UKC

Now coming to the attention of the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/17/world/europe/britain-covid-c...

"...The New York Times analyzed a large segment of it, the roughly 1,200 central government contracts that have been made public, together worth nearly $22 billion. Of that, about $11 billion went to companies either run by friends and associates of politicians in the Conservative Party, or with no prior experience or a history of controversy. Meanwhile, smaller firms without political clout got nowhere."

https://goodlawproject.org/news/good-news-procurement/
 

Thing is, public doesn’t seem to care. It barely registers in the UK media.

I have a builder friend, a joiner friend etc. When I need work done, I use them because:

I trust them

If anyone is going to spend my money on coke and strippers I want to hear about it. 

Is this cronyism? 

No because its your money.

If you needed building work done would you choose a friend with no building experience and pay them vastly more than the going rate?

I might if it was an emergency e.g. my roof had fallen in, it was pouring down with rain and I couldn’t fix it myself.

I could, of course, ask several builders to come around and view the job and give me a quote. I could then review those quotes and examine the references of each builder. Then I could award the ‘best’ builder the job. I’m sure my house wouldn’t suffer in the meantime and my wife wouldn’t be bitching at me to get a move on.

Is there any depth the current government could sink to which would result in you not defending them? 

Yes.

Aside from giving Corbyn a ministeral position?

That’s funny, that is.

Also the increasingly impressive independent media company Byline Times has been pushing out lots of headlines on poor governance in procurement.

https://bylinetimes.com/

Jolyon Maugham of The Good Law Project has featured on the BBC news channel a few times, including a particularly excoriating 10 minute attack on government procurement processes.

So, to get a move on you would pay a mate of yours that has never fixed a roof before and asks twice the amount of money that a roofer would ask for. Right, I get ya. :-P

Superb article, read it yesterday.

But, and this is a big question, have they poked round what went on in the USA ( trump and croynism go hand in hand) and other Western countries( Germany and links at State level)?

Deep down I suspect there was a hell of alot of this all over the place at the time.

Who owns 'the media'?

The government was spending our money to :-o

Not surprised by the usual poor quality defence that’s coming up for Team Blue.

No, I’d stand there whining and hope some nice person would come along and fix it for me, like what happens in the real world.

Not an unreasonable idea; he's an independent MP, not labour, and it would settle one of the great political arguments of our time..."But Corbyn" etc etc 

If he shines, at least he has shown that under labour we wouldn't be worse off, and it would shut the "but Corbyn" brigade up. If he's crap, we wouldn't notice any degradation of service given he would fit right in with the current lot.

Byline times have been all over this for months.  

I'm sure you realise that this is neither a very good analogy to what happened or what you would do in real life in your hypothetical situation either. I would like to inform you that so do we, reading your post.

You would contact an emergency roofer and he'd sort you out. Or you might contact a friend of yours that is in roofing or general building at least. You would not contact your mate that sells mouse traps for a living to sort your roof out.

Just like established PPE supply companies offered their services to the government and were turned down in favour of complete novices that were asking for more money, one of them literally selling mouse traps indeed.

With your amazing powers of observation you’ll have noticed that the analogy wasn’t mine, I was simply responding to it.

It is ridiculous to compare the PPE fiasco to employing a builder but hey, you go with what you’re given.

We’ve had the debate about the government’s mishandling of PPE procurement before only then it involved stronger words like corruption. A word that I didn’t notice when I skim read the linked article.

It’s becoming tedious to see the same old subjects rehashed as though their new news and like some amazing undiscovered secret has just been unearthed. Which is a bit unnerving when there’s plenty of new things to criticise the government about.

Still, I suppose it gives the usual suspects something to rant about.

FTFY

You would contact your mate that sells mouse traps for a living to sort your roof out as he would arrange favours for you in return and you will claim for the damages on insurance.

Yes, I’m aware of this, but I was interested that it was now being picked up internationally, and also this piece extends the investigation. As the article says, 
“Some of it has been documented by the British media, but the scale of the problem is wider than previously known.”

The analogy to employing a builder was not yours but that was not the bit that is ridiculous. That bit is the fact that you claimed that it would be a reasonable thing to do to pay over the odds for a mate of yours to fix the roof, when a more apt analogy is that that mate of yours has nothing to do with roofing or building, they just employed a tiler once.

Sorry to bore you but some things shouldn’t be forgotten in the pursuit of novelty. 

Sneering is not a worthy response. 

That. 100% that. Governments get away with a hell of a lot because people forget about them. This one makes people forget by having a non-stop supply of scandals to feed them with. No, people should keep making noise about this stuff all the way to the next election.

Is that the best you can come up with? 

You'd pay a mate, (who'd then employ a fashion designer), with no experience whatsoever of building, massively more that it would cost a reputable builder, (all of whom have already indicated that you just need to pick up the phone and they'd be able to start tomorrow), to bodge your roof with something that wasn't even waterproof?

It would look trendy though.

Good point, if we could have an upside down union jack made by orphan lepers in a far east sweatshop then that would be great, (plus a couple of hundred grand on the bill to be picked up by the taxpayer).

You are demonizing people beyond what is remotely credible.

If people are dying of covid (maybe including your family), the economy is under the greatest threat ever (including your own wealth), and the world is watching your every move (you need to look good). The priority is sorting the problems, not illegally helping your friends.

You're an idiot. The point of the story isn't that the corruption has been going on - you're quite right we've all known about that since March, if not long before - remember Grayling and his bizarre ferry contract? 

The point is this is significant enough to make world news. And this is going to have an impact - it will make the UK a less attractive place to invest, or do business with, it will make the £ worth less (if such a thing were possible) ;  in short we have overcome  our first hurdle to becoming recognised as a true 2nd rate, 3rd world country.

No, we are judging their actions, rather than their assumed character.

Okay then, come up with a reasonable explanation of what happened that is consistent with that priority. 

Leaving aside the insults, for now .

Quite a few of the worldwide forums that I inhabit contain threads that are disparaging towards the UK.

Some of those threads contain criticism based on actual facts but many don’t.

So while it would be good to always see the UK portrayed in a positive way that won’t be happening while people have their own agenda to pursue.

Apologies if that sounds a bit ‘fake newsish’.

Do you watch PM questiontime since you seem to have been busy learning from Johnson.

Tactic 1: simply announce a subject closed regardless of whether it should be or not.

Tactic 2: Dont bother relating what you are going to say to what someone has just sent.

Tactic 3: Try and get in some jibes claiming whoever you are responding to isnt a patriot since they dare question you.

Tactic 4: Act the victim.

You are falsely interpreting events, beyond what could reasonably be true, to suit your agenda.

Without wishing to kick the builder analogy to death, if you can find a builder ready and able to start tomorrow I would suggest that they’re possibly not a very good builder.

Whereas I have at least two friends who aren’t builders but I’d trust them to at least stop my roof from leaking even if it wouldn’t look trendy.

Who has forgotten about it?

Not you and certainly not me.

I just don’t see the point in regurgitating something when nothing will happen about it right away.

There will be a time for the government to explain its actions.

What relevance have your 4 points got with anything that I have posted on this thread?

Have you mistaken me for someone else?

Let me ask again, because you seem unable to answer questions: What reasonable explanation can you give for the actions of members of the Tory government with regards to procurement of PPE for the COVID-19 pandemic that is not consistent with either incompetence or corruption?

A generic bullshit response like what you just gave about my agenda and what not won't fly, especially when this story has now been investigated with very similar conclusions by many different sources with totally different political views.

Are you accusing the New York Times of being supporters of the British political opposition?

Now we're getting somewhere. Let's continue with this analogy: When your roof then fails and the insurance company checks who did the work to fix your issue and why you did not use the established builder that had offered their services, what would your answer be?

