The UK response - Part II - read OP

Dave0301 wrote: »

But does the fact that it was the 3rd contract awarded without public tender to a company that has close links to Cummings and prominent Tories not ring alarm bells? Particularly as this contract had more than enough time to go through a tender process as exams were cancelled very early on.

It has been pointed out here many times that contracts may need to be awarded at short notice given the circumstances. However, the fact they are being awarded to associates of the current cabinet is not a great look. Now, it all may well be a coincidence; just like the drive to Barnard Castle being a useful and convenient eye test, but I remain skeptical.

I don't care who has links to what party to be honest. What I want to know is that my taxes are going towards a worthwhile investment, where some thought and competitive process have been applied. I can't say for certain that has happened with a number of investments in the last year.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The facts are Public First is a dyed in the wool tory vehicle driven by dyed in the wool tory lifers who have been trading on their connections ever since the tories returned to power. James Frayne has been a close pal of Dom Cummings for nigh on 20 years. One of Rachel Wolfs first jobs in politics was working for Boris Johnson. They co-wrote the tory 2019 election manifesto for pitys sake.

Enzokk wrote: »

You should care. This is bigger than their handling of the pandemic, because it has now been shown there is no consequences for incompetence. The same incompetent government that is spaffing millions away on contracts that doesn't go to tender is now using the pandemic as an excuse to award contracts without tenders in areas not directly related to the pandemic.

They are also trying to limit the judicial review because why do you want the courts ruling that you illegally prorogued parliament or that your awarding of contracts without tender was illegal?

And for Aegir who likes to bring up comparisons with Ireland whenever there is something happening in the UK we comment on, this is how those in positions of power act when they have been found to have acted against their own guidance they expect the public to follow,

Buttimer, Calleary resign over attending Clifden event



It is a privilege to be elected and to work in government, not a right. When you screw up or someone in your department screws up you are responsible. That is how things normally works, but not in the UK right now.

I will save Aegir the time to reply...something something Labour, something Guardian outrage, something DOMINIC CUMMINGS!

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, indeed.

But that doesn't detract from the force of the observation that spending 100bn on a testing system looks like, um, suboptimal use of resources in a situation where efficient use of resources is really quite important. Other countries manage to get functional and efficient testing systems for a fraction of the cost; why cannot the UK? If they could do that, they would then have a large chunk of that 100bn available to do other things either to curb the spread of the infection to to alleviate its consequences.

If the UK has to spend 100bn to roll out an adequate testing system something is seriously, seriously wrong in the state of Borisland; this is state failure on a pretty grand scale.

Perhaps its the legacy of years of austerity hollowing out the capacity of the UK state to respond effectively and efficiently in a time of crisis; perhaps it's the monstrous incompetence of the present government; perhaps its an indication that the UK public procurement system has been captured by rent-seeking oligarchs who vastly inflate what the UK has to pay to buy the goods and services it needs; perhaps its something else entirely. But it's something, and it's something very worrying.

And its simply not the case that that the only possible response to that is to abandon the project and do nothing.

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a serious point here. Before the pandemic broke, the UK was assessed by most observers - and not just UK observers - as one of the best-prepared countries in Europe for a pandemic. And yet when the moment came, it performed very badly, and had one of the worst experiences in Europe, despite not being the first hit, and having had more opportunity than most to learn from the experience of other countries. Clearly, the assessment was wrong.

This is worrying. I don't think we can ascribe it all to failings in Johnson's leadership (although they undoubtedly played a part) and I certainly don't think we can say that if you look behind the Johnsonian bluster and oomph all is secretly well. The UK is a country that has been characterised for a long time by a proud tradition of good governance, and it should have had the resilience to react quickly, flexibly and effectively. It didn't, and I don't think we can blame all that on the leadership vacuum at the top, because a resilient state should have the resources to cope with an isolated failure, even at the very top. I do think UK state capacity has been seriously degraded in the austerity years, not just by being starved of investment but also by being hollowed out by relentless years of a right-wing anti-state, anti-expertise, anti-public service ideology and mindset. The medium-term challenge for the UK is to rebuild the capacity it once had - though, obviously, that project won't start as long as the Johson-Cummings regime is in power.

bob mcbob wrote: »

I guess he's now bored of test and trace so he has to move onto the latest wheeze and there are always the gullible out there who lap up his nonsense.