Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Jared O’Mara is what happens if your candidate is chosen by th

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited January 16 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Jared O’Mara is what happens if your candidate is chosen by the party without a proper selection process

Yorkshire's missing MP: In Tomorrow's The Yorkshire Post our Features & Comment section demands answers on behalf of Sheffield Hallam residents – particularly the 21,000 people who put Jared O'Mara in his £74,000-a-year job. pic.twitter.com/T21Jhvm7am

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,200
    Nice work if you can get it
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,323
    CD13 said:

    Nice work if you can get it

    Seconded.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,458
    edited January 16
    Bah. My thirst was stollen!

    It's a problem for Labour, and it's also a problem for democracy. I thought Stuart Bell's behaviour was reprehensible; O'Mara's taking it to a new level.
  • Blofelds_CatBlofelds_Cat Posts: 151
    edited January 16
    Who would win Sheffield Hallam if there was a by-election tomorrow?
  • For we voters in Sheffield Hallam it is just like having a Sinn Fein MP.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,458
    But as an aside, the second story on the Yorkshire Post's front page is of interest: a growing group of people who aim to walk 1,000 miles in a year for health and happiness.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,973
    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.
  • Who would win Sheffield Hallam if there was a bi-election tomorrow?

    The Lib Dems.

    The Labour council’s tree cutting policies alone will win it for the Lib Dems.

    Plus the Lib Dem candidate has been very active.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 503

    For we voters in Sheffield Hallam it is just like having a Sinn Fein MP.

    And of course they elected him. Their decision.

    Many MPs have second and third jobs and aren't therefore full focused on the job.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,095
    I wonder if recall for MPs would be met with "that's a good idea!" by Momentum?

    Somehow, I think not......
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322
    This is what happens when the control of a party is handed over to activists rather than political professionals. The seats won on Labour's NEC by Lansman and his allies yesterday should be seen in this context.

    There's plenty wrong with a professionalised political class made up almost exclusively of well-spoken middle-class university-educated candidates so committed to a parliamentary career that they'll put in thousands of hours and tens of thousands of pounds to supporting themselves in that role but parties demand that for the simple reason that it's what the public responds to - or, put another way, it minimises the risks of behaviours that the public responds badly to.

    As Corbyn and his allies transition Labour from a professional party to an activists' movement, expect more of these O'Mara-type candidates.
  • As an aside the Yorkshire Post isn’t seen as influential in Sheffield, it is seen as a Leeds paper, and everyone in Yorkshire hates Leeds.

    The Sheffield Star is what counts, they aren’t impressed by O’Mara.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234
    If Momentum carry out their deselections threats of MPs who are not true Corbynite believers there will be more Jared O'Mara's to come
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,095

    Who would win Sheffield Hallam if there was a by-election tomorrow?

    Off topic, surely your avatar is a Birman, not a Persian?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322
    brendan16 said:

    For we voters in Sheffield Hallam it is just like having a Sinn Fein MP.

    And of course they elected him. Their decision.

    Many MPs have second and third jobs and aren't therefore full focused on the job.
    I don't think he stood on an abstentionist platform? Had he done so - as SF do - then voters wouldn't have a right to complain (well, they'd have a right to complain - everyone has that - but not to have their complaints taken seriously).
  • brendan16 said:

    For we voters in Sheffield Hallam it is just like having a Sinn Fein MP.

    And of course they elected him. Their decision.

    Many MPs have second and third jobs and aren't therefore full focused on the job.
    A majority of us voted for someone else, we need an alternative voting system.

    Those MPs with second and third jobs still contribute in Parliament.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,864

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    There is a recall law in place but it requires him to be convicted or barred first:

    https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/184324/Recall-Act-Factsheet.pdf
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,190

    For we voters in Sheffield Hallam it is just like having a Sinn Fein MP.

    Don’t SF MP’s hold constituency surgeries?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 503

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    We do have a recall system - it's called a general election every 5 years.

    Recall systems could be used to remove O Mara but could equally be used to remove MPs acting on personal principle on an issue which a sizeable section of their electorate disapprove of.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 1,913
    Inflation down to 3%
  • For we voters in Sheffield Hallam it is just like having a Sinn Fein MP.

    Don’t SF MP’s hold constituency surgeries?
    Pass.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,691

    brendan16 said:

    For we voters in Sheffield Hallam it is just like having a Sinn Fein MP.

    And of course they elected him. Their decision.

    Many MPs have second and third jobs and aren't therefore full focused on the job.
    A majority of us voted for someone else, we need an alternative voting system.
    Nah, he wouldn't have been 25-1 with a different system.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,838

    For we voters in Sheffield Hallam it is just like having a Sinn Fein MP.

    Don’t SF MP’s hold constituency surgeries?
    Unlike Ruth Davidson, they do.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,302
    HYUFD said:

    If Momentum carry out their deselections threats of MPs who are not true Corbynite believers there will be more Jared O'Mara's to come

    Good point. This will be shown as what happens when Team Corbyn take control
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,190

    brendan16 said:

    For we voters in Sheffield Hallam it is just like having a Sinn Fein MP.

    And of course they elected him. Their decision.

    Many MPs have second and third jobs and aren't therefore full focused on the job.
    A majority of us voted for someone else, we need an alternative voting system.

    Those MPs with second and third jobs still contribute in Parliament.
    Didn’t Dr Howard Stoate regularly hold ‘medical’ ssurgeries during his time in Parliament, as well as the more traditional MP’s opnes.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 373
    It's just another example of what A Corbyn future would be like, that currently, if the polls are correct, 40% of our fellow citizens chose to ignore.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 26,638
    I wonder if the former Lib Dem Candidate wishes he had not rushed off to pastures lucrative new so quickly? Uncle Vince isn't hacking it....

