Bloody good question

Meanwhile, as I sit in the sunshine after breakfast, I wonder why G4S\’s chairman should have to worry about losing £1 billion per year of government contracts over his company\’s Olympic cock-up, while governments which always cock everything up, and rarely on such a small scale, never lose their contract with the taxpayer.

22 thoughts on “Bloody good question”

  1. As Bernie says, the contract with the government is up for re-negotiation every 5 years.

  2. I think Tim might need a holiday.

    Yesterday he seemed surprised that companies might need educated and healthy employees and be prepared to pay taxes for to contribute to providing this.

    Today he seems unaware that we have general elections on a regular basis.

    And governments “always” cock “everything” up ?

  3. Perhaps because G4S landed the Olympics in the cart so close to the opening that they could n’t recover the situation at a time when the Government had loudly trumpeted that the private secor would rescue the whole economy. They are eviscerating the public sector, the Army included, but being forced to rely on them in a fix entirely of their own making. Don’t worry: this lot’s on the way out.

  4. And governments “always” cock “everything” up ?

    I’m assuming that he was speaking to the first approximation.

  5. This might be tin foil hat time, but this G4S thing just doesn’t seem right.

    I know they are a big organisation but they have some pretty astute commercial people, otherwise they wouldn’t be (have been) making so much money and grown to the size they are. Anyone thinking a little bit about the challenges of this contract must have realised it was extremely high risk for such a low margin.What’s more you don’t even know if you have a chance of delivery until the very last minute.

    So what I want to know is why did they take it on? Maybe some salesman slipped it through and scarpered, but I’ll bet G4S has better controls that that.

    I wonder if nobody wanted this bit of the contract and they were leaned on to take the contract in the first place? There must be a reason why everyone in LOCOG and the Government , including Jeremy Hunt this morning, defending G4S. G4S would be a very easy target for Ministers so why defend them?

    Or maybe I’m thinking too deeply and should take off my tin foil hat and apply Occam’s razor?

  6. @SimonF

    I would have thought that the simplest Occam’s razor is that the politicians will be relying on companies very similar to G4S for their future positions once they have the present portion of their career trajectory behind them.

    Planning, careerism and the British amakudari.

  7. Perhaps G4S were planning to use workfare dogsbodies and got cold feet.?

    Oh btw, getting a 404 message off that link

  8. The expected leftist crap

    Shinsei–Govt health care and education cost billions and are shite. 10% and more go through a decade+ of expensive state “education” and leave without being even able to read or write. Health care is a shoddy, expensive mess that leaves old people to starve to death. Oh yes–they are under-resourced. The thieving scum of the state only steal half the national income and then use that as collateral to take out loans so big that our grandchildrens children will still be paying them back. And print up cash for their own first use that jacks up prices for the rest of us. Desperately short of money. they are

    As for General Elections–well what a rich choice of leftist scum we have there eh?. Tweedledumb er was replaced by Tweedledumb last time but it rolls on like a nasty soap opera. Fat hag Home secretary with delusions and light fingers is replaced by a fat hag who wears leopard print high-heels and postures as if she is a model under the extreme delusion that she is an attractive woman. Both hags however, display an equally extreme commitment to extinguishing our remaining freedoms. You can stuff General Elections.

    DBC Read–In case you have forgotten this Olympic bollocks was the brainchild of ZaNuLab under Bliar and another female of dodgy financial acumen–Teresa Jowell. She falsely and deceitfully claimed that the fucking mess would cost us 2.75 billion. With the usual skill of the state it has already cost near 15 billion and I would not be suprised if the final figure will be 25 billion as predicted by many anti-state blogs back in 2006.
    As for G4S, well BluLabour are just as much supporters of corporate socialism as were Nulabour before them. Most of todays big “businessmen” are no longer entrepreneurs but are political hangers-on, schmoosing political scum for law-given advantages or for direct pay-offs in govt contracts. The whole sporting farce should not be happening at a time when the state only survives by borrowing . It is highly unlikely that “eviscerated” or not the state would have been able to cope without creating an even worse mess than the disaster in the making that now exists.
    As for this lot being on their way out–maybe. But if you are stupid enough to think that that the shower of shite that is NuNuLabour will even be any different, let alone any better, then you are a product of the states system indeed.

  9. SimonF, it’s a vanity project for G4$. It doesn’t matter if they lose money, it raises the profile of the company and the top people can hob nob with famous people.

    On the subject of elections, yes we do vote every few years, but Tory or Labour, there’s not much difference – both lots are pretty much the same in cockups.

  10. And of course one John Reid, who was Home Secretary at the time that the Olympics bid was successful, took up a post with G4S as Group Consultant in December 2008. He’s still there.

  11. Elections allow us to sack the government? People’s critical thinking skills seem particularly bad today. I’ve always voted against Chris Grayling and somehow he manages to get in anyway. And that’s before you take into account the fact that we have a Civil Service.

  12. Ecks,

    Yep, originally going to cost a few billion and now tens of billions. And they still say that they came in under budget. Liars all of them.

    I like your NuLabour/BluLabour to show there is no difference between the two.

  13. Seriously guys, your pal “Mr” Ecks uses more abusive, more nosensical, more ignorance than anything I have ever been bothered to sour my soul with.

    Your absolute bias means you cannot be qualified in any debate. Basically, you are stupid.

    Though not as stupid a “Mr” Ecks, because “he”‘s vomited such nonsense I’m surprised it’s not self-conscious.

    Words fail you.

  14. I haven’t been following this, but my understanding is that G4S was being paid £284? million to provide 10,400 security guards for the olympics and paralympics. That’s over £27k for each guard. The two games together last for about six weeks, and the guards are being paid about £8.50 an hour., which would come to £2550 for six 50-hour weeks.

    The obvious answer to the question of why G4S would take on a high-risk contract for a low margin is that the margin was not low.

  15. PaulB: obvious but wrong. It’s clear from their statements to shareholders about the fiasco (which are regulated, so almost certainly not lies) that the contract was indeed low margin.

    In general, for contracts that involve complex organisation of low-paid workers, multiplying up the wages of the low-paid workers is a deeply pointless way of trying to estimate the margin.

  16. johnb: they’ve estimated a loss on the contract of £35-50m, but that would be relative to the accounting which justified the price in the first place.

    However, I’ve noted that an administrative overhead of about 1000% is considered normal. I may mention it next time someone complains about expensive public sector management.

  17. And as for your soured soul–contemplate the millions murdered by socialist scum and worry about your soul then.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *