UK politics - continuing into 2021

[EnglishEdward]

A lot was done in a hurry and skipped the formal due procurement process.

No doubt various dubious types tried to take advantage and some may have succeeded.

I note that being awarded a contract with an estimated or maximum value of £30 m
(or whatever) is not necessarily the same as actually getting that £30 m (or whatever).
The auditors or parliamentary inquiry would be better off looking at what goods or service
were delivered and for how much in paid invoices, rather than contract award figures.

As to awarding to previous colleagues/friends/wives etc; there are questions of motivation and outcome.
Was that company/person chosen because the recommender knew they had expertise or expected a
back hander; AND did they deliver something useful quickly and at what value for money?

I don't know, but I am reluctant to assume either corruption or not.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I was probably at university a lot later than you and I certainly didn't notice any secret police sneaking around, but then I was in Wales and they do things differently.

They wouldn't be very secret if you'd noticed them.

 

[Arakhor]

But apparently not so secret that Edward knows that they patrol universities.

 

[Kyriakos]

But apparently not so secret that Edward knows that they patrol universities.

Edward was a member of the party (civil servant), and as such has insider information about Oceania.
But as long as you still have a royal family, you can see things as a happy compromise

 

[EnglishEdward]

Like most secret police, they operate by using informers.
i.e. Chinese students spying on other Chinese students.

 

[Takhisis]

skipped the formal due procurement process.

Isn't that what's usually called corruption?

 

[EnglishEdward]

No, it is not.

 

[Samson]

skipped the formal due procurement process.

Isn't that what corruption's usually called?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Nope, corruption is typically when one is offering or taking a bribe.

 

[Gorbles]

Nope, corruption is typically when one is offering or taking a bribe.

That is the common definition of the word "corruption", sans context. However, political corruption is a bit more involved.

Forms of corruption vary, but can include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage, influence peddling, graft, and embezzlement.

Cronyism and perhaps patronage are common features in these stories we keep hearing about.

 

[Takhisis]

>influence peddling
>skipping the formal procurement process
Searching… 100%
1 match(es) found

 

[GinandTonic]

The problem is that much of this behaviour is normal, but we hold politicians to a higher standard. A hell of a lot of deals are done in the beer garden of my local pub. Builders, tradesmen, fine artists, photographers, editors. I got my teaching job there. Part of the reason people come to the pub is because they know that's where business is done.

Obviously people must undertake the appropriate level of due diligence with regard to the deal, and there lies the rub.

Edit - Like this from 19 seconds.

How do I make it start at19 seconds? I copied the 19 second share link

 

[innonimatu]

Sturgeon and her aide the crown prosecutor are finally being forced to face the consequences of their failed attempt to destroy her predecessor in the job? Any chance she'll bow out before the election rather than continue to sink into the muddy pit she created?

“I leave to others the question of what is, or is not, a conspiracy but am very clear in my position that the evidence supports a deliberate, prolonged, malicious and concerted effort amongst a range of individuals within the Scottish Government and the SNP to damage my reputation, even to the extent of having me imprisoned.
“That includes, for the avoidance of doubt, Peter Murrell (Chief Executive), Ian McCann (Compliance officer) and Sue Ruddick (Chief Operating Officer) of the SNP together with Liz Lloyd, the First Minister’s Chief of Staff. There are others who, for legal reasons, I am not allowed to name.”
Salmond said the “most obvious and compelling evidence” of the conspiracy was contained in material from his criminal trial that the Crown Office refused to release.
He said: “That decision is frankly disgraceful. Refusing to allow the Committee to see that material both denies me the opportunity to put the full truth before the Committee and the public, and makes it impossible for the Committee to complete its task on a full sight of the relevant material.
“The only beneficiaries of that decision to withhold evidence are those involved in conduct designed to damage (and indeed imprison) me.”
In another section of the submission, he told MSPs: "The Parliamentary Committee has already heard evidence of activities by civil servants, special advisers, Ministers and SNP officials which taken individually could be put down to incompetence, albeit on an epic scale.
"However taken together, and over such a prolonged period, it becomes impossible to explain such conduct as inadvertent co-incidence. The inescapable conclusion is of a malicious and concerted attempt to damage my reputation and remove me from public life in Scotland.

Testimony wednesday, hopefully there will be some serious questions and answers.

Regarding the denials by the current scottish government that the appointed investigator in the case they were trying to build to destroy Salmond was biased:

The documents which demonstrated this to be false had to be extracted from the Government by a Commission and Diligence procedure under the authority of the court as granted by Lord Pentland. The documents then produced under that procedure emerged despite the Government being willing to certify to the Court that these documents simply did not exist. That conduct is outrageous for a Government. At the Commission itself, Senior Counsel for the Government (himself blameless for the debacle) felt compelled to apologise to the court repeatedly as new batches of documents emerged.

