Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

Similar story to Arco in the press this week:

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/workers-laid-off-as-ppe-contracts-handed-to-firms-connected-to-conservative-party-buying-kit-from-abroad/22/11/

‘Florence Roby, a family-run Merseyside business, has had to lay off a fifth of its workers after its offer to supply PPE to the government was ignored and then refused, reports The Liverpool Echo.’

Again, what factors put a company like PPE Medpro ahead of these? Why did companies like Ayanda get contracts with such extraordinarily beneficial clauses in them? Lot of questions to be answered - or brushed under the carpet.

Here we go again!

First of all they had NO recent NHS experience...

Offer to make surgical gowns ignored for two months

Based at Knowsley Business Park, Florence Roby has been in existence for 50 years and originally made medical wear before moving into ecclesiastical wear and, more recently, clothing for the spa and beauty industry.

Next they wanted to supply REUSEABLE gowns - which I doubt fitted the Covid criteria as I presume they would have to be decontaminated after every use.

But when, in early April, the government appealed for UK companies to help supply protective equipment to the NHS, the company immediately stepped forward and offered to supply reusable surgical gowns.

Next there factory looked to be more of a shed/small unit than huge factory's able to deliver £100m orders...



Lastly what does it say if the whole world is screaming out for PPE's that they couldn't find anyone to get an order from and had to lay off staff???

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/mersey-company-forced-lay-staff-19311174

I also see you believe that if the inquiry's don't produce the results you want then it's obviously going to mean a government cover up/"brushed under the carpet"!

Bit concerned that you’ve clearly had that answer prepped and ready to go Sluffy, bit tragic mate.

So you’re saying the deciding factor is their lack of experience supplying to the NHS?

As you have all the answers can you let me know about the Ayanda contract please, anything prepped on that one?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Bit concerned that you’ve clearly had that answer prepped and ready to go Sluffy, bit tragic mate.

So you’re saying the deciding factor is their lack of experience supplying to the NHS?

As you have all the answers can you let me know about the Ayanda contract please, anything prepped on that one?

1 - What answer did I have prepped?  

If you think it was about Florence Roby, I'd never even heard of them until your post, if it is about your "sweep it under the carpet" remark when the findings don't go the way you want them too, well I've heard it so many times in the past from people in denial as to what actually happened compared to what they believed actually happened.

2 - No the deciding factor is their ability to meet the criteria to tender for contracts under Covid PPE Procurement rules applying at the time they did.

3 - And for Ayanda I refer you to the Findings of the National Audit Office who have examined the case already.

Sluffy wrote:The next bit of the finding...

"For a DHSC contract for PPE with Ayanda, DHSC failed to consider a potential conflict of interest for a person associated with the company".

Now this IS from the VIP office contract awarding section and is one that Maugham has made a big song and dance about.

Let us see what may develop on this one although the report specifies the word 'potential' rather than 'actual' in respect of conflict of interests.

More from the NAO report, sounds like the government selling off our PPE stockpile over the past 6 years caused the spending of huge sums in tax payer money in the scramble that followed:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/25/uks-chaotic-ppe-procurement-cost-billions-extra

Mad really, as I thought this was just one crackpot's social media conspiracy? But the high court think the cases brought by the Good Law Project in relation to procurement are arguable... so maybe not?

https://goodlawproject.org/news/good-news-procurement/

I'm sure our resident expert on these matters will be called as a witness.

Round and round in circles we go...

1 - Not one single country on this planet was prepared for Covid.

What more can be said?

2 - Judicial Reviews examines the application of the law by those in power.

If you read the judges decision - and I'm certain you didn't - you will find he's struck out all the innuendo and smoke and mirrors from Maugham and the Judicial Reviews will move forward focusing on the following key point -

"It seems arguable that the Regulations and general principles relied on by the Claimants require a degree of transparency as to the criteria by which offers would be assessed and potential tenderers selected and the procedures adopted was not sufficiently transparent".

So as I have said all along the issue is focused on how civil servants applied the Regulations when awarding the contracts.

As the National Audit Office Inquiry has reported this...

Accountability and scrutiny of contracts awarded -

"For procurements where there is no competition, it is important that awarding bodies set out clearly why they have chosen a particular supplier and how any associated risks from a lack of competition have been identified and mitigated. This is to ensure public trust in the fairness of the procurement process. In a selected sample of 20 contracts, the NAO found examples where departments failed to document key decisions, such as why they chose a particular supplier or used emergency procurement, and failed to document their consideration of risks, including how they had identified and managed any potential conflicts of interest".

...it would now seem to me that GLC may well win these Judicial Reviews on a 'technicality' if you like of civil servants not completing the required documentation in tying up the loose ends of the awarding procedure rather than the 'thrust' of Maugham's being that there was systemic cronyism.

