How is the Tory government doing?

xmiles wrote:

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.

I'm not bothered.

No one is.

You're only trying to pick me up on something because I corrected you on the difference between a government 'inquiry' as opposed to 'enquiry'.

You need to stop these silly games, no one wants them, not even me.

Sluffy wrote:

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

Shit happens particularly when you are up against it.

Sure, shit does happen. But how much shit has to happen (at tax payer expense) before the incompetence is too much? Personally I’ve had my fill, it’s about the standards you expect to be delivered. And no business I’ve ever worked in would allow for this level of error on such a consistent basis - you’d be out.

And essentially that’s what needs to happen with this government to really move forward as a country (and I’m not just referring to Covid).

So whether you give a fuck or not, I’ll continue to point out their errors - and the holes in your constant defence of them, because that’s what living in a democracy allows me to do - a decent perk to be fair!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

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

Shit happens particularly when you are up against it.

Sure, shit does happen. But how much shit has to happen (at tax payer expense) before the incompetence is too much? Personally I’ve had my fill, it’s about the standards you expect to be delivered. And no business I’ve ever worked in would allow for this level of error on such a consistent basis - you’d be out.

And essentially that’s what needs to happen with this government to really move forward as a country (and I’m not just referring to Covid).

So whether you give a fuck or not, I’ll continue to point out their errors - and the holes in your constant defence of them, because that’s what living in a democracy means.

You don't get it mate, I'm not defending them?

I'm telling you like it is.

You seem to be demanding perfection, that doesn't happen in the real world.

The same civil servants will be putting things out to tender, writing the specs and checking compliance under a Labour government or a Conservative one.

If Labour had won in 2019, they would still have had the same amount of PPE when the virus hit and the same need to acquire more PDQ in competition with the rest of the world.

They would have the same medical advisors and the same information from China to base their decisions on.

Maybe they would have done things differently at the margins but they would have had the same priorities/objectives - save the NHS, save the economy - and have the same lack of testing capabilities and inadequate track and trace system that couldn't cope with the volume of the positive cases that hit us.

They would have needed to create some form of Track and Trace infrastructure, probably encountered the same problems with the telephone aps T and T and would probably started off with a national telephone system, that's proving not to be working so good.

They would have been dealing with a population that grew sick of being in lockdown and the younger generation wanting to go out and enjoy their lives without being encumbered with social distancing and face masks.

Asian youths would still have caught the virus and spread it in their communities because that's how they live in general, in large family groups with elderly relatives.

You would still have the self entitled, I'm going to the beach/down the pub and 'fuck the rules'

There would still have been a massive problem in care homes (every country has had a massive problem with care homes).

They would want to open up the economy again and get kids in school and having to balance that against not having a second wave of the virus.

Conservative and Labour are completely interchangeable when facing Covid, they both would have done by and large similar things at similar times.

They may well have avoided some of the mistakes the Conservatives have but created a few new ones of their own.

A democracy means accepting the will of the people.

The Conservatives have won the last four General Elections, they won the last one less than a year ago with an 80 seat majority.

Just because you don't like the result it doesn't mean it wasn't democratic.

You need to stop waving your deepest red peoples flag and accept they are doing as good/bad as anyone else would be doing in the same position and with the same resources to start with.

I'd be saying the same things as I have been doing if the shoe was on the other foot and Labour was in government now and the Conservatives 'holding them to account'.

Try living in the real world instead of your political utopian one for a change.

I think we just have very different standards to be honest. If you think it’s utopian to expect the government to be able to deliver sufficient PPE contracts that’s your prerogative - but you wouldn’t get very far with an attitude like that in any environment I’ve worked in. But I obviously can’t speak for the places you’ve worked in.

These are people in the highest political office in the country, excusing their failures with ‘nobody could do better’ is a weak argument and a weak outlook. They need to do better, and with attitudes like yours we’ll never get there.

What foresight in a school report from a tutor at Eton to Stanley Johnson in 1982!!


     

okocha wrote:What foresight in a school report from a tutor at Eton to Stanley Johnson in 1982!!


     

Speaks volumes.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I think we just have very different standards to be honest. If you think it’s utopian to expect the government to be able to deliver sufficient PPE contracts that’s your prerogative - but you wouldn’t get very far with an attitude like that in any environment I’ve worked in. But I obviously can’t speak for the places you’ve worked in.

These are people in the highest political office in the country, excusing their failures with ‘nobody could do better’ is a weak argument and a weak outlook. They need to do better, and with attitudes like yours we’ll never get there.

Did we actually ever run out of PPE - I don't believe we ever did?

Fwiw I've held senior management positions in the public sector and run my own business in the private sector.

In effect I had retired before the age of fifty and financial secure for the rest of my life - I don't think that was down to just good luck.

If you think Labour would have done better then that's your opinion - it certainly isn't the opinion of the country who have rejected them at the ballot box in the last four national elections.

Is it weak of me to have realistic expectations based on what can be achieved with finite resources and little to no time?

Labour thought big in their last manifesto, the electorate simply didn't believe it was achievable. Result a crushing 80 seat majority to your one and only political rival - who themselves widely unpopular by many - but people still had more trust in them than Corbyn!

You need to be pragmatic and realistic in the face of a crisis, it's easy to be critical when you aren't the one having to face it head on and deal with it.

You carry on dreaming of your political utopia and I'll carry on being realistic because one of us need to change their outlook to be in agreement with each other and I prefer to live in the real world myself.

Have a nice day.

Sorry, just to be clear (because you’re doing your usual spin). I haven’t asked for a utopia, just that I expect better than wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on a contract delivered (on the face of it) on the basis of nepotism and not their ability to deliver said contract.

Spend all night arguing with that if you want, but you won’t find anyone who agrees that is unrealistic of me - it’s just common sense.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry, just to be clear (because you’re doing your usual spin). I haven’t asked for a utopia, just that I expect better than wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on a contract delivered (on the face of it) on the basis of nepotism and not their ability to deliver said contract.

Spend all night arguing with that if you want, but you won’t find anyone who agrees that is unrealistic of me - it’s  just common sense.

The contract as you admit was delivered.

If you wanted something doing fast and family and friends could do it for you wouldn't you ask them?

This was just ONE out of a multitude of contracts for PPE awarded.

In normal times it very well may not have, at least unless a Declaration of Interest was made before hand

The question to be asked was if a fair price was charged at the time for what was ordered/delivered.

If it was then what really is the issue?

If the company fulfilled their end of the contract at a fair price and within the spec they were given then is that any less than any other company doing exactly the same?

The order was placed legally under 'emergency' powers.

The order was delivered.

Are you aware if the company/owner did anything wrong because I've not heard anything?

If they've done nothing wrong then what is your (and anyone else's) problem with what happened?

Guilty by association - is that it?

But not actually guilty of anything else?

Sluffy wrote:
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

So you agree with me then? It is dodgy. And inefficient. And unnecessarily expensive for the tax payer?

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

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

It didn't go unnoticed which is why we were discussing it.

Sluffy wrote:If they've done nothing wrong then what is your (and anyone else's) problem with what happened?

The fact the masks aren’t a good enough standard for the nhs to use - do you really need to be told that? Pretty obvious problem isn’t it?

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
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

So you agree with me then? It is dodgy. And inefficient. And unnecessarily expensive for the tax payer?

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

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

It didn't go unnoticed which is why we were discussing it.

1 - Err No!

The order was placed in accordance with legal 'emergency' procedures.

They are 'emergency' procedures for a reason.

Because it was an 'emergency' at the time.

That isn't dodgy, they simply complied with the requirements prevailing at the time.

2 - The order was placed in accordance with legal emergency procedures and are open to scrutiny by the relevant all part parliamentary scrutiny panel.

There was nothing to hide.

They had followed the rules.

You'd think that in an emergency you'd make damn sure about what you were buying.
And if you were just going to hand out a contract to a supplier you'd give it to one you have checked out. Thoroughly.

I'm not questioning whether or not they gave themselves the right to do it as that isn't in doubt.
I'm questioning the competence and propriety of the deal.

wanderlust wrote:You'd think that in an emergency you'd make damn sure about what you were buying.
And if you were just going to hand out a contract to a supplier you'd give it to one you have checked out. Thoroughly.

I'm not questioning whether or not they gave themselves the right to do it as that isn't in doubt.
I'm questioning the competence and propriety of the deal.

There's a reason why it is called an emergency and normal procedures are suspended...

Emergency
/ɪˈməːdʒ(ə)nsi/

noun
1.
a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.
"personal alarms for use in an emergency"

...it's because there is NO time to check everything thoroughly, dot all the 'i's' and cross all the 't's' - immediate action is required NOW.

Not tomorrow or next week - that may be too late, they are need NOW.

Such urgency can and does lead to mistakes but that's the risk you take at times like these.

You don't have the luxury of time to do the job properly.

Needs most.

Just out of interest where did you get the quote that you made in respect of all of this anyway?

I can't seem to find it in any reputable national paper and the only place I've found it is on the social media site Reddit.

Can't be from there though because you told us don't use social media...

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/i6khny/250mill_ppe_contract_for_nhs_awarded_with_no/

Sluffy wrote:

There's a reason why it is called an emergency and normal procedures are suspended...

Emergency
/ɪˈməːdʒ(ə)nsi/

noun
1.
a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.
"personal alarms for use in an emergency"

...it's because there is NO time to check everything thoroughly, dot all the 'i's' and cross all the 't's' - immediate action is required NOW.

Not tomorrow or next week - that may be too late, they are need NOW.

Such urgency can and does lead to mistakes but that's the risk you take at times like these.

You don't have the luxury of time to do the job properly.

Needs most.

OK so we agree that it was an emergency. That's a start eh?
And you're saying, mistakes will happen, we're all human, that's just the way the cookie crumbles, nobody's perfect etc etc?
So in fact they weren't incompetent and in handing a fat contract to a mate without being clear about what they wanted in no way raises questions about their probity?

It's a view I guess.

Sluffy wrote:Just out of interest where did you get the quote that you made in respect of all of this anyway?

It was an emergency so I quickly copied the text, forgetting to take detailed notes on who published it.
Oh well, it was an emergency - mistakes happen, nobody's perfect......etc

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Just out of interest where did you get the quote that you made in respect of all of this anyway?

It was an emergency so I quickly copied the text, forgetting to take detailed notes on who published it.
Oh well, it was an emergency - mistakes happen, nobody's perfect......etc

So it was from social media then?

Quelle surprise!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:If they've done nothing wrong then what is your (and anyone else's) problem with what happened?

The fact the masks aren’t a good enough standard for the nhs to use - do you really need to be told that? Pretty obvious problem isn’t it?

Did they manufacture to specification delivered to them - yes or no?

If they did it wasn't their fault then was it.

They would have delivered as per contract.

I’m not blaming the Chinese manufacturer, I’m blaming the idiots who procured them through a company with no experience and without checking a sample product first.

Unsure why I’ve needed to clarify that to you so many times it’s very simple.