Germany is boosted by crippling Greece and others. The Euro is too low for Germany boosting their exporters and too high for the likes of Italy and Greece.
Although, of course, the argument at the inception of the Eurozone was that it was the other way around: with the Euro too cheap for the export and growth powerhouse of Italy, and expensive for Germany. (Believe it or not, just 20 years ago, Italy was the world's second largest exporter.)
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
Really? I find it cooks down quite easily into a narrative of government incompetence and corporate greed.
Not so much corporate greed as corporate folly.
I don't see where governmental incompetence applies. It may do, if important services don't get provided, but so far, it seems that public sector contracts will be fulfilled.
The failure to do anything about moral hazard and its lack since the banks has been a big mistake.
The shareholders of Carillion will get nothing back.
Tezza is learning. I genuinely thought she might actually be stupid enough to bail Carillion out.
Jeremy & McDonnell would have had a field day.
Tezza is stupid, but not that stupid.
And maybe Tezza will get smart. She could announce a Public Inquiry into the accounts, the auditors and how the company was allowed to continue to trade without full protection for the supply chain and new investors. In tandem with any criminal investigations.
Then Tezza could have pointed to the difference between Labour & Tories.
Labour bailed out the banks and paid Sir Fred's pension. The Tories didn't bail out Carillon and sent the criminals to jail.
Tezza is probably not smart enough to do that.
Is there any evidence that the directors of Carillion broke the law? Incompetence is not (currently) a crime.
What's the difference between a company which takes shareholder's money and then uses that money to pay large dividends to encourage more shareholders to buy shares (which is what Carillion did), and a Ponzi scheme?
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
What do you think the government should do? Ignore the referendum? Could try that but it would be extremely difficult. The whole thing is a hospital pass thrown by Cameron - the man who chose to hold the referendum and then had no idea how to win it - or should that be wing it?
He had an idea how to win it: Project Fear. He believed that the country wouldn't vote to inflict the economic harm he imagined Brexit would cause.
He was wrong. We didn't believe his Project Fear. He didn't have a Plan B.
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
Brexit will be as disastrous as the profligacy and warmongering of the Brown/Blair years ?
It's a view.
It's a correct view.
Brexit is worse than the Iraq war and bankrupting the country ?
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
What do you think the government should do? Ignore the referendum? Could try that but it would be extremely difficult. The whole thing is a hospital pass thrown by Cameron - the man who chose to hold the referendum and then had no idea how to win it - or should that be wing it?
The government is taking a functionary's approach to Brexit. It has pandered to the extremists and every concession made to those on the losing side has been extracted under duress by the EU. It has not begun to set out a positive basis on which the country can reunite and the principles on which post-Brexit Britain will operate. And it has negotiated with quite staggering incompetence.
The Brown years were disastrous - RBS bailed out on the taxpayers dime, borrowing out by £80Bn+, Lisbon treaty signed , spending out of control, the worst PM ever - the list is endless. May may have poor PR but she isn't causing structural damage to the economy.
How would a Conservative Government have dealt with Northern Rock and the consequences of the fall of Lehmann Brothers ?
It was too late - his continuation of his ruinous overspending from his days as chancellor continued before during and after the crash.
RBS shareholders and other creditors should have got £0.00 - not the 25p or so.
He should immediately have slashed profligate spending on entitlements etc - the £156Bn borrowing in one year has crippled us for a decade.
Re other creditors, it's a bit more complicated than that.
A very large part of any bank's balance sheet is secured lending. (In particular the importance of repos for funding.) If you held RBS debt that was secured on (for example) its real estate portfolio, then you would have been entitled to be paid out according to the security you held.
Effectively, secured creditors of RBS are higher up the chain than depositors. You couldn't have a situation where depositors were paid in full, but this was to the detriment of someone who had entered into a repo or secured lending agreement with it.
This is why Lehman took the best part of eight years to close (and there are still close to 500 people working to wind down some of their long tail assets). RBS was an infinitely more complex bank.
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
Brexit will be as disastrous as the profligacy and warmongering of the Brown/Blair years ?
It's a view.
It's a correct view.
Brexit is worse than the Iraq war and bankrupting the country ?
It certainly is a view.
It will be more enduring than both in its malign effects.
I think there will almost certainly be a Rejoin campaign in the 2020s but I don't expect it to command more than 25-35% support. It won't be official Labour Party policy.
However, I do think that Labour will be obliged to try to unpick at least part of the "Tory" Brexit settlement, to satisfy their base.
The most drastic move there would be to abolish the DfIT and rejoin the customs union in full. Or, they may simply sign up to a lot more EU programmes and rights from outside. Possibly looking at Verhofstadht's individual "opt-in" for EU citizenship as well.
I don't see how a Govt. of any hue could acknowledge the "opt-in". What if (by way of a crazy example) the EU decided to decriminalise drugs. Could someone ignore UK drugs legislation by showing a burgundy passport and say "I only obey EU laws...."?
I think it will be somewhat simpler than that and involving purchasing the passport and extra rights for a fee. Sort of like a dual citizenship.
This can then be used as a Trojan horse to rejoin in the long term if a lot of Brits sign up to it (ah, but 60% of you hold EU passports anyway, so how bout it?)
A brilliant idea. I and many millions more would pay our €100 and enjoy breezing through European airports. Such a sensible idea it s unlikely to happen with this unimaginative band of dullards in Number 10.
Germany is boosted by crippling Greece and others. The Euro is too low for Germany boosting their exporters and too high for the likes of Italy and Greece.
Although, of course, the argument at the inception of the Eurozone was that it was the other way around: with the Euro too cheap for the export and growth powerhouse of Italy, and expensive for Germany. (Believe it or not, just 20 years ago, Italy was the world's second largest exporter.)
That is interesting.
What do they export less of now and who have they lost out to ?
Germany is boosted by crippling Greece and others. The Euro is too low for Germany boosting their exporters and too high for the likes of Italy and Greece.
Although, of course, the argument at the inception of the Eurozone was that it was the other way around: with the Euro too cheap for the export and growth powerhouse of Italy, and expensive for Germany. (Believe it or not, just 20 years ago, Italy was the world's second largest exporter.)
Indeed that was the case then but with freely floating currencies there would have been adjustments in the last 20 years and there hasn't been.
Indeed historically the Italian Lira had repeatedly devalued against the German Deutschemark. In the last 20 years Italy has been unable to devalue itself against Germany, in the prior 20 years between 1977 and 1997 the Lira had been devalued by over 62%
In the prior 20 years between 1957 and 1977 the Lira had been devalued by nearly 60%
Meaning in 40 years the Lira had been devalued by 84% and yes Italian exporters coped in those circumstances. Then the music stopped ...
"LAB, for want of a better term, “wastes” more of it votes chalking up big shares in its heartlands than the Tories who are more vulnerable to the LDs." But you can't predict where the "heartlands" are. Bristol West had a LD majority of 11K in 2010, the Lab majority is now 37K.
I am fed up of the neo liberal consensus that they support. Most of the PLP are far to the right of the membership.
Those who think Corbyn is ultra left are just wrong IMO. Just on the side of the many not the few.
Corbyn *says* he is on he side of the many.
Is it true though? He wanted free school meals and free university tuition for millionaires, partly paid for by ongoing welfare cuts. He wanted to trash pension funds for the majority of people to pay for hefty pay rises for his mates in the public sector unions who make up, what, 10% of the population? He wanted to borrow vast sums of money to ensure colossal future transfers of poor taxpayers' money to rich oil barons.
Put that way, it doesn't look encouraging.
He would of course dispute this interpretation of his manifesto but as he is also a fluent liar (never met the IRA?) I would not I fear take his unsuppported word for it.
In many ways, I think of him as Blair minus the intelligence and the ability to spout hollow rhetoric convincingly. It isn't an encouraging parallel.
Just as an aside, it's interesting to see what little impact the collapse of Carillion has had in local Government but that should come as no surprise.
As an example, Surrey took on Carillion in 2003 to manage the roads in the east part of the county and it was an unmitigated disaster. In the end, the County Council sacked Carillion in 2009 and I believe other authorities had similar experiences.
The question for me is why, despite this litany of disaster and the obvious shortcomings was central Government so keen to continue to award Carillion business into the 2010s. The warning signs of a company not fit for purpose had existed for more than a decade.
The bigger the level of government the bigger the type of company they prefer to deal with and the further away from the outcome they are ?
Obviously the number of potential bidders for some of the enormous contracts on offer from central Government are limited - it's a universe away from fixing potholes in Caterham - but it seems a little due diligence might have been in order.
I wonder if the ability of Carillion to continue to win business was predicated on the weakness of the central Government tendering and evaluation process.
I think Carillion's problem is that they were the ones who were striking bad deals, not the government.