This is relevant, because a huge proportion of the PPE that was ordered via these amateurs was either never delivered or failed to meet standards and could not be used.

I've just pm'ed you my phone number. Any job you need doing give me a shout. Will cater for anything from engineering to medical emergencies including surgery or dental work.

 Never done any of it but better than waiting for the NHS or going through the hustle of getting a dentist appointment, right? Reassuring there won't be any whining as I don't t know how to do anesthesia either and there may not be YouTube videos showing how to do it.

Yours, López Enterprises Ltd 

Insults as usual.  Are you not a very nice person ?

I did give you a reasonable explanation.  You are incorrect in attributing unsuccessful actions regarding procurement of PPE to corruption.  It is impossible for an unbiased person to believe corruption would be worthwhile in this situation.

You need to put some context into your analogy. The roof has fallen in, the house is flooding and there’s a shortage of builders and materials. While not my first choice, I’d be ecstatic if my mates or anyone else  turned up and attempted to solve the problem.

Is it really surprising that things go wrong when there’s huge sums of money being thrown around with little or no immediate accountability?

The MP’s expenses scandal, while on a much smaller scale, gave a good indication as to the trustworthiness of many politicians. While the fraud involved in the furlough scheme shows the dishonesty of some in the general population.

Now you’re just being silly.

The NYT article is fascinating and their graphics as usual  are excellent.

However it fails to point out some of the tactics that were going on at the time to secure PPE. This included the USA out bidding to buy up Chinese production. Business associates of Senators literally flying in with cash to buy up ownership of PPE and PPE effectively changing hands just as it was being loaded on planes.

It was in effect a cowboys paradise. Procurement rules and guidleines were not capable of withstanding the turmoil that was going on. Put it this way of you were a Turkish or Chinese textile plant it was a goldmine for a few brief months.Cash up front has a given.Compliance thrown out of the window,.

It should surpise no one that it spiralled out of control.

The cabinet secretary warned the govt of the effect, but they probably had no real choice.Media and the public baying for PPE and so on.

What we do not get any context of is how much was procured successfully and actually worked.

If you consider calling out a non-response bullshit, then sure, not a very nice person at all. I am always open to being convinced of opposing points of view, but you are not going to do that with such responses and are wasting my time.

I asked you a question and you have responded with a strawman argument twice now. Let us try a third time. Give me an reasonable explanation for why a government would repeatedly order PPE from their own associates, all of who have zero experience in procuring PPE, even after repeated failures of these contacts to actually deliver PPE, and when both big and small companies that do have the expertise have offered their services to actually deliver PPE?

And to repeat the second question: Are you accusing the New York Times of being biased against the Tory party?

Edit: See neilh's and baron's responses as examples of actual answers and see how they differ to yours.

Thank you, that is an actual answer that we can discuss.

What you are basically saying is that this is a crisis of accountability, as opposed to corruption. I can work with that.

I consider using personal contacts for direct assignment of procurement contracts using public money without transparency and accountability to be a very very serious matter, as even if it is not corruption it opens the doors wide open for corruption.

Lets see

1)"It’s becoming tedious to see the same old subjects rehashed"

Nice attempt to close down discussion

2)See the post you were responding to.

3)"that are disparaging towards the UK."

Trying to conflate criticism about the government with disparaging the UK,

4)"Leaving aside the insults"

No.  I answered your question.

Try a different question you mean.

Answer - Because it seemed at the time to be worth trying, in order to get more PPE.

No, never mentioned  NYT.

This is a very valid argument. Where I start to question motives however is that there were established alternatives that had the expertise and were ignored. The NYT article even contains interviews of a few. Basically, cowboys with political connections were given orders but established companies without political connections were ghosted. 

There is a big difference between bad actors running scams, and handing out billions in contracts to mates.