    Party position on Brexit clear (net):

    Con: -10
    Lab: -26
    LibD: -22

    https://leftfootforward.org/2018/01/exclusive-main-parties-positions-on-brexit-unclear-say-voters/

    58% of current Lib Dems believe their position is clear, to 31% who disagree, while 26% responded ‘Don’t Know’ when asked about the Lib Dems’ stance – higher than Labour and the Conservatives’ 18%.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234
    edited January 16

    HYUFD said:

    If Momentum carry out their deselections threats of MPs who are not true Corbynite believers there will be more Jared O'Mara's to come

    Good point. This will be shown as what happens when Team Corbyn take control
    Indeed, if that does come to pass the issue will be whether the likes of Umunna take the plunge and form a breakaway centrist, pro single market party
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,973
    I wonder if Tusk realises that in that sentence he has effectively said the EU is not democratic?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322

    brendan16 said:

    For we voters in Sheffield Hallam it is just like having a Sinn Fein MP.

    And of course they elected him. Their decision.

    Many MPs have second and third jobs and aren't therefore full focused on the job.
    A majority of us voted for someone else, we need an alternative voting system.
    If we had Open List Plus, most people could have an MP of their persuasion (among others), and could - depending on how parties gamed the system - also reject numpty candidates like O'Mara.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,973
    brendan16 said:

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    We do have a recall system - it's called a general election every 5 years.

    Recall systems could be used to remove O Mara but could equally be used to remove MPs acting on personal principle on an issue which a sizeable section of their electorate disapprove of.
    And the problem with that is?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322

    brendan16 said:

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    We do have a recall system - it's called a general election every 5 years.

    Recall systems could be used to remove O Mara but could equally be used to remove MPs acting on personal principle on an issue which a sizeable section of their electorate disapprove of.
    And the problem with that is?
    The problem with that is that orthodoxies become almost impossible to challenge.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,973

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    There is a recall law in place but it requires him to be convicted or barred first:

    https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/184324/Recall-Act-Factsheet.pdf
    Yep, far short of what we need.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,973

    brendan16 said:

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    We do have a recall system - it's called a general election every 5 years.

    Recall systems could be used to remove O Mara but could equally be used to remove MPs acting on personal principle on an issue which a sizeable section of their electorate disapprove of.
    And the problem with that is?
    The problem with that is that orthodoxies become almost impossible to challenge.
    No they don't. They just require the MP concerned to persuade his electorate of the value of his or her views.
  • Who would win Sheffield Hallam if there was a by-election tomorrow?

    Off topic, surely your avatar is a Birman, not a Persian?
    Rag doll kitten - Wikipedia says cross between Persian and Birman, so I’m not sure. He was very cute then, but is now enormous and hairy and eats a lot.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322

    HYUFD said:

    If Momentum carry out their deselections threats of MPs who are not true Corbynite believers there will be more Jared O'Mara's to come

    Good point. This will be shown as what happens when Team Corbyn take control
    After the NEC elections, Team Corbyn has taken control. What will be interesting is how quickly they now move to reform selection processes and top Party personnel.

    Even if Labour loses in 2022, Corbyn's legacy could last many years longer. On average, you could expect 30-40 safe seats to be available each election through retirements and while Momentum's been pretty useless at getting candidates from its wing selected so far, that could change now the left (if not Momentum as such) has both the leadership and the NEC.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322

    brendan16 said:

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    We do have a recall system - it's called a general election every 5 years.

    Recall systems could be used to remove O Mara but could equally be used to remove MPs acting on personal principle on an issue which a sizeable section of their electorate disapprove of.
    And the problem with that is?
    The problem with that is that orthodoxies become almost impossible to challenge.
    No they don't. They just require the MP concerned to persuade his electorate of the value of his or her views.
    Oh, come on. That sort of campaign is practically impossible. You know full well that niche issues are by definition of interest to only a relatively small number but that those who are engaged can hold strong opinions on either side. Besides, even if an MP did persuade his or her constituency of the benefits of one particular policy, the opponents could still act as the focus for a recall campaign which might then be carried through on a party's national unpopularity, local issues notwithstanding.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,973

    brendan16 said:

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    We do have a recall system - it's called a general election every 5 years.

    Recall systems could be used to remove O Mara but could equally be used to remove MPs acting on personal principle on an issue which a sizeable section of their electorate disapprove of.
    And the problem with that is?
    The problem with that is that orthodoxies become almost impossible to challenge.
    Just to add, orthodoxies are far more difficult to challenge now when disloyalty to party is seen as far more serious a crime and - more effective as a way of ending your career - than disloyalty to your own electorate.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,636
    To be fair, Jared O'Mara AWOL and silent is much less embarrassing than Jared O'Mara present and having his say.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 503
    edited January 16

    brendan16 said:

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    We do have a recall system - it's called a general election every 5 years.

    Recall systems could be used to remove O Mara but could equally be used to remove MPs acting on personal principle on an issue which a sizeable section of their electorate disapprove of.
    And the problem with that is?
    Depends if we want sign posts or weathercocks as MPs?. If we had had recall systems in the mid 1930s might Churchill given his views have been recalled? He was right though - even though he was castigated and an outcast at the time. But voters needed 5 years to find that out.

    A recall by election might also see a much lower turnout than a general election - you could see MPs voted out on a 20 per cent turnout when they were elected on a 70 per cent one.

  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 1,684
    HYUFD said:

    If Momentum carry out their deselections threats of MPs who are not true Corbynite believers there will be more Jared O'Mara's to come

    This is rather obvious, isn't it?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,541
    edited January 16
    Two thoughts:

    1) This is an object lesson in how little the individual candidate matters. Jared O'Mara beat the former deputy Prime Minister - whatever else you think of Nick Clegg, he was a serious figure. He was beaten by a cipher.

    2) Following on from this thought, I wonder whether Labour is making a mistake selecting candidates in key seats so early. CCHQ has much more time to get its teeth into these candidates, find out their past indiscretions and turn those into campaign materials.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,521
    Get Bercow to bar him for absenteeism? Green provoked a lot of comments on the lines of yebbut my employer would discipline me for looking at porn in office hours, and just not being there for 6 months on end is also not within the spirit or letter of the usual contract of employment.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,973
    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    We do have a recall system - it's called a general election every 5 years.

    Recall systems could be used to remove O Mara but could equally be used to remove MPs acting on personal principle on an issue which a sizeable section of their electorate disapprove of.
    And the problem with that is?
    Depends if we want sign posts or weathercocks as MPs?. If we had had recall systems in the mid 1930s might Churchill given his views have been recalled? He was right though - even though he was castigated and an outcast at the time. But voters needed 5 years to find that out.