It is highly probable that had this documentation not been concealed from the court (and from the Governments own counsel) the falsity of the Government’s pleadings would have been avoided. The fact that even after the Government case collapsed, misinformation then appeared in both a press release from the Permanent Secretary and the First Minister’s statement to Parliament of 8th January 2019 speaks to an organisation unable and unwilling to admit the truth even after a catastrophic defeat, the terms of which they had conceded to the Court of Session.

What started as an attempt to frame Salmond and force him out of political life lest he might overshadow Sturgeon snowballed into a Judicial Review when he was not duly intimidated. A procedure inside the civil service. Then that failed, as it was boudn to due to the way it was put together as a hatchet job:

The Judicial Review was only conceded when both Counsel threatened to resign from the case
The policy and actions of the Permanent Secretary and the Government were accepted as and then judged as “unlawful”, “procedurally unfair” and “tainted by apparent bias”.

But by then the police was called in because the only way to avoid facing the political consequences of the failed witch hunt was to raise the stakes to a criminal case. So Sturgeon was not to be arrested, not just forced out of politics, who cares about one man's life?

Then that too blew as witness after witness in court showed the case to be built on false allegations and the jury found Salmodn innocent.

Now it's time to look at how the thing started. This is the most damning section of Salmond's written testimony about how the aides of FM Sturgeon, and her husband, have cooked up the whole thing:

In evidence Ms Allison on 15th September 2020 specifically denied that the Scottish Government had any role in contacting potential witnesses or former civil servants after the police investigation had started on August 23rd 2018. This is not true.

I enclose at appendix 2 a copy of an unsolicited email sent by Ms Allison herself to an ex Scottish Government employee on August 27th who then received a further unsolicited email from Ms Ruddick of the SNP the following day (appendix 3) The individual concerned, who provided a defence statement, had never even been a member of the SNP. I believe her contact details were given to Ms Allison by a Government Special Adviser.

Another Special Adviser was in contact with the majority of people who thereafter became complainants in the criminal trial, shortly after the story being leaked to the Daily Record on August 23rd 2018.

In his evidence session of 8 February 2021 Mr Murrell spoke of the letter sent by the FM round all SNP members on 27th August 2018. I pause briefly to note that despite the email reaching 100,000 members, not one complaint about me was received in response. However, what he did not disclose was the email round SNP staff and ex staff members sent by his Chief Operating Officer from late August 2018 (enclosed as appendix 3). This email was sent selectively. Some staff members were targeted and sent it. Others were not.

The recruitment of names to receive this email provoked opposition. Appendix 4 shows the refusal of a senior member of the SNP administrative team at Westminster to supply names to HQ. The staff member expressed the view that she was not prepared to take part in an obvious “witch-hunt” which would be incompatible with her professional responsibilities as a lawyer. At Appendix 5 I enclose the terms of an affidavit of the staff member who has agreed to have it shared with the Committee. What is clear is that even at the time of the initial trawl for potentially supportive individuals, there was profound disquiet about the ethics and legality of the approach.

In addition to advocating the “pressurising” of the police (those text messages are public and before the Committee), Mr Murrell deployed his senior staff to recruit and persuade staff and ex staff members to submit police complaints. This activity was being co-ordinated with special advisers and was occurring after the police investigation had started and after I ceased to be a member of the SNP. From the description of the material released to the Committee under section 23 it is clear that any supporting evidence establishing this point was not shared with the Committee by the crown office. Why?

But there is worst. The role of the public prosecutor's office, being used to supress evidence and threaten anyone who might disclose it in this investigation into what happened:

The Crown Office has intervened three times to deny this Committee information for which it has asked.

This has been done by reliance on legislation which was never designed to obstruct the work of a Parliamentary Committee acting in the public interest and investigating the actions of the Scottish Government. I know this to be true because I was First Minister when the legislation was passed in 2010. The true purpose of s. 162 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 was to prevent witness statements falling into the hands of the accused and being used to intimidate or exert retribution on witnesses and further because of instances of evidence ending up held or disposed of in an insecure fashion. The basis of the legislation was Lord Coulsfield’s Report (2007) and the intent was to clarify the legal requirements of disclosure and to establish practical arrangements to prevent the misuse of disclosure. Thus section 162 (and 163) had nothing whatsoever to do with preventing relevant evidence being presented to a parliamentary Committee and its misinterpretation as such by the Crown Office is a profoundly disquieting development which strikes at the heart of the parliamentary system of accountability.