Just giving a (miniscule) benefit of the doubt ... I rather wonder whether running to the private sector to execute any new project is becoming the default behaviour for ministers; it is becoming part of the way that governments work. It must be a heck of a lot easier to phone up, say, the head of capita, or Serco, and ask them to sort something out, than go through the civil service, attend endless meetings, be told any number of times of all the obstacles in the way without being presented with any sort of solution...

Not that it makes any difference, the likes of Capita, Serco, G4 etc are even worse at delivering than the civil service were. But at least the ministers involved aren't directly to blame.

No, you attacked my motives.

No, it is precisely the same question, I apparently need to write it entirely long hand for you to comprehend what you are actually discussing.

*Surely* the way to procure more PPE was to actually take on the offers from established companies on that market that had the manufacturing and import capability already. The article even interviews some.

Well, considering you are responding in a thread about an article by the NYT and where most responses are actually regarding data that has been presented by the NYT (even though it has been posted here before), you may want to start mentioning the NYT. As it stands you are accusing me of being biased against the government for interpreting the facts in one way that is pretty consistent with what the NYT article actually states (the very title contains the word "cronyism"), while offering zero alternative. So, are you saying that the NYT can raise questions of cronyism in the British government without being biased but when I read said article and comment on it I am biased?

For PPE this doesnt really count since it was pretty much all private sector.

Eh? What are you talking about? I haven’t said anything like that! 

Not sure how that follows from your previous claim.

Under normal circumstances the government procurement process is often totally inadequate and open to all sorts of manipulation that can end in inadequate products or services being delivered at vastly inflated prices. It is ,however, usually a process that involves tendering and detailed scrutiny.Something that certainly can’t be said about procurement of PPE.

The Covid crisis magnified the usual problems in a huge way. I haven’t seen any examples of outright corruption which is illegal, never acceptable  and should always lead to court appearances.  A public enquiry at some time in the future might expose who knows what. If cronyism and other legal but unacceptable practices are exposed then the voters can have their say at the next elections. 

Oh, for sure, I'm not so much questioning why they did not go through the whole usual bidding process for procurement, that would absolutely take too long. This is one of the things that pissed off the most about the government's response to criticism about this in parliament as well. They are accused of:

1. Bypassing process.
2. Using said bypass to assign contracts to companies without expertise in procuring the required material.
3. Prioritising their personal contacts.

The government has repeatedly responded to these charges by arguing that 1. would take too long while literally not even mentioning 2. and 3. in their responses. They are right about that of course. The issue is that actual companies that deliver PPE to the NHS already and companies that had the capability to deliver PPE and contacted the government without going through backhand channels were ignored. This is where things are becoming muddy because this is where the biggest opening for corruption is, even if not all contracts were corrupt.

The chance of me being able to close down a discussion on UKC is nil but if I find something tedious am I not allowed to say so? As for your other points, we’ll I guess you can make anything fit if you try hard enough.

What’s your hidden agenda or don’t you have one?

Yes, our failure to move on is rather depriving us of your attempts at downplaying the latest issues isn't it.  It's probably just as well you've got longer to work on your material...

This is very similar to Rob's take on it, so and I will try not to repeat what I said there, as then we are forking the discussion unnecessarily. Basically, I totally agree with you that the regular bidding process was never going to be fit for purpose for this situation. It's what it was bypassed with that is problematic rather than it being bypassed and it is troublesome that the government uses this argument that explains why bidding was not used to explain the rest of it.

However, you are right, the signs are that this is probably cronyism, not corruption in the legal sense.

No. I reckon Mr Lopez is closer to the reality. So do millions of other people who are being serially shafted by the graft and corruption (yes, that's what it is) that's been ongoing.

As for 'chumocracy' (apologies for the diversion) how about the intended appointment of the new Children's Commissioner - only a Tory darling who presides over a Trust with primary schools which have the highest exclusion rates in the region...a likely candidate to look after the global welfare of our kids then?