    He was castigated and outcast by the political parties and their leaderships. His views had significant and widespread support amongst the public themselves. This is exactly the problem. To succeed as an MP these days the people you need to keep happy are the parties not the electorate.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,568
    For Corbyn's enemies, it is better that Jared is left in place as a walking embodiment of bad selection, misogyny and homophobia.

    I suspect for the Labour Centre Right, the next year is Last Chance Saloon. They have to act now (or not at all). Remain gives them a rallying cry, as Wes Streeting seems to realise. It is the only significant cause in which Jeremy is out of step with most of his supporters.

    But, once we have left, the Rallying Cry will have gone.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,200
    Mr Glenn,

    For any hope of another referendum, you need the Labour leadership onside. Why won't that happen?

    An example ... there are two parliamentary constituencies in St Helens.

    At the last GE, St Helens South had a Labour majority of 24,000, St Helens North had a Labour majority of 18,000. This is Labour heartland.

    The St Helens constituency in the referendum voted 58% Leave, and I know many Tories who voted Remain.

    Pick someone at random and they're probably Labour Leave. An about-face by Labour would represent a snub to the North and an embrace of London values. I don't say it couldn't happen, but ...


  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,870
    Maybe Sheffield Hallam voters should have taken a bit more interest in the candidates themselves rather than just voting by party.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,973

    brendan16 said:

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    We do have a recall system - it's called a general election every 5 years.

    Recall systems could be used to remove O Mara but could equally be used to remove MPs acting on personal principle on an issue which a sizeable section of their electorate disapprove of.
    And the problem with that is?
    The problem with that is that orthodoxies become almost impossible to challenge.
    No they don't. They just require the MP concerned to persuade his electorate of the value of his or her views.
    Oh, come on. That sort of campaign is practically impossible. You know full well that niche issues are by definition of interest to only a relatively small number but that those who are engaged can hold strong opinions on either side. Besides, even if an MP did persuade his or her constituency of the benefits of one particular policy, the opponents could still act as the focus for a recall campaign which might then be carried through on a party's national unpopularity, local issues notwithstanding.
    No one has suggested that an MP should be recalled for any and every niche view they might hold. You are using the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum. But the argument is whether or not an MP who is clearly failing to represent their constituents either through neglect or design should simply be allowed to get away with it with no recourse from the voters until the next election. If you believe that should be the case then you have a very poor view of democracy.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,234

    Two thoughts:

    1) This is an object lesson in how little the individual candidate matters. Jared O'Meara beat the former deputy Prime Minister - whatever else you think of Nick Clegg, he was a serious figure. He was beaten by a cipher.

    2) Following on from this thought, I wonder whether Labour is making a mistake selecting candidates in key seats so early. CCHQ has much more time to get its teeth into these candidates, find out their past indiscretions and turn those into campaign materials.

    1) OTOH, only Nick Clegg could have come as close as he did for the Lib Dems, or indeed have held the seat in 2015.

    2) The Conservatives are looking to select for target seats this year too. In both cases it looks like an over-reaction to being caught out in 2017, though there is certainly some merit in doing so where there is a good local candidate and/or not much by way of institutional opposition to the MP (e.g. council control, or a plausible council opposition).
  • HYUFD said:

    If Momentum carry out their deselections threats of MPs who are not true Corbynite believers there will be more Jared O'Mara's to come

    Not necessarily, the minimal consequence would be that a high proportion of the true believers will fail to be elected (where the deselected MP stands against them and splits the Labour vote to let in the Tories or whoever). The more profound consequence in the case of large scale deselections would be a full scale party split.

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,568
    CD13 said:

    Mr Glenn,

    For any hope of another referendum, you need the Labour leadership onside. Why won't that happen?

    An example ... there are two parliamentary constituencies in St Helens.

    At the last GE, St Helens South had a Labour majority of 24,000, St Helens North had a Labour majority of 18,000. This is Labour heartland.

    The St Helens constituency in the referendum voted 58% Leave, and I know many Tories who voted Remain.

    Pick someone at random and they're probably Labour Leave. An about-face by Labour would represent a snub to the North and an embrace of London values. I don't say it couldn't happen, but ...

    I think Remain -- to win a second referendum -- would have to explain how the benefits of EU membership are to be shared more widely.

    Massive cash transfers from Re-mania to Leaverstan should do the trick. If you are resident in Islington (Re-mania), you pay 2p extra income tax in the pound, and that money is transferred to St Helens (Leaverstan).

    Many people make a lot of money out of the EU (lawyers, universities, etc). Remain lost because those people don't want to share their gains with the people who actually lost out.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 503
    edited January 16

    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    We do have a recall system - it's called a general election every 5 years.

    Recall systems could be used to remove O Mara but could equally be used to remove MPs acting on personal principle on an issue which a sizeable section of their electorate disapprove of.
    And the problem with that is?
    Depends if we want sign posts or weathercocks as MPs?. If we had had recall systems in the mid 1930s might Churchill given his views have been recalled? He was right though - even though he was castigated and an outcast at the time. But voters needed 5 years to find that out.

    He was castigated and outcast by the political parties and their leaderships. His views had significant and widespread support amongst the public themselves. This is exactly the problem. To succeed as an MP these days the people you need to keep happy are the parties not the electorate.
    Actually voters were pretty content with the appeasement policies at the time - although perhaps Churchill's Essex constituents in Epping might have felt differently. They may have changed their views by 1940 - but in 1935 appeasement and disarmament was mainstream and Churchill was the warmongering extremist.

    Me thinks you have been watching the tube scene in the Darkest hour. I know the district line is slow - but more than 10 minutes to go one stop?!

    Recalls could be used to remove bad MPs but also principled ones who held unpopular positions which later were proved to be right. We need more long term thinking and planning - not more short termism where politicians do the popular thing not the right thng.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,286

    HYUFD said:

    If Momentum carry out their deselections threats of MPs who are not true Corbynite believers there will be more Jared O'Mara's to come

    Not necessarily, the minimal consequence would be that a high proportion of the true believers will fail to be elected (where the deselected MP stands against them and splits the Labour vote to let in the Tories or whoever). The more profound consequence in the case of large scale deselections would be a full scale party split.

