How is the Tory government doing?

Sluffy wrote:

They are.

Unfortunately due to the urgency with the pandemic the tender process was suspended.

I guess from your question that you've never been involved in a tendering a contract of the size, as if you had you would know the amount of time it would take to draft the tender document, invite offers to tender, deal with questions/queries/clarifications/amendments to, etc, etc from those interested in tendering, await a period of time (weeks/months) for the tenders to be written by the companies, evaluate and compare the returned tenders, question/clarify issues arising, and finally awarding the contract.

Clearly not everything was done properly - but needs must.

The thinking was get things done now and sort out any illegality afterwards.

I don't think they had any other choice but to do what they did if they wanted PPE immediately and in direct competition with all the rest of the world.

Mistakes will/have happened as a consequence.

As for Track and Trace it seems to me the Govt put all its eggs in one basket, the telephone app, and when that failed had to get the current telephone system up and running PDQ.

As someone who has been involved in tenders of that size I am aware of the lengthy process usually involved but there are short cuts which could have ameliorated the problem.
First of all seeing as the Government's own committee flagged up the possibility of a pandemic several years ago, a "Framework" could have been put in place in readiness long ago -  i.e. a short list of already approved suppliers who meet all the requirements - common practice in public sector procurement. This would have cut a massive chunk out of the due diligence process and the approved suppliers would have simply had to quote.
Secondly, the minimum requirement for any procurement is a full specification of exactly what it is you want to buy including performance criteria - and in this case it is clear there wasn't one. It is takes an incredible amount of stupidity to buy something based on assumptions especially as there is no come back.
(my missus bought a second hand soft top Mini a few years ago and didn't realise it didn't have rear seats until she got it home - still a running joke with her mates )

But even if a proper specification had been produced, the Government's own procurement guidelines insist on multiple quotes rather than just giving the order to your mate. There are exceptions to this e.g. an exceptional procurement can be made if there is only one supplier of a unique product or service - but that is clearly not relevant in this case.

It's dodgy.

The Tories always pull this kind of stunt, it was the same with ventilators. Lots of specialist medical equipment companies volunteered to help and who do they get to make them? You guessed it a Tory party donor in James Dyson 

Norpig wrote:The Tories always pull this kind of stunt, it was the same with ventilators. Lots of specialist medical equipment companies volunteered to help and who do they get to make them? You guessed it a Tory party donor in James Dyson 

James Dyson. A true patriot.

Yes a real patriot, moved his business and factory to Singapore to avoid tax i presume?

Norpig wrote:Yes a real patriot, moved his business and factory to Singapore to avoid tax i presume?

Of course. Like so many rich Tory donors they love their country (and the NHS) so much they move their business into tax havens and pay no tax. If political parties were not allowed to receive money from tax exiles and dodgy Russians the Tories would be broke.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

They are.

Unfortunately due to the urgency with the pandemic the tender process was suspended.

I guess from your question that you've never been involved in a tendering a contract of the size, as if you had you would know the amount of time it would take to draft the tender document, invite offers to tender, deal with questions/queries/clarifications/amendments to, etc, etc from those interested in tendering, await a period of time (weeks/months) for the tenders to be written by the companies, evaluate and compare the returned tenders, question/clarify issues arising, and finally awarding the contract.

Clearly not everything was done properly - but needs must.

The thinking was get things done now and sort out any illegality afterwards.

I don't think they had any other choice but to do what they did if they wanted PPE immediately and in direct competition with all the rest of the world.

Mistakes will/have happened as a consequence.

As for Track and Trace it seems to me the Govt put all its eggs in one basket, the telephone app, and when that failed had to get the current telephone system up and running PDQ.

