Dang. I was going to ask you for your October stock market picks 😀
Quote from: tomtom on October 14, 2020, 05:25:51 pmDang. I was going to ask you for your October stock market picks 😀That’s Pete’s job! Buy Vit B3, Patio heaters and bog roll, sell popcorn and opera glasses.
Quote from: spidermonkey09 on October 14, 2020, 07:28:29 amQuote from: TobyD on October 13, 2020, 10:55:29 pmThe government needs to have the confidence to just say that some businesses and indeed industries will not survive a pandemic world. Travel is knackered, at least one more airline will go before Christmas I'd guess; I can't see theatres surviving and many if not all cinemas look like going the same way.That's the rhetoric of the fiscal Conservative, but it's tantamount to economic vandalism without funding in place to help these people. An extra 20 quid a week on universal credit is simply not going to cut it and is frankly insulting. What jobs are they supposed to go and get? Airily saying "they just won't survive" doesn't really suffice. 2/3 of minimum wage if you end up on the local furlough scheme is going to leave people going hungry. The government not supporting the arts and the numerous other industries affected is a political decision. There is no reason debt built up can't be treated as wartime debt and paid off over many years. Even some conservatives are beginning to argue this, but Sunak is a slave to fiscal conservatism in the face of all the evidence (see his recent conference speech). This might belong in the old "how to pay for the crisis" thread.National debt is never repaid, and likely never will. At present, the cost of borrowing is basically nil, that said...there's an argument for not even borrowing the required money, but just creating it. The usual downside of money creation is inflation, but in the current climate inflation is highly, highly unlikely. It really is the time for UBI to be properly explored. If peoples basic needs were covered, then businesses could effectively lie dormant until demand picked up. (as long as rates, rents, and interest payment were all frozen).
Quote from: TobyD on October 13, 2020, 10:55:29 pmThe government needs to have the confidence to just say that some businesses and indeed industries will not survive a pandemic world. Travel is knackered, at least one more airline will go before Christmas I'd guess; I can't see theatres surviving and many if not all cinemas look like going the same way.That's the rhetoric of the fiscal Conservative, but it's tantamount to economic vandalism without funding in place to help these people. An extra 20 quid a week on universal credit is simply not going to cut it and is frankly insulting. What jobs are they supposed to go and get? Airily saying "they just won't survive" doesn't really suffice. 2/3 of minimum wage if you end up on the local furlough scheme is going to leave people going hungry. The government not supporting the arts and the numerous other industries affected is a political decision. There is no reason debt built up can't be treated as wartime debt and paid off over many years. Even some conservatives are beginning to argue this, but Sunak is a slave to fiscal conservatism in the face of all the evidence (see his recent conference speech). This might belong in the old "how to pay for the crisis" thread.
The government needs to have the confidence to just say that some businesses and indeed industries will not survive a pandemic world. Travel is knackered, at least one more airline will go before Christmas I'd guess; I can't see theatres surviving and many if not all cinemas look like going the same way.
No idea about the other companies you mention, but Pestfix have been one of my suppliers for 3 or 4 years and I occasionally chat to their sales manager. I had an interesting conversation with them about the PPE contract.. sounded very much a case of small company done well due to their contacts in China.. no supporters of the government etc... i.e. a very different version to what you read on here or in the press. Suppose we'll see what facts emerge down the line.
Quote from: petejh on October 12, 2020, 11:29:57 amNo idea about the other companies you mention, but Pestfix have been one of my suppliers for 3 or 4 years and I occasionally chat to their sales manager. I had an interesting conversation with them about the PPE contract.. sounded very much a case of small company done well due to their contacts in China.. no supporters of the government etc... i.e. a very different version to what you read on here or in the press. Suppose we'll see what facts emerge down the line. https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1317017160779288576The contract values look consistently huge. The delivery looks 'less good'?
I see: 'small company wins various large contracts due to links with Chinese PPE suppliers'. Jo Maugham QC sees: 'small company = incompetent, therefore contracts must be corrupt'.I'm not clear what he's saying or what evidence he's putting forward? Other than conflating something about FFP1 sold to private clients, which provides no evidence of anything (and I actually wonder if he's seen 'type II' and - being a bellend - assumed they are FFP1 and unsuitable?), and making jibes about 'Pestfix not knowing anything about PPE'... which just make him look like a clueless idiot because he mustn't know anything about pest control - an activity that begins with donning pretty much the exact PPE used by heath workers dealing with covid. Bellend.Show me the evidence of corruption and incompetence, please, and I'll alter my view.
I didn’t see evidence Maugham accuses Pestfix of being frauds, or that he has some agenda beyond highlighting the lack of accountability around PPE contracts.
Those £346m of contracts awarded to a tiny entity with materially no assets and (on its own admission in now deleted crowdfunding text) no particular experience in PPE, which admits to supplying faulty PPE are not the only contracts it has received.
Pete asked whether the contract should've instead gone to Serco (tongue firmly in cheek I'm assuming). Perhaps if it had been tendered the alternatives (or even lack thereof) might be more obvious?
Another involves a pest control company in Sussex called PestFix, which has listed net assets of only £18,000. On April 13, again without public advertisement or competition, the government awarded PestFix a £32 million contract to supply surgical gowns. PestFix is not a manufacturer, but an intermediary (its founder calls it a public health supply business): its role was to order the gowns from China. But, perhaps because of its lack of assets, the government gave it a deposit worth 75% of the value of the contract. The government’s own rules state that prepayments should be made only “in extremely limited and exceptional circumstances”, and even then must be “capped at 25% of the value of the contract”.If the government had to provide the money upfront, why didn’t it order the gowns itself? And why, of all possible outsourcers, did it choose PestFix? In the two weeks before it awarded this contract, it was approached by 16,000 companies offering to supply protective equipment (PPE). Some of them had a long track record in manufacturing or supplying PPE, and had stocks that could be deployed immediately.Again, the government relies on the emergency defence to justify its decision. But it issued its initial guidance on preventing infection among health and care workers on January 10. On February 14, it published specific guidance on the use of PPE. So why did it wait until April 13 to strike its “emergency” deal with PestFix? Moreover, it appears to have set the company no deadline for the delivery of the gowns. Astonishingly, even today only half of them appear to have reached the UK, and all those are still sitting in a warehouse in Daventry. On the government’s own admission, “none of the isolation suits delivered so far has been supplied into the NHS”. So much for taking urgent action in response to the emergency.
I’m surprised the Govt have been this petty TBH - I think there is a risk they will appear mean and petty - at a time when (for the same value of a small no checks PPE contract) people genuinely will need support.
Now they’re not giving the 60m. Nothing extra (that Liverpool and Lancs have got) Clearly the messaging to other councils is play ball or lose out. But,
Then talks broke down over a 5m difference apparently.
My gut feeling is that Burnham has thrown a lot of people under the bus in a bid to score some political points (mayoral elections are next May).