Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

https://www.metro.news/pm-accused-of-cronyism-as-he-stands-by-minister-who-backed-porn-barons-1bn-development/2056407/


https://bylinetimes.com/2020/11/11/robert-jenrick-boris-johnsons-government-suppress-key-documents-from-mps-in-constituency-kick-back-scandal/


Anyone who has watched Boris' interview with Eddie Mair has known from long ago that he is not to be trusted. Attempts to prorogue parliament and to break international law further underline his disregard for the truth, jeopardising hopes of trade deals, and besmirching the name of the UK globally.

These are just a couple of examples of this government's sly machinations that have now become overtly brass-necked, Trump-like.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Not great reading the NAO’s report, the ‘VIP channel’ in particular. Any company that’s a part of said channel was ten times more likely to be awarded a contract. While the report acknowledges the intense pressures being worked under, it also highlights how essential documents used to safeguard against the misuse of public funds were missing from hundreds of million pound contracts.

“That was particularly true of the high-priority channel. Of the 493 suppliers referred to the scheme by a political or official contact, details of the individual who made the reference were recorded in the government’s case management system in fewer than half of cases.”


Few things from me:

1. Clearly the fact MPs could recommend companies to be part of the VIP channel is having an influence over the procurement process - I’m not saying they shouldn’t, but I resent being told I’m an idiot for questioning if that was the case.

2. No evidence has been made public as to what criteria makes a company eligible for the VIP channel - this is pretty key really. Competence to do the job? Or something else?

3. Whether through incompetence or cronyism, clearly the system has been abused and if anything like this is to happen in future I’d hope lessons have been learned.

1 - You can resent as much as you like but the fact is I called you an idiot for not understanding/comprehending the process and not for asking the question!

2 - Such leads were seen to be more credible - in the same way if both Sam Allardyce and myself apply to become the next Bolton manager, one of us would be put in a group of 'possibles' to be considered and one in a group of 'others' - which group do you look at first when you have no time on your hands to look at everyone?

3 - That is indeed the recommendation of the report and the next time there is such an emergency, the same will happen - deal with the fire first then do the paperwork afterwards.

That's simply the reality and the priority of things.

1 - I think it’s quite clear I was referring to the process for procuring PPE given that’s what we’ve been discussing - I tried to explain this to you multiple times. And as it turns out, I was correct.

If I was in your shoes and id called someone thick, ignorant and an idiot for something they were actually correct on, I’d hold my hands up and apologise.

2 - Yes we know they were seen to be more credible, the question is why. Competence or something else?

3 - again, nobody’s arguing that’s the priority of things. The question is whether the system has been abused.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:1 - I think it’s quite clear I was referring to the process for procuring PPE given that’s what we’ve been discussing - I tried to explain this to you multiple times. And as it turns out, I was correct.

If I was in your shoes and id called someone thick, ignorant and an idiot for something they were actually correct on, I’d hold my hands up and apologise.

2 - Yes we know they were seen to be more credible, the question is why. Competence or something else?

3 - again, nobody’s arguing that’s the priority of things. The question is whether the system has been abused.

1 - Nope you could not understand (or accept) the way the system works despite me going to quite a considerable attempts to explain it to you and you instead frequently told me I was against this concern being looked into - which I never have.

It clearly isn't my fault that you didn't wish to accept what I was saying and made numerous ridiculous comments that I called you out on.

2 - Ability to deliver the service within immediate time scales as required.

3 - The National Audit Office is the first body to report publicly and whilst they highlight deficiencies in the bureaucracy which were already publicly known, they have identified and looked into what they consider twenty key contracts as per their definition and not found anything untoward in any of them.

Let's see what the other lines of inquiry reveal.

I'll still stand by my assertion all along that I'd be very surprised if any corruption on cronyism is uncovered.

I don’t understand how the system works? I thought that MPs had influence over this decision, you called me an idiot for thinking that and it turns out I was right.

