt and there’s a near £600 million pension ‘shortfall’. ie, yet again company owners and shareholders stuff their faces while thousands of ordinary workers have their financial futures destroyed.

That's how it works. The shareholders suck the money out and leave it to rot.


Someone I doubt they'll be the ones bailing it out.

 reds8n wrote:

Spoiler:

.. odd definition of "we're" here no ?

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/new-eu-rule-will-ban-charges-for-using-credit-card-35949337.html

Typical Tories really why should we be surprised that they are trying to take the 'credit' (not that I'd really expect Labour/LDs etc to do any different).

There's times I despair but at least things cannot get any dafter.

Spoiler:

.. oh.


oh dear.

It's just denial. It's easier for people to persuade themselves there is some conspiracy then actually face up to the facts that these people present (and that they can't refute).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42675427

Here we go again. Company was paying out dividends to shareholders last year but are up to their eyeballs in debt and there’s a near £600 million pension ‘shortfall’. ie, yet again company owners and shareholders stuff their faces while thousands of ordinary workers have their financial futures destroyed.

This company has been in a mess for a few months now. I agree though it does raise the question as to why the system still has no ability to force companies to put away reserves where future forecast show an uncertain outlook. Is a big government contractor. Will make a bit of a mess if they go under. HS2 will almost certainly be delayed and go up in cost.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42675427

Here we go again. Company was paying out dividends to shareholders last year but are up to their eyeballs in debt and there’s a near £600 million pension ‘shortfall’. ie, yet again company owners and shareholders stuff their faces while thousands of ordinary workers have their financial futures destroyed.

More directors need to be hammered hard for trading whilst insolvent.

I'd strongly support a change in the law to prevent companies with pension deficits paying any dividends to shareholders until the pension is back up to date

(or bonuses to directors either)

Private companies can’t be trusted with pensions. It’s been demonstrated over and over. They’re just a source of other people’s money to exploit, if it all goes wrong bosses just let the company go belly up and they retire to the Bahamas because they’re never held to account. Scum like Philip Green only paid back half of what he looted from BHS, which funnily enough amounted the the same value as the total pension deficit when it folded. He still kept £200 million in dividends despite graciously giving some back, while thousands of workers faced their pensions in shortfall. It’s just not good enough.

Ideology aside, surely having any one private company maintaining such a large slice of public service infrastructure was an obvious problem waiting to happen?

I can't be the only one to see that can I?

That's the 'trickle down economy' in action...wait, that's not money trickling down on us...

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Private companies can’t be trusted with pensions. It’s been demonstrated over and over. They’re just a source of other people’s money to exploit, if it all goes wrong bosses just let the company go belly up and they retire to the Bahamas because they’re never held to account. Scum like Philip Green only paid back half of what he looted from BHS, which funnily enough amounted the the same value as the total pension deficit when it folded. He still kept £200 million in dividends despite graciously giving some back, while thousands of workers faced their pensions in shortfall. It’s just not good enough.

Given that it is over 25 years since the Maxell case I think it is reasonable to have expected Government's to learn that businesses will take a risk now with money that isn't their own with the hope things will improve in the future. It is getting even more important now that businesses have to provide pension provision to their staff that these pensions are placed in funds that cannot be accessed by the business and should be reported separately as part of the financial statements. The current system too easily allows bad news to be buried and hold over debts that eventually cripple the company. If there are debts building then these should be resolved prior to paying out dividends. It would also be wise that Directors/CEOs are not allowed to hold shares in the same company to avoid conflict of interests (we only need to look at the history of GW for what happens).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Ideology aside, surely having any one private company maintaining such a large slice of public service infrastructure was an obvious problem waiting to happen?

I can't be the only one to see that can I?

It is the too big to fail mentality. Large businesses can operate more efficiently and tend to aggressively buy out/force out smaller businesses as that reduces competition and they can more effectively dictate the rates being charged. As such Carillion has positioned itself to out compete the market on government contracts as much as possible. But in doing so they've indebted themselves heavily upfront on the assumption that they will survive and profit in the long term. Even when they know they are indebted up to the eyeballs they will tend to keep applying for more contracts because they hope that these are successful and will use the profit from one contract to prop another. Indeed there are contracts that are called 'loss leading' because businesses deliberately set themselves up to make a loss because they want that contract for some reason (sometimes as a reference). However if large numbers of the contracts start not producing the profits as expected to offset any losses then things can spiral badly as cash flow dwindles (and larger companies are more exposed than smaller ones here because they can build up a level of debt and interest payments that smaller companies would never even be able allowed to by the banks).

Government contracts do tend to check financial health before awarding contracts but they are limited to what the yearly accounting reports state. It is difficult to award contracts selectively outside of an open procurement process because that can lead to corruption. The principle is that all procurements are open and fair for all parties. It is the checks that are failing (which would have knocked Carillion out, however what happens if they are the only company applying) and they need to be improved (both in terms of how they are checked and how businesses report their financial health).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/14/carillion-brings-hsbc-fights-back-share-price-plunge/

That's in July : Carillion call in HSBC to advise them.

..in entirely unrelated issues..



.. HSBC sell off their Carilion shares by September.



... They must have the same luck as Brian Krzanich .


funny that eh ?