    And your awake.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,286
    AndyJS said:

    Maybe Sheffield Hallam voters should have taken a bit more interest in the candidates themselves rather than just voting by party.

    Unfortunately for "the entitled" in the PLP people do vote for the party
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,286
    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,190
    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    We do have a recall system - it's called a general election every 5 years.

    Recall systems could be used to remove O Mara but could equally be used to remove MPs acting on personal principle on an issue which a sizeable section of their electorate disapprove of.
    And the problem with that is?
    Depends if we want sign posts or weathercocks as MPs?. If we had had recall systems in the mid 1930s might Churchill given his views have been recalled? He was right though - even though he was castigated and an outcast at the time. But voters needed 5 years to find that out.

    He was castigated and outcast by the political parties and their leaderships. His views had significant and widespread support amongst the public themselves. This is exactly the problem. To succeed as an MP these days the people you need to keep happy are the parties not the electorate.
    Actually voters were pretty content with the appeasement policies at the time - although perhaps Churchill's Essex constituents in Epping might have felt differently. They may have changed their views by 1940 - but in 1935 appeasement and disarmament was mainstream and Churchill was the warmongering extremist.

    Me thinks you have been watching the tube scene in the Darkest hour. I know the district line is slow - but more than 10 minutes to go one stop?!

    Recalls could be used to remove bad MPs but also principled ones who held unpopular positions which later were proved to be right. We need more long term thinking and planning - not more short termism where politicians do the popular thing not the right thng.
    I understand that ‘average’ time between stops on the Underground is 2 minutes, plus a minute in the station. Enables one to estimate one’s journey time surprisingly accurately.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,234

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322

    brendan16 said:

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    We do have a recall system - it's called a general election every 5 years.

    Recall systems could be used to remove O Mara but could equally be used to remove MPs acting on personal principle on an issue which a sizeable section of their electorate disapprove of.
    And the problem with that is?
    The problem with that is that orthodoxies become almost impossible to challenge.
    Just to add, orthodoxies are far more difficult to challenge now when disloyalty to party is seen as far more serious a crime and - more effective as a way of ending your career - than disloyalty to your own electorate.
    That's true. But as a rule, parties tolerate cranks with obsessions as long as they aren't too numerous, don't cause too much trouble and stay on the backbenches. And MPs recognise that in challenging orthodoxies, they're unlikely to receive preferment - at least, until their views become mainstream - then they're a visionary.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490
    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    He was castigated and outcast by the political parties and their leaderships. His views had significant and widespread support amongst the public themselves. This is exactly the problem. To succeed as an MP these days the people you need to keep happy are the parties not the electorate.
    Actually voters were pretty content with the appeasement policies at the time - although perhaps Churchill's Essex constituents in Epping might have felt differently. They may have changed their views by 1940 - but in 1935 appeasement and disarmament was mainstream and Churchill was the warmongering extremist.

    Me thinks you have been watching the tube scene in the Darkest hour. I know the district line is slow - but more than 10 minutes to go one stop?!

    Recalls could be used to remove bad MPs but also principled ones who held unpopular positions which later were proved to be right. We need more long term thinking and planning - not more short termism where politicians do the popular thing not the right thng.
    This was one of the fallacies of Darkest Hour. In fact the UK was rearming in a serious way from 1936 onwards. The key aspect of this was in the air.

    "The Air Ministry memorandum of February 1936 reflected a real change of policy. In the words of this document, the Air Ministry had ‘pressed on with the development and production of new types‘ and was now able to formulate ‘a much more effective programme‘ which it hoped could be realised by 1939. Moreover, what was now to be expanded was not the political or the propaganda effect of the Air Force but its real combat power.

    The new programme, henceforth to be known as Expansion Scheme F, was sanctioned by the Cabinet in February 1936 and was to remain in force for two years. It marked a complete departure from the purely demonstrative principles of the previous Scheme A and introduced the first real measure of expansion. Under its provisions the Air Force was to acquire more than 8,000 new aircraft over three years compared with the 3,800 over two years under the preceding programme."
    http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/from-peace-to-war-royal-air-force-rearmament-programme-1934-1940.html/3

    Put bluntly, if we had fought the Battle of Britain at the time of Munich we would have lost. And this occurred under Chamberlain.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,190
    edited January 16

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Ah, but to where have those profits gone?
    Remember Carillion’s former chief executive is still currently entitled to a £660,000 salary, apparently.
    I’ve not actually seen whether it’s stated that he’s been paid January’s instalment yet, although presumably Decembers has gone through. Which is more than can be said for bills of smaller suppliers and sub-contactors.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322

    brendan16 said:

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    We do have a recall system - it's called a general election every 5 years.

    Recall systems could be used to remove O Mara but could equally be used to remove MPs acting on personal principle on an issue which a sizeable section of their electorate disapprove of.
    And the problem with that is?
    The problem with that is that orthodoxies become almost impossible to challenge.
    No they don't. They just require the MP concerned to persuade his electorate of the value of his or her views.
    Oh, come on. That sort of campaign is practically impossible. You know full well that niche issues are by definition of interest to only a relatively small number but that those who are engaged can hold strong opinions on either side. Besides, even if an MP did persuade his or her constituency of the benefits of one particular policy, the opponents could still act as the focus for a recall campaign which might then be carried through on a party's national unpopularity, local issues notwithstanding.
    No one has suggested that an MP should be recalled for any and every niche view they might hold. You are using the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum. But the argument is whether or not an MP who is clearly failing to represent their constituents either through neglect or design should simply be allowed to get away with it with no recourse from the voters until the next election. If you believe that should be the case then you have a very poor view of democracy.
    They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. The question is how you resolve that problem without creating others that may be worse - after all, how many MPs are we talking about here? As a general rule, the threat of deselection is sufficient to keep recalcitrant MPs doing their job but clearly that isn't always effective. There's no perfect answer.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,286

    For we voters in Sheffield Hallam it is just like having a Sinn Fein MP.