It’s very simple Sluffy. I knew you wouldn’t apologise though, you’re too proud to even admit fault on the internet.

The fact remains that nepotism/cronyism is clearly rife within the government as can be seen from media coverage of several incidents since the Tories came into office, all sources reporting the exact same details and in the same tone.

That being so, it's hardly surprising that the issue which has preoccupied the two of you over interminable squabbles is also subject to suspicion and scrutiny. TROY's discomfort with events is justified.

NAO has announced it will be investigating Government procurement of PPE after it was revealed that whilst normal scrutiny was abandoned in the early weeks of Covid, companies recommended by Tory ministers, MPs and peers were 10 times more likely to get a contract than approved suppliers.

wanderlust wrote:NAO has announced it will be investigating Government procurement of PPE after it was revealed that whilst normal scrutiny was abandoned in the early weeks of Covid, companies recommended by Tory ministers, MPs and peers were 10 times more likely to get a contract than approved suppliers.

???

They've just reported on it!!!!!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I don’t understand how the system works? I thought that MPs had influence over this decision, you called me an idiot for thinking that and it turns out I was right.

It’s very simple Sluffy. I knew you wouldn’t apologise though, you’re too proud to even admit fault on the internet.

Jesus Christ even now you are still showing your ignorance and lack of understanding!!!

MP's DO NOT have influence over the awarding of contracts - can't you grasp that fact???

Look I'll again explain it to you as simply as I can...

An MP might put forward a 'friends' offer to become a supplier but that's as far as their influence goes - it is then dealt with by the civil servants -

Sluffy wrote:24. Accordingly, in order to address the challenge of surging demand for PPE within the NHS, it was decided to set up a new organisation to focus solely on procuring PPE supplies for the public sector: this was known as the “PPE Cell”, and comprised a dedicated cross-governmental team of officials from DHSC, the MoD, Cabinet Office and NHS England. This prevented undue pressure on NHS Supply Chain’s existing administrative capability, allowing it to continue to meet the need for other consumables in the healthcare system more generally and deal with existing PPE suppliers. The new task force decided to adopt an innovative “open-source” approach to procurement, calling for help from across the UK business community to help ensure critical supplies were maintained, with a view to buying the items urgently needed whencesoever it was necessary and appropriate to do so.

The civil servants in the PPE Cell received  these offers and evaluated them...

Sluffy wrote: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).

About one in ten suppliers processed through the high-priority lane (47 out of 493) obtained contracts - so if you put that around the other way about nine in ten suppliers processed through the high-priority lane (446 out of 493) FAILED the evaluation and did not obtained contracts

The awarding of the contracts were then signed off by senior civil servants - the contracts being awarded as per the criteria they were working to - so NO MP's HAD ANY INFLUENCE OVER THE DECISION.

And the only people who could override their decision were ministers (MP's themselves) and the NAO confirms that never happened!!!!

Sluffy wrote:The NAO concluded that in cases of potential conflicts of interest involving ministers, all had properly declared their interests and it found "no evidence of their involvement in procurement decisions or contract management".

That means as I've been telling you over, and over, and over again, that MP's DIDN'T have influence over the awarding of the contracts.

What the NAO report is saying that if there was any 'corrupt' practices in the awarding of the contracts it can only have been done by the civil servants involved in the process...

Sluffy wrote:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-policy-note-0120-responding-to-covid-19

People like my good self would be the ones working to policy, the ones who would care about what they've been professionally trained to do and spent many years climbing up the ladder to the top of the tree and wouldn't throw it all away because some random MP said, 'Sluffy, you don't know me but do me a favour and award this half billion pound contract to my mate who actually doesn't know anything about PPE but we'll make sure you get a very nice Christmas bonus, nudge, nudge, wink, wink!!!'

Do you REALLY believe that actually happened???

So 90% of the 'High Priority Lane' were REJECTED as not meeting the criteria!

The contracts awarded COULD and the whole evaluation and award was done by public servants and so NO MP influence involved at all!

