This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
jeeagles 19 Jan 18 6.22pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stuk
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. It's all under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. It applies to all construction contracts including the private sector. It's just never enforced as if a subby was to go round demanding such compliance from all its clients they would soon find themselves without any work. Most politicians, particularly the idiots at momentum always bang on about how we need a new law for this, that and the other. Half the time they don't realise we already have one. But then I suppose it keeps them busy.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 19 Jan 18 6.34pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jeeagles
It's all under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. It applies to all construction contracts including the private sector. It's just never enforced as if a subby was to go round demanding such compliance from all its clients they would soon find themselves without any work. Most politicians, particularly the idiots at momentum always bang on about how we need a new law for this, that and the other. Half the time they don't realise we already have one. But then I suppose it keeps them busy. I think what they want is better reporting on payment times and banning firms who pay suppliers late, particularly small subcontractors, from being awarded public contracts.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jeeagles 19 Jan 18 6.53pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
I think what they want is better reporting on payment times and banning firms who pay suppliers late, particularly small subcontractors, from being awarded public contracts. To do that firms would have to open their books. They'll never do that. Prompt payments would cost clients more as it's built into payment mechanism. You can affectively have a 0% profit margin on a job any get paid through the interest in holding money. This is a benefit to clients and you don't here the public sector complaining. Subcontractors generally know that there will be a delay in payment and should plan for it. I'm not saying it's right to delay paymens, it's just a fact that it happens. Generally, as firms get smaller they get worse at putting in payment applications too. And again, all firms are doing it. So if you want a job done, you pretty much have to accept it.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 20 Jan 18 11.27am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
I think what they want is better reporting on payment times and banning firms who pay suppliers late, particularly small subcontractors, from being awarded public contracts. Hear hear. The government is in a position to demand that companies bidding for public money must adhere to a certain code. This sector needs to be cleaned up, the cowboys can either reform or go to the wall. Accountability is one of the many issues there are so many sub contractors in the chain. Government should be encouraging the responsible companies and barring the bad ones. if they don't want to open up their books to the government auditors that's fine they don't get to bid on public contracts. One final thought. We need apprentices in this country desperately. The big boys sub out everything thus avoiding the need to train up. Any new code of conduct should include an apprenticeship requirement. They will complain like made but eventually will come round to it and if managed properly they will see the benefits like Germany in having a stable well trained workforce. Now this may cost the taxpayer more in the short term but if we get proper well managed bids executed on time the taxpayer will be better off in the long run. Edited by Badger11 (20 Jan 2018 11.35am)
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
matt_himself Matataland 21 Jan 18 11.08am | |
---|---|
I read today that of the 700 PFI deals signed since 1990, 75% were signed off by Gordon Brown.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 Jan 18 10.26am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jeeagles
To do that firms would have to open their books. They'll never do that. Prompt payments would cost clients more as it's built into payment mechanism. You can affectively have a 0% profit margin on a job any get paid through the interest in holding money. This is a benefit to clients and you don't here the public sector complaining. Subcontractors generally know that there will be a delay in payment and should plan for it. I'm not saying it's right to delay paymens, it's just a fact that it happens. Generally, as firms get smaller they get worse at putting in payment applications too. And again, all firms are doing it. So if you want a job done, you pretty much have to accept it. If they want to win contracts they will... It could easily be a condition that they would have to report such matters in their audited financial statements. You could have a complaints procedure for suppliers which would quickly inform the regulator about poor payers. Also most business accounts pay zero interest and even cost money. So holding onto cash doesn't earn much.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 Jan 18 10.29am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by matt_himself
I read today that of the 700 PFI deals signed since 1990, 75% were signed off by Gordon Brown. Theresa said in PMQs last week it was one third of "such contracts". Either way I don't think you can hold Corbyn to account over things New Labour did. I agree that Brown's addiction to PFI was bad for the tax payer and has created problems, but the current government like them and have carried on with them at a pace. When Osborne made headlines about PFI fish and chips in the Treasury canteen he was merely scoring political points and in fact history shows him to be a hypocrite and shyster.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
matt_himself Matataland 22 Jan 18 1.16pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Theresa said in PMQs last week it was one third of "such contracts". Either way I don't think you can hold Corbyn to account over things New Labour did. I agree that Brown's addiction to PFI was bad for the tax payer and has created problems, but the current government like them and have carried on with them at a pace. When Osborne made headlines about PFI fish and chips in the Treasury canteen he was merely scoring political points and in fact history shows him to be a hypocrite and shyster. Ah! Ignore Labours legacy and have a pop at Osbourne. What wonderful skills of deflection. So, McDonnell is going to ‘rip up’ PFI contracts: How will that be paid for and how will the resulting legal quagmire be settled?