    I thought you were a NE Derbyshire voter as someone called John
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,636

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    There was a wonderful Alice-in-Wonderland intervention in the Commons yesterday by Stephen Kinnock (who is supposed to be one of the relatively sane Labour MPs):

    17:55 Labour’s Stephen Kinnock says Carillion is a ‘sorry tale of the privatisation of profit and the nationalisation of risk’.

    "Isn’t the case for a windfall tax on these companies now unanswerable?"


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/jan/15/carillion-crisis-liquidation-last-ditch-talks-fail-business-live?page=with:block-5a5cee4ce4b003d428b08e22#liveblog-navigation
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    What you're implying there is that the state should own and run virtually everything. Which has of course always been a thoroughly reliable way to ensure speedy, cost-effective and customer-focussed provision.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,287

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    There was a wonderful Alice-in-Wonderland intervention in the Commons yesterday by Stephen Kinnock (who is supposed to be one of the relatively sane Labour MPs):

    17:55 Labour’s Stephen Kinnock says Carillion is a ‘sorry tale of the privatisation of profit and the nationalisation of risk’.

    "Isn’t the case for a windfall tax on these companies now unanswerable?"


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/jan/15/carillion-crisis-liquidation-last-ditch-talks-fail-business-live?page=with:block-5a5cee4ce4b003d428b08e22#liveblog-navigation
    Well, I suppose a windfall tax is a Brownian style 3rd way.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,286

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Carillion paid dividends didnt they
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    There was a wonderful Alice-in-Wonderland intervention in the Commons yesterday by Stephen Kinnock (who is supposed to be one of the relatively sane Labour MPs):

    17:55 Labour’s Stephen Kinnock says Carillion is a ‘sorry tale of the privatisation of profit and the nationalisation of risk’.

    "Isn’t the case for a windfall tax on these companies now unanswerable?"


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/jan/15/carillion-crisis-liquidation-last-ditch-talks-fail-business-live?page=with:block-5a5cee4ce4b003d428b08e22#liveblog-navigation
    That really is funny. I thought he was supposed to be intelligent.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Get Bercow to bar him for absenteeism? Green provoked a lot of comments on the lines of yebbut my employer would discipline me for looking at porn in office hours, and just not being there for 6 months on end is also not within the spirit or letter of the usual contract of employment.

    MPs do not have and should not have a "usual contract of employment". It is not for Bercow or anyone else to second-guess the reasons why the voters of a particular constituency voted for a particular candidate.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 441



    I understand that ‘average’ time between stops on the Underground is 2 minutes, plus a minute in the station. Enables one to estimate one’s journey time surprisingly accurately.

    For journeys wholly within Zone 1 (ie the majority of tube journeys) that is a significant over-estimate. Your rule applies better to journeys to/from outer London.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490
    edited January 16

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Carillion paid dividends didnt they
    Not since 2015: https://www.dividendmax.com/united-kingdom/london-stock-exchange/support-services/carillion/dividends

    Actually that is not correct. The site is confusing. Last dividend March 2017.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,548

    brendan16 said:

    Perfect example of why we need recall for MP's.

    We do have a recall system - it's called a general election every 5 years.

    Recall systems could be used to remove O Mara but could equally be used to remove MPs acting on personal principle on an issue which a sizeable section of their electorate disapprove of.
    And the problem with that is?
    The problem with that is that orthodoxies become almost impossible to challenge.
    No they don't. They just require the MP concerned to persuade his electorate of the value of his or her views.
    Oh, come on. That sort of campaign is practically impossible. You know full well that niche issues are by definition of interest to only a relatively small number but that those who are engaged can hold strong opinions on either side. Besides, even if an MP did persuade his or her constituency of the benefits of one particular policy, the opponents could still act as the focus for a recall campaign which might then be carried through on a party's national unpopularity, local issues notwithstanding.
    No one has suggested that an MP should be recalled for any and every niche view they might hold. You are using the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum. But the argument is whether or not an MP who is clearly failing to represent their constituents either through neglect or design should simply be allowed to get away with it with no recourse from the voters until the next election. If you believe that should be the case then you have a very poor view of democracy.
    The problem with that Richard is that it encourages MPs to just make the easy, populist, short-term decisions and never take the necessary, long-term but awkward ones.

    Conservative governments in particular get castigated for every cut they make but at the end of the five years stand again on an overall record and get judged for if they're competent or not. If there's a too-easy recall system then any unpopular cuts can be an issue immediately rather than being judged as part of an overall package.

    That is not good for sensible long-term thinking or for MPs who stand up for what they actually believe in.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,234

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Carillion paid dividends didnt they
    They did, and that was, latterly, unwise. But 18p per share p.a. isn't much comfort for shareholders when the stock has gone from 350p three years ago to 200p six months ago, to nothing today.

    Think it through for a moment. The company has been providing goods and services to us taxpayers. The government has been paying for them. There has been a loss. That is, the costs of providing those goods and services were higher than the revenues received for having provided them. We taxpayers have been paying less than the value of what we’ve been paying for – that’s a profit to us.

    https://capx.co/carillions-losses-were-the-taxpayers-gains/
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 26,039
    edited January 16
    Fake Polls.....Sugging.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,355
    Serco's accounts don't look particularly healthy to me. They must be waiting for a 'good year' before they perform the classic Goodwill impairment balance sheet exercise is done ;)
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,568

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Ah, but to where have those profits gone?
    Remember Carillion’s former chief executive is still currently entitled to a £660,000 salary, apparently.
    I’ve not actually seen whether it’s stated that he’s been paid January’s instalment yet, although presumably Decembers has gone through. Which is more than can be said for bills of smaller suppliers and sub-contactors.
    Carillion was "profitable" in the sense that RBS was "profitable"

    I am pretty sure that we are still paying (Sir) Fred's enormous pension. I am pretty sure that we will still be paying Carillon's management their huge pensions.

    Whoever is in power in the UK -- Labour or Tory -- serious fraudsters never seem to end up in prison.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 503
    edited January 16
    "No one has suggested that an MP should be recalled for any and every niche view they might hold. You are using the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum. But the argument is whether or not an MP who is clearly failing to represent their constituents either through neglect or design should simply be allowed to get away with it with no recourse from the voters until the next election. If you believe that should be the case then you have a very poor view of democracy."

