It's all gone quiet after it emerged Leeds CC were about to offer them a multi million pound contract just last week or at least I've refused to listen to 'Today in Parliament' to hear the hypocritical attacks over the choice of supplier since.

It brings some perspective to the Labour backlash, which appeared hours after liquidation was announced, in the form if ill informed rants about 'privatising the profits and socialising the losses' and government connections within the firm.

So he jumped...(?)

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Legislation was brought in in 1996 for this. I think you have 5 days to say you will dispute payments or 28 days to pay.

Everyone thought this was a great idea and it worked well until the recession started. Then reality kicked in.

- If the main company has no money, everyone further down the food chain won't get paid... Carillon were owed £800m from the middle east.
- All companies in the market where in a vulnerable position so if the government didn't award contracts to any of these companies they wouldn't have got anything done.

30 days generally works okay, even if you don't actually get paid within 30 days. They assume 30 days from the end of the month.

The construction industry is rather strange in that it's one of the few sectors that you (pretty much) have to give a client credit even if you've never heard of/worked from them before. Can you imagine a garage fixing your car and then letting you pay them a month later?

All companies that have policies of over 30 days are w***ers. And almost all the large players do.

Optimistic as ever

New Labour were indeed a significant force for ill when it came to PFI/PPP and while the national party is more reflective of the current membership and the opinion of the electorate on this issue, many Labour run councils are still wedded to the old New Labour dogmas on this. Just look at Haringey council's attitude towards provision of housing and public realm. This won't last for much longer as the membership will eventually be given the chance to vote in more representative council candidates and the wider electorate the chance to vote them into office.

The model is clearly one where the public sector risk is excessive given the balance of risks and rewards for these contracts. Just look at rail provision. When Virgin are about to make a loss they get a bailout from Grayling which costs the taxpayer up to £2bn and Branson makes a sweet sweet profit. The service meanwhile is less good than it was when the public sector took back the contract from National Express 10 years ago when it failed, and certainly much worse value for money.

The NAO has come out and said the risks are unfairly skewed and these contracts are not good value for money.

Just listen to Andrew Adonis. He was previously pro-PFI, but given his experience in government and as an advisor to government he's changed his mind comprehensively. Corbyn is right when he says it's a racket. One of the most recent appointments to Mitie's board for instance was a Tory peer.

That was for the public sector buyer to pay their bills to the likes of Carillion, not to force Carillion to pay their subbies within the same terms.

Optimistic as ever