If so it might be interesting to see if the named company's like PestFix can claim their legal expenses as they are not the ones at fault?

‘As I have said all along’ 

You’ve been banging on that the calls for transparency are one man’s grudge against the government and a social media conspiracy you sausage.

Now momentum is gaining a bit you disown all of that and suddenly - oh they might win on a technicality. 

Own it Sluffy, it’s only the internet.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:‘As I have said all along’ 

You’ve been banging on that the calls for transparency are one man’s grudge against the government and a social media conspiracy you sausage.

Now momentum is gaining a bit you disown all of that and suddenly - oh they might win on a technicality. 

Own it Sluffy, it’s only the internet.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:‘As I have said all along’ 

You’ve been banging on that the calls for transparency are one man’s grudge against the government and a social media conspiracy you sausage.

Now momentum is gaining a bit you disown all of that and suddenly - oh they might win on a technicality. 

Own it Sluffy, it’s only the internet.

I've said all along that Maugham has a bee in his bonnet about the government and his campaign about cronyism is nothing but innuendo.

The judge has struck out all of Maugham's inferred innuendo - that is a fact.

I've always said that the government has already admitted technical breaches in the paperwork.

The granted Judicial Review by the judge is focusing on whether these three cases did not apply the required paperwork as required from the criteria to issue the awards - nothing at all to do with cronyism.

It would appear the NAO has already found such things did happen, so it seems logical that the Judge will find the same.

I've never had any issue about scrutiny and welcomed all of the numerous inquiry's into what has happened including Judicial Reviews.

The 'fault' if it is determined there is one, will be how public servants failed to correctly document their procedure in awarding the contract and nothing at all to do with any implied cronyism, which let's be honest was the whole basis of Maugham's multiple cases.

I've consistently told you that it was the civil servants who dealt with the awarding of the contracts and nothing at all to do with the politicians or their associates to the companies awarded them.

So Maugham may now well win the Judicial Review but not due to his real reason for bringing them - Tories doing dodgy deals with their mates - but because the poor civil servants were more concerned in procuring the required PPE's to save the NHS from failing than doing the required paperwork to cover their backs.

I would consider that more of a technicality in winning the JR if that is the judges finding, than the whole thrust of Maugham's agenda being cronyism and possible corruption having taken place which has been 'thrown out'.

I may well be a sausage but Maugham as yet to prove ANY of his multiple claims of any systemic cronyism, which as it stands is still no more than just copious amounts innuendo and taken at face value by most people who are only too eager to believe it to be true.

Back in May Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings denied any involvement in the awarding of an £840,000 contract to Public First.

It now turns out that wasn’t the case (shocker) as Cummings admitted -  

‘I am a special adviser and as such I am not allowed to direct civil servants. However, as a result of my suggestion, I expected people to hire Public First. The nature of my role is that sometimes people take what I say as an instruction and that is a reasonable inference as people assume I am often speaking for the prime minister.’

Nothing new here really, most of us suspected gov and advisors had influence over who won contracts.

But meanwhile the government continue to reject requests for transparency over what qualified businesses for their (now infamous) VIP Lane.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Back in May Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings denied any involvement in the awarding of an £840,000 contract to Public First.

It now turns out that wasn’t the case (shocker) as Cummings admitted -  

‘I am a special adviser and as such I am not allowed to direct civil servants. However, as a result of my suggestion, I expected people to hire Public First. The nature of my role is that sometimes people take what I say as an instruction and that is a reasonable inference as people assume I am often speaking for the prime minister.’

Nothing new here really, most of us suspected gov and advisors had influence over who won contracts.

But meanwhile the government continue to reject requests for transparency over what qualified businesses for their (now infamous) VIP Lane.

I'm not sure that is true, they are after all having to lay such evidence before a judge at judicial reviews (where the bit you highlighted in your post above as come from for instance) and in the case of PPE's have presented such details to both the NAO and Public Accounts Committee.

I've even previously provided links to them as well.

And to be pedantic the bit you refer to about Gove/Cummings above didn't emanate from the VIP Lane, it came the from same emergency legislation but was applied in a different way than through the VIP Lane system.

Yes I’m aware this is not the same process, hence I mentioned the VIP lane separately.

Got to say I’m surprised you haven’t got any comment on an advisor openly admitting to have influenced this process given your reaction to me suggesting MP’s influence earlier in this thread.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Yes I’m aware this is not the same process, hence I mentioned the VIP lane separately.

Got to say I’m surprised you haven’t got any comment on an advisor openly admitting to have influenced this process given your reaction to me suggesting MP’s influence earlier in this thread.

I'd rather wait until I hear what everyone has to say first, as just because Cummings said it happened that way, doesn't necessarily mean it did.

The contract was awarded by a civil servant, if I was that civil servant I wouldn't have awarded any contract on the verbal intruction of anybody not even a Minister let alone someone who is a political advisor.

