Yes, sorry, my comments were more of an aside and general information/discussion point rather than any suggestion of supporting or critiquing your comments in support of anothers.
C'mon... we all knew Carillion would fail after Fish left...
It's all gone Fugazi.
Never suggested it was, that is just your selective quoting.It's a private company that was running once public sector service. If your job had moved from public sector to private sector, it would be fair to suggest your job and the service you provided had been privatised.
Badly run, diversified in areas it didn't fully know or understand other than there are big number contracts to be had (my opinion not a fact with inside knowledge).I've got no issue with a company failing. That is all part of the lifecycle, and in the open market it will provide opportunities for others.
They paid a dividend (circa £50 Million) as recently as May 2017.
Badly run indeed.
They certainly have questions to answer over repeatedly awarding lucrative contracts to a business with regular profit warnings who consistently undercharged in the tender, based on extorting SMEs, a model that just wasn't sustainable. Now we're left with fudgeed over workers and fudgeed over SMEs.
It appears the Government may have been giving the company contracts to delay it's inevitable collapse. RBS (still state owned) made provisions to protect itself from losses from Carillion going under last year -
Robert Peston on Twitter
The other banks also made provisions, if the Banks knew Carillion was in trouble then it's reasonable to assume the Government knew it as well.
The Government does have questions to answer, either to show that it awarded contracts in good faith or if the tendering process for Government contracts is flawed, which means it will require reforms.
I wouldn't be, I'd be asking why the Government gave so many contracts to Carillion when it's perfectly reasonable to say that some Government Contracts should and could be awarded to smaller companies at a regional level. What they've effectively done is put all of the risk into a single company that subcontracted the work through the supply chain, exposing smaller companies to the risk. None of those companies will likely be getting any help from the Government. Many will go under as they will be last in the queue when it comes to creditors. Carillion made most sub contractors wait 120 days for payment.
For big infrastructure contracts then you do require large companies to bid for them, which are solvent.
Robert Peston sums up the questions that the Government need to answer -
Of course the Gov has been 'propping up' Carillion by giving it new work, it's not a new supplier but an existing partner involved in dozens of major projects with schools, hospitals and that wee thing called HS2.
For the Gov to ensure the collapse of a contractor engaged in live projects when there are still alternatives would be stupid of the highest order. 
no better than a protection racket imo