New Tory Leader

[Herman 9,837]

27 minutes ago, Daz Sparks said:

Ordinary people suffer a pandemic and all the associated hardships, whereas privileged scumbags, without any previous experience in procurement of PPE to the NHS have £60m in the bank. 

Bunch of corrupt b'stards. 

Patrick Grant was on Desert Island Discs explaining how he and many others were ready and able to make and supply PPE but couldn't get any response from the government. It was a scandal what happened and Mone is not the only spiv at it, but hopefully she is the one that will set a full investigation started. 

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

31 minutes ago, Herman said:

Patrick Grant was on Desert Island Discs explaining how he and many others were ready and able to make and supply PPE but couldn't get any response from the government. It was a scandal what happened and Mone is not the only spiv at it, but hopefully she is the one that will set a full investigation started. 

Yes Herman.

I would have few quibbles if they went to established (pre-pandemic) companies that specialized in this sort of thing (PPE) and paid over the odds. it was after-all a panic.

What nobody can understand is how you would place these contracts (100s of millions) with 'new' companies with no track record and only established in the days before (or even 'after') the contract it seems for the sole purpose of taking tax payer cash. It stinks of pigs in clover. I want the proverbial book thrown at them, and the shirt off their lardy backs!

[dylanisabaddog 5,013]

Michelle Mone. "If I die my children may benefit from the Trust" 

Has anyone else considered the possibility that her husband may be the brains of the operation. 

Has anyone else considered the possibility that Mone may be the reason that Boris has 'phone problems'? 

[Barbe bleu 833]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

Patrick Grant was on Desert Island Discs explaining how he and many others were ready and able to make and supply PPE but couldn't get any response from the government. It was a scandal what happened and Mone is not the only spiv at it, but hopefully she is the one that will set a full investigation started. 

Patrick Grant is in the clothes trade rather than PPE.  Would he really have been better able to recommend suppliers than Michelle Mone who is in the same business? 

I think the high court got it right: they effectively said:

there is nothing inherently wrong with a vip lane;

there is no evidence that contracts went to unsuitable cccompanies or that the process was not rigorous;

But,

by favouring recommendations from a small pool if recommended people they put some equal companies at a disadvantage as the resource was dedicated to those with access at the expense of those without.

The last bit is key. The vip lane access requirements were at best arbitrary and, whilst it might be necessary to provide some form of filter to stop the process getting overrun, the way they chose to do it wasn't appropriate.  That's probably the lesson to be learnt

Edited December 18, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[dylanisabaddog 5,013]

Every week I swap my left wing Sunday paper with my neighbour who reads The Sunday Times. 

This week The Times has an article about the forthcoming election. It claims that the Tories are going to launch an all out attack on Starmer because he defended some horrible people during his legal career. They have been told to shut up about Savile because the really extreme right wingers will do that for them. 

My God, 2024 is going to be worse than 2023.

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

Mone and her husband set up a shell company to act as a broker to supply PPE not manufacture it, it was specifically set up to make money from the crisis.

Patrick Grant and a lot of other UK companies were prepared to switch production and supply PPE, he said it wasn't a difficult thing to do and most were prepared to do it at cost plus.

There is a world of difference between the two situations.

 

 

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Patrick Grant is in the clothes trade rather than PPE.  Would he really have been better able to recommend suppliers than Michelle Mone who is in the same business? 

Yes.

EDIT: @A Load of Squit beat me to it.

Edited December 18, 2023 by canarydan23

[Herman 9,837]

😲😄

 

[sonyc 5,541]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Patrick Grant is in the clothes trade rather than PPE.  Would he really have been better able to recommend suppliers than Michelle Mone who is in the same business? 

I think the high court got it right: they effectively said:

there is nothing inherently wrong with a vip lane;

there is no evidence that contracts went to unsuitable cccompanies or that the process was not rigorous;

But,

by favouring recommendations from a small pool if recommended people they put some equal companies at a disadvantage as the resource was dedicated to those with access at the expense of those without.

