4 ms·

> I would go as far as to say... In the UK, it wasn't corruption. These people were paid money for products, they delivered those products, the price paid wasn

> I would go as far as to say... In the UK, it wasn't corruption. These people were paid money for products, they delivered those products, the price paid wasn't excessive. The UK has an independent auditor that found no evidence of corruption, and that (where product was delivered incorrectly) it was due to problems with contract specs. Afaik, there is only one case where a person was directly involved in politics and was related to a vendor, they went to great lengths to hide their connection to a vendor, repeatedly lied to civil servants who questioned them, and is now being charged criminally (for some reason, the person who made the original comment about the UK chose not to mention it, it was PPE Medpro). The issue was that at the start of Covid, the govt called up all their suppliers asked for PPE, and they said they didn't have any. So the govt started using suppliers who often had other businesses that imported product from China (and had to set up new companies). The level of profit on the contract was normal, the price was higher but that was related to the pandemic (how quickly forgotten, in the UK there was literally no PPE for most of 2020, you couldn't buy masks at any price). So the flexibility already exists...the UK is not corrupt, things happen naturally. Corruption is only necessary where there are supply-side bottlenecks due to politics (i.e. Qatar, Russia, India).

VBprogrammer 4y ago
I think your argument boils down to don't assign to corruption what could more easily be assigned to incompetence. Which I think is a fair point but does raise some questions about the competency of the civil servants and politicians we trust with a fairly large chunk of our income.
- skippyboxedhero 4y ago
  Yes, I think we should do that (there are massive issues with both the civil service and civil service procurement, Scotland has significant issues here...these are probably bigger than with politicians) but we have a system with robust checks and balances (for example, ministers don't make procurement decisions...if a firm was fast-tracked, they delivered something...that doesn't mean there were no issues, but ministers aren't writing cheques to people).
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  How does this rule work when people are both currupt and incompetent, life is the case with the Russian military? On the rare occasion anyone competent is involved, incompetence can be feigned.
ectopod 4y ago
Private Eye has covered this. The level of profit was not normal. Some of the companies were making 50%. And the government had two lists of companies when they were awarding contracts. The priority list was for the acquaintances of ministers and MPs. It smells very bad.
- skippyboxedhero 4y ago
  50% what? And Private Eye has also covered the NAO report, which found no evidence of this, and the GLP court case which attempted to prove the price paid was excessive and failed to do so. No, the priority list wasn't. To approve a vendor through the normal process would have taken years, the fast track process was created to get PPE quicker than normal. I believe all but one person was unrelated to the Tories, the only person who wasn't (as I have said) repeatedly lied about their connection to the vendor, and is now facing criminal charges.
  - ectopod 4y ago
    Seriously? The high court found that the operation of the priority list was unlawful [1]. You can reasonably argue that they needed to move quickly, but that doesn't explain why some companies were getting special treatment. And the 50% is profit. Obviously. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59968037 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59968037
    - skippyboxedhero 4y ago
      Obviously...profit margin, return on equity, return on capital, return on assets, return on investment, operating margin, gross margin, net margin...to be so ignorant that it is obvious. The reason they got special treatment was because of the speed. That was what the priority list was for - "establishes that presence on the high priority lane did not confer any advantage at the decision-making stage of the process", what you have linked me is exactly what I was just told you. The award wasn't unlawful, the govt did not report on the detail of the contracts within the time period required...that was unlawful, but a function of the process (again, the contracts were awarded outside the usual process so all the information wasn't gathered...the NAO conducted a full audit of the contracts, iirc, before the contract details were reported in the public database).

VBprogrammer 4y ago

I think your argument boils down to don't assign to corruption what could more easily be assigned to incompetence. Which I think is a fair point but does raise some questions about the competency of the civil servants and politicians we trust with a fairly large chunk of our income.

skippyboxedhero 4y ago
Yes, I think we should do that (there are massive issues with both the civil service and civil service procurement, Scotland has significant issues here...these are probably bigger than with politicians) but we have a system with robust checks and balances (for example, ministers don't make procurement decisions...if a firm was fast-tracked, they delivered something...that doesn't mean there were no issues, but ministers aren't writing cheques to people).
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
How does this rule work when people are both currupt and incompetent, life is the case with the Russian military? On the rare occasion anyone competent is involved, incompetence can be feigned.

ectopod 4y ago

Private Eye has covered this. The level of profit was not normal. Some of the companies were making 50%. And the government had two lists of companies when they were awarding contracts. The priority list was for the acquaintances of ministers and MPs. It smells very bad.

skippyboxedhero 4y ago
50% what? And Private Eye has also covered the NAO report, which found no evidence of this, and the GLP court case which attempted to prove the price paid was excessive and failed to do so. No, the priority list wasn't. To approve a vendor through the normal process would have taken years, the fast track process was created to get PPE quicker than normal. I believe all but one person was unrelated to the Tories, the only person who wasn't (as I have said) repeatedly lied about their connection to the vendor, and is now facing criminal charges.
- ectopod 4y ago
  Seriously? The high court found that the operation of the priority list was unlawful [1]. You can reasonably argue that they needed to move quickly, but that doesn't explain why some companies were getting special treatment. And the 50% is profit. Obviously. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59968037 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59968037
  - skippyboxedhero 4y ago
    Obviously...profit margin, return on equity, return on capital, return on assets, return on investment, operating margin, gross margin, net margin...to be so ignorant that it is obvious. The reason they got special treatment was because of the speed. That was what the priority list was for - "establishes that presence on the high priority lane did not confer any advantage at the decision-making stage of the process", what you have linked me is exactly what I was just told you. The award wasn't unlawful, the govt did not report on the detail of the contracts within the time period required...that was unlawful, but a function of the process (again, the contracts were awarded outside the usual process so all the information wasn't gathered...the NAO conducted a full audit of the contracts, iirc, before the contract details were reported in the public database).