bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
If my aunt had bollocks, the government awarding Carillon further contracts in 2016 and 2017 would have been enough to prevent them folding and would have saved thousands of jobs. And she'd have been my uncle. Things don't always go to plan.
However, I'm not one to advocate government intervention: In fact as an admirer of Thatcher, quite the opposite. I was merely reflecting that sometimes decisions are more complicated especially when thousands of jobs are at stake.
Corbyn's stance is typically hilarious however: We shouldn't have been handing government contracts to Carillion (which would probably have seen them go under sooner) and now they have gone under, we have not done or are not doing enough to keep them afloat. The man is of course a buffoon.
Still don't understand the fixation on the fact that Carillion would have gone under sooner - what does that matter? Last Sept or this Monday they were still badly managed and yes we agree Govt intervention ( from a free market thinking Govt ) is just wrong.
Jeremy Corbyn isn't on about keeping the entity Carillion afloat - he advocates support for those who work for them, SME's facing oblivion as they won't get paid and support of the contracts which need to keep day to day running going - i.e. putting school meals on tables and making sure prisons don't become mass riots etc. You assessment of Corbyn's stance is just incorrect as clearly someone advocating public ownership of public services would not also advocate Carillion as a business should be saved as is and keep on reqarding its senior team.