The NAO findings are critical of the civil servants lack of proper documentation which leads to public confidence in what has happened being undermined and everything not being as transparent as it ideally should have been.

Can you understand it better now???

An MP recommending a supplier in itself is having an influence over the process.

What is it you think the VIP channel was intended for exactly? Seems absolutely blatant that by being in said channel the supplier had additional credence given to them. Particularly as by being in that channel they are ten times more likely to be awarded a contract.

If I recommend a film to a friend when they’re choosing one to watch that’s having an influence over their decision making process.

Do you understood that better now?

And yes transparency is exactly what everyone but you has been arguing for the entire time, it’s only you saying there was no time and no choice.

Hahaha, you're really grasping at straws now!

I said an MP 'might' give a recommendation to the VIP channel to give you and others an idea of how minimal influence they had on the process - not that they would do or did - and that even if it happened the rejection rate of 90% proved that it was the process of meeting the criteria of the evaluation which was driving the award of contracts and not who recommended them.

Your analogy of recommending a film to a friend as proof of what you've been saying is again naïve in the extreme - you could recommend a scary horror film to me say but if my criteria and total focus is to find the best comedy film I wouldn't even consider looking at it and your recommendation would have zero influence on me obviously.

And are you for real 'only me' saying there was no time or choice not to be transparent about the awards - do you think I'm making things up or something???

Do you even realise what the process was to do so - here's the governments explanation to the sought after Judicial Review by GLP on this - see Page 65 onwards -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fBQEpx5VK09woeYa9hL4xyo6a7G4C1Cg/view


No offence but you've been out of your depth about all of this from the start - and continue to be so.

These things aren't about what people think should have happen but about what actually happen and why it did so.  The arbiter of whether that was right or wrong is the law and not public opinion.

It's abundantly clear that the general public (even the media) are susceptible to accepting and fully believing the headlines of a story, particularly when it fits in with their existing opinions and views - and care little or nothing as to the reality of the events, or even at times the facts of them.

If there's been any wrong doing then everyone has access to somebody who can bring that out, whether it be reporting it to the police, brining it to the attention of the inquiry's or whistleblowing and leaking stuff to the likes of Maugham and/or investigative journalists and all can be made public. If there isn't then there really is no case to answer is there?

I've no doubt whatsoever that after the end of all this at the conclusion of all the legal cases, that there will still be many who will still believe there has been a government cover up, that cronyism is rife, that pockets have been lined, that the system is corrupt and so on.

I'm guessing you are probably going to be one of them.

...and Norpig another!


Norpig, if say a nasty outbreak of bedpan-itous broke out and the world need a cure today and a doctor acquaintance of yours came to you and said he knew someone in a company that makes drugs for Pfizer and Welcome who has a good idea for a cure and I contacted you and said my granny has an old remedy which could help - which one would you look at first?

The government received 15,385 approaches - 493 from 'doctor acquaintance' types and 14,892 from the likes of me and my granny, which ones should they look at first as there is simply no time to look at them all and pick the bests ones?

And if you looked at your doctors friends suggestion first rather than my granny's then isn't that cronyism by you?

Do you start to see it isn't all as black and white as it is painted by some - even the Guardian.

I actually deleted my comment as it had already been covered i think (although i wasn't about to try and read all the comments, it would take all day) but i do believe that the Tories use the old boys network and contacts and they do get preferential treatment. Just my opinion though and i don't want a 20 paragraph reply either.

Norpig wrote:I actually deleted my comment as it had already been covered i think (although i wasn't about to try and read all the comments, it would take all day) but i do believe that the Tories use the old boys network and contacts and they do get preferential treatment. Just my opinion though and i don't want a 20 paragraph reply either.

You are entitled to your belief and many share your views on this but it doesn't necessarily make it correct though and I do hope my little question I set for you may at least make you see things from another perspective of what was done and why it was?

