Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

I feel sorry for the child.

No ‘smoking guns’ have been found. There’s literally a new story sleaze story everyday - have you had the news during your ‘hiatus’?

And ffs why are you banging on about civil servants awarding contracts again? That’s so far away from the point being made here you may as well not have come back.

How many times do you need it spelt out to you? The VIP system used to recommend suppliers has ended up being abused, rather than getting the best people for the job our money has been spent awarding contracts to mates of the government - and how much money has been wasted as a result?

Rather than rewording government responses, look at the facts yourself and use your own intuition.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:No ‘smoking guns’ have been found. There’s literally a new story sleaze story everyday - have you had the news during your ‘hiatus’?

And ffs why are you banging on about civil servants awarding contracts again? That’s so far away from the point being made here you may as well not have come back.

How many times do you need it spelt out to you? The VIP system used to recommend suppliers has ended up being abused, rather than getting the best people for the job our money has been spent awarding contracts to mates of the government - and how much money has been wasted as a result?

Rather than rewording government responses, look at the facts yourself and use your own intuition.

Hahaha!

You're beginning to sound like a hybrid of Wanderlust and Maughan!

Yes plenty of stories every day from Maughan but up to now they are no more than fairy stories - no substance in them at all other than a narrative that lead the naive like you by the nose.

There are plenty fictional stories around - you know the ones about make believe and conspiracy, the fantasises and the what-if's but NON OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY TRUE.

The bottom line in all of this is that Civil Servants created the VIP lane (NOT MP's), Civil Servants evaluated and awarded contracts (NOT MP's) and inefficiently or not all was done honestly and in haste to deal with the tsunami of the pandemic and NOT to facilitate sleaze or corruption.

If you want to believe otherwise that's up to you but in my world I deal in facts not fiction and 'stories' are no more than tall tales to me until hard evidence is produced - not just buckets full of bile, hatred and innuendo.

Hancock was asked whether he misled parliament over his mate getting an NHS or government contract. So nothing to do with whether civil servants set contracts, you don’t seem to have the faintest grasp on what this debate is about.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Hancock was asked whether he misled parliament over his mate getting an NHS or government contract. So nothing to do with whether civil servants set contracts, you don’t seem to have the faintest grasp on what this debate is about.

He said in Parliament that he didn't mislead the House and that Civil Servants were the ones who awarded the contract to Alpha Labs - what's hard to grasp about that?

He also added that the National Audit Office has looked at this case and found nothing wrong with it! - Do you think that was a lie too?

I can't see anyone, anywhere not accepting all that to be a true statement.

Labour hasn't taken in further, no inquiry's seem to have been called for over it, it isn't an issue in the media, the police haven't been called in, the Tory party haven't taken the whip away from him, etc, etc, etc.

Just because you believe everything what Maughan spouts doesn't make it true you know.

And you know (and have been shown evidence multiple times now) that civil servants felt pressured with the amount of recommendations being jumped to the front of the line by the VIP lane - a system (whether intentionally or not) which was abused by friends of ministers to get ahead at a time of national crisis.

Labour call for an inquiry into COVID contracts on an almost weekly basis, the government still fail to present evidence partly because they didn’t take minutes of official meetings - which for someone of your esteemed experience in public office you must realise is an unbelievable mistake to make on multiple occasions - it’s simply unheard of.

Can a mod move these covid posts to the right thread please?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:And you know (and have been shown evidence multiple times now) that civil servants felt pressured with the amount of recommendations being jumped to the front of the line by the VIP lane - a system (whether intentionally or not) which was abused by friends of ministers to get ahead at a time of national crisis.

Labour call for an inquiry into COVID contracts on an almost weekly basis, the government still fail to present evidence partly because they didn’t take minutes of official meetings - which for someone of your esteemed experience in public office you must realise is an unbelievable mistake to make on multiple occasions - it’s simply unheard of.

Whether it was the right or wrong thing to do it was the head civil servant who decided to establish a VIP lane.

Once the system was set up it was used by those entitled to use it, which as I understand it was for others as well as the Tory party and include I believe access by the Labour Party as well as Health Service referrals.

Nobody I'm aware of including the NAO, the various Select Committees or any Judicial Reviews have found the setting up and running of the VIP to have been ultra vires or illegal.

As a point of fact, no one as of yet has actually proved the VIP system to have been abused - despite many, many allegations that it has.