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 Jan 18 1.39pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Ah! Ignore Labours legacy and have a pop at Osbourne. What wonderful skills of deflection. So, McDonnell is going to ‘rip up’ PFI contracts: How will that be paid for and how will the resulting legal quagmire be settled? Labour's legacy is pretty irrelevant given New Labour is now dead. That legacy now lives on, was worsened by Osborne and as recently as a few weeks ago Grayling was bailing out one poorly performing rail operating franchise at a cost to the tax payer, and giving contracts out left right and centre to Carillion et al. I think you take him too literally. They will clearly operate within the law and abide by the terms of the contracts. If bad deals can be taken back with little or no penalty they will be. If not then the won't be renewed. No contract will be in perpetuity or without means to take them back at some point without any legal issue. In terms of the cost I take it you think the private operators run these services for free? I can assure you that the taxpayer is already paying for them and they are not value for money as pointed out by the NAO. Taking them back in house post expiry will SAVE the cost of the tender process and negate the need to compensate unsuccessful bidders - that's right the public pay companies who bid but don't actually end up getting the contract. Total waste of money.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 Jan 18 1.42pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Ah! Ignore Labours legacy and have a pop at Osbourne. What wonderful skills of deflection. So, McDonnell is going to ‘rip up’ PFI contracts: How will that be paid for and how will the resulting legal quagmire be settled? Also I didn't ignore it I said it was "bad for the tax payer and has created problems". I then pointed out that Osborne claimed there were all these terrible PFI deals based on a fish supper he had and then proceeded to carry on giving massive PFI deals out to Carillion and the like. He did nothing to improve the PFI racket and in fact just ended up doing more of the same. Cronyism and self-aggrandisement has always been more important to Osborne than sensible and fair public policy.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
matt_himself Matataland 23 Jan 18 5.43am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Labour's legacy is pretty irrelevant given New Labour is now dead. That legacy now lives on, was worsened by Osborne and as recently as a few weeks ago Grayling was bailing out one poorly performing rail operating franchise at a cost to the tax payer, and giving contracts out left right and centre to Carillion et al. I think you take him too literally. They will clearly operate within the law and abide by the terms of the contracts. If bad deals can be taken back with little or no penalty they will be. If not then the won't be renewed. No contract will be in perpetuity or without means to take them back at some point without any legal issue. In terms of the cost I take it you think the private operators run these services for free? I can assure you that the taxpayer is already paying for them and they are not value for money as pointed out by the NAO. Taking them back in house post expiry will SAVE the cost of the tender process and negate the need to compensate unsuccessful bidders - that's right the public pay companies who bid but don't actually end up getting the contract. Total waste of money. I think part of the reason Carillion collapsed was because the government had gotten very good at driving advantageous deals from the outsourcing companies. So good in fact that, yes, in many instances they were doing them for free. I don’t think that they were cashing in on taxpayers money, that fat profits existed from these contracts or that they were some avaricious leviathan spewing out huge profits. They were ground down by poor management, poor cash flow and taking on too many contracts that didn’t pay enough. There is plenty of evidence on the internet, from publications of all political hues, to support this.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 23 Jan 18 8.46am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by matt_himself
I think part of the reason Carillion collapsed was because the government had gotten very good at driving advantageous deals from the outsourcing companies. So good in fact that, yes, in many instances they were doing them for free. I don’t think that they were cashing in on taxpayers money, that fat profits existed from these contracts or that they were some avaricious leviathan spewing out huge profits. They were ground down by poor management, poor cash flow and taking on too many contracts that didn’t pay enough. There is plenty of evidence on the internet, from publications of all political hues, to support this. Less than half of their revenue came from UK government, albeit UK government was their largest customer with close to half. The main problems were poor management of liquidity and their pension deficit. The company was profitable and increasing dividends year on year and paying large bonuses to execs. It was mismanagement and overreaching. They were still booking profits. It is arguable that the accounting wasn't fit for purpose, but their is little evidence that contracts from the UK government weren't profitable for Carillion. The deals with Carillion were still bad for the taxpayer and should never have been made in the first place.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.