Sluffy wrote:
Your analogy of recommending a film to a friend as proof of what you've been saying is again naïve in the extreme - you could recommend a scary horror film to me say but if my criteria and total focus is to find the best comedy film I wouldn't even consider looking at it and your recommendation would have zero influence on me obviously.

It was an attempt to simplify it for you, to try and get round the constant attempts to spin. You can keep on with trying to condescend me on this issue, but it won't work, because fundamentally the only person proved wrong has been yourself.

Unless you are seriously trying to argue that recommending a company be considered for a contract is not having an influence over the process?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
Your analogy of recommending a film to a friend as proof of what you've been saying is again naïve in the extreme - you could recommend a scary horror film to me say but if my criteria and total focus is to find the best comedy film I wouldn't even consider looking at it and your recommendation would have zero influence on me obviously.

It was an attempt to simplify it for you, to try and get round the constant attempts to spin.

This boils down to one question Sluffy:

Do you think that a minister recommending a company to be considered for a contract is having an influence over the process?

No I don't.

The process was designed by the civil service procurement experts to ascertain the most expeditious route that contracts could be awarded to those capable of delivering them within the circumstances the world found it self in - and that's exactly what was achieved.

It wasn't the ministers, MP's or tory donors, etc, who set up the system for their own ends to take advantage of.

The process simply gave access and certainly not influence in the same way as the system gives me access to say a bus pass and you not, simply based on my age and not on my influence with those issuing them.

Would you rather the procurement experts spend their time sifting through thousands of my granny's bedpan-itous quack remedy's that 'might' work rather than a few hundred ones from 'recommended' sources that 'possibly' would work?

The house is on fire, people will die if you don't do something now, so is it unreasonable for the procurement experts to attempt to gain access as an urgent priority to means of which to deal with the situation?

How has that been spun by some to turn it into tory cronyism - because that is exactly what has happened.

Okay, great. I do think it's influencing the process. Can we just agree to disagree over that point then?

Just to be really clear for you, I don't buy into the idea the process was created specifically for the purpose of exploitation, but I do think it's been exploited (by some) along the way - to the detriment of both delivery and the public purse.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Okay, great. I do think it's influencing the process. Can we just agree to disagree over that point then?

Just to be really clear for you, I don't buy into the idea the process was created specifically for the purpose of exploitation, but I do think it's been exploited (by some) along the way - to the detriment of both delivery and the public purse.

"Just to be really clear for you..." Hahaha, thank you!

People exploit systems - well I never would have believed that!!!

I've said from the very start what was happening/had happened and why, and that mistakes would have inevitably have been made and people would have exploited the situation for their own ends but I very much doubted that much if any corruption and/or cronyism had occurred and if it had that those involved should face the full weight of the law.

Up to now all of what I've said seems to be panning out accordingly despite Maugham's clear agenda and the social media hysteria that is being reflected in the press.

I may yet be proved wrong by the various inquiry's and judicial reviews yet to come but I will be surprised if I am to any great degree and the only obvious case against the government which they already have acknowledged is their default on reporting of the contract awards within the required time limits - and even then the judge may throw out the request for a Judicial Review on this because the government will have belatedly updated and completed the full records required of them by the time the JR comes around to be heard - thus giving it no remedy required to be set by it to rectify the breach.

We will see what the PAO reveals in two weeks time - seems the chair (Labour) is clearly out for blood judging by her comments so far!

Should be fun!

Okay Sluffy.

Nepotism ? Cronyism ?
Lads, lads, it's the Tories.
They're just doing what the Tories always do. Looking after their own.
It's no big shock, and what's more worrying is that this Government feel they don't even need to go to any great lengths to cover it up or deny it.
You would have to be incredibly naive to believe that all these lucrative Government contracts just by chance fell into the laps of companies with connections to Tory MPs ( 10 times more likely to happen than if they didn't) because it was all done in a bit of a rush.
But then again, some people ARE that naive. (OR just unwilling to admit that they got it badly wrong in the first place).