Fwiw and from the top of my head, it was reported fairly recently that something like 47 companies were awarded contracts from the VIP lane - I think there was something like a 500 referrals to it (don't take my figure as accurate but it was  a big number compared to the actual number of companies that were eventually successful - and indicative of how the vast majority of referrals didn't meet the awarding criteria and were struck out).

Of these 47 companies only 10 Tory Minister's, MP's or otherwise connected, made referrals that were successful for one or other of these companies.

Non were successfully made by any other political party with access to the VIP lane but the option to do so WAS there.

As for NOT taking minutes at meetings I don't know what you mean?

As far as I can understand you to be getting at there can be two areas that I think you might be referring to?

The first is in the rush to set up and run the VIP lane - whilst it the teeth of a worldwide pandemic - some initial record taking as to where referrals came from were missed - The National Audit Office has already reported on this.

The second is that it appears that some Ministers, deputies and aides communicated with each other by private means such as WhatsApp.

Off course official business should always be recorded.

It's yet to be seen what if anything hasn't and what if anything the sanctions for this will be.

It's worth noting that so far nothing in these allegations about private communications have referred to Ministers contacting Civil Servants by these means - indeed it was a Civil Servant that raised the use of private communications as a concern in the first place at a committee that was minuted!

Where did I say setting up a VIP lane was the wrong thing to do?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Where did I say setting up a VIP lane was the wrong thing to do?

I don't believe I ever said you did?

I mentioned it for two reason's, first because it was the obvious place to start my narrative in my last post and secondly on two occasions to my knowledge Maughan has tried to get a Judicial Review to rule it was unlawful and both times the judge has struck it out before it even got to court!

I believe he's tried it again on the governments appeal to the last JR which found against them as it 'looked like' they had done something dodgy - even the the judge herself stated that nothing dodgy had actually been proved!

Personally I found the ruling absolutely bonkers in that nobody can govern a country simply on 'appearances' as somebody, somewhere, would always seek a JR on everything a government did on the off chance that a judge might agree with them!

A government would be tied up in knots and unable to function if everything they do is challenged on this basis.

The judges ruling my well have been correct in law but its ramifications would be enormous in how any government could function from that point onwards.

I've not seen either the governments case for appeal nor Maughan's/GLP rebuttal and await with academic interest the outcome of the JR.

I thought this snippet was interesting.

It's taken from yesterdays Telegraph but I've not read the full article as it is behind the Telegraph's online paywall.

It seems to suggest that Maughan/GLP's 'slew' of court cases against the government basically halted the plans to build a manufacturing capability of Covid testing in this country leading to the need to acquire them from abroad - and thus creating the supply problems the country is facing right now.

Fwiw there is something in this as I recall posting on here about how one UK company had to make about 500 of its staff redundant because the government had to freeze a £1m payment to it because of one of Maughan's JR actions in respect of all this.

It will be interesting to see where if anywhere this story goes.

Nothing to see here..

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/06/tory-peer-michelle-mone-involved-ppe-medpro-government-contracts

I must have missed the smoking gun?

Where is it?

MP's and tory peers don't award contracts - civil servants do!

When are you going to understand that?

Sluffy wrote:I must have missed the smoking gun?

Where is it?

MP's and tory peers don't award contracts - civil servants do!

When are you going to understand that?

Codswallop.

The head of the Civil Service is the Prime Minister. who also has the title "Minister for the Civil Service". Part of the Prime Minister's job description is to "oversee the operation of the Civil Service and government agencies".

The heads of Government Departments who commission work are the Ministers of State. Ministers are "responsible for the actions, successes and failures of their departments".

The Civil Service does the practical, operational and administrative work of each government department and they are told what to commission and how to do it (open tender/closed tender/preferred bidder etc) by the Departmental Board - who also decide who wins the contract.

Departmental Boards are chaired by the Minister and members include a mixture of MPs, non-execs and departmental officers for example the current Dept of Education Board consists of:

Secretary of State for Education (Zahawi)
Minister of State for HFE (Donelan)
5 non-execs- all from a big business background including one who has served as joint chief of staff to the prime minister.
5 departmental officers
4 other MPs - a Tory peer and former hedge fund manager, a Tory MP and former special adviser to T May, a Tory MP and former lawyer and a Tory MP who was NI minister in Boris's government 2019 -2020

Politicians not only Chair and lead the decision-making departmental boards of government departments but have the influence and numbers to control and award all procurement - and when they make their decisions, the Civil Servants trot off and do what they've been told to do.

Civil servants do not award contracts. The Board does and the contracts they award is between the supplier and the department, not between the supplier and the civil service.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I must have missed the smoking gun?

