with me is liam booth—smith, chief executive of the independent think tank localis.et's get stuck in, plenty to talk about. carillion, so much to say on carillion. the financial times looking at as many angles as possible. yes, the first phase of this story was about what would happen to the contract they have with the government and what will happen to their 20,000 workers and their subsidiaries. happen to their 20,000 workers and theirsubsidiaries. it's happen to their 20,000 workers and their subsidiaries. it's evolving a bit and more information is coming to light, you highlighted the payee question and in 2016. at the time that could be talked away but given its almost two years later and the company has gone bust and we can't get that money back, it looks a bit less like a coincidence. this links to something that is important that came out in the commons yesterday, many questions were put to david liddington about why the government was letting contracts to a company that had numerous recent profit warnings. so there is a confluence of information coming toget

i'm joined by liam booth—smith, chief executive of localis, an independent think tank, joins me now. a little bit about what these workers want? well, what the workers are after a reduction in working hours down to about 28 hours a week, but only as part of a benefit. in 2007, german law allowed something called an educational benefit, that has been used to help with things like caring for children 01’ with things like caring for children or caring for elderly relatives. now all, german businesses don't want to do this because they argue that they believe, one in four of their workers will take advantage of this, and a recent german chambers of commerce study shows that half of the trading they have access to is due to skilled workers. were german businesses at the metal works, they argue they were —— they would not be able to continue productively. just briefly, germany is in a position right know what they have very, very low unemployment. i guess you need to fill in that sweet spot. yeah, they could do, absolutely. in one way, they are right to push. this has reminiscences of the

voters are confident about the localy of vote counting and state level. they are quite skeptical about nationwide. the thing that moves voter confidence is whether your candidate wins or loses. nothing that really in the election administration that appreciably moves but her confidence. having said that, i think there are good reasons for doing things like risk limiting audits s to assureechnique voters that votes were counted properly. if one wants to hang reforms of election administration on voter confidence, one may be disappointed because voters are not basing their confidence in the system on election administration. >> we don't count ballots on a national level. >> back to your comment about process as well, a lack of understanding. it is a complicated process. >> what you are looking at is a perception problem. rather than changing the process, we have to educate people. we find will me have that candidate that loses, they come in the day after the election and say, this is all crooked. we walk them through and educate them about every single aspe