    Local councils have a system whereby you are forced to stand down if you don't attend meetings and vote for six months. That would address the issue of non attendance and lack of representation re O Mara - with exemptions for those who have severe illnesses.

    You say no MP would be recalled on a matter of principle - where their views differed from a vocal minority of electors. But they could be. And that is the problem! And recall elections with lower turnouts than a general election could be driven by a vocal minority.

    My view of democracy is voters have a vote - and the people they elect should be given time to do what they were sent to do and see the results through. I don't agree with holding elections and referendums every five minutes because of changes in opinion polls or because you are unhappy with your local MP at one moment in time. That is the road to short termism - you get MPs who will always do what is popular at the time and never do what is right.

    We need more signposts and fewer weathercocks. Recall systems would risk more of the latter - why take an unpopular stand against the prevailing mood? Not worth the risk.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,287

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Carillion paid dividends didnt they
    They did, and that was, latterly, unwise. But 18p per share p.a. isn't much comfort for shareholders when the stock has gone from 350p three years ago to 200p six months ago, to nothing today.

    Think it through for a moment. The company has been providing goods and services to us taxpayers. The government has been paying for them. There has been a loss. That is, the costs of providing those goods and services were higher than the revenues received for having provided them. We taxpayers have been paying less than the value of what we’ve been paying for – that’s a profit to us.

    https://capx.co/carillions-losses-were-the-taxpayers-gains/
    What about the costs of debt though? usually lower for state to borrow than corporates
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322
    DavidL said:

    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:



    He was castigated and outcast by the political parties and their leaderships. His views had significant and widespread support amongst the public themselves. This is exactly the problem. To succeed as an MP these days the people you need to keep happy are the parties not the electorate.
    Actually voters were pretty content with the appeasement policies at the time - although perhaps Churchill's Essex constituents in Epping might have felt differently. They may have changed their views by 1940 - but in 1935 appeasement and disarmament was mainstream and Churchill was the warmongering extremist.

    Me thinks you have been watching the tube scene in the Darkest hour. I know the district line is slow - but more than 10 minutes to go one stop?!

    Recalls could be used to remove bad MPs but also principled ones who held unpopular positions which later were proved to be right. We need more long term thinking and planning - not more short termism where politicians do the popular thing not the right thng.
    This was one of the fallacies of Darkest Hour. In fact the UK was rearming in a serious way from 1936 onwards. The key aspect of this was in the air.

    "The Air Ministry memorandum of February 1936 reflected a real change of policy. In the words of this document, the Air Ministry had ‘pressed on with the development and production of new types‘ and was now able to formulate ‘a much more effective programme‘ which it hoped could be realised by 1939. Moreover, what was now to be expanded was not the political or the propaganda effect of the Air Force but its real combat power.

    The new programme, henceforth to be known as Expansion Scheme F, was sanctioned by the Cabinet in February 1936 and was to remain in force for two years. It marked a complete departure from the purely demonstrative principles of the previous Scheme A and introduced the first real measure of expansion. Under its provisions the Air Force was to acquire more than 8,000 new aircraft over three years compared with the 3,800 over two years under the preceding programme."
    http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/from-peace-to-war-royal-air-force-rearmament-programme-1934-1940.html/3

    Put bluntly, if we had fought the Battle of Britain at the time of Munich we would have lost. And this occurred under Chamberlain.
    One of the ironies of Chuchill's call for rearmament is that had the government of the day listened, Britain would have been lumbered with thousands of obsolete aircraft. The UK was fortunate that the expansion orders came at exactly the right time for the right number of new design aircraft to be in place for the Summer of 1940. By contrast, France's planes were still in the factories, IIRC.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,190
    HHemmelig said:



    I understand that ‘average’ time between stops on the Underground is 2 minutes, plus a minute in the station. Enables one to estimate one’s journey time surprisingly accurately.

    For journeys wholly within Zone 1 (ie the majority of tube journeys) that is a significant over-estimate. Your rule applies better to journeys to/from outer London.
    TBH I think it’s often difficult to manage a one minute stop in inner London, which balances thing aout a bit. Must admit though that since realising that London Transport would accept my Essex bus pass 15 or so years ago I’ve rarely used the Tube, and I don’t go to London all that often, either.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490

    DavidL said:

    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:



    Actually voters were pretty content with the appeasement policies at the time - although perhaps Churchill's Essex constituents in Epping might have felt differently. They may have changed their views by 1940 - but in 1935 appeasement and disarmament was mainstream and Churchill was the warmongering extremist.

    Me thinks you have been watching the tube scene in the Darkest hour. I know the district line is slow - but more than 10 minutes to go one stop?!

    Recalls could be used to remove bad MPs but also principled ones who held unpopular positions which later were proved to be right. We need more long term thinking and planning - not more short termism where politicians do the popular thing not the right thng.
    This was one of the fallacies of Darkest Hour. In fact the UK was rearming in a serious way from 1936 onwards. The key aspect of this was in the air.

    "The Air Ministry memorandum of February 1936 reflected a real change of policy. In the words of this document, the Air Ministry had ‘pressed on with the development and production of new types‘ and was now able to formulate ‘a much more effective programme‘ which it hoped could be realised by 1939. Moreover, what was now to be expanded was not the political or the propaganda effect of the Air Force but its real combat power.

    The new programme, henceforth to be known as Expansion Scheme F, was sanctioned by the Cabinet in February 1936 and was to remain in force for two years. It marked a complete departure from the purely demonstrative principles of the previous Scheme A and introduced the first real measure of expansion. Under its provisions the Air Force was to acquire more than 8,000 new aircraft over three years compared with the 3,800 over two years under the preceding programme."
    http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/from-peace-to-war-royal-air-force-rearmament-programme-1934-1940.html/3

    Put bluntly, if we had fought the Battle of Britain at the time of Munich we would have lost. And this occurred under Chamberlain.
    One of the ironies of Chuchill's call for rearmament is that had the government of the day listened, Britain would have been lumbered with thousands of obsolete aircraft. The UK was fortunate that the expansion orders came at exactly the right time for the right number of new design aircraft to be in place for the Summer of 1940. By contrast, France's planes were still in the factories, IIRC.
    True. The development of our tanks was rather less effective.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,636
    Pulpstar said:

    Serco's accounts don't look particularly healthy to me. They must be waiting for a 'good year' before they perform the classic Goodwill impairment balance sheet exercise is done ;)

    They've already done that, and they are recovering quite well now.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,355

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Carillion paid dividends didnt they
    They did, and that was, latterly, unwise. But 18p per share p.a. isn't much comfort for shareholders when the stock has gone from 350p three years ago to 200p six months ago, to nothing today.