This kind of nonsense would be viewed with massive negativity by the UK establishment were it happening anywhere else in the world. Perfidious Albion? What a fecking understatement for a country gone bad, very bad indeed.

Do you really think the government was deliberately corrupt, to give money to their friends, when they could have sourced PPE with certainty elsewhere ?

You need the 'My Little Crony' app...

https://sophieehill.shinyapps.io/my-little-crony/

I agree. It is reasonable obvious that in a global pandemic this sort of situation should have been thought through. Apparently it was. And the NHS had contracts with suppliers that supposedly meant the NHS could call through extra orders at a premium price. However nobody then thought through well what happens if somebody pays premium premium prices with cash and in effect the textile mills break the contract( who could blame them!).

Alot of the UK established companys who were kicking up about this just did not have the capacity anyway. I remember reading about one, and the potentail order was something like 20 times their manufacturing capability anyway.So they could no have coped.

3M were very quiet in the news  all the way through those months. The USA govt had for example  forced a Canadian 3M plant  to supply them via invoking a USA bit of legislation on 3M, it caused a lot of friction with Canada.

The NYT article is just a small part of the picture that went on about PPE procurement....globally.

Macron had issues in France with a billion or so facemasks that were being destroyed in incinerators during the first few months of the pandemic. They just needed revalidating on their expiry dates.It was a scandal in France back then when this hit the news.

I find the procurement issue really interesting. Something I can understand compared with a protein spike.

Yes.

And incompetent.

That cunning plan replaced the previous plan that used a rotating stockpile. Just In Time only works when the supply chain is operating normally. If theres a sudden surge in demand, it takes time for the supply chain to respond. Again, basic control theory. It seems it would be really useful if someone in government understood a bit of control theory.

I largely agree. At least there is some transparency though. There’s been none in the PPR process. 

If such things are within its remit. What are the chances of that?

Possibly, but I don’t know why you’re asking me when all I did was post a link to an article 

That is the single best visualisation I've seen of the pandemic.   I encourage people to open it on a Desktop, then you can pick up the Tory Party or Dominic Cummings and shake them about with the mouse to see what else moves...

I am a rich Tory c*nt, put in the House of Lords and the London Olympics committee.  My best mates are in the Tory party and my work colleagues are in companies I am a director of, the House of Lords and the London Olympics Committee.

The UK taxpayer gave me £50 billion to spend on Covid stuff and I know f*ck all about Covid or PPE.  It looks like most of the people who actually make this stuff are really busy.  Is it OK to just give the money to my mates?

Who happened to do a good job on delivery of the Olympics( which was a big procurement exercise when all said and done)......and the other side of the coin...him and his team did get the position under control. His appointment was not back in March , I think it was later on after  it had got out of control..And  they have started to fight back against the contractors who delivered non complaint goods( there are quite a few legal cases going on). Something which is not really highlighted.

There is a bit more to this story to go yet.

Posting UK government cronyism now coming to the attention of the New York Times implies you believe it yourself.

As I said before.   It is impossible for an unbiased person to believe corruption would be worthwhile in this situation.

Really, why? Lots of money to be made with vastly reduced checks. I would say it would be impossible for an unbiased person not to consider that corruption could be possible.

Boris himself ?

Why not engage with the corruption which is evidenced to exist instead?

It's clear enough to see.

You seem to be trying to change the subject since the original point was "government". Now I would broaden this out slightly since it wasnt just the government ministers who could get companies added to the priority list but a couple of other categories as well.

So are you seriously claiming that an unbiased person would conclude no one on those lists might see a chance to return a favour to someone or make a quick buck.

The Glasgow Commonwealth Games Committee also did a great job.   As an organisation Glasgow Council is probably a bit less corrupt and a bit less senile than the House of Lords, at least its members are elected.  The UK government wouldn't dream of buying £50 billion of Covid supplies for the whole UK based on the personal contacts of a Glasgow Councilor who was on the Glasgow Commonwealth Games committee.   If they did, they'd probably end up with a lot of business going to companies in and around Glasgow owned by people who knew f*ck all about medical supplies.

