"Worse than Halliburton" Capita Boss Secretly Gave Labour £1 Million
16
comments:
Anonymous
said...
This is very reminiscent of Paul Drayson, who was on the receiving end of Government contracts, gave the Labour Party more than £500,000 and was enobled.
March 20, 2006 at 10:21 PM
Anonymous
said...
This is a copy of a rather bitter Press Release issued by Thurrock Labour Party after the ruling Conservative group (who took control of Thurrock Council in June 2004) Gave the contract to Vertex instead of Capita - with the recent news of £1 million loan to Labour it really does put a different angle on Labour's fury at the time!
2 November 2004
LABOUR CALLS FOR INDEPENDENT INQUIRY
INTO MULTI-MILLION POUND COUNCIL DEAL.
Begins
Thurrock Labour Party is calling on the Audit Commission to investigate the process which led Tory-run Thurrock Council to rubber stamp a 15 year £250 Million deal to transfer Council Services and hundreds of workers to a private sector partner.
Labour Spokesperson, Councillor Carl Morris said: - “We already had grave concerns over the last minute change to the process used to conclude the Strategic Partnership; now the Leader of the Council has confirmed it was a political decision. Furthermore, the Council has not been in negotiations with another company “in reserve” as Councillor Cheale has suggested”.
Council Leader Anne Cheale also said that “Labour wanted to go on with Capita” in a recent press article*.
Leader of the Labour Group Councillor John Kent said in response to this specific allegation: - “We would have had no problem at all working with any of the three short-listed companies (Vertex, Liberata or Capita). We refute absolutely that Labour had any preferred partner as the Councillor Cheale has alleged – this is a complete fiction.
“Indeed the process we established ensured this could not happen. The Council would have negotiated the best deal because there would have competition right to the end of the process.
“By opting to negotiate with just one firm at the most crucial point in the process the Tories surrendered the Council’s competitive edge; in other words they turned a three horse race into a one horse walkover”.
Labour has a number of concerns and wants the reassurance of an independent inquiry to ensure the Council has hammered out the best deal for council tax payers.
These include:-
§ The shroud of secrecy that has engulfed this process since the Tories took power in June.
§ The fairness of the change to all three companies involved. All were expecting a competitive final phase.
§ The way the professional advice has been ignored – the report on 29 July 2004 supported parallel negotiating with two companies.
§ The lack of any competitive edge at the crucial point of the process. Keeping competition going as long a possible is considered to be best practice. Consequently there is no evidence or guarantee the deal reached is the best the Council could have achieved.
Councillor Morris concluded: - “How can we have confidence in this deal when the interests of council tax payers were not paramount in the final stages of the process?
“We feel the only way to establish once and for all whether that this deal is in the best interests of council tax payers is an independent investigation into the process. This is course of action we will be pursuing with vigour.
“In these circumstances we feel it would be inappropriate for the Council to sign a contract until the inquiry has been concluded”.
-Ends-
NOTE TO EDITORS.
*Councillor Cheale’s remarks were published in the Thurrock Gazette on 29 October 2004.
Labour will be raising this issue with the Complaints Investigation Officer at the Audit Commission asking for an investigation into the process.
Vertex give substantial amounts of money to the Labour party as well.
Just not enough.
March 20, 2006 at 10:42 PM
Anonymous
said...
Guido our American friends call that is called covering all bases.
March 20, 2006 at 10:57 PM
Anonymous
said...
Damn i have dyslexic fingers tonight "call that covering all bases"
March 20, 2006 at 10:58 PM
Anonymous
said...
Why ought they? They're not doling out peerages for their cash.
March 21, 2006 at 12:03 AM
Anonymous
said...
Tell that to lord ashcroft of belize.
March 21, 2006 at 12:06 AM
Anonymous
said...
It would be nice to have a complete list if donors so that colleagues in control of local councils can...bear them in mind?
March 21, 2006 at 12:40 AM
Anonymous
said...
I think Blair has done no wrong at all. All he has emphasised is the corruption inherent in the upper house. By effectively selling peerages he has made clear that the House of Lords is - as it always has been - no more than a lackey of the establishment. (All those old toffs are no more than the equivalent of Blarite lackeys under the tudors stuarts and georgians). Don't get me wrong the Lords are effective at modifying legislation and holding the exec to account. well yes -up to a point, then so would the average crowd at a bus stop be given the chance and the privilege. But surely they fundamentally lack cred because they are appointed by politicians. By highlighting this has Blair not done the country a favour. And to those who say he didn't intend to devalue it - look how much money he's gotten out of it. For Blair the Lords has always been a dream ticket: a way of extracting cash which simultaneously devalued the institution he didn't respect. I don't like much or any of what Blair has supposedly done or stands for but in this respect I think he's done good. Only people who think it's worth it will continue to pay to be members of the house of lords. The absurd mystical classiness of it that probably existed 60 years ago has been flushed away, and good riddance.
March 21, 2006 at 1:02 AM
Anonymous
said...
the tories are, remember they can nominate a few for titles as well. Take Lord Laidlaw for example. Michale Howard nominates him for a peerage, and low and behold £2million turns up in tory coffers.
March 21, 2006 at 9:27 AM
Anonymous
said...