    Think it through for a moment. The company has been providing goods and services to us taxpayers. The government has been paying for them. There has been a loss. That is, the costs of providing those goods and services were higher than the revenues received for having provided them. We taxpayers have been paying less than the value of what we’ve been paying for – that’s a profit to us.

    https://capx.co/carillions-losses-were-the-taxpayers-gains/
    You'll need to add in Directors' salaries, bonuses, dividend payments the cost of filling the pension hole, costs to the official receiver, marginal cost of the Gov't/other cos taking over the existing contracts and the net negative economic effect to their suppliers in addition to their losses mind (Amongst other costs).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Carillion paid dividends didnt they
    They did, and that was, latterly, unwise. But 18p per share p.a. isn't much comfort for shareholders when the stock has gone from 350p three years ago to 200p six months ago, to nothing today.

    Think it through for a moment. The company has been providing goods and services to us taxpayers. The government has been paying for them. There has been a loss. That is, the costs of providing those goods and services were higher than the revenues received for having provided them. We taxpayers have been paying less than the value of what we’ve been paying for – that’s a profit to us.

    https://capx.co/carillions-losses-were-the-taxpayers-gains/
    Whilst that is true the reality with Carillion is that they were taking taxpayers money to provide the services, subcontracting the delivery of those services and then not paying their subcontractors. It really isn't obvious what they were bringing to the party at all other than the fact that governments and public bodies like to deal with big parties because they are, you know, safe. I think this is something we are going to have to look at quite carefully going forward. Intermediaries like this are parasitical.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,392
    This is kind-of weird. I mean, civic duty aside, you'd think if you were interested in politics and you got elected as an MP you'd want to spend some time in the House of Commons, if only for your own entertainment.

    I hope he's OK - obviously political opponents are within their rights to run on this but don't forget there's an actual human in the middle of it.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 1,849
    Quite rightly,my MP took several months off as maternity leave.During that period,support and office staff were increased to keep things functioning,councillors stepped in and any tricky stuff went to a neighbouring MP.I know another one who wasn't seen for several months whilst under the spell of a serious mental illness,the same applies.
    Labour needs to do the same in Sheffield Hallam to show it takes its MP's duties seriously.
    As for Jared,he needs support and understanding so he can end this living nightmare for him and he can get back to his DJ work and getting pissed every Thursday.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,246
    edited January 16
    DavidL said:

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Carillion paid dividends didnt they
    They did, and that was, latterly, unwise. But 18p per share p.a. isn't much comfort for shareholders when the stock has gone from 350p three years ago to 200p six months ago, to nothing today.

    Think it through for a moment. The company has been providing goods and services to us taxpayers. The government has been paying for them. There has been a loss. That is, the costs of providing those goods and services were higher than the revenues received for having provided them. We taxpayers have been paying less than the value of what we’ve been paying for – that’s a profit to us.

    https://capx.co/carillions-losses-were-the-taxpayers-gains/
    Whilst that is true the reality with Carillion is that they were taking taxpayers money to provide the services, subcontracting the delivery of those services and then not paying their subcontractors. It really isn't obvious what they were bringing to the party at all other than the fact that governments and public bodies like to deal with big parties because they are, you know, safe. I think this is something we are going to have to look at quite carefully going forward. Intermediaries like this are parasitical.
    Good morning all.

    When I delivered consultancy to SG, I had to sub to Logica as there was no methodology or process for the civil service to hire me as a one man band. On the other hand, they very decently insisted that Logica pay my invoices within 14 days and held them to it.

    Taking the point about perceived safety, I'd add that it is the reduced governance and management costs which are attractive to public sector bodies, though this may very well be a local optimisation that doesn't encompass some of the externalities of having a supplier base comprising large, unwieldy, low-margin businesses.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Ah, but to where have those profits gone?
    Remember Carillion’s former chief executive is still currently entitled to a £660,000 salary, apparently.
    I’ve not actually seen whether it’s stated that he’s been paid January’s instalment yet, although presumably Decembers has gone through. Which is more than can be said for bills of smaller suppliers and sub-contactors.
    Carillion was "profitable" in the sense that RBS was "profitable"

    I am pretty sure that we are still paying (Sir) Fred's enormous pension. I am pretty sure that we will still be paying Carillon's management their huge pensions.

    Whoever is in power in the UK -- Labour or Tory -- serious fraudsters never seem to end up in prison.
    It ought to be the case that where any company goes bust, there should be a ceiling on what any employee can receive in future payments, including pensions. Beyond that protection, her or her entitlement should be settled alongside other creditors.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,636

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Ah, but to where have those profits gone?
    Remember Carillion’s former chief executive is still currently entitled to a £660,000 salary, apparently.
    I’ve not actually seen whether it’s stated that he’s been paid January’s instalment yet, although presumably Decembers has gone through. Which is more than can be said for bills of smaller suppliers and sub-contactors.
    Carillion was "profitable" in the sense that RBS was "profitable"

    I am pretty sure that we are still paying (Sir) Fred's enormous pension. I am pretty sure that we will still be paying Carillon's management their huge pensions.

    Whoever is in power in the UK -- Labour or Tory -- serious fraudsters never seem to end up in prison.
    It ought to be the case that where any company goes bust, there should be a ceiling on what any employee can receive in future payments, including pensions. Beyond that protection, her or her entitlement should be settled alongside other creditors.
    Hang on, the pension fund is a separate trust, not an asset of the company. Are you suggesting that money should be confiscated from the pension fund for the benefit of creditors (usually in practice HMRC and the banks, who have a charge on the assets?)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,838
    edited January 16
    DavidL said:


    This was one of the fallacies of Darkest Hour. In fact the UK was rearming in a serious way from 1936 onwards. The key aspect of this was in the air.