The last bit is key. The vip lane access requirements were at best arbitrary and, whilst it might be necessary to provide some form of filter to stop the process getting overrun, the way they chose to do it wasn't appropriate.  That's probably the lesson to be learnt

But Grant's business was not offered the work supposedly on the grounds of health and safety, because they were unhappy allowing people to make stuff in their homes (his workers) during the pandemic. Grant's business is making clothing, he has the complete set up and ability to distribute. His model is firmly based on skills acquisition in the UK and on local jobs and investment in the UK economy rather than sourcing abroad.  He is a modern day successful entrepreneur and someone who knows the business. If ever there was a business model that ought to have been right up the street of many members of the Tory Party - he is an example for many. But no, they had a VIP fast lane that favoured cronyism. 

Mone and her husband might have been people that got rich in world war 2 on the back of people's suffering. That's why people call folk like them "spivs". Look at their lifestyle and in his case, his size. Has he eaten all his profits? They are ultimate consumerists it appears when you read about them.

Who invited  Mone to sit in the House of Lords? Oh.... a decision by Cameron. We know the calibre of that man and his judgement. Another on the gravy train it appears, the Greensil one. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by sonyc

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

In an attempt to make Mone the main scapegoat someone has published his Whatsapp messages, the only problem is that he previously said he'd lost them. He needs to talk to Rishi & Johnson.

 

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

Unrelated yet related, one of the "pick-me" set of the headbanger brigade is facing allegations of reputational damage.

Tory MP Miriam Cates under investigation by Commons standards watchdog | The Independent

And in evidence that humorous pranks are still very much alive and well: Channel 4’s The Last Leg pranks Suella Braverman into collecting ‘D*** of the year’ award | The Independent

Edited December 18, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[Barbe bleu 833]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

In an attempt to make Mone the main scapegoat someone has published his Whatsapp messages, the only problem is that he previously said he'd lost them. He needs to talk to Rishi & Johnson.

 

That's not a screenshot of WhatsApp.   Did he say that he lost all messages from the relevant time, or just WhatsApp?

[Barbe bleu 833]

2 hours ago, sonyc said:

But Grant's business was not offered the work supposedly on the grounds of health and safety, because they were unhappy allowing people to make stuff in their homes (his workers) during the pandemic. Grant's business is making clothing, he has the complete set up and ability to distribute. His model is firmly based on skills acquisition in the UK and on local jobs and investment in the UK economy rather than sourcing abroad.  He is a modern day successful entrepreneur and someone who knows the business. If ever there was a business model that ought to have been right up the street of many members of the Tory Party - he is an example for many. But no, they had a VIP fast lane that favoured cronyism. 

I like Patrick Grant,  he's good on sewing bee and seems like a genuine guy with flair and passion for his trade.   Whether he could have done much to meet the acute need for PPE in double quick time is a complete unknown though and it's not particularly relevant to whether Mone should have got a contract.

I'm not defending Mone or government, I just want more detail.  Did she declare an interest to decision makers? did the company profiteer or is 30% normal for the industry?  Did they deliver as per contract or did they try to palm off low quality goods on the taxpayer?  Was the contract sufficiently robust to pass the rogue dealer test?   His is he sort of stuff I want to know, the fact that she wears blue ermine and has a yacht is good sport but its completely incidental to a very important series of questions

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

Here's some more detail.

An important line from the NAO. Existing NHS suppliers delivered 738 million items of PPE in April and May '20, while new firms delivered just 235 million (despite the gov. chucking £billions at them). The established firms had supply chains in place – the Tory donors didn't.

 

[Barbe bleu 833]

9 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Here's some more detail.

An important line from the NAO. Existing NHS suppliers delivered 738 million items of PPE in April and May '20, while new firms delivered just 235 million (despite the gov. chucking £billions at them). The established firms had supply chains in place – the Tory donors didn't.

 

What were we concerned about then?  If existing suppliers were providing more than enough was the absolute panic aroind PPE all a media creation?  Was it about logistics or were the concerns real but resolved within a very short period of time?

Edited December 19, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

16 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

What were we concerned about then?  If existing suppliers were providing more than enough was the absolute panic aroind PPE all a media creation?  Was it about logistics or were the concerns real but resolved within a very short period of time?

It was the shysters in Government making money for their mates and donors.

It was a scandal driven by greed.

[Barbe bleu 833]

2 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

It was the shysters in Government making money for their mates and donors.

It was a scandal driven by greed.

Yes, that's certainly an analysis I have heard a lot.  