But it isn't Glasgow it is London and it isn't Glasgow Council it is the House of Lords so it is all OK.

Um yes exactly, in his hypothetical he's spending his own money so not Cronyism. Government spending the taxpayers so it is Cronyism...

Do you have any latest issues that I’ve failed to downplay?

Is it?

Would you like to name an example of the government’s corruption?

Right you are.  I’m having a bit of a slow day, sorry...

Another accusation of corruption.

For which you’ll be providing the evidence?

Posting an article doesn’t mean I think the government has been deliberately corrupt. You are not entitled to come to that conclusion. This government has vast reserves of ineptness for one thing. For another, there isn’t any smoking gun as yet, so at the moment I am highly suspicious rather than a ‘believer’.

The government will have a lot of explaining to do when the pandemic recedes. Not just to those who oppose them but to their own voters as well. I’m not of the belief that the way the government appears to have behaved in some circumstances will be easily forgotten. I am, however, prepared to wait for a more opportune time before a full examination of the facts takes place.

I'm not a genius but if I was faced with this problem I would look for someone who worked in the PPE industry.  Like a senior manager in 3M or some other large multi-national supplier/distributer of PPE who'd been dealing with that industry for decades and I would pay them a f*cking fortune to come and work for the UK government and run our PPE procurement.

And if the guy told me that in reality all the worldwide plants qualified to make the stuff had massive undercapacity and there actually wasn't any to buy I'd believe them over spivs and charlatans with no track record.

The pictures of the PPE now stockpiled at ports show what actually happened.   They paid a f*ckton over the normal price in order to get stuff fast to companies that couldn't actually get it fast but eventually delivered when demand started to match supply again.  They got it when reputable suppliers with the actual factories that make the stuff were able to supply - just marked up by middle-man cowboys who lied about the lead time.    Now they have a f*ckton of overpriced PPE in containers stacked up in the ports and costing them a fortune in rent.

3m had its own problems. As US company it was instructed by Trump to supply the USabove others. There was a huge diplomatic row with Canada over this as an example. 
 

As I said in other posts, the problems in the U.K. were magnified globally..

And remember that company’s like M and S lent the govt their global sourcing teams to help out. All of this is of course forgotten. 

No.  The government was formed by Boris and is led by Boris.

Are you now claiming he was not at fault ?

That would be when you are spending other people's money presumably, to be remotely relevant to the present matter.

There definitely appears to have been nepotism in the awarding of many of these contracts, and most people, and respectable organisations, regard nepotism as a form of corruption.

you missed out Tactic 1a

Blame the Victim

and Tactic 1c

I don't recognize those [facts/figures/statistics/]

A very British way to say: we’ll brush it under the carpet.

You are the very Model of a Modern Apologist

No.

There needs to be a public inquiry.

To establish what worked, what didn’t and how things can be improved. And, if needs be, to apportion blame.

But right now isn’t, in my opinion, the right time.

Thank you.

Why ?

Because the government has enough trouble dealing with the issues it’s already facing without being distracted by an inquiry.

The government isn’t going anywhere despite what some might wish so what’s the rush?

They get a free pass because they are busy with issues if their own making. Weak argument.

This government has spent its time creating chaos, smashing and destroying whatever they touched. And now they should get a free pass because they are a little “busy” ?

Hey, I’m busy too,  can I do whatever the fuck I want too ?

Nobody is getting a free pass.

The government is under constant daily pressure and scrutiny from the opposition, fellow MPs, mainstream media, social media, etc and you want them to lose focus on Covid and Brexit to concentrate on an inquiry?

Patience, or is your quest for justice so all consuming that nothing else matters?

Did the global sourcing teams from M&S advise them to deal with small pest control companies associated with Tory donors?   Or did they figure that out all on their own?