As someone who has been involved in tenders of that size I am aware of the lengthy process usually involved but there are short cuts which could have ameliorated the problem.
First of all seeing as the Government's own committee flagged up the possibility of a pandemic several years ago, a "Framework" could have been put in place in readiness long ago -  i.e. a short list of already approved suppliers who meet all the requirements - common practice in public sector procurement. This would have cut a massive chunk out of the due diligence process and the approved suppliers would have simply had to quote.
Secondly, the minimum requirement for any procurement is a full specification of exactly what it is you want to buy including performance criteria - and in this case it is clear there wasn't one. It is takes an incredible amount of stupidity to buy something based on assumptions especially as there is no come back.
(my missus bought a second hand soft top Mini a few years ago and didn't realise it didn't have rear seats until she got it home - still a running joke with her mates )

But even if a proper specification had been produced, the Government's own procurement guidelines insist on multiple quotes rather than just giving the order to your mate. There are exceptions to this e.g. an exceptional procurement can be made if there is only one supplier of a unique product or service - but that is clearly not relevant in this case.

It's dodgy.

Simply not true.

"In responding to the coronavirus crisis, the government has forgone the tendering process under which contracts are usually handed out.

Instead, it has tended to use an emergency procedure, in which contracts are handed directly to companies without competition".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53361167



Also 'could of, would of, should of...'.

It's all irrelevant, you start from the position you are in.

Judging in retrospective is a wonderful thing but it doesn't change where you actually started from and what you have to do, the best you can, with what you've have, in the time you've got.

If the house is burning down you don't argue with the wife over what she says you could and should have done to prevent it, you put the fire out first and learn from your mistakes for the future

Your wife should also be helping you put out the flames and not in your earhole still and kicking you in the goolies because you got it wrong.

There's plenty time for that once the house is safe.

I think the main point here isn't the lack of formal process - that's understandable. But how it's ended up being won by a shell company, whose only credential seems to be a close relationship with a cabinet minister. 

Tender process or not, common sense would say choose a supplier with a track record. This is madness.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I think the main point here isn't the lack of formal process - that's understandable. But how it's ended up being won by a shell company, whose only credential seems to be a close relationship with a cabinet minister. 

Tender process or not, common sense would say choose a supplier with a track record. This is madness.

The need was so great at the time that other options had to be explored, even those who hadn't had previous track records of supplying PPE's.

Burberry for instance.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-52415983

I know the article says they donate PPE's rather than did so under contract, I believe they since have done so as a government supplier.

Common sense sometimes has to take second place when need and urgency is more important than the time you have to do the job properly.

I'm sure many individuals and company's have fraudulently taken advantage of the governments blanket initiatives for furloughing and paying of other benefits to keep the economy going during lockdown.

What else could the government do, vet every single case first? There simply wasn't time.

It is what it is through necessity, not through choice.

Fraud and mistakes will have undoubtedly have happened, people will have taken advantage of the circumstances.

Hopefully some/most will be dealt with after this is all over but what else could be done when the NHS needed PPE's urgently and the economy needed to be saved.

That's a more meaningful level of common sense to me.

The NHS gets fleeced everyday by companies. I've seen the prices charged for things like food fridges and IT equipment that have to be supplied by a a contracted supplier and the prices are astronomical compared to what you can buy from somewhere like Argos for example.

Norpig wrote:The NHS gets fleeced everyday by companies. I've seen the prices charged for things like food fridges and IT equipment that have to be supplied by a a contracted supplier and the prices are astronomical compared to what you can buy from somewhere like Argos for example.

Just one of the many benefits of PFI deals. Basically the government carries the risk and private companies screw the maximum profit out of the NHS. The alleged cost savings never materialise and the companies pay no tax because of the avoidance devices they use.

Sluffy wrote:

The need was so great at the time that other options had to be explored, even those who hadn't had previous track records of supplying PPE's.

Burberry for instance.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-52415983

I know the article says they donate PPE's rather than did so under contract, I believe they since have done so as a government supplier.

Common sense sometimes has to take second place when need and urgency is more important than the time you have to do the job properly.

I'm sure many individuals and company's have fraudulently taken advantage of the governments blanket initiatives for furloughing and paying of other benefits to keep the economy going during lockdown.

What else could the government do, vet every single case first?  There simply wasn't time.

It is what it is through necessity, not through choice.