' The big question is: why do companies keep bidding, if the contracts can cause so much pain?
The answer probably lies in the structure of major PPP construction deals, because they hand the contract winner a large chunk of cash upfront.
Work on construction can then begin, while contractors like Carillion may not need to start paying sub-contractors for another 120 days.
During those four months, much of the upfront payment might be used to pay other debts within the business, meaning these deals can create situations where firms have to keep winning new contracts just to keep going.
Only my guess, but I suspect they thought they could bid low, and once the contract was won, then seek all kinds of extras. It's standard practice for building companies and defence contractors.
It's actually reassuring to learn that the government's draftsmen were wording the contracts so tightly that this was not possible.
I think there will almost certainly be a Rejoin campaign in the 2020s but I don't expect it to command more than 25-35% support. It won't be official Labour Party policy.
However, I do think that Labour will be obliged to try to unpick at least part of the "Tory" Brexit settlement, to satisfy their base.
The most drastic move there would be to abolish the DfIT and rejoin the customs union in full. Or, they may simply sign up to a lot more EU programmes and rights from outside. Possibly looking at Verhofstadht's individual "opt-in" for EU citizenship as well.
I don't see how a Govt. of any hue could acknowledge the "opt-in". What if (by way of a crazy example) the EU decided to decriminalise drugs. Could someone ignore UK drugs legislation by showing a burgundy passport and say "I only obey EU laws...."?
I think it will be somewhat simpler than that and involving purchasing the passport and extra rights for a fee. Sort of like a dual citizenship.
This can then be used as a Trojan horse to rejoin in the long term if a lot of Brits sign up to it (ah, but 60% of you hold EU passports anyway, so how bout it?)
A brilliant idea. I and many millions more would pay our €100 and enjoy breezing through European airports. Such a sensible idea it s unlikely to happen with this unimaginative band of dullards in Number 10.
Can I suggest you team up with Murali and you both go on a course of invective lessons? It's not as easy as it looks.
I don't see why the EU would need the say so of anyone in no. 10 or more generally, in government to sell us individual EU memberships; it's nothing more than a form of visa, as far as I can see. I would hope that well-heeled Leave voters would feel morally disqualified from signing up, but I fear that is overly optimistic.
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
Brexit will be as disastrous as the profligacy and warmongering of the Brown/Blair years ?
It's a view.
It's a correct view.
Brexit is worse than the Iraq war and bankrupting the country ?
It certainly is a view.
It will be more enduring than both in its malign effects.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
I agree with you that the way May has set about implementing the referendum result has been disastrous.
VAR makes history - goal given after having been disallowed
There will be other cases where the players stop when the flag goes up. I think the referee assistants should just keep their flag down at all times.
But then every goal would be reviewed
It just seems wrong to me. What if the ball bounced off the keeper and another offside call was needed seconds later? The linesman is stood where he's called the first one.
Just as an aside, it's interesting to see what little impact the collapse of Carillion has had in local Government but that should come as no surprise.
As an example, Surrey took on Carillion in 2003 to manage the roads in the east part of the county and it was an unmitigated disaster. In the end, the County Council sacked Carillion in 2009 and I believe other authorities had similar experiences.
The question for me is why, despite this litany of disaster and the obvious shortcomings was central Government so keen to continue to award Carillion business into the 2010s. The warning signs of a company not fit for purpose had existed for more than a decade.
The bigger the level of government the bigger the type of company they prefer to deal with and the further away from the outcome they are ?
Obviously the number of potential bidders for some of the enormous contracts on offer from central Government are limited - it's a universe away from fixing potholes in Caterham - but it seems a little due diligence might have been in order.
I wonder if the ability of Carillion to continue to win business was predicated on the weakness of the central Government tendering and evaluation process.
I think Carillion's problem is that they were the ones who were striking bad deals, not the government.
' The big question is: why do companies keep bidding, if the contracts can cause so much pain?
The answer probably lies in the structure of major PPP construction deals, because they hand the contract winner a large chunk of cash upfront.
Work on construction can then begin, while contractors like Carillion may not need to start paying sub-contractors for another 120 days.
During those four months, much of the upfront payment might be used to pay other debts within the business, meaning these deals can create situations where firms have to keep winning new contracts just to keep going.
Only my guess, but I suspect they thought they could bid low, and once the contract was won, then seek all kinds of extras. It's standard practice for building companies and defence contractors.
It's actually reassuring to learn that the government's draftsmen were wording the contracts so tightly that this was not possible.
I believe there are whole industries which operate on tighter margins than Carillion was; package holidays and hauliers, frinstance.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
Really? I find it cooks down quite easily into a narrative of government incompetence and corporate greed.
Not so much corporate greed as corporate folly.
I don't see where governmental incompetence applies. It may do, if important services don't get provided, but so far, it seems that public sector contracts will be fulfilled.
The failure to do anything about moral hazard and its lack since the banks has been a big mistake.
The shareholders of Carillion will get nothing back.
Tezza is learning. I genuinely thought she might actually be stupid enough to bail Carillion out.
Jeremy & McDonnell would have had a field day.
Tezza is stupid, but not that stupid.
And maybe Tezza will get smart. She could announce a Public Inquiry into the accounts, the auditors and how the company was allowed to continue to trade without full protection for the supply chain and new investors. In tandem with any criminal investigations.
Then Tezza could have pointed to the difference between Labour & Tories.
Labour bailed out the banks and paid Sir Fred's pension. The Tories didn't bail out Carillon and sent the criminals to jail.
Tezza is probably not smart enough to do that.
Is there any evidence that the directors of Carillion broke the law? Incompetence is not (currently) a crime.
What's the difference between a company which takes shareholder's money and then uses that money to pay large dividends to encourage more shareholders to buy shares (which is what Carillion did), and a Ponzi scheme?
The latter will get you sent to jail.
Your premise would be correct if Carillion used false accounting and excessive dividends to raise additional money by issuing new shares, the proceeds of which it then paid out to shareholders.
That would be a genuine Ponzi scheme in the Madoff, or even the Enron, mold.
But Carillion did not issue millions of new shares under false pretenses. What they did do was load themselves up with vast amounts of future liabilities that they thought they would grow their way out of.
Only my guess, but I suspect they thought they could bid low, and once the contract was won, then seek all kinds of extras. It's standard practice for building companies and defence contractors.
It's actually reassuring to learn that the government's draftsmen were wording the contracts so tightly that this was not possible.
Yes, might be that. Another common issue in the private sector is what I think of as "dynamism bias". People who want to get on in a company bid aggressively - nobody ever got promoted for failing to win contracts. The same kind of thinking leads to constant reorganisations - nobody gets promoted for saying "Things seem fine as they are, I've nothing to suggest", even if it's true.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
Really? I find it cooks down quite easily into a narrative of government incompetence and corporate greed.
Not so much corporate greed as corporate folly.
I don't see where governmental incompetence applies. It may do, if important services don't get provided, but so far, it seems that public sector contracts will be fulfilled.
The failure to do anything about moral hazard and its lack since the banks has been a big mistake.
The shareholders of Carillion will get nothing back.
Tezza is learning. I genuinely thought she might actually be stupid enough to bail Carillion out.
Jeremy & McDonnell would have had a field day.
Tezza is stupid, but not that stupid.
And maybe Tezza will get smart. She could announce a Public Inquiry into the accounts, the auditors and how the company was allowed to continue to trade without full protection for the supply chain and new investors. In tandem with any criminal investigations.
Then Tezza could have pointed to the difference between Labour & Tories.
Labour bailed out the banks and paid Sir Fred's pension. The Tories didn't bail out Carillon and sent the criminals to jail.
Tezza is probably not smart enough to do that.
Is there any evidence that the directors of Carillion broke the law? Incompetence is not (currently) a crime.
What's the difference between a company which takes shareholder's money and then uses that money to pay large dividends to encourage more shareholders to buy shares (which is what Carillion did), and a Ponzi scheme?
The latter will get you sent to jail.
Your premise would be correct if Carillion used false accounting and excessive dividends to raise additional money by issuing new shares, the proceeds of which it then paid out to shareholders.
That would be a genuine Ponzi scheme in the Madoff, or even the Enron, mold.
But Carillion did not issue millions of new shares under false pretenses. What they did do was load themselves up with vast amounts of future liabilities that they thought they would grow their way out of.
Not only that but legally a company can only pay dividends out of net profits that it has paid corporation tax on surely?
Raising revenues the way described in the post above surely doesn't raise taxable profits so the company couldn't pay dividends on that surely?
No. It serves a very useful purpose if you understand it properly. The danger is when people think that a 99% band actually means a 100% one.
What would the VAR for Carillion have been two years ago?