A number of people seem to be missing the point of Guido's post: that the Labour party is getting large loans and donations from those who are on the receiving end of large sums of government money.
This is something that distinguishes them from the Tories, whose major donors (Wheeler, Laidlaw, Ashcroft et al) are not associated with firms whose business is to rake up HMG contracts.
Continuing the covering all bases theme - what if the Tories published their list and exactly nthe same people were on it, now there would be some irony for you...
March 21, 2006 at 10:52 AM
Anonymous
said...
Laidlaw is an academy sponsor....
March 21, 2006 at 11:18 AM
Anonymous
said...
and of course there's michael brown who gave £2.4million to them from the luxury of his skiing chalet in switzerland, coincidentally where his business is based - making him an off-shore donor.
Besides the fact that he is wanted by the state of florida for skipping bail on atrial there 7 years ago.
March 21, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Anonymous
said...
them, of course being the liberal democrats
March 21, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Anonymous
said...
Best of all is when the schools in an area are all to be rebuilt. The only game in town is PFI.
So transferring the schools to the private sector for a PFI rebuild is not really the kind of privatisation to upset the voters.
Then again selling off surplus land for housing as part of the rationalisation of playing fields looks lucrative....................how much did you say you wanted Lord Levy ?
16 comments:
This is very reminiscent of Paul Drayson, who was on the receiving end of Government contracts, gave the Labour Party more than £500,000 and was enobled.
This is a copy of a rather bitter Press Release issued by Thurrock Labour Party after the ruling Conservative group (who took control of Thurrock Council in June 2004) Gave the contract to Vertex instead of Capita - with the recent news of £1 million loan to Labour it really does put a different angle on Labour's fury at the time!
2 November 2004
LABOUR CALLS FOR INDEPENDENT INQUIRY
INTO MULTI-MILLION POUND COUNCIL DEAL.
Begins
Thurrock Labour Party is calling on the Audit Commission to investigate the process which led Tory-run Thurrock Council to rubber stamp a 15 year £250 Million deal to transfer Council Services and hundreds of workers to a private sector partner.
Labour Spokesperson, Councillor Carl Morris said: - “We already had grave concerns over the last minute change to the process used to conclude the Strategic Partnership; now the Leader of the Council has confirmed it was a political decision. Furthermore, the Council has not been in negotiations with another company “in reserve” as Councillor Cheale has suggested”.
Council Leader Anne Cheale also said that “Labour wanted to go on with Capita” in a recent press article*.
Leader of the Labour Group Councillor John Kent said in response to this specific allegation: - “We would have had no problem at all working with any of the three short-listed companies (Vertex, Liberata or Capita). We refute absolutely that Labour had any preferred partner as the Councillor Cheale has alleged – this is a complete fiction.
“Indeed the process we established ensured this could not happen. The Council would have negotiated the best deal because there would have competition right to the end of the process.
“By opting to negotiate with just one firm at the most crucial point in the process the Tories surrendered the Council’s competitive edge; in other words they turned a three horse race into a one horse walkover”.
Labour has a number of concerns and wants the reassurance of an independent inquiry to ensure the Council has hammered out the best deal for council tax payers.
These include:-
§ The shroud of secrecy that has engulfed this process since the Tories took power in June.
§ The fairness of the change to all three companies involved. All were expecting a competitive final phase.
§ The way the professional advice has been ignored – the report on 29 July 2004 supported parallel negotiating with two companies.
§ The lack of any competitive edge at the crucial point of the process. Keeping competition going as long a possible is considered to be best practice. Consequently there is no evidence or guarantee the deal reached is the best the Council could have achieved.
Councillor Morris concluded: - “How can we have confidence in this deal when the interests of council tax payers were not paramount in the final stages of the process?
“We feel the only way to establish once and for all whether that this deal is in the best interests of council tax payers is an independent investigation into the process. This is course of action we will be pursuing with vigour.
“In these circumstances we feel it would be inappropriate for the Council to sign a contract until the inquiry has been concluded”.
-Ends-
NOTE TO EDITORS.
*Councillor Cheale’s remarks were published in the Thurrock Gazette on 29 October 2004.
Labour will be raising this issue with the Complaints Investigation Officer at the Audit Commission asking for an investigation into the process.
Vertex give substantial amounts of money to the Labour party as well.
Just not enough.
Guido our American friends call that is called covering all bases.
Damn i have dyslexic fingers tonight "call that covering all bases"
Why ought they? They're not doling out peerages for their cash.
Tell that to lord ashcroft of belize.
It would be nice to have a complete list if donors so that colleagues in control of local councils can...bear them in mind?
I think Blair has done no wrong at all. All he has emphasised is the corruption inherent in the upper house. By effectively selling peerages he has made clear that the House of Lords is - as it always has been - no more than a lackey of the establishment. (All those old toffs are no more than the equivalent of Blarite lackeys under the tudors stuarts and georgians). Don't get me wrong the Lords are effective at modifying legislation and holding the exec to account. well yes -up to a point, then so would the average crowd at a bus stop be given the chance and the privilege. But surely they fundamentally lack cred because they are appointed by politicians. By highlighting this has Blair not done the country a favour. And to those