Fraud and mistakes will have undoubtedly have happened, people will have taken advantage of the circumstances.

Hopefully some/most will be dealt with after this is all over but what else could be done when the NHS needed PPE's urgently and the economy needed to be saved.

That's a more meaningful level of common sense to me.

Sorry - are you honestly trying to argue that the government was under so much pressure they had to choose this supplier?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

The need was so great at the time that other options had to be explored, even those who hadn't had previous track records of supplying PPE's.

Burberry for instance.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-52415983

I know the article says they donate PPE's rather than did so under contract, I believe they since have done so as a government supplier.

Common sense sometimes has to take second place when need and urgency is more important than the time you have to do the job properly.

I'm sure many individuals and company's have fraudulently taken advantage of the governments blanket initiatives for furloughing and paying of other benefits to keep the economy going during lockdown.

What else could the government do, vet every single case first?  There simply wasn't time.

It is what it is through necessity, not through choice.

Fraud and mistakes will have undoubtedly have happened, people will have taken advantage of the circumstances.

Hopefully some/most will be dealt with after this is all over but what else could be done when the NHS needed PPE's urgently and the economy needed to be saved.

That's a more meaningful level of common sense to me.

Sorry - are you honestly trying to argue that the government was under so much pressure they had to choose this supplier?

What other reason do you suggest unless it was blatant corruption?

And if so do you think that would have gone unnoticed?

FV was a 'shell' company before it purchased BWFC.

All companies start off as a 'shell' in a sense until they start trading, some remain a shell for various purposes, one of which is -

" The company may serve as a vehicle for business transactions without itself having any significant assets or operations".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_corporation

I wasn't there obviously but it would seem to me the 'shell' company was the middleman so to speak between the government and the manufacturer.

In fact looking back to Wanderlust's original post (unattributed btw - we like to see source links on here) that's exactly what happened.

Whether it was a tax avoidance scheme, that's a matter for HMRC after the event as obtaining PPE at the time was the most urgent priority.

Sluffy wrote:What other reason do you suggest unless it was blatant corruption?

Incompetence, they clearly didn't do enough research into whether or not this company with no history or experience of delivering PPE had the credentials or quality of manufacturer to do so - and it's not even the first time.

You may think that's acceptable from the government but i do not.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:What other reason do you suggest unless it was blatant corruption?

Incompetence, they clearly didn't do enough research into whether or not this company with no history or experience of delivering PPE had the credentials or quality of manufacturer to do so - and it's not even the first time.

You may think that's acceptable from the government but i do not.

Frankly mate I don't give a fuck what you think.

Shit happens particularly when you are up against it.

Mistake, fraud, call it whatever you want but the bottom line when all said and done was that the contract WAS delivered.

Ok, didn't meet the criteria but whose fault was that the ones who placed the contract, the ones that wrote the spec, or the ones who monitor compliance before authorising payment?

Out of the three I would suggest the ones who placed the order were blameless in that respect - yet it's you who seems to have your knickers in a twist over them?

There might have been all sorts of shit going on and I'm sure more than a few has profited from all this (in general, not just this instance) but I tend to think the civil servants trying to arrange all this in next to no time available to them, were doing their best in circumstances no one had ever been in before.

There's one or two off here who seem to live in a perfect world, where every eventuality is planned for in advance and every government and administration functions perfectly no matter what the circumstance or timescales are.

I've got news for you both, the real world doesn't work like that.

We are a long way from utopia yet, and if truth be told, seem to be going away from it rather than towards it with Trump, Brexit, Russian involvement, China becoming aggressive, Islamic fundamentalism (Taliban, Al-Qaeda, IS), Covid-19, global warming, etc, etc.

About time we worked together than be at everybody else's throats - but we all know that will never happen until it becomes too late.

Yet to some it's all the Conservatives fault!!!

Yeah, right.

Sluffy wrote:

Whether it was a tax avoidance scheme, that's a matter for HMRC after the event as obtaining PPE at the time was the most urgent priority.

Only the government can tackle tax avoidance since it is legal. HMRC can try to catch tax evasion which is illegal. The problem is that we have a government run by a party funded by tax avoiders so they have no intention of dealing with tax avoidance and never will.

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Whether it was a tax avoidance scheme, that's a matter for HMRC after the event as obtaining PPE at the time was the most urgent priority.

Only the government can tackle tax avoidance since it is legal. HMRC can try to catch tax evasion which is illegal. The problem is that we have a government run by a party funded by tax avoiders so they have no intention of dealing with tax avoidance and never will.  

Fwiw I wasn't implying it was done illegally but HMRC may have a different view - and that's why I posted as I did.

It is HMRC who take the lead on such issues - not the government although they may will ultimately legislate against them if required as per -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_(tax_scheme)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/exposed-the-hundreds-of-city-millionaires-in-film-tax-loophole-7676028.html

xmiles wrote:

Of course. Like so many rich Tory donors they love their country (and the NHS) so much they move their business into tax havens and pay no tax. If political parties were not allowed to receive money from tax exiles and dodgy Russians the Tories would be broke.

No such thing as a rich Labour MP then? If they are truly for the people, why/how have they accrued their wealth? Should they not have invested it in their brother workers?

As I said previously the problem is how the Tory party is funded. Almost all its income is from tax avoiders and dodgy Russians. When a party owes its continued existence to a small group of people it will do as they wish where taxation is concerned. The Tory party has even enabled increased tax avoidance by its repeated failure to address some of the more obvious loopholes and on occasion weakened existing tax legislation.

Sluffy wrote:

Fwiw I wasn't implying it was done illegally but HMRC may have a different view - and that's why I posted as I did.

It is HMRC who take the lead on such issues - not the government although they may will ultimately legislate against them if required as per -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_(tax_scheme)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/exposed-the-hundreds-of-city-millionaires-in-film-tax-loophole-7676028.html

To expand on what I said, HMRC will challenge tax avoidance schemes if they think they do not follow the rules contained in current tax legislation. However most tax avoidance schemes do follow the rules because that is the intention when creating tax avoidance schemes. Only the government can change the rules.

xmiles wrote:As I said previously the problem is how the Tory party is funded. Almost all its income is from tax avoiders and dodgy Russians. When a party owes its continued existence to a small group of people it will do as they wish where taxation is concerned. The Tory party has even enabled increased tax avoidance by its repeated failure to address some of the more obvious loopholes and on occasion weakened existing tax legislation.

According to the Guardian the Labour Party is substantially wealthier than the Tory party.

I bet you didn't know that!

In the general election year of 2017 the Labour party raised £55.8m – £10m more than the Conservatives.

Labour members, who number about 550,000, generated £16.1m in subs for their party in 2017. A further £18.2m came via donations, partly from online campaigns. As the party’s annual report highlights, on one day alone, during last year’s general election campaign, Labour was able to raise £500,000.

The party’s traditional paymasters, the trade unions, have fallen in financial importance. Fees from affiliations amounted to a relatively modest £6.2m, although the union Unite, led by key Corbyn supporter Len McCluskey, remains the party’s biggest single donor and unions continue to contribute millions in donations.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/22/labour-coffers-make-party-richest-in-britain

Still lost though didn't they?

Maybe it's because more people trusted Labour under Corbyn even less than the Conservatives under May!

If so what does the 2019 General Election say about the margin Johnson beat Corbyn by???

People voted for the Conservatives not because they had the biggest election war chest but because they thought the country under Corbyn would be worse than under Boris!

Labour continued to shoot themselves in the foot since Tony Blair stood down as PM.

Keir's got a chance but I can't see him overturning a 80 seat majority in 2024 unless the Conservatives spectacularly implode and they will dump Boris first before they will let that happen.

It's all a game and Labour has played their hand spectacularly badly since Brown lost to Cameron and his Lib Dem sidekick whose name I've already forgotten.

They need to ditch some of their idealism of a socialist utopia and replace it with pragmatism and reality to become electable again.

Not an even bigger election war chest!