I don't know. I understand VAR (Value at Risk) in the context of securities portfolios, not for operating businesses. That being said, it's an interesting idea: to work out the probability - and circumstances under which - an operating business would incur significant downside.
Maybe public companies should be required to disclose the scenarios under which they would lose large amounts of money. And if a firm were to go bust under circumstances not foreseen by management, then that would be grounds for criminal charges.
I think there will almost certainly be a Rejoin campaign in the 2020s but I don't expect it to command more than 25-35% support. It won't be official Labour Party policy.
However, I do think that Labour will be obliged to try to unpick at least part of the "Tory" Brexit settlement, to satisfy their base.
The most drastic move there would be to abolish the DfIT and rejoin the customs union in full. Or, they may simply sign up to a lot more EU programmes and rights from outside. Possibly looking at Verhofstadht's individual "opt-in" for EU citizenship as well.
I don't see how a Govt. of any hue could acknowledge the "opt-in". What if (by way of a crazy example) the EU decided to decriminalise drugs. Could someone ignore UK drugs legislation by showing a burgundy passport and say "I only obey EU laws...."?
I think it will be somewhat simpler than that and involving purchasing the passport and extra rights for a fee. Sort of like a dual citizenship.
This can then be used as a Trojan horse to rejoin in the long term if a lot of Brits sign up to it (ah, but 60% of you hold EU passports anyway, so how bout it?)
A brilliant idea. I and many millions more would pay our €100 and enjoy breezing through European airports. Such a sensible idea it s unlikely to happen with this unimaginative band of dullards in Number 10.
Can I suggest you team up with Murali and you both go on a course of invective lessons? It's not as easy as it looks.
I don't see why the EU would need the say so of anyone in no. 10 or more generally, in government to sell us individual EU memberships; it's nothing more than a form of visa, as far as I can see. I would hope that well-heeled Leave voters would feel morally disqualified from signing up, but I fear that is overly optimistic.
You might be right – if so it would be a masterstroke by the EU to offer it. I would expect many millions to sign up, further weakening the position of the brexiteers and neobrexiteers. As to your final point, I actually had this conversation with a Remain friend the other days whose parents both fall into the Rich Leave category. She said they would be certain to sign up as they travel a lot in Europe.
I think there will almost certainly be a Rejoin campaign in the 2020s but I don't expect it to command more than 25-35% support. It won't be official Labour Party policy.
However, I do think that Labour will be obliged to try to unpick at least part of the "Tory" Brexit settlement, to satisfy their base.
The most drastic move there would be to abolish the DfIT and rejoin the customs union in full. Or, they may simply sign up to a lot more EU programmes and rights from outside. Possibly looking at Verhofstadht's individual "opt-in" for EU citizenship as well.
I don't see how a Govt. of any hue could acknowledge the "opt-in". What if (by way of a crazy example) the EU decided to decriminalise drugs. Could someone ignore UK drugs legislation by showing a burgundy passport and say "I only obey EU laws...."?
To be fair to the EU for a moment, that's not how EU law works.
Firstly, if you dredge through the treaties, you'll find no mention of criminal law. Now, that might theoretically change through future treaties, but right now it has no competence in that direction. It's also worth remembering that (criminal) laws prohibit, they do not declare things legal. (On the basis that anything not prohibited is legal. With the possible exception of some incredibly poorly written UK drug legislation.)
Secondly, the ECJ's cases are almost entirely concerned with the extent to which signatories comply with treaties. And - typically - it is an injured party that brings a case to the ECJ alleging their harm due to the country in question not complying with EU treaties (including, of course, all the relevant dictats that flow from the commission.)
Err... The European Single Arrest warrant is under EU law and only concerned with criminal law. The Treaties now incorporate ECHR including article 6 which has had a significant effect on criminal procedure. The EU has Europol which can instruct the UK police to carry out investigations here. There are unending criminal offences under EU law. Illegal fishing is an obvious example.
The idea of describing Holocaust victims as dying “with dignity” is unbelievable, really.
It is totally unacceptable and I do believe labour are nearing a very dark place with the abuse of a BBC female journalist today by Paul Mason, Ann Black being replaced by Christine Shawcroft who said ISIS should be invited to tea and backed corrupt Lutfur Rahman and of course momentum take over of the NEC.
We know who is becoming the real nasty party. I just do not understand how moderate labour MP's are going to continue to be associated with it
No. It serves a very useful purpose if you understand it properly. The danger is when people think that a 99% band actually means a 100% one.
What would the VAR for Carillion have been two years ago?
I don't know. I understand VAR (Value at Risk) in the context of securities portfolios, not for operating businesses. That being said, it's an interesting idea: to work out the probability - and circumstances under which - an operating business would incur significant downside.
Maybe public companies should be required to disclose the scenarios under which they would lose large amounts of money. And if a firm were to go bust under circumstances not foreseen by management, then that would be grounds for criminal charges.
If you go on to make a load of money out of that idea, remember it was me that gave it to you!
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
Really? I find it cooks down quite easily into a narrative of government incompetence and corporate greed.
Not so much corporate greed as corporate folly.
I don't see where governmental incompetence applies. It may do, if important services don't get provided, but so far, it seems that public sector contracts will be fulfilled.
The failure to do anything about moral hazard and its lack since the banks has been a big mistake.
The shareholders of Carillion will get nothing back.
Tezza is learning. I genuinely thought she might actually be stupid enough to bail Carillion out.
Jeremy & McDonnell would have had a field day.
Tezza is stupid, but not that stupid.
And maybe Tezza will get smart. She could announce a Public Inquiry into the accounts, the auditors and how the company was allowed to continue to trade without full protection for the supply chain and new investors. In tandem with any criminal investigations.
Then Tezza could have pointed to the difference between Labour & Tories.
Labour bailed out the banks and paid Sir Fred's pension. The Tories didn't bail out Carillon and sent the criminals to jail.
Tezza is probably not smart enough to do that.
Is there any evidence that the directors of Carillion broke the law? Incompetence is not (currently) a crime.
What's the difference between a company which takes shareholder's money and then uses that money to pay large dividends to encourage more shareholders to buy shares (which is what Carillion did), and a Ponzi scheme?
The latter will get you sent to jail.
Your premise would be correct if Carillion used false accounting and excessive dividends to raise additional money by issuing new shares, the proceeds of which it then paid out to shareholders.
That would be a genuine Ponzi scheme in the Madoff, or even the Enron, mold.
But Carillion did not issue millions of new shares under false pretenses. What they did do was load themselves up with vast amounts of future liabilities that they thought they would grow their way out of.
I think it remains to be seen whether Carillon used false accounting. That should be one of the strands of any investigation.
For those like me concerned at the hard left Corbynista infestation of Labour, there is a glimmer of hope. Corbyn's own shadow ministers think he will be too old in 2022. In 2022 he will have to commit to staying in office to the age of 78 -in the umlikely event of him winning an election. Old Father Time may well ride to Labour's rescue.
Germany is boosted by crippling Greece and others. The Euro is too low for Germany boosting their exporters and too high for the likes of Italy and Greece.
Although, of course, the argument at the inception of the Eurozone was that it was the other way around: with the Euro too cheap for the export and growth powerhouse of Italy, and expensive for Germany. (Believe it or not, just 20 years ago, Italy was the world's second largest exporter.)
That is interesting.
What do they export less of now and who have they lost out to ?
The Italians, and to a lesser extent, the French, used to use devaluation to boost competitiveness (as did the UK, but we're not in the Eu-quiet in the back Mr Glenn!).
Since they adopted the Euro, Italy's economic performance has been woeful (though it's not entirely the Euro's fault).
Germany is boosted by crippling Greece and others. The Euro is too low for Germany boosting their exporters and too high for the likes of Italy and Greece.
Although, of course, the argument at the inception of the Eurozone was that it was the other way around: with the Euro too cheap for the export and growth powerhouse of Italy, and expensive for Germany. (Believe it or not, just 20 years ago, Italy was the world's second largest exporter.)
That is interesting.
What do they export less of now and who have they lost out to ?
Textiles and capital goods. In the former case, they've lost out to Spain (and in particular Inditex who has revolutioned sourcing of clothing in a developed market) and emerging markets. In the latter case, their leading firms failed to adequately invest when times were good and have lost out to the Japanese and the Germans.
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
Brexit will be as disastrous as the profligacy and warmongering of the Brown/Blair years ?
It's a view.
It's a correct view.
Brexit is worse than the Iraq war and bankrupting the country ?
It certainly is a view.
It will be more enduring than both in its malign effects.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
I agree with you that the way May has set about implementing the referendum result has been disastrous.
What is disastrous?
It seems to me that most predictions of disaster have proved to be unfounded.
I think there will almost certainly be a Rejoin campaign in the 2020s but I don't expect it to command more than 25-35% support. It won't be official Labour Party policy.