The thing about hiring experts is that sometimes they explain to you why something is difficult or can't be done and you need to listen to them even when they are telling you truths you do not want to hear.

I’ll take it at face value.  

Get upto speed. That was before they were pulled in to help.  Get your facts right. 

Dont worry I am sure the anti corruption champion John Penrose will investigate thoroughly and ensure that not even the slightest whiff of nepotism exists in the hiring of people of awarding of contracts.

Well yes they definitely are.

Is it ? I’d say it’s under very little scrutiny.
Your reaction exemplifies it.

They government have given themselves huge powers and do whatever they want, and the country is too tired to care, or too brainwashed by jingoism and Brexit 

And lose focus ? What focus ? The only focus of this government  is to smash and destroy the economy and people’s lives whilst showering their mates with taxpayers money.

If they lost “focus” it would give us a break.

No, but it seems to me you are using the government own incompetence amd distraction as a justification for exonerating them from scrutiny. Not unlike most of your “arguments”, it’s a bit rubbish.

On a purely utilitarian note, I might prefer an enquiry rather closer to a general election to bolster the chance of giving this shower of cnuts the boot.

The flaw there is it is the government who decides on the terms of the inquiry and staffing and so have lots of influence in how it goes.  They are tailor made for booting stuff into the long grass with the inbuilt excuse of "sorry we cant discuss that whilst the inquiry drags on for another year".

You can have your inquiry tomorrow for all I care. With whatever parameters you want.

Whatever the result it won’t alter the fact that the Conservatives will remain in power for another couple of years. Something that you can’t bear the thought of. Which is fine because we’re all allowed our own opinions, aren’t we?

It’s funny how despite most of my arguments being shit I still manage to be right , time and time again.

Referendum result?

Second referendum?

General election?

And you’ll have to excuse me if I sound smug because after years of  you telling me how wrong I am you, twisting things to suit your viewpoint and making everything personal, you cannot persuade a majority of the population to back you.

Still the law of averages says that you’ll be proved right one day, maybe.

Goodnight Rom.

I have correctly predicted the above three so clearly you are full of shit.

I think you are confusing being on the winning side of elections and being « right. »

Your language says a lot about your politics though.

That is actually wrong. The majority of the population voted for other parties than that of this government.

I disagree with your politics and ideology, but that’s actually your facts and reasoning I was contesting. 

But as usual you can’t help resorting to ideology as soon as the glaring hole in your argument has been exposed.

Enquiry ? For what ? The government just ignores them completely.

What you need is for the justice system to do its job, unfortunately, it is not very powerful against the executive these days.

Even if an inquiry was commissioned tomorrow the notion that the ministers involved would be called up to answer questions or get distracted in any way within the next few months or even the next year is just pure deflection. The first step would be just to get the ball rolling and start the process of gathering evidence. This could easily be done in a way to avoid what you’re concerned about, so that argument just doesn’t stand up.

A full independent public inquiry for an event of this magnitude is likely to take many many years. The longer it is before it even gets started the greater the chance of its publication being pushed into the next parliament, or even the one after that. I’d prefer to have the conclusions in time for me to hold the govt to account in the only way I have the ability to do - at the ballot box.

I have a feeling that many voters have already made up their minds above the government’s handling of the pandemic and they won’t be waiting for the results of an inquiry to help them to decide how to vote in the next general election. Which might or might not be bad news for the government.

It’s already been done by the National Audit Office and is pretty scathing. 

They did force parliament to sit again last year after finding that Boris illegally prorogued parliament and lied to the queen. Remember the "enemies of the people" headline.....

Your first sentence is correct though......they just carry on regardless.....

Why on earth are you smug? You may have predicted the election and Brexit' results, but did you really believe that even Tories could put together such an inept, corrupt and incompetent government?

Sorry, my smugness comment was really aimed at Rom who I had, once again, allowed to wind me up.