Where is it?

MP's and tory peers don't award contracts - civil servants do!

When are you going to understand that?

Codswallop.

The head of the Civil Service is the Prime Minister. who also has the title "Minister for the Civil Service". Part of the Prime Minister's job description is to "oversee the operation of the Civil Service and government agencies".

The heads of Government Departments who commission work are the Ministers of State. Ministers are "responsible for the actions, successes and failures of their departments".

The Civil Service does the practical, operational and administrative work of each government department and they are told what to commission and how to do it (open tender/closed tender/preferred bidder etc) by the Departmental Board - who also decide who wins the contract.

Departmental Boards are chaired by the Minister and members include a mixture of MPs, non-execs and departmental officers for example the current Dept of Education Board consists of:

Secretary of State for Education (Zahawi)
Minister of State for HFE (Donelan)
5 non-execs- all from a big business background including one who has served as joint chief of staff to the prime minister.
5 departmental officers
4 other MPs - a Tory peer and former hedge fund manager, a Tory MP and former special adviser to T May, a Tory MP and former lawyer and a Tory MP who was NI minister in Boris's government 2019 -2020

Politicians not only Chair and lead the decision-making departmental boards of government departments but have the influence and numbers to control and award all procurement - and when they make their decisions, the Civil Servants trot off and do what they've been told to do.

Civil servants do not award contracts. The Board does and the contracts they award is between the supplier and the department, not between the supplier and the civil service.

You really believe  the stuff you write!!!

I'll save myself the trouble of explaining what really happens and refer you to this instead which explains fully the system and that at no time do anyone other than civil servants evaluate or award contracts.

This extract is taken from one of the many governments responses to GLP's JR  applications, which is informing the High Court judge as to how the system works, how contracts are evaluated and who approves them...

33. When offers were being evaluated, the technical suitability of the products on offer was confirmed with
separate teams at NHS Supply Chain. Once the closing team had finalised the commercial terms of the
proposed contract, details would be sent to the senior officials at DHSC for a final decision by an
appropriate Accounting Officer. For the purposes of Covid-related PPE procurement, contracts up to the
value of £5m were approved by a Deputy Director; contracts between £5m and £100m by a Director in
DHSC Finance; and contracts over £100m by the Second Permanent Secretary. It should be stressed
that this final decision was not a mere formality and, based on HM Treasury criteria, careful assessment
was given to whether the proposed purchase would represent value of money in the circumstances
(prices recently paid for similar products being a key point of reference).

https://goodlawproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/200713-Letter-to-RIS-1.pdf

Fwiw this is at least the third time I've posted this on this thread.



CIVIL SERVANTS AWARD CONTRACTS NOT POLITICIANS!!!

In the real world both the politicians and civil servants would be locked up for fraud if they did what you claim they are doing - and rightly so too!!!


To be fair to you though what normally does happen is that for contracts over a set amount, they are reported to a 'board' of elected members for them to make the formal decision - this is more about rubber stamping the civil servants recommendations and NOT as you seem to believe TELLING the civil servants to award this contract to this mate of theirs and that contract to a different mate of theirs - now go and get on with it, chop chop!

That only happens in your head!

But even the need for the formal rubber stamping is not required under the emergency regulations the civil service are working to and as I keep repeating it is solely the civil servants who are awarding ALL the contracts and politicians have no say in how they are evaluated or awarded.

The clue is in the job title Civil Servants.



They serve the Board. The Board makes the actual decisions and tells them what to do.
The Board are not involved in buying office stationery, but anything of political interest or high value - which is what we are talking about - is ultimately their decision.

As for quoting procurement guidance - this is a) guidance b) relating only to the formal process of commissioning c) timebound - procurement strategies like best value come and go and d) are entirely legally circumventable.

One of the easiest ways to get round public procurement obstacles are Direct Award Contracts* - I've used them myself, but there are other ways of doing it.
All you need to do as a potential supplier is convince the Chair/Board that you can supply something that nobody else can whether that's a product, service or timescale. Chair then tells the Board that it's needed and nobody argues with the Chair because the seats on the Board were handed out by the politicians in the first place. Board then instructs the officers to sort it out and hey presto - you have a single action tender with no other bidders.