However, I do think that Labour will be obliged to try to unpick at least part of the "Tory" Brexit settlement, to satisfy their base.
The most drastic move there would be to abolish the DfIT and rejoin the customs union in full. Or, they may simply sign up to a lot more EU programmes and rights from outside. Possibly looking at Verhofstadht's individual "opt-in" for EU citizenship as well.
I don't see how a Govt. of any hue could acknowledge the "opt-in". What if (by way of a crazy example) the EU decided to decriminalise drugs. Could someone ignore UK drugs legislation by showing a burgundy passport and say "I only obey EU laws...."?
I think it will be somewhat simpler than that and involving purchasing the passport and extra rights for a fee. Sort of like a dual citizenship.
This can then be used as a Trojan horse to rejoin in the long term if a lot of Brits sign up to it (ah, but 60% of you hold EU passports anyway, so how bout it?)
A brilliant idea. I and many millions more would pay our €100 and enjoy breezing through European airports. Such a sensible idea it s unlikely to happen with this unimaginative band of dullards in Number 10.
Can I suggest you team up with Murali and you both go on a course of invective lessons? It's not as easy as it looks.
I don't see why the EU would need the say so of anyone in no. 10 or more generally, in government to sell us individual EU memberships; it's nothing more than a form of visa, as far as I can see. I would hope that well-heeled Leave voters would feel morally disqualified from signing up, but I fear that is overly optimistic.
You might be right – if so it would be a masterstroke by the EU to offer it. I would expect many millions to sign up, further weakening the position of the brexiteers and neobrexiteers. As to your final point, I actually had this conversation with a Remain friend the other days whose parents both fall into the Rich Leave category. She said they would be certain to sign up as they travel a lot in Europe.
It would allow us to move to European nations and vote in their European elections without holding the nationality of any EU nation.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
Increasingly I think the early Blair period was crucial, because he framed the European debate as an existential threat to the 'forces of conservatism' but then pulled back from holding the referendum on the Euro that he wanted to. This is what made many see Brexit as the final victory of a once-cowed right over Blairism.
If you just focus on the section on the EU, this part of his 1999 speech is spot on, and still relevant today. (Interesting to see him reference Gaitskell's 'one thousand years of history' too.)
I pose this simple question: is our destiny with Europe or not?
If the answer is no, then we should leave. But we would leave an economic union in which 50 per cent of our trade is done, on which millions of British jobs depend. Our economic future would be uncertain.
But what is certain is that we would not be a power.
Britain would no longer play a determining part in the future of the continent to which we belong. That would be the real end of one thousand years of history.
We can choose this destiny. But we should do it with our eyes open and our senses alert, not blindfold and dulled by the incessant propaganda of Europhobes.
The single currency is, of course, a decision that must be dependent on the economic conditions; and on the consent of the British people in a referendum.
If we believe our destiny is with Europe, then let us leave behind the muddling through, the hesitation, the half-heartedness which has characterised British relations with Europe for forty years and play our part with confidence and pride giving us the chance to defeat the forces of conservatism, economic and political, that hold Europe back too.
I am fed up of the neo liberal consensus that they support. Most of the PLP are far to the right of the membership.
Those who think Corbyn is ultra left are just wrong IMO. Just on the side of the many not the few.
Fair point, BJO and I was thinking about this today.
Why should the Labour Party be what the Conservative Party and its supporters want it to be - a pale version of the Conservative Party. To be fair, Blair won a landslide on that thesis in 1997 creating Labour as a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left but he was hugely aided by 18 years of Government and the political collapse of the Conservatives.
There is an argument a "socialist" Labour has never won - I'd argue Attlee's 1945 programme was pretty close to socialism in some aspects and would we call Harold Wilson a proto-Blairite ?
No, Labour has to be what it feels comfortable being and has to seek its own mandate on its own terms. It does need to be clear what people can expect from an incoming Labour Government and why many of use who have stagnated economically in the 2010s will do better with Labour in the 2020s.
I think that's right. Arguably no Labour party since 1951 has previously stood on a clearly left-wing manifesto except 1983, which was fought in the unique circumstances of a war and a party split. So we don't really have a lot of precedents to go on.
I think there will almost certainly be a Rejoin campaign in the 2020s but I don't expect it to command more than 25-35% support. It won't be official Labour Party policy.
However, I do think that Labour will be obliged to try to unpick at least part of the "Tory" Brexit settlement, to satisfy their base.
The most drastic move there would be to abolish the DfIT and rejoin the customs union in full. Or, they may simply sign up to a lot more EU programmes and rights from outside. Possibly looking at Verhofstadht's individual "opt-in" for EU citizenship as well.
I don't see how a Govt. of any hue could acknowledge the "opt-in". What if (by way of a crazy example) the EU decided to decriminalise drugs. Could someone ignore UK drugs legislation by showing a burgundy passport and say "I only obey EU laws...."?
I think it will be somewhat simpler than that and involving purchasing the passport and extra rights for a fee. Sort of like a dual citizenship.
This can then be used as a Trojan horse to rejoin in the long term if a lot of Brits sign up to it (ah, but 60% of you hold EU passports anyway, so how bout it?)
A brilliant idea. I and many millions more would pay our €100 and enjoy breezing through European airports. Such a sensible idea it s unlikely to happen with this unimaginative band of dullards in Number 10.
snip
snip
It would allow us to move to European nations and vote in their European elections without holding the nationality of any EU nation.
No way is the EU ever going to agree to that.
Perhaps not exactly that, but some package could be agreed. As ever with these brexit conundrums it is a case of thinking imaginatively. We are forever warned on here that imagination isn't wanted, and we should all gratefully suck the thin gruel Big Tess and her retinue of nincompoops are cooking up for us.
Not only that but legally a company can only pay dividends out of net profits that it has paid corporation tax on surely?
Raising revenues the way described in the post above surely doesn't raise taxable profits so the company couldn't pay dividends on that surely?
Absolutely right
However, firms have a great deal of leeway with regard to capitalisation of intangible assets, such as software development. There are also methods of project accounting which capitalise early losses. (Boeing is the absolute master in terms of dodgy project accounting. If it costs them $150m to make a 787, but they estimate that the total cost over the lifetime of the 787 will be $100m, then they charge only the $100m to the P&L in the current year, with the rest going on the balance sheet as an intangible asset. The result is that earnings are very aggressively smoothed. Compare and contrast with Rolls Royce, which has much more conservative accounting for its new engines.)
Just as an aside, it's interesting to see what little impact the collapse of Carillion has had in local Government but that should come as no surprise.
As an example, Surrey took on Carillion in 2003 to manage the roads in the east part of the county and it was an unmitigated disaster. In the end, the County Council sacked Carillion in 2009 and I believe other authorities had similar experiences.
The question for me is why, despite this litany of disaster and the obvious shortcomings was central Government so keen to continue to award Carillion business into the 2010s. The warning signs of a company not fit for purpose had existed for more than a decade.
The bigger the level of government the bigger the type of company they prefer to deal with and the further away from the outcome they are ?
Obviously the number of potential bidders for some of the enormous contracts on offer from central Government are limited - it's a universe away from fixing potholes in Caterham - but it seems a little due diligence might have been in order.
I wonder if the ability of Carillion to continue to win business was predicated on the weakness of the central Government tendering and evaluation process.
I think Carillion's problem is that they were the ones who were striking bad deals, not the government.
' The big question is: why do companies keep bidding, if the contracts can cause so much pain?
The answer probably lies in the structure of major PPP construction deals, because they hand the contract winner a large chunk of cash upfront.
Work on construction can then begin, while contractors like Carillion may not need to start paying sub-contractors for another 120 days.
During those four months, much of the upfront payment might be used to pay other debts within the business, meaning these deals can create situations where firms have to keep winning new contracts just to keep going.
Only my guess, but I suspect they thought they could bid low, and once the contract was won, then seek all kinds of extras. It's standard practice for building companies and defence contractors.
It's actually reassuring to learn that the government's draftsmen were wording the contracts so tightly that this was not possible.
That makes sense.
Perhaps Carillion had grown used to a more 'flexible' government.
It will be worthwhile knowing it any previous contracts had been modified and if so by whom and for what purpose.
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
Brexit will be as disastrous as the profligacy and warmongering of the Brown/Blair years ?
It's a view.
It's a correct view.
Brexit is worse than the Iraq war and bankrupting the country ?
It certainly is a view.
It will be more enduring than both in its malign effects.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
I agree with you that the way May has set about implementing the referendum result has been disastrous.
What is disastrous?
It seems to me that most predictions of disaster have proved to be unfounded.
I think the Government's Brexit strategy is broadly correct, other than not seriously preparing for no deal to strengthen its negotiating hand.