The alternative is that government, under immense public pressure, launched a new scheme to find alternatives to existing providers to meet acute and completely unforeseen demand. what they did inadvertently favoured those with contacts in parliament.

I guess everyone has their favourite theory (in many cases formed from prior opinion of boris and others) but unless a lot of WhatsApp messages come to light we'll never really know.

I'm not too sure what to make of the stats provided.  Do they show that all of the panic was unnecessary and that the existing supply chains were capable of giving us what we needed.   Was it not just toilet roll that got the panic treatment?

 

[Herman 9,837]

Jesus, is there anything you won't make excuses for? 

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

22 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Yes, that's certainly an analysis I have heard a lot.  

The alternative is that government, under immense public pressure, launched a new scheme to find alternatives to existing providers to meet acute and completely unforeseen demand. what they did inadvertently favoured those with contacts in parliament.

I guess everyone has their favourite theory (in many cases formed from prior opinion of boris and others) but unless a lot of WhatsApp messages come to light we'll never really know.

I'm not too sure what to make of the stats provided.  Do they show that all of the panic was unnecessary and that the existing supply chains were capable of giving us what we needed.   Was it not just toilet roll that got the panic treatment?

 

It was a scandal driven by greed.

The govt gave Tim Horlick's family office Ayanda Capital, owned through a Mauritius-registered shell company, £252m to deliver masks The hedge fund with no record in PPE procurement was given a red rating (“major concerns”) It delivered no usable masks

They made about £40 million pounds

 

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by A Load of Squit

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

21 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Yes, that's certainly an analysis I have heard a lot.  

The alternative is that government, under immense public pressure, launched a new scheme to find alternatives to existing providers to meet acute and completely unforeseen demand. what they did inadvertently favoured those with contacts in parliament.

I guess everyone has their favourite theory (in many cases formed from prior opinion of boris and others) but unless a lot of WhatsApp messages come to light we'll never really know.

I'm not too sure what to make of the stats provided.  Do they show that all of the panic was unnecessary and that the existing supply chains were capable of giving us what we needed.   Was it not just toilet roll that got the panic treatment?

 

I think you're in danger of belittling how serious this is.

They are subject to a National Crime Agency investigation - allegations of fraud and bribery (which they deny).There is also a government lawsuit.

It really doesn't get any more serious than that!

[Barbe bleu 833]

6 minutes ago, Herman said:

Jesus, is there anything you won't make excuses for? 

It's easy to have a rant.  But if you want to really understand something you have to look a lot deeper and resolve the detail.

Social media rants are two a penny now and they don't seem to change much.  I'd rather look at something without the emotion and the prior opinions and make a decision based on that.

You say I'm making excuses but if you read the last few posts again you'll see that I have remained neutral.

 

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

32 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Yes, that's certainly an analysis I have heard a lot.  

The alternative is that government, under immense public pressure, launched a new scheme to find alternatives to existing providers to meet acute and completely unforeseen demand. what they did inadvertently favoured those with contacts in parliament.

I guess everyone has their favourite theory (in many cases formed from prior opinion of boris and others) but unless a lot of WhatsApp messages come to light we'll never really know.

I'm not too sure what to make of the stats provided.  Do they show that all of the panic was unnecessary and that the existing supply chains were capable of giving us what we needed.   Was it not just toilet roll that got the panic treatment?

 

Fundamentally, the crux of it is twofold:

1. The sheer amounts of money wasted, combined with
2. Lack of sufficiently robust due diligence to ensure that newer suppliers were able to meet demand approximately as efficiently as companies with existing links to the NHS. 

The outcome is well-established, namely incompetent companies with precious little background in the medical sector earned very well at the taxpayer's expense in an emergency whilst falling far short. Yet when it comes to resolving finances/budgets, all the focus suddenly goes on "benefit cheats" who cost far, far less.

We essentially have a government with very little management acumen.

Edited December 19, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[Barbe bleu 833]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I think you're in danger of belittling how serious this is.

They are subject to a National Crime Agency investigation - allegations of fraud and bribery (which they deny).There is also a government lawsuit.

It really doesn't get any more serious than that!

It's not belittling something to seek to examine it closely and objectively.  At no point have i defended the government or Mone (who are in any event on different sides).  What I have done is laid out some thoughts to move the debate on. 