On 17th September 2020 the Crown Office said that our proposal to the Committee to identify the existence of documents which had not been provided by the Government but which had been disclosed to me in the criminal case would be covered by Section 163 of the 2010 Act that “any person who knowingly uses or discloses information in contravention of section 162 commits an offence”

When, having been denied the required evidence by the SNP and the Crown Office, the parliament commission asked it of Salmond, they were threatened:

He then appears to suggest that the Committee itself would be in danger of prosecution if we had acceded to the clerk’s request.
“Further, any person who received such information from you or your client would also be in breach of section 162, and consequently section 163, if they use or disclose that information. In these circumstances I do not consider what is proposed is acceptable”
This is a letter from an unelected official citing legislation passed by this Parliament for quite different reasons and using it to deny information to a Committee of elected parliamentarians.
[...]
As was glaringly clear from his evidence and his inability to address the most basic of questions, his denial of provision of the legal advice of external counsel, his costly delay in settling the case, his refusal to confirm what the Committee eventually found out that both Counsel threatened to resign from the case, the Lord Advocate is deeply compromised between his twin roles as head of prosecutions and chief government legal adviser.

Deeply compromised is excessively police. Careerist boot-licker who is in so deep corrupting his office to serve a political master that he cannot reverse course out of the disgrace.

 

[innonimatu]

You are deliberately misinterpreting my post. It gets tiresome.

There may be corruption. That remains to be proved.

What I suspect is ineffective public expenditure through contracts placed in a hurry.

That's really not a credible excuse.

Because it's not just one contract. It's many contracts, worth hundreds, or perhaps thousands of millions of pounds. Where people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the medical field or with trade in medical products were offered contracts for supplying medical products that they didn't even knew where to get. I don't need a formal investigation to figure out that there mist have been corruption involved in such a process! The contracting government officials couldn't figure out how to cut those worthless middlemen? It wasn't rocket science, buying medical supplies: the UK civil service has plenty of people doing it routinely, they have an NHS! Someone has to know who the legitimate players in that market are. So why hand out contracts to bloody jewelers? And wealth managers?

Here's a £150 million story about such contracts. Just one example.

 

[EnglishEdward]

An interesting link.

To my mind a problem is the infiltration of government by special advisers,
and the foolishness of ministers in not recognising conflicts of interest.

My earlier point remains that bypassing a lengthy procurement process or failing
to publish contract award notices on time does not in itself prove corruption.

More widely the de-industrialisation of the UK reduced the capacity to make PPE here.

 

[Hrothbern]

My earlier point remains that bypassing a lengthy procurement process or failing
to publish contract award notices on time does not in itself prove corruption.

yes
Normal purchasing procedures are based on having a lot of time because the products needed are planned in a budget, they are mostly commodities or semi-commodities.
The difference not that big between governments (who are accountable to the public, the voters) and big companies (who are accountable to the shareholders/owners).
This changes when the purchase is big, mostly part of a bigger project, often involving complex purchasing and new features or simply something new (though mostly adjacent).
When you have enough time and in your staff capable people who can dig in, you still need no middlemen (here many governments did cut down the knowledge, experience and projectplanning capabilities of their civil servants because of cost. Introducing an increasing risk because less ability to judge what suppliers offer. Risks not visible as long as the weather is nice).
It has been a general trend in business since WW2 to source out more and more. Decreasing manufacturing depth. A fabric of companies with quality and liability assurance standards growing.
This got boosted in the 80ies when outsourcing adminstrative processes, not only the payroll, were outsourced as well. Consultant business growing.
=> Focus on the core activities.
=> For business as well the advantage that you can upscale much faster new products.
Outsourcing labor, by using zero hour contracts, self-employed since the GFC of 2008 growing fast.
Basically this is not that differing from small construction companies sourcing in a lot, The pub network that @GinandTonic describes, able to handle multiple disciplines everyday practice for small companies. All based on RL track records, personal trust and mouth on mouth recommendations. In NL this pub culture not that much there north of the river Rhine (though the network similar by family, church, sportsclub. rotary club, etc), but South of the Rhine it's there. My first experience how well that worked when I was immersed a couple of weeks in a Flemish colleague plant filling their product expert know-how into an ERP-expert system I had developed for my own plant. Doing busines while drinking a Palmke (Palm beer) asfter work before dinner. Every day.
The traditional social trust network.
And this is ofc not acceptable in strong accountability settings like government or big corporate. BUT it is the robust baseline you fall back on when chaos rules in a time squeeze.
And one of the prime roles of some substance of higher management in business is to authorise (the exceptional) purchases that do not meet all the procedural requirements but are needed.