So imagine a scenario where the pandemic strikes and we are desperately short of masks etc and the Department contacts all the established suppliers and asks them to bid to deliver say 10 million masks. They all say, yes we can do it but it will take 9 months. Department report this back to the Board. Imagine then that the Minister - let's call him Cockhand - is having a pint in his local and he is telling the barman his troubles. Suddenly the barman says "I don't make masks, but I can set up a factory, knock them out and deliver in 6 weeks!" Cockhand goes back to the Board and tells them (sorry - "advises" them) to order a DAC on the basis of timescale. He probably knows the barman won't be able to deliver - but at least he can then stand up in front of the nation and proclaim he's ordered 10 million masks.

Civil servants are gophers - the real power and the actual decision-making on the big ticket items lies with the politicians and the stooges/careerists they appoint to the government boards.

Remember - "Yes Minister" was a comedy programme - not reality.

You my friend are a mentalist.

Clearly you totally believe in what you say on here.

I've linked you to evidence provided to a High Court judge as to how the system works and you still believe the utter bollocks on social media about Hancock and the pub landlord instead???

It's nearly TWO YEARS since all this started and no one, I repeat no one, has found one single shred of hard evidence to substantiate that anything corrupt, fraudulent or illegal has ever happened.

The likes of Maugham and others have set up whistle blowing contact links to them in order to get any 'dirt' that is out there - but still haven't found anything!

You're simply a conspiracist moron based solely on your hatred of the Tory party - they must really have pissed on your chips at one time or other in the past for you to be so hateful of them?

Fwiw both the NAO and PAC have independently done official inquiry's into how the procurement system worked, and interviewed those involved in the process - ALL are Civil Servants, NONE are Politicians.

Whilst both bodies criticised the process as not being as transparent as it might have been and that there is a need for an improved procurement process (the Boardman Review) neither have found any direct involvement, interference or influence by politicians in the process of evaluating and awarding contracts.

None at all!!!

The only form of involvement they had was the facility to refer potential contractors to a mailbox...

3. The high-priority lane was not designed well enough to be a wholly effective way
of sifting credible leads to supply PPE. Government’s PPE buying team, within
the parallel supply chain, received over 15,000 offers to supply PPE. This cross government PPE buying team set up a high-priority lane to separately assess and process high-priority leads that it considered more credible, which sat alongside
an ordinary lane to process other leads. Leads that were considered more credible
were those from government officials, ministers’ offices, MPs and members of the
House of Lords but it is not clear why this assumption was made. The priority lane
did not include organisations with expertise in the health and social care sector
that had existing relationships with suppliers through their members or directly
and were well-placed to assess the credibility of potential PPE suppliers, such as the
British Medical Association. Around one in ten suppliers that came through the
high-priority lane were awarded a contract compared with one in a hundred for
the ordinary lane. There were no written rules to support those making referrals
in deciding which leads to put forward. Some of those making referrals that were
considered high priority, such as MPs, passed on leads on the basis that others would
assess their suitability rather than vouching for the credibility of those offers. The
same eight-stage process for assessing and processing offers was applied to both
lanes, but the Cabinet Office and the Department accepted that leads that went
through the high-priority lane were handled better.

If you can bothered - and I'm sure you won't be, you can see for yourself what the actual truth of the matter is and not this social media driven myth that you and others clearly believe in that it was simply Hancock and his mates up to no good!!!

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/4607/documents/46709/default/
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Investigation-into-government-procurement-during-the-COVID-19-pandemic.pdf

Apologies - I thought you'd actually been involved in a boardroom meeting.

wanderlust wrote:Apologies - I thought you'd actually been involved in a boardroom meeting.

Fwiw I used to chair them in the absence of the CEO.

Look if you want to truly believe in the bullshit that you post on here then that's up to you.

I however can back up what I say, with documents stating what the actual process was and who the actual contact awarding officers were, which have been sent to a High Court judge as evidence, who is ruling on a legal case the government is defending.  A report from the National Audit Office on their forensic inquiry and  findings into this very issue.  And an inquiry undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee who interviewed the actual people (all of whom are civil servants) who set up the system, operated it, evaluated the tenders and awarded the contracts.  The PAC report has been published and is also in the public domain.

In fact I've linked you to all three documents above to make your life easy if you actually wanted to see for yourself what really did happen.

Have you bothered to even open the links, let alone read, understand and learnt the actual truth of the matter from them...?

I have.

So feel free to continue to post your uninformed, putrid bile and hatred and I'll happily continue to take the piss out of you, your ignorance and also your following petty and petulant behaviour when I do so!

Tell us all again how you were in charge of four teams of Business Consultants because no one on here believes you or much if anything at all of which you say anymore.

Have you ever read Keith Waterhouse's book 'Billy Liar' because you clearly live in the same fantasy world as young William does!