    "The Air Ministry memorandum of February 1936 reflected a real change of policy. In the words of this document, the Air Ministry had ‘pressed on with the development and production of new types‘ and was now able to formulate ‘a much more effective programme‘ which it hoped could be realised by 1939. Moreover, what was now to be expanded was not the political or the propaganda effect of the Air Force but its real combat power.

    The new programme, henceforth to be known as Expansion Scheme F, was sanctioned by the Cabinet in February 1936 and was to remain in force for two years. It marked a complete departure from the purely demonstrative principles of the previous Scheme A and introduced the first real measure of expansion. Under its provisions the Air Force was to acquire more than 8,000 new aircraft over three years compared with the 3,800 over two years under the preceding programme."
    http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/from-peace-to-war-royal-air-force-rearmament-programme-1934-1940.html/3

    Put bluntly, if we had fought the Battle of Britain at the time of Munich we would have lost. And this occurred under Chamberlain.

    Dunno about that. The Luftwaffe bomber force was superior, but the early variant BF 109's were slower than Hurricanes and Spitfires though much more numerous. German tank forces were markedly inferior to those of the French. There may not have been a Fall of France to lead to a Battle of Britain, but it'd have been a bit nip & tuck either way.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,355


    It ought to be the case that where any company goes bust, there should be a ceiling on what any employee can receive in future payments, including pensions. Beyond that protection, her or her entitlement should be settled alongside other creditors.

    No, the pension should be completely outside the company. Everyone in both the private and public sector should be on defined contribution. Yesterday.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,234
    Pulpstar said:

    You'll need to add in Directors' salaries, bonuses, dividend payments the cost of filling the pension hole, costs to the official receiver, marginal cost of the Gov't/other cos taking over the existing contracts and the net negative economic effect to their suppliers in addition to their losses mind (Amongst other costs).

    Yes, it's not as simple as that paragraph suggests - though plenty of those costs exist either way. Pension holes are not specifically an outsourcing issue though as purely private companies like BHS have shown.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,541

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Ah, but to where have those profits gone?
    Remember Carillion’s former chief executive is still currently entitled to a £660,000 salary, apparently.
    I’ve not actually seen whether it’s stated that he’s been paid January’s instalment yet, although presumably Decembers has gone through. Which is more than can be said for bills of smaller suppliers and sub-contactors.
    Carillion was "profitable" in the sense that RBS was "profitable"

    I am pretty sure that we are still paying (Sir) Fred's enormous pension. I am pretty sure that we will still be paying Carillon's management their huge pensions.

    Whoever is in power in the UK -- Labour or Tory -- serious fraudsters never seem to end up in prison.
    It ought to be the case that where any company goes bust, there should be a ceiling on what any employee can receive in future payments, including pensions. Beyond that protection, her or her entitlement should be settled alongside other creditors.
    I can't comment on the specifics of Carillion but I can note that the Pension Protection Fund caps payments to those below retirement age.

    http://www.pensionprotectionfund.org.uk/Pages/Compensation.aspx
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 757

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Carillion paid dividends didnt they
    They did, and that was, latterly, unwise. But 18p per share p.a. isn't much comfort for shareholders when the stock has gone from 350p three years ago to 200p six months ago, to nothing today.

    Think it through for a moment. The company has been providing goods and services to us taxpayers. The government has been paying for them. There has been a loss. That is, the costs of providing those goods and services were higher than the revenues received for having provided them. We taxpayers have been paying less than the value of what we’ve been paying for – that’s a profit to us.

    https://capx.co/carillions-losses-were-the-taxpayers-gains/
    Exactly right. The Government is now going to have to pay more for these services. Carillion were doing them too cheap
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,706

    This is kind-of weird. I mean, civic duty aside, you'd think if you were interested in politics and you got elected as an MP you'd want to spend some time in the House of Commons, if only for your own entertainment.

    I hope he's OK - obviously political opponents are within their rights to run on this but don't forget there's an actual human in the middle of it.

    Yes , I hope he is to .We do not want a repeat of what happened to a Welsh MSP.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Ah, but to where have those profits gone?
    Remember Carillion’s former chief executive is still currently entitled to a £660,000 salary, apparently.
    I’ve not actually seen whether it’s stated that he’s been paid January’s instalment yet, although presumably Decembers has gone through. Which is more than can be said for bills of smaller suppliers and sub-contactors.
    Carillion was "profitable" in the sense that RBS was "profitable"

    I am pretty sure that we are still paying (Sir) Fred's enormous pension. I am pretty sure that we will still be paying Carillon's management their huge pensions.

    Whoever is in power in the UK -- Labour or Tory -- serious fraudsters never seem to end up in prison.
    It ought to be the case that where any company goes bust, there should be a ceiling on what any employee can receive in future payments, including pensions. Beyond that protection, her or her entitlement should be settled alongside other creditors.
    I can't comment on the specifics of Carillion but I can note that the Pension Protection Fund caps payments to those below retirement age.

    http://www.pensionprotectionfund.org.uk/Pages/Compensation.aspx
    Good. Thanks.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Ah, but to where have those profits gone?
    Remember Carillion’s former chief executive is still currently entitled to a £660,000 salary, apparently.
    I’ve not actually seen whether it’s stated that he’s been paid January’s instalment yet, although presumably Decembers has gone through. Which is more than can be said for bills of smaller suppliers and sub-contactors.
    Carillion was "profitable" in the sense that RBS was "profitable"

    I am pretty sure that we are still paying (Sir) Fred's enormous pension. I am pretty sure that we will still be paying Carillon's management their huge pensions.

    Whoever is in power in the UK -- Labour or Tory -- serious fraudsters never seem to end up in prison.
    It ought to be the case that where any company goes bust, there should be a ceiling on what any employee can receive in future payments, including pensions. Beyond that protection, her or her entitlement should be settled alongside other creditors.
    Hang on, the pension fund is a separate trust, not an asset of the company. Are you suggesting that money should be confiscated from the pension fund for the benefit of creditors (usually in practice HMRC and the banks, who have a charge on the assets?)
    In the case of highly-paid staff, yes.
This discussion has been closed.