We're all familiar with the old Napoleon maxim about lucky generals, and I look at this government and think they must have shot a unicorn or something, because they seem to lurch from one crisis to another, mostly self-inflicted.

Commentators on other newspaper forums are saying that the government should just nationalise this company, seeing as they mostly do government work anyway, and therefore, the taxpayer may as well own what they are paying for.

But is this possible under EU nationalization rules?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We're all familiar with the old Napoleon maxim about lucky generals, and I look at this government and think they must have shot a unicorn or something, because they seem to lurch from one crisis to another, mostly self-inflicted.

There is a clue here...

Commentators on other newspaper forums are saying that the government should just nationalise this company, seeing as they mostly do government work anyway, and therefore, the taxpayer may as well own what they are paying for.

But is this possible under EU nationalization rules?

Yes. E.g. Lloyds Bank group and Northern Rock, Network Rail, Eurotunnel, etc.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We're all familiar with the old Napoleon maxim about lucky generals, and I look at this government and think they must have shot a unicorn or something, because they seem to lurch from one crisis to another, mostly self-inflicted.

There is a clue here...

Commentators on other newspaper forums are saying that the government should just nationalise this company, seeing as they mostly do government work anyway, and therefore, the taxpayer may as well own what they are paying for.

But is this possible under EU nationalization rules?

Yes. E.g. Lloyds Bank group and Northern Rock, Network Rail, Eurotunnel, etc.

The only problem is that once the taxpayers have bailed yet another massive private enterprise out, we will end up adding to our debt, and the shareholders and Directors of Carrillion will skip off into the sunset with nary a worry, again.

Personally, having worked with them for the last 6 years, I can completely understand how they've managed to cock this up, the sheer amount of money pouring out of the MoD budget into their coffers for risible amount of work is eyewatering and we are only one govt dept neck deep in their contracts.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We're all familiar with the old Napoleon maxim about lucky generals, and I look at this government and think they must have shot a unicorn or something, because they seem to lurch from one crisis to another, mostly self-inflicted.

Commentators on other newspaper forums are saying that the government should just nationalise this company, seeing as they mostly do government work anyway, and therefore, the taxpayer may as well own what they are paying for.

But is this possible under EU nationalization rules?

State aid is illegal, not renationalisation. State aid is things like Apple and Ireland where one company gets a benefit not available to other companies. A state owned or operated business is perfectly legal. Look at the energy company EDF Energy they are solely owned by the French government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:


The only problem is that once the taxpayers have bailed yet another massive private enterprise out, we will end up adding to our debt, and the shareholders and Directors of Carrillion will skip off into the sunset with nary a worry, again.

This is the problem for the government politically. They spend all the time hammering Labour for doing this with the banks and placing the debt on the UK. If they do it for Carrillion their argument against Labour is substantially weakened (and really favours the bailing out the wealthy whilst the poor suffer argument).

I would expect shares in Carillion to collapse tomorrow.

To be realistic, a couple of billion to bail out Carillion is peanuts in regards to the national finances, and well worth it to keep all the different operations running.

Therefore the best course of action is for the government to nationalise the company by buying 51% of the shares at a bargain basement price.

The more serious issue is the problem of this system in which private businesses take the profits while the general public take the losses.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be realistic, a couple of billion to bail out Carillion is peanuts in regards to the national finances, and well worth it to keep all the different operations running.

Therefore the best course of action is for the government to nationalise the company by buying 51% of the shares at a bargain basement price.

The more serious issue is the problem of this system in which private businesses take the profits while the general public take the losses.

Yes, but for a government that has spent seven years bashing the same message over and over. For a vast swathe of the public that they have 'persuaded' with such a message they don't really understand the magnitude of the difference between £100bn and £1bn (£0.9bn I think is the amount quoted) then it's a hard sell.

Nationally it might be a good idea; politically it's a real problem. Never mind that really goes against the Tory principles of the state operating nothing at all.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We're all familiar with the old Napoleon maxim about lucky generals, and I look at this government and think they must have shot a unicorn or something, because they seem to lurch from one crisis to another, mostly self-inflicted.

Commentators on other newspaper forums are saying that the government should just nationalise this company, seeing as they mostly do government work anyway, and therefore, the taxpayer may as well own what they are paying for.

But is this possible under EU nationalization rules?

Yes. This is how many EU countries have nationalised rail services, as is said every time you bring up the strawman argument of how the EU is in the way of nationalisation as opposed to our own political parties.

As we’ve seen with the way they manage the rail franchises and the NHS. The ideology of privatisation comes before cost, they would rather take more losses through all the upheaval and delays caused by trying to rewarding current building contracts to other firms, than just bailing out the company to keep everything going.

Meanwhile this business with the parole board letting a serial rapist out is getting more attention. He’s guilty of raping a dozen and police say it’s likely in the hundreds. God knows what the priorities of the people making these decisions are, I suspect that they’re under pressure to reduce the prison population. I’m sure they’d think again if there was a chance he’d be their new neighbour or it was their wives and daughters that had been raped. I couldn’t sleep at night knowing I was responsible for letting monsters like him out of prison, I wonder how they do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42678572

So.....if they nationalise Carillion they're hypocrites who do what they slag Labour off for and are just bailing out their rich mates,and if they don't then they're heartless politicians who put privatisation ideologies above necessity?

Bit of a 'can't win' scenario there, methinks.