For those like me concerned at the hard left Corbynista infestation of Labour, there is a glimmer of hope. Corbyn's own shadow ministers think he will be too old in 2022. In 2022 he will have to commit to staying in office to the age of 78 -in the umlikely event of him winning an election. Old Father Time may well ride to Labour's rescue.
I think there will almost certainly be a Rejoin campaign in the 2020s but I don't expect it to command more than 25-35% support. It won't be official Labour Party policy.
However, I do think that Labour will be obliged to try to unpick at least part of the "Tory" Brexit settlement, to satisfy their base.
The most drastic move there would be to abolish the DfIT and rejoin the customs union in full. Or, they may simply sign up to a lot more EU programmes and rights from outside. Possibly looking at Verhofstadht's individual "opt-in" for EU citizenship as well.
I don't see how a Govt. of any hue could acknowledge the "opt-in". What if (by way of a crazy example) the EU decided to decriminalise drugs. Could someone ignore UK drugs legislation by showing a burgundy passport and say "I only obey EU laws...."?
To be fair to the EU for a moment, that's not how EU law works.
Firstly, if you dredge through the treaties, you'll find no mention of criminal law. Now, that might theoretically change through future treaties, but right now it has no competence in that direction. It's also worth remembering that (criminal) laws prohibit, they do not declare things legal. (On the basis that anything not prohibited is legal. With the possible exception of some incredibly poorly written UK drug legislation.)
Secondly, the ECJ's cases are almost entirely concerned with the extent to which signatories comply with treaties. And - typically - it is an injured party that brings a case to the ECJ alleging their harm due to the country in question not complying with EU treaties (including, of course, all the relevant dictats that flow from the commission.)
Err... The European Single Arrest warrant is under EU law and only concerned with criminal law. The Treaties now incorporate ECHR including article 6 which has had a significant effect on criminal procedure. The EU has Europol which can instruct the UK police to carry out investigations here. There are unending criminal offences under EU law. Illegal fishing is an obvious example.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
Increasingly I think the early Blair period was crucial, because he framed the European debate as an existential threat to the 'forces of conservatism' but then pulled back from holding the referendum on the Euro that he wanted to. This is what made many see Brexit as the final victory of a once-cowed right over Blairism.
If you just focus on the section on the EU, this part of his 1999 speech is spot on, and still relevant today. (Interesting to see him reference Gaitskell's 'one thousand years of history' too.)
I pose this simple question: is our destiny with Europe or not?
If the answer is no, then we should leave. But we would leave an economic union in which 50 per cent of our trade is done, on which millions of British jobs depend. Our economic future would be uncertain.
But what is certain is that we would not be a power.
Britain would no longer play a determining part in the future of the continent to which we belong. That would be the real end of one thousand years of history.
We can choose this destiny. But we should do it with our eyes open and our senses alert, not blindfold and dulled by the incessant propaganda of Europhobes.
The single currency is, of course, a decision that must be dependent on the economic conditions; and on the consent of the British people in a referendum.
If we believe our destiny is with Europe, then let us leave behind the muddling through, the hesitation, the half-heartedness which has characterised British relations with Europe for forty years and play our part with confidence and pride giving us the chance to defeat the forces of conservatism, economic and political, that hold Europe back too.
For those like me concerned at the hard left Corbynista infestation of Labour, there is a glimmer of hope. Corbyn's own shadow ministers think he will be too old in 2022. In 2022 he will have to commit to staying in office to the age of 78 -in the umlikely event of him winning an election. Old Father Time may well ride to Labour's rescue.
Only my guess, but I suspect they thought they could bid low, and once the contract was won, then seek all kinds of extras. It's standard practice for building companies and defence contractors.
It's actually reassuring to learn that the government's draftsmen were wording the contracts so tightly that this was not possible.
Yes, might be that. Another common issue in the private sector is what I think of as "dynamism bias". People who want to get on in a company bid aggressively - nobody ever got promoted for failing to win contracts. The same kind of thinking leads to constant reorganisations - nobody gets promoted for saying "Things seem fine as they are, I've nothing to suggest", even if it's true.
Your premise would be correct if Carillion used false accounting and excessive dividends to raise additional money by issuing new shares, the proceeds of which it then paid out to shareholders.
That would be a genuine Ponzi scheme in the Madoff, or even the Enron, mold.
But Carillion did not issue millions of new shares under false pretenses. What they did do was load themselves up with vast amounts of future liabilities that they thought they would grow their way out of.
Not only that but legally a company can only pay dividends out of net profits that it has paid corporation tax on surely?
Raising revenues the way described in the post above surely doesn't raise taxable profits so the company couldn't pay dividends on that surely?
I believe that it is illegal for Directors to allow an insolvant company to continue trading. If a case can be made that Carillion was insolvent a significant time before insolvancy was declared then there could be trial.
Germany is boosted by crippling Greece and others. The Euro is too low for Germany boosting their exporters and too high for the likes of Italy and Greece.
Although, of course, the argument at the inception of the Eurozone was that it was the other way around: with the Euro too cheap for the export and growth powerhouse of Italy, and expensive for Germany. (Believe it or not, just 20 years ago, Italy was the world's second largest exporter.)
That is interesting.
What do they export less of now and who have they lost out to ?
The Italians, and to a lesser extent, the French, used to use devaluation to boost competitiveness (as did the UK, but we're not in the Eu-quiet in the back Mr Glenn!).
Since they adopted the Euro, Italy's economic performance has been woeful (though it's not entirely the Euro's fault).
Italy also has appalling demographics and endemic corruption.
Only my guess, but I suspect they thought they could bid low, and once the contract was won, then seek all kinds of extras. It's standard practice for building companies and defence contractors.
It's actually reassuring to learn that the government's draftsmen were wording the contracts so tightly that this was not possible.
Yes, might be that. Another common issue in the private sector is what I think of as "dynamism bias". People who want to get on in a company bid aggressively - nobody ever got promoted for failing to win contracts. The same kind of thinking leads to constant reorganisations - nobody gets promoted for saying "Things seem fine as they are, I've nothing to suggest", even if it's true.
"Don't just do something, sit there"
Ronal Reagan ???
"They say hard word never killed anyone, I figure, 'why take the chance?'"
Sorry got my editing in a muddle and included a chunk of the post thatI was commenting on...
re Carrillion
I believe that it is illegal for Directors to allow an insolvant company to continue trading. If a case can be made that Carillion was insolvent a significant time before insolvancy was declared then there could be trial.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
Increasingly I think the early Blair period was crucial, because he framed the European debate as an existential threat to the 'forces of conservatism' but then pulled back from holding the referendum on the Euro that he wanted to. This is what made many see Brexit as the final victory of a once-cowed right over Blairism.
If you just focus on the section on the EU, this part of his 1999 speech is spot on, and still relevant today. (Interesting to see him reference Gaitskell's 'one thousand years of history' too.)
I pose this simple question: is our destiny with Europe or not?
If the answer is no, then we should leave. But we would leave an economic union in which 50 per cent of our trade is done, on which millions of British jobs depend. Our economic future would be uncertain.
But what is certain is that we would not be a power.
Britain would no longer play a determining part in the future of the continent to which we belong. That would be the real end of one thousand years of history.
We can choose this destiny. But we should do it with our eyes open and our senses alert, not blindfold and dulled by the incessant propaganda of Europhobes.
The single currency is, of course, a decision that must be dependent on the economic conditions; and on the consent of the British people in a referendum.
If we believe our destiny is with Europe, then let us leave behind the muddling through, the hesitation, the half-heartedness which has characterised British relations with Europe for forty years and play our part with confidence and pride giving us the chance to defeat the forces of conservatism, economic and political, that hold Europe back too.
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
Brexit will be as disastrous as the profligacy and warmongering of the Brown/Blair years ?
It's a view.
It's a correct view.
Brexit is worse than the Iraq war and bankrupting the country ?
It certainly is a view.
It will be more enduring than both in its malign effects.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
I agree with you that the way May has set about implementing the referendum result has been disastrous.
What is disastrous?
It seems to me that most predictions of disaster have proved to be unfounded.
I think the Government's Brexit strategy is broadly correct, other than not seriously preparing for no deal to strengthen its negotiating hand.
The mood music has not been.
Agreed. Talk softly but carry a big stick is always the best policy. We've been mouthy, while having no stick at all.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
Increasingly I think the early Blair period was crucial, because he framed the European debate as an existential threat to the 'forces of conservatism' but then pulled back from holding the referendum on the Euro that he wanted to. This is what made many see Brexit as the final victory of a once-cowed right over Blairism.
If you just focus on the section on the EU, this part of his 1999 speech is spot on, and still relevant today. (Interesting to see him reference Gaitskell's 'one thousand years of history' too.)
I pose this simple question: is our destiny with Europe or not?