The authority to authorise a contract of over half a million would be limited to a level of seniority within the civil service and I would want something in writing from one of those before I did anything and I'm willing to bet 10p that the civil servant who did award the contract has covered his back fully before he put his name to anything.

Cummings told the world he went to Banard Castle to check his eyesight - anybody believe that?

He's a spin doctor who has just been booted out from his job - maybe he's stirring things up a bit as payback?

Who knows but as I've said I doubt any civil servant has acted directly on Cummings instruction and would have got the proper authority in accordance with the Emergency legislation/Rules and Regs.

I'd be shocked if they hadn't!

Cummings might have lied in his witness statement to the high court?

Possible of course, but why?

I appreciate the change in tone though, clearly MPs/Advisors influencing the rewarding of contracts is not so beyond the realms of possibility you'd have to be an idiot to believe it.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Cummings might have lied in his witness statement to the high court?

Possible of course, but why?

I appreciate the change in tone though, clearly MPs/Advisors influencing the rewarding of contracts is not so beyond the realms of possibility you'd have to be an idiot to believe it.

No change in tone from me.

I've said all along that if proof is provided then whoever has been breaking the law, peer, elected official or public servant should face the full might of the law.

Up to now we've had nothing but innuendo - and nearly all of that seemingly originating from one man with a clear axe to grind against the Conservative government!

If anyone has proof of any illegality then show it - that's all I've ever said.

I know from my experience - and have said so all along - that contracts are awarded by public servants - not MP's - and are done so in accordance with clearly set out written rules and procedures - so if anything dodgy has happened it could only be done so by a civil servant being involved - and I'd be extremely surprised if they had, knowing what it takes to achieve such a level of responsibility within the service.

Obviously I can't say categorically nothing 'iffy' has gone on but getting on for a year now from the start of these allegations and innuendo's and despite the NAO and PSC looking into PPE procurement, nothing of any substance as yet to be found and non of the national press investagative journalists or TV's investagative programmes have found any smoking guns - and if cronyism was so rife and widespread and involving staggering millions of pounds, then don't you think something more concrete would have surfaced by now?

I do.

As for Cummings, I don't think he told an outright lie but he certainly may well have embellished his story - he is after all a spin doctor.

That's what I suspect is why he said what he did - but let us see what the person who awarded the contract says and on whose authority he did so on.

Then let us see if Cummings statement tallies.

I suspect it won't.

The change in tone is going from spending days calling me an idiot for suggesting something which you now accept is possible.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The change in tone is going from spending days calling me an idiot for suggesting something which you now accept is possible.

Wrong again I'm afraid.

I was calling you 'jaw droppingly ignorant' of how the procurement system works, as you were clearly under the impression (as was most others), that MP's were 'giving' their mates highly lucrative contracts directly - and which I think you have now understood simply could not be possible as they are NOT involved in the process in the procurement system.

However some form of illegality of course could happen and that's why I've always said that if there is an evidence (rather than inuendo) that something illegal has happened then take it to the police and let them face the courts.

I could not have been more clearer about that.

Such 'corruption' if it has occured could only be done by the collusion of a civil servant and frankly I don't believe that would happen at the level of rank needed to be involved and the numerous people involved in the process who would all be potential 'whistleblowers'.

I said all this before the NAO and PAC inquires into the PPE procurement under emergency legislation and to date NO evidence has yet been found of malpractise by any civil servant, or evidence of any illegal awarding of a contract and NO involvement of any MP, councillor, political advisor, etc being involved in the awarding of any contract.

If you had even a basic knowledge of the relationship between elected officals and permanant public servants then you would have KNOWN such 'allegations' of croynism were just that - allegations, because it simply couldn't happen in the way the inuendo that everybody believed (including you it seems) took it to have done so 'as gospel'.

As clearly a person with a deep interest in politics I was amazed (and still am) about your total lack of knowledge of how Parliament and the governing of the country actually works.  If you knew about the roles of MP's and public servants you would have known that the allegations could simply not be true in the claims that were made - MP's don't award contracts and civil servants follow laid down procedures which are audited and accountable - it's as simple as that.

This probably fully explains why non of the national press or TV programmes have done an expose into these allegations apart from the occassional news report in them from journalist reporting the claims - all of which seem to originate back to the Good Law Project and are nearly always stated as such within the news articles themselves.

I still await the discovery of anybody finding any evidence of wrong doing - despite all the numerous claims that have been made to date and which have been going on for nearly a year now.

The Good Law Project behind it all, Sluffy? 

I've never heard of such a thing. Isn't Jolyon Maugham a good friend of the unimpeachable Dale Vince whose integrity can be vouched for by no less a figure than Nuts very own Boncey and who could ever suggest that he might be biased in any way?