Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Realistbear

Spending Review Puts 50,000 Companies At Risk

Recommended Posts

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/spending-review-puts-50-000-companies-at-risk-warns-begbies-traynor-tele-f74379fbb216.html?x=0

Spending Review puts 50,000 companies at risk, warns Begbies Traynor
James Hurley, 10:02, Thursday 14 October 2010
More than 50,000 companies are at risk from the impending Government spending cuts due to be announced in next week's Comprehensive Spending Review, a report from an insolvency specialist has warned.
Begbies Traynor's latest quarterly 'Red Flag Alert' , which monitors the warning signs of company distress, found that 50,299 companies in the sectors most exposed to the public sector construction, IT, recruitment, advertising and business services experienced financial distress in the third quarter of this year.

To think that they thought there would not be a knock-on effect of culling government workers seems naieve in the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I work for one of 'em. OTOH we're providing a good value service, so if we go to the wall that would imply a bloodbath of truly epic proportions*.

* or that providing a good value service is not the criteria upon which cuts will be decided...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I work for one of 'em. OTOH we're providing a good value service, so if we go to the wall that would imply a bloodbath of truly epic proportions*.

* or that providing a good value service is not the criteria upon which cuts will be decided...

If its a good value service, surely people will want it even if they aren't part of the govt. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I work for one of 'em. OTOH we're providing a good value service, so if we go to the wall that would imply a bloodbath of truly epic proportions*.

* or that providing a good value service is not the criteria upon which cuts will be decided...

How many people is this good value for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people is this good value for?

In what sense? We provide and support database applications for hospital renal units*.

* dialysis and transplant patients - they are somewhat unusual in that they are around for decades with lots of lab results, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If its a good value service, surely people will want it even if they aren't part of the govt. ;)

Even if anyone in the private sector uses such a service, presumably they already have a supplier, and Tomandlu's employer would have to undercut said supplier at the next opportunity.

And even then, the private sector customer may be considering off-shoring / on-shoring the service, or in the process of doing so, or have already done so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what sense? We provide and support database applications for hospital renal units*.

* dialysis and transplant patients - they are somewhat unusual in that they are around for decades with lots of lab results, etc.

Well, if they scrap your software, a load of long term patients will drop dead, saving even more money. Trebles all around, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if anyone in the private sector uses such a service, presumably they already have a supplier, and Tomandlu's employer would have to undercut said supplier at the next opportunity.

And even then, the private sector customer may be considering off-shoring / on-shoring the service, or in the process of doing so, or have already done so.

Not sure about this - the US market is a helpful example, in that it's sort-of private sector. I used to work for a US company building similar systems for both the US and the UK, and the US market was very large (they don't do much in the way of transplants over there, but they do a hell of a lot of dialysis). Good renal management can save a fortune in drugs.

FWIW I think we'll be all right, since, even ignoring the clinical market, our application framework has huge potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about this - the US market is a helpful example, in that it's sort-of private sector. I used to work for a US company building similar systems for both the US and the UK, and the US market was very large (they don't do much in the way of transplants over there, but they do a hell of a lot of dialysis). Good renal management can save a fortune in drugs.

FWIW I think we'll be all right, since, even ignoring the clinical market, our application framework has huge potential.

unfortuantely with IT, end users don't (have huge potential).

Edited by bendybogle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been consistently pointed out that the pribic sector would feel the brunt of cuts, and that was emphasised last week when Philip Green's review pointed out the public sector were paying over the odds for almost everything they sourced (in some instances £300 a time for toner cartridges). If the public sector tightens up its spending, rather than fight the unions i.e. their own employees, they will do the simpler thing of cutting off the "mug tap" to these companies / external consultants etc. The public sector can be wasteful yes, but its the supposedly private sector that sucks away at the tit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, these pseudo-private companies annoy me far more than the public sector in that they claim the rewards of true entrepeneuriship yet (until now) enjoy the security of the state sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been consistently pointed out that the pribic sector would feel the brunt of cuts, and that was emphasised last week when Philip Green's review pointed out the public sector were paying over the odds for almost everything they sourced (in some instances £300 a time for toner cartridges). If the public sector tightens up its spending, rather than fight the unions i.e. their own employees, they will do the simpler thing of cutting off the "mug tap" to these companies / external consultants etc. The public sector can be wasteful yes, but its the supposedly private sector that sucks away at the tit.

A lot of truth in this. BTW one farcical element (at least from my POV) is that to be an NHS 'preferred provider' (which means you can bypass some of the tendering process), you have to have an annual turnover of X million pounds* (can't remember what the exact figure is, but I know that our company doesn't qualify)... so much for encouraging competition and/or clamping down on suppliers that overcharge...

* the logic being, I suppose, that high-turnover suppliers are less likely to go bankrupt and leave you in the lurch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these “spending cuts damage the economy” articles seem to conveniently forget the government has no money of its own to spend. Government spending cuts simply move resources from the public sector back to the private sector through lower long term tax rates.

They also seem to ignore the fact that borrowed money supporting the deficit will have to be paid back eventually.

Once the interest payments kick in (40bn and counting) the country will be crippled for the next few decades dealing with all the debt. No sane administration acting in the long term interest of the country would have sanctioned a £400 million a day deficit. The deficit is only stage 1 of the problem. Paying the debt off will be even harder.

30%~ of all income tax is going straight down the toilet on debt interest already. Utter Madness. Brown should be up on charges.

There is going to be some serious pain because of the shocking financial mismanagement of the country for the last 13 years. The more we borrow the worse it is going to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about this - the US market is a helpful example, in that it's sort-of private sector. I used to work for a US company building similar systems for both the US and the UK, and the US market was very large (they don't do much in the way of transplants over there, but they do a hell of a lot of dialysis). Good renal management can save a fortune in drugs.

FWIW I think we'll be all right, since, even ignoring the clinical market, our application framework has huge potential.

The thing with this is that in the US the insurance companies generally pay for the dialysis.

I'm trying to think who would pay for dialysis in the UK if the NHS doesn't.

I suppose rich people paying cash and insurance companies where people have been able well enough off to afford the premiums (and the insurance company hasn't weaselled out of paying by saying the insured person had a pre-existing condition they hadn't disclosed).

How big a section of the population is that?

Still, as you say, there's always the non-clinical market. Provided it hasn't been / doesn't get Indianised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these “spending cuts damage the economy” articles seem to conveniently forget the government has no money of its own to spend.

No argument from me there (I would consider myself a socialist, but with the caveat that governments have a responsibility to spend wisely and avoid deficits like the plague). However, I would argue that the all sectors of the economy will benefit from being allowed to roll downhill rather than being thrown off a cliff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wonder how many people who complain about the public sector are in reality working for companies that are funded by it- so the parasite in question might turn out to be them. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these "spending cuts damage the economy" articles seem to conveniently forget the government has no money of its own to spend.

If so, then no one has any money of their own; it always comes from someone else.

Government spending cuts simply move resources from the public sector back to the private sector through lower long term tax rates.

Would the private sector spend those resources more wisely? Maybe it will bid house prices up or buy cheap Chinese tat that's put into landfill within five years.

They also seem to ignore the fact that borrowed money supporting the deficit will have to be paid back eventually.

National debt is rarely paid down.

30%~ of all income tax is going straight down the toilet on debt interest already. Utter Madness.

Absent the borrowing the economy would be much smaller and the tax revenue much less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 245 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.