T.R.O.Y. wrote: Sluffy wrote:
You as I recall implied that the emergency would have to wait until all the required vetting is done to prevent possible mistakes.
Honestly, i don't believe that you can take that from this:
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.
I think really you were in such a rush to disagree with me as always you didn't actually think about it.
Now you've realised how mistakes need to be scrutinised to prevent future occurrences you've softened your stance massively.
Glad to see, but just hold your hands up instead of pretending i've said something i haven't.
Oh here we go again.
The remark I made the utopian reference too was what you said much later
The post you quote yourself in above was made at 3.45pm yesterday
What you purposely omitted was the full extent of what you actually said -
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.
I replied at 4.12pm as to why that isn't always possible in emergency situations.
To which at 4.52pm you replied -
T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry - are you honestly trying to argue that the government was under so much pressure they had to choose this supplier?
To which I replied at 5.46pm at 5.51pm you replied with this -
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.
I replied at 6.44pm that in the real world in times of emergencies they simply don't always have the luxury of time on their hands to do everything perfectly as you would wish.
To which you replied at 9.35pm with this -
T.R.O.Y. wrote: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!
To which at 10.18pm I said this -
Sluffy wrote: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.
So although you did indeed say what you did in the quote you posted of yourself above, you carried on throughout the day contradicting that by in effect everything should have been checked and double checked before the contract be awarded and it was "incompetence" that they were not which to your eyes being symptomatic of a government that had failed and continued to fail which you wanted ousting ASAP!
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have a perfect procurement system when the essence is speed to deal with an emergency that is happing here and now!
I'm far from in a rush to disagree with you, I'm, if anything, far too clinical in my research and analysis of how to reply to you - knowing you half play a game as well as stating your points from your personal political standpoint.
I give you the respect of a fair and decent reply nevertheless.
So no I didn't take what I said from your early day post, I took from all you actually said subsequent to it.
And I've always known mistakes need to be examined to what happened and why, and how they can be prevented in the future - I'd even wager I was doing those very same things in my work career even before you were born - so no I wasn't softening my stance as I had never taken such a stance in the first place!
And finally I've no problem admitting when I am wrong, but I simply am not guilty of the things you accuse me of in your post above.
Home