 

[GinandTonic]

Basically this is not that differing from small construction companies sourcing in a lot, The pub network that @GinandTonic describes, able to handle multiple disciplines everyday practice for small companies. All based on RL track records, personal trust and mouth on mouth recommendations. In NL this pub culture not that much there north of the river Rhine (though the network similar by family, church, sportsclub. rotary club, etc), but South of the Rhine it's there. My first experience how well that worked when I was immersed a couple of weeks in a Flemish colleague plant filling their product expert know-how into an ERP-expert system I had developed for my own plant. Doing busines while drinking a Palmke (Palm beer) asfter work before dinner. Every day.
The traditional social trust network.

I'm less comfortable with it involving churches or private clubs. Historically being made a member of some London clubs was rather like being a made man in the mafia context. A good pub is inherently democratic space*. Covered in paint with plaster in your hair? No-one cares. Bespoke three-piece suit? No-one cares.

And this is ofc not acceptable in strong accountability settings like government or big corporate.

Legislating to stop this is really difficult. I don't know about procurement but take the example of recruitment. The civil service and the NHS can't just give someone a job. They have to advertise the position, interview, have records of the interview and justify their decisions according to templates. But I've known several people who have had adverts written specifically for them. One of them did manage to make such a mess of the interview she didn't get it. Another one had criteria so specific that only two people could realistically apply.

BUT it is the robust baseline you fall back on when chaos rules in a time squeeze.

While it seems to have amounted to corruption/ incompetence on some contracts, that is my general feeling. If you need something done instantly and you don't have the manpower/ expertise to do it, you find someone who you at least trust and tell them to get on with it.

At the start of the crisis that was the situation we were in. It led to a lot PPE delivered far faster than possible with civil service procurement, though some of it was unusable. The massive "danger money" funding given to manufacturing the Oxford vaccine would normally be unacceptable, but the bet paid off. Contrast with the solid procedure of the EU.

People were panicking. They threw money at exceedingly urgent problems. Some of it was wasted. Some of it worked. Now there should be an investigation to see if any of what happened under an exceptional relaxation of the rules amounted to incompetence/ corruption.

* My landlord treats everyone with the same jovial irritability. Except when our MP Amber Rudd was the Home Sec. and came in once in a while. Suddenly an elegant metal wine cooler appeared and, reportedly, the ladies loo had expensive paper. It's not hard to tell when someone under diplomatic protection is about to arrive. The large gentlemen in the dark suits, drinking orange juice and not talking to each other are a dead giveaway.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I think I like your pub. You must be missing it.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm less comfortable with it involving churches or private clubs. Historically being made a member of some London clubs was rather like being a made man in the mafia context. A good pub is inherently democratic space*. Covered in paint with plaster in your hair? No-one cares. Bespoke three-piece suit? No-one cares.



Legislating to stop this is really difficult. I don't know about procurement but take the example of recruitment. The civil service and the NHS can't just give someone a job. They have to advertise the position, interview, have records of the interview and justify their decisions according to templates. But I've known several people who have had adverts written specifically for them. One of them did manage to make such a mess of the interview she didn't get it. Another one had criteria so specific that only two people could realistically apply.



While it seems to have amounted to corruption/ incompetence on some contracts, that is my general feeling. If you need something done instantly and you don't have the manpower/ expertise to do it, you find someone who you at least trust and tell them to get on with it.

At the start of the crisis that was the situation we were in. It led to a lot PPE delivered far faster than possible with civil service procurement, though some of it was unusable. The massive "danger money" funding given to manufacturing the Oxford vaccine would normally be unacceptable, but the bet paid off. Contrast with the solid procedure of the EU.

People were panicking. They threw money at exceedingly urgent problems. Some of it was wasted. Some of it worked. Now there should be an investigation to see if any of what happened under an exceptional relaxation of the rules amounted to incompetence/ corruption.

* My landlord treats everyone with the same jovial irritability. Except when our MP Amber Rudd was the Home Sec. and came in once in a while. Suddenly an elegant metal wine cooler appeared and, reportedly, the ladies loo had expensive paper. It's not hard to tell when someone under diplomatic protection is about to arrive. The large gentlemen in the dark suits, drinking orange juice and not talking to each other are a dead giveaway.

I remember that day well. It was Prince Andrew's daughter's birthday.

 

[GinandTonic]

I think I like your pub. You must be missing it.

You've no idea.