If the answer is no, then we should leave. But we would leave an economic union in which 50 per cent of our trade is done, on which millions of British jobs depend. Our economic future would be uncertain.
But what is certain is that we would not be a power.
Britain would no longer play a determining part in the future of the continent to which we belong. That would be the real end of one thousand years of history.
We can choose this destiny. But we should do it with our eyes open and our senses alert, not blindfold and dulled by the incessant propaganda of Europhobes.
The single currency is, of course, a decision that must be dependent on the economic conditions; and on the consent of the British people in a referendum.
If we believe our destiny is with Europe, then let us leave behind the muddling through, the hesitation, the half-heartedness which has characterised British relations with Europe for forty years and play our part with confidence and pride giving us the chance to defeat the forces of conservatism, economic and political, that hold Europe back too.
Sorry got my editing in a muddle and included a chunk of the post thatI was commenting on...
re Carrillion
I believe that it is illegal for Directors to allow an insolvant company to continue trading. If a case can be made that Carillion was insolvent a significant time before insolvancy was declared then there could be trial.
There could indeed. And the fact that Carillion went straight to Liquidation rather than the Administrators suggests there may be.
However, I'd caveat that. Carillion is made up of a holding company and many hundreds (or even thousands) of operating companies. It is highly likely that many of the operating companies will be profitable, and that they will get administrators and find new owners.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
Increasingly I think the early Blair period was crucial, because he framed the European debate as an existential threat to the 'forces of conservatism' but then pulled back from holding the referendum on the Euro that he wanted to. This is what made many see Brexit as the final victory of a once-cowed right over Blairism.
If you just focus on the section on the EU, this part of his 1999 speech is spot on, and still relevant today. (Interesting to see him reference Gaitskell's 'one thousand years of history' too.)
I pose this simple question: is our destiny with Europe or not?
If the answer is no, then we should leave. But we would leave an economic union in which 50 per cent of our trade is done, on which millions of British jobs depend. Our economic future would be uncertain.
But what is certain is that we would not be a power.
Britain would no longer play a determining part in the future of the continent to which we belong. That would be the real end of one thousand years of history.
We can choose this destiny. But we should do it with our eyes open and our senses alert, not blindfold and dulled by the incessant propaganda of Europhobes.
The single currency is, of course, a decision that must be dependent on the economic conditions; and on the consent of the British people in a referendum.
If we believe our destiny is with Europe, then let us leave behind the muddling through, the hesitation, the half-heartedness which has characterised British relations with Europe for forty years and play our part with confidence and pride giving us the chance to defeat the forces of conservatism, economic and political, that hold Europe back too.
Conservatism fought back.
Indeed. William seems to think that the EU is the end of history for every European country. Like Francis Fukuyama in the noughties, he is about to be proved wrong
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
Increasingly I think the early Blair period was crucial, because he framed the European debate as an existential threat to the 'forces of conservatism' but then pulled back from holding the referendum on the Euro that he wanted to. This is what made many see Brexit as the final victory of a once-cowed right over Blairism.
If you just focus on the section on the EU, this part of his 1999 speech is spot on, and still relevant today. (Interesting to see him reference Gaitskell's 'one thousand years of history' too.)
I pose this simple question: is our destiny with Europe or not?
If the answer is no, then we should leave. But we would leave an economic union in which 50 per cent of our trade is done, on which millions of British jobs depend. Our economic future would be uncertain.
But what is certain is that we would not be a power.
Britain would no longer play a determining part in the future of the continent to which we belong. That would be the real end of one thousand years of history.
We can choose this destiny. But we should do it with our eyes open and our senses alert, not blindfold and dulled by the incessant propaganda of Europhobes.
The single currency is, of course, a decision that must be dependent on the economic conditions; and on the consent of the British people in a referendum.
If we believe our destiny is with Europe, then let us leave behind the muddling through, the hesitation, the half-heartedness which has characterised British relations with Europe for forty years and play our part with confidence and pride giving us the chance to defeat the forces of conservatism, economic and political, that hold Europe back too.
Conservatism fought back.
Indeed. William seems to think that the EU is the end of history for every European country. Like Francis Fukuyama in the noughties, he is about to be proved wrong
I'm never really sure if William is trying to convince us, or himself.
Germany is boosted by crippling Greece and others. The Euro is too low for Germany boosting their exporters and too high for the likes of Italy and Greece.
Although, of course, the argument at the inception of the Eurozone was that it was the other way around: with the Euro too cheap for the export and growth powerhouse of Italy, and expensive for Germany. (Believe it or not, just 20 years ago, Italy was the world's second largest exporter.)
That is interesting.
What do they export less of now and who have they lost out to ?
I believe footwear and clothing is a major one. I think Italy remains Europe's foremost centre for the production of shoes but has inevitably been hit by the floods of low cost imports from Bangladesh etc over the past 20 years.
The Italian steel industry is dominated by ILVA which is bankrupt and has been a disaster for years.
I don't know so much about the auto industry but you don't see so many Fiats around now compared with 10 or 20 years ago. Partly because leasing has enabled ordinary people to buy Golfs and BMWs instead of the crappy Puntos and Pandas they might have had to buy in the past.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
Increasingly I think the early Blair period was crucial, because he framed the European debate as an existential threat to the 'forces of conservatism' but then pulled back from holding the referendum on the Euro that he wanted to. This is what made many see Brexit as the final victory of a once-cowed right over Blairism.
If you just focus on the section on the EU, this part of his 1999 speech is spot on, and still relevant today. (Interesting to see him reference Gaitskell's 'one thousand years of history' too.)
I pose this simple question: is our destiny with Europe or not?
If the answer is no, then we should leave. But we would leave an economic union in which 50 per cent of our trade is done, on which millions of British jobs depend. Our economic future would be uncertain.
But what is certain is that we would not be a power.
Britain would no longer play a determining part in the future of the continent to which we belong. That would be the real end of one thousand years of history.
We can choose this destiny. But we should do it with our eyes open and our senses alert, not blindfold and dulled by the incessant propaganda of Europhobes.
The single currency is, of course, a decision that must be dependent on the economic conditions; and on the consent of the British people in a referendum.
If we believe our destiny is with Europe, then let us leave behind the muddling through, the hesitation, the half-heartedness which has characterised British relations with Europe for forty years and play our part with confidence and pride giving us the chance to defeat the forces of conservatism, economic and political, that hold Europe back too.
Conservatism fought back.
Indeed. William seems to think that the EU is the end of history for every European country. Like Francis Fukuyama in the noughties, he is about to be proved wrong
I'm never really sure if William is trying to convince us, or himself.
Or indeed, if he is just one of the site admins punting out clickbait!
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
Increasingly I think the early Blair period was crucial, because he framed the European debate as an existential threat to the 'forces of conservatism' but then pulled back from holding the referendum on the Euro that he wanted to. This is what made many see Brexit as the final victory of a once-cowed right over Blairism.
If you just focus on the section on the EU, this part of his 1999 speech is spot on, and still relevant today. (Interesting to see him reference Gaitskell's 'one thousand years of history' too.)
I pose this simple question: is our destiny with Europe or not?
If the answer is no, then we should leave. But we would leave an economic union in which 50 per cent of our trade is done, on which millions of British jobs depend. Our economic future would be uncertain.
But what is certain is that we would not be a power.
Britain would no longer play a determining part in the future of the continent to which we belong. That would be the real end of one thousand years of history.
We can choose this destiny. But we should do it with our eyes open and our senses alert, not blindfold and dulled by the incessant propaganda of Europhobes.
The single currency is, of course, a decision that must be dependent on the economic conditions; and on the consent of the British people in a referendum.
If we believe our destiny is with Europe, then let us leave behind the muddling through, the hesitation, the half-heartedness which has characterised British relations with Europe for forty years and play our part with confidence and pride giving us the chance to defeat the forces of conservatism, economic and political, that hold Europe back too.
Conservatism fought back.
Indeed. William seems to think that the EU is the end of history for every European country. Like Francis Fukuyama in the noughties, he is about to be proved wrong
I'm never really sure if William is trying to convince us, or himself.
I think William's dream of trying to recreate the Austro-Hungarian Empire is very laudable, like building a replica of Coventry Cathedral out of matchsticks.
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
Brexit will be as disastrous as the profligacy and warmongering of the Brown/Blair years ?
It's a view.
It's a correct view.
Brexit is worse than the Iraq war and bankrupting the country ?
It certainly is a view.
It will be more enduring than both in its malign effects.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
I agree with you that the way May has set about implementing the referendum result has been disastrous.
What is disastrous?
It seems to me that most predictions of disaster have proved to be unfounded.
I think the Government's Brexit strategy is broadly correct, other than not seriously preparing for no deal to strengthen its negotiating hand.