We could go to Otto English on twitter to be told what to think, or we could go to him for some thoughts that we can challenge, discuss and examine.  It's up to the individual I guess.

 

 

[Barbe bleu 833]

26 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

It was a scandal driven by greed.

The govt gave Tim Horlick's family office Ayanda Capital, owned through a Mauritius-registered shell company, £252m to deliver masks The hedge fund with no record in PPE procurement was given a red rating (“major concerns”) It delivered no usable masks

They made about £40 million pounds

 

 

If you are genuinely interested in the ayamda and pestfix cases in particular and the VIP lane in general then there is a 519 paragraph high court judgment that can be read

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2022/46.html&query=(Good)+AND+(law)+AND+(project)

It's a balanced and fair assessment that gives a nuanced picture.  Government and cliamants came out about equal on it which is probably a good clue that it's not biased.  As far as I know its not been appealed and so is pretty much the final word on it.

 

[Barbe bleu 833]

26 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Fundamentally, the crux of it is twofold:

1. The sheer amounts of money wasted, combined with
2. Lack of sufficiently robust due diligence to ensure that newer suppliers were able to meet demand approximately as efficiently as companies with existing links to the NHS. 

 

This is exactly the approach that should be taken and I thank you for raising it.

Rather than a scattergun attack provide focus by breaking the issue down into a series of questions that move from big picture to fine detail.

If it can be demonstrated that there was a massive overorder of PPE and the government knew, at the time, that there would be it is much harder for them to defend questions about who got contracts.  If there is no answer to the fundamental question then the government has many, many places to go to in defence and we are all nonethewiser really.

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

9 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

If you are genuinely interested in the ayamda and pestfix cases in particular and the VIP lane in general then there is a 519 paragraph high court judgment that can be read

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2022/46.html&query=(Good)+AND+(law)+AND+(project)

It's a balanced and fair assessment that gives a nuanced picture.  Government and cliamants came out about equal on it which is probably a good clue that it's not biased.  As far as I know its not been appealed and so is pretty much the final word on it.

 

£40 million profit for doing nothing useful.

That's a scandal and they're not the only ones.

[Herman 9,837]

35 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

It's easy to have a rant.  But if you want to really understand something you have to look a lot deeper and resolve the detail.

Social media rants are two a penny now and they don't seem to change much.  I'd rather look at something without the emotion and the prior opinions and make a decision based on that.

You say I'm making excuses but if you read the last few posts again you'll see that I have remained neutral.

 

No you're not. You're simply being dishonest and ignoring all the available evidence because it shows your party is bent as a nine bob note. As per usual. 

[Barbe bleu 833]

18 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

£40 million profit for doing nothing useful.

That's a scandal and they're not the only ones.

It's 519 paragraphs so I wouldnt be bothered to do it but to make your case stronger you could go through the judgment and highlight parts that make your case for you. 

We are all going to agree that the judge would have broken the case down into a series of questions,  heard evidence from all sides, assessed it systematically and given a highly intelligent analysis without fear or favour. 

This judgment should be golddust for the debate.

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

38 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Fundamentally, the crux of it is twofold:

1. The sheer amounts of money wasted, combined with
2. Lack of sufficiently robust due diligence to ensure that newer suppliers were able to meet demand approximately as efficiently as companies with existing links to the NHS. 

The outcome is well-established, namely incompetent companies with precious little background in the medical sector earned very well at the taxpayer's expense in an emergency whilst falling far short. Yet when it comes to resolving finances/budgets, all the focus suddenly goes on "benefit cheats" who cost far, far less.

We essentially have a government with very little management acumen.

Put the Mone case aside - it's already in the courts so can't be discussed in true detail.

Generally - with the PPE scandal, either the government is guilty of unimaginable incompetence or is guilty of pure self-interested cronyism or worse!

Not a good choice!

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

Put the Mone case aside - it's already in the courts so can't be discussed in true detail.

Generally - with the PPE scandal, either the government is guilty of unimaginable incompetence or is guilty of pure self-interested cronyism or worse!

Not a good choice!

Exactly - even as a bare minimum, the levels of incompetence alone indicate the sheer lack of competence and management acumen involved.