The mood music has not been.
Agreed. Talk softly but carry a big stick is always the best policy. We've been mouthy, while having no stick at all.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
Increasingly I think the early Blair period was crucial, because he framed the European debate as an existential threat to the 'forces of conservatism' but then pulled back from holding the referendum on the Euro that he wanted to. This is what made many see Brexit as the final victory of a once-cowed right over Blairism.
If you just focus on the section on the EU, this part of his 1999 speech is spot on, and still relevant today. (Interesting to see him reference Gaitskell's 'one thousand years of history' too.)
I pose this simple question: is our destiny with Europe or not?
If the answer is no, then we should leave. But we would leave an economic union in which 50 per cent of our trade is done, on which millions of British jobs depend. Our economic future would be uncertain.
But what is certain is that we would not be a power.
Britain would no longer play a determining part in the future of the continent to which we belong. That would be the real end of one thousand years of history.
We can choose this destiny. But we should do it with our eyes open and our senses alert, not blindfold and dulled by the incessant propaganda of Europhobes.
The single currency is, of course, a decision that must be dependent on the economic conditions; and on the consent of the British people in a referendum.
If we believe our destiny is with Europe, then let us leave behind the muddling through, the hesitation, the half-heartedness which has characterised British relations with Europe for forty years and play our part with confidence and pride giving us the chance to defeat the forces of conservatism, economic and political, that hold Europe back too.
Conservatism fought back.
Indeed. William seems to think that the EU is the end of history for every European country. Like Francis Fukuyama in the noughties, he is about to be proved wrong
I'm never really sure if William is trying to convince us, or himself.
I think William's hobby of trying to recreate the Austro-Hungarian Empire is very laudable, like building a replica of Coventry Cathedral out of matchsticks.
It's a shame he won't even have a little tangible trinket to show for it after all this effort...
No. It serves a very useful purpose if you understand it properly. The danger is when people think that a 99% band actually means a 100% one.
What would the VAR for Carillion have been two years ago?
I don't know. I understand VAR (Value at Risk) in the context of securities portfolios, not for operating businesses. That being said, it's an interesting idea: to work out the probability - and circumstances under which - an operating business would incur significant downside.
Maybe public companies should be required to disclose the scenarios under which they would lose large amounts of money. And if a firm were to go bust under circumstances not foreseen by management, then that would be grounds for criminal charges.
Don't US companies already do that ? It just leads to a long screed of potential scenarios in the 10-K filings which don't seem to make an appreciable difference to risk taking (and which if you took at face value would deter you from ever buying stock in the company)...
BBC News coverage of Carillion has plenty of focus on cash outflows, wages, supplies, pensions, equipment, materials but precious little about any significant inflows. Hard to see how awards of new government contracts would add to the group's liquidity.
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
Brexit will be as disastrous as the profligacy and warmongering of the Brown/Blair years ?
It's a view.
It's a correct view.
Brexit is worse than the Iraq war and bankrupting the country ?
It certainly is a view.
It will be more enduring than both in its malign effects.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
I agree with you that the way May has set about implementing the referendum result has been disastrous.
What is disastrous?
It seems to me that most predictions of disaster have proved to be unfounded.
I think the Government's Brexit strategy is broadly correct, other than not seriously preparing for no deal to strengthen its negotiating hand.
The mood music has not been.
A largely symbolic departure is where we’re heading and it’s clearly the best option, but I am not sure the government has a deliberate strategy to do this - it’s just where we’ll end up because there’s no realistic alternative.
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
Brexit will be as disastrous as the profligacy and warmongering of the Brown/Blair years ?
It's a view.
It's a correct view.
Brexit is worse than the Iraq war and bankrupting the country ?
It certainly is a view.
It will be more enduring than both in its malign effects.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
I agree with you that the way May has set about implementing the referendum result has been disastrous.
What is disastrous?
It seems to me that most predictions of disaster have proved to be unfounded.
I think the Government's Brexit strategy is broadly correct, other than not seriously preparing for no deal to strengthen its negotiating hand.
The mood music has not been.
A largely symbolic departure is where we’re heading and it’s clearly the best option, but I am not sure the government has a deliberate strategy to do this - it’s just where we’ll end up because there’s no realistic alternative.
I think we'll get more than that but, as you know, symbols matter.
If the UK ends up doing the same as the EU but with a Union Jack on its rules rather than an EU flag, which means we make peace with the subject as a nation, then, if I were a practical europhile I'd welcome that.
My MP has liked Baldricks comment that the Labour Party has been taken over by a leftist clique today Not often I am tempted to paraphrase Donald Trump but my clique is bigger than your clique comes to mind regarding the aforesaid MP (vice chair of Progress).
He apparently thinks Ann Black is marvellous. Even though he voted against her getting on the NEC by voting for Luke Akehurst et al.
He told me he was a Social Democrat BTW. I would always be comfortable with the words on my membership card Democratic Socialist myself. Main reason I did lesscanvassing at GE 2017 in my own Constituency and more in Derby North
My MP has liked Baldricks comment that the Labour Party has been taken over by a leftist clique today Not often I am tempted to paraphrase Donald Trump but my clique is bigger than your clique comes to mind regarding the aforesaid MP (vice chair of Progress).
He apparently thinks Ann Black is marvellous. Even though he voted against her getting on the NEC by voting for Luke Akehurst et al.
He told me he was a Social Democrat BTW. I would always be comfortable with the words on my membership card Democratic Socialist myself. Main reason I did lesscanvassing at GE 2017 in my own Constituency and more in Derby
Sorry got my editing in a muddle and included a chunk of the post thatI was commenting on...
re Carrillion
I believe that it is illegal for Directors to allow an insolvant company to continue trading. If a case can be made that Carillion was insolvent a significant time before insolvancy was declared then there could be trial.
No. If a company is guilty of wrongful trading (basically trading whilst insolvent with no realistic prospect of improvement) then the directors can incur personal liability but that is civil liability, not criminal.
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
Brexit will be as disastrous as the profligacy and warmongering of the Brown/Blair years ?
It's a view.
It's a correct view.
Brexit is worse than the Iraq war and bankrupting the country ?
It certainly is a view.
It will be more enduring than both in its malign effects.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
I agree with you that the way May has set about implementing the referendum result has been disastrous.
What is disastrous?
It seems to me that most predictions of disaster have proved to be unfounded.
I think the Government's Brexit strategy is broadly correct, other than not seriously preparing for no deal to strengthen its negotiating hand.
The mood music has not been.
A largely symbolic departure is where we’re heading and it’s clearly the best option, but I am not sure the government has a deliberate strategy to do this - it’s just where we’ll end up because there’s no realistic alternative.
I think we'll get more than that but, as you know, symbols matter.
If the UK ends up doing the same as the EU but with a Union Jack on its rules rather than an EU flag, which means we make peace with the subject as a nation, then, if I were a practical europhile I'd welcome that.
I have no problem with it - except for the ongoing waste of time and money. But in the long-term it will probably be for the best.
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
Brexit will be as disastrous as the profligacy and warmongering of the Brown/Blair years ?
It's a view.
It's a correct view.
Brexit is worse than the Iraq war and bankrupting the country ?
It certainly is a view.
It will be more enduring than both in its malign effects.
I think Brexit was in part a consequence of the Blair/Brown years.
I agree with you that the way May has set about implementing the referendum result has been disastrous.
What is disastrous?
It seems to me that most predictions of disaster have proved to be unfounded.
I think the Government's Brexit strategy is broadly correct, other than not seriously preparing for no deal to strengthen its negotiating hand.
The mood music has not been.
Agreed. Talk softly but carry a big stick is always the best policy. We've been mouthy, while having no stick at all.
Not so much a stick, as a nuclear button.....
A nuclear button is only a useful deterrent if people think you might use it. By making absolutely no plans whatsoever for No Deal Brexit, we've been caught naked.
Conservatism chose the wrong battle because Blair got under its skin too much and made it forget what it really believed in.
Conservatives realised there were more important priorities than materialism.
Too much of europhilia was based around an embarrassment to be British for it ever to appeal to Conservatives.
A Europhilia based around pride in being English would be a different ballgame.
The UK is arguably an outdated concept, thanks to a permanent large bloc for independence in Scotland, and increasing geopolitical pressure to unite Ireland. Independence for the four nations within the EU might make sense.
Conservatism chose the wrong battle because Blair got under its skin too much and made it forget what it really believed in.
Conservatives realised there were more important priorities than materialism.
Too much of europhilia was based around an embarrassment to be British for it ever to appeal to Conservatives.
A Europhilia based around pride in being English would be a different ballgame.
The UK is arguably an outdated concept, thanks to a permanent large bloc for independence in Scotland, and increasing geopolitical pressure to unite Ireland. Independence for the four nations within the EU might make sense.
Poor old Wales. Always forgotten eh? Voted for Brexit and I think about 3% recently wanted independence. So that’s not going to work well in your scenario is it really?
Conservatism chose the wrong battle because Blair got under its skin too much and made it forget what it really believed in.
Conservatives realised there were more important priorities than materialism.
Too much of europhilia was based around an embarrassment to be British for it ever to appeal to Conservatives.
A Europhilia based around pride in being English would be a different ballgame.
The UK is arguably an outdated concept, thanks to a permanent large bloc for independence in Scotland, and increasing geopolitical pressure to unite Ireland. Independence for the four nations within the EU might make sense.
Poor old Wales. Always forgotten eh? Voted for Brexit and I think about 3% recently wanted independence. So that’s not going to work well in your scenario is it really?
We can always force Wales to be independent, or flog it off to the Qataris. We have to think outside the box here. We're missing a great opportunity to subsidise the balkans ad nauseam.
Comments
The latter will get you sent to jail.
He was wrong. We didn't believe his Project Fear. He didn't have a Plan B.
It certainly is a view.
A very large part of any bank's balance sheet is secured lending. (In particular the importance of repos for funding.) If you held RBS debt that was secured on (for example) its real estate portfolio, then you would have been entitled to be paid out according to the security you held.
Effectively, secured creditors of RBS are higher up the chain than depositors. You couldn't have a situation where depositors were paid in full, but this was to the detriment of someone who had entered into a repo or secured lending agreement with it.
This is why Lehman took the best part of eight years to close (and there are still close to 500 people working to wind down some of their long tail assets). RBS was an infinitely more complex bank.
What do they export less of now and who have they lost out to ?
Indeed historically the Italian Lira had repeatedly devalued against the German Deutschemark. In the last 20 years Italy has been unable to devalue itself against Germany, in the prior 20 years between 1977 and 1997 the Lira had been devalued by over 62%
In the prior 20 years between 1957 and 1977 the Lira had been devalued by nearly 60%
Meaning in 40 years the Lira had been devalued by 84% and yes Italian exporters coped in those circumstances. Then the music stopped ...
But you can't predict where the "heartlands" are. Bristol West had a LD majority of 11K in 2010, the Lab majority is now 37K.
The idea of describing Holocaust victims as dying “with dignity” is unbelievable, really.
Is it true though? He wanted free school meals and free university tuition for millionaires, partly paid for by ongoing welfare cuts. He wanted to trash pension funds for the majority of people to pay for hefty pay rises for his mates in the public sector unions who make up, what, 10% of the population? He wanted to borrow vast sums of money to ensure colossal future transfers of poor taxpayers' money to rich oil barons.
Put that way, it doesn't look encouraging.
He would of course dispute this interpretation of his manifesto but as he is also a fluent liar (never met the IRA?) I would not I fear take his unsuppported word for it.
In many ways, I think of him as Blair minus the intelligence and the ability to spout hollow rhetoric convincingly. It isn't an encouraging parallel.
It's actually reassuring to learn that the government's draftsmen were wording the contracts so tightly that this was not possible.
I don't see why the EU would need the say so of anyone in no. 10 or more generally, in government to sell us individual EU memberships; it's nothing more than a form of visa, as far as I can see. I would hope that well-heeled Leave voters would feel morally disqualified from signing up, but I fear that is overly optimistic.
I agree with you that the way May has set about implementing the referendum result has been disastrous.
That would be a genuine Ponzi scheme in the Madoff, or even the Enron, mold.
But Carillion did not issue millions of new shares under false pretenses. What they did do was load themselves up with vast amounts of future liabilities that they thought they would grow their way out of.
Raising revenues the way described in the post above surely doesn't raise taxable profits so the company couldn't pay dividends on that surely?
Maybe public companies should be required to disclose the scenarios under which they would lose large amounts of money. And if a firm were to go bust under circumstances not foreseen by management, then that would be grounds for criminal charges.
The European Single Arrest warrant is under EU law and only concerned with criminal law.
The Treaties now incorporate ECHR including article 6 which has had a significant effect on criminal procedure.
The EU has Europol which can instruct the UK police to carry out investigations here.
There are unending criminal offences under EU law. Illegal fishing is an obvious example.
I could go on.
We know who is becoming the real nasty party. I just do not understand how moderate labour MP's are going to continue to be associated with it
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-too-old-age-labour-election-fears-shadow-ministers-latest-a8162761.html
Since they adopted the Euro, Italy's economic performance has been woeful (though it's not entirely the Euro's fault).
It seems to me that most predictions of disaster have proved to be unfounded.
No way is the EU ever going to agree to that.
If you just focus on the section on the EU, this part of his 1999 speech is spot on, and still relevant today. (Interesting to see him reference Gaitskell's 'one thousand years of history' too.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/460009.stm
I pose this simple question: is our destiny with Europe or not?
If the answer is no, then we should leave. But we would leave an economic union in which 50 per cent of our trade is done, on which millions of British jobs depend. Our economic future would be uncertain.
But what is certain is that we would not be a power.
Britain would no longer play a determining part in the future of the continent to which we belong. That would be the real end of one thousand years of history.
We can choose this destiny. But we should do it with our eyes open and our senses alert, not blindfold and dulled by the incessant propaganda of Europhobes.
The single currency is, of course, a decision that must be dependent on the economic conditions; and on the consent of the British people in a referendum.
If we believe our destiny is with Europe, then let us leave behind the muddling through, the hesitation, the half-heartedness which has characterised British relations with Europe for forty years and play our part with confidence and pride giving us the chance to defeat the forces of conservatism, economic and political, that hold Europe back too.
However, firms have a great deal of leeway with regard to capitalisation of intangible assets, such as software development. There are also methods of project accounting which capitalise early losses. (Boeing is the absolute master in terms of dodgy project accounting. If it costs them $150m to make a 787, but they estimate that the total cost over the lifetime of the 787 will be $100m, then they charge only the $100m to the P&L in the current year, with the rest going on the balance sheet as an intangible asset. The result is that earnings are very aggressively smoothed. Compare and contrast with Rolls Royce, which has much more conservative accounting for its new engines.)
Perhaps Carillion had grown used to a more 'flexible' government.
It will be worthwhile knowing it any previous contracts had been modified and if so by whom and for what purpose.
The mood music has not been.
Yes, that is rarely discussed but a good point. What is the situation with nomination rules? Still the same system – 30-odd required?
Ronal Reagan ???
Your premise would be correct if Carillion used false accounting and excessive dividends to raise additional money by issuing new shares, the proceeds of which it then paid out to shareholders.
That would be a genuine Ponzi scheme in the Madoff, or even the Enron, mold.
But Carillion did not issue millions of new shares under false pretenses. What they did do was load themselves up with vast amounts of future liabilities that they thought they would grow their way out of.
Not only that but legally a company can only pay dividends out of net profits that it has paid corporation tax on surely?
Raising revenues the way described in the post above surely doesn't raise taxable profits so the company couldn't pay dividends on that surely?
I believe that it is illegal for Directors to allow an insolvant company to continue trading. If a case can be made that Carillion was insolvent a significant time before insolvancy was declared then there could be trial.
re Carrillion
I believe that it is illegal for Directors to allow an insolvant company to continue trading. If a case can be made that Carillion was insolvent a significant time before insolvancy was declared then there could be trial.
Our destiny is not with Europe so we're leaving.
However, I'd caveat that. Carillion is made up of a holding company and many hundreds (or even thousands) of operating companies. It is highly likely that many of the operating companies will be profitable, and that they will get administrators and find new owners.
The Italian steel industry is dominated by ILVA which is bankrupt and has been a disaster for years.
I don't know so much about the auto industry but you don't see so many Fiats around now compared with 10 or 20 years ago. Partly because leasing has enabled ordinary people to buy Golfs and BMWs instead of the crappy Puntos and Pandas they might have had to buy in the past.
Controlling immigration is a very different subject and one that has wide support
It just leads to a long screed of potential scenarios in the 10-K filings which don't seem to make an appreciable difference to risk taking (and which if you took at face value would deter you from ever buying stock in the company)...
It really was poor.
Can we have the old Anazina back please?
If the UK ends up doing the same as the EU but with a Union Jack on its rules rather than an EU flag, which means we make peace with the subject as a nation, then, if I were a practical europhile I'd welcome that.
He apparently thinks Ann Black is marvellous. Even though he voted against her getting on the NEC by voting for Luke Akehurst et al.
He told me he was a Social Democrat BTW. I would always be comfortable with the words on my membership card Democratic Socialist myself. Main reason I did lesscanvassing at GE 2017 in my own Constituency and more in Derby North
Vice versa on the Right....?
Corbyn past it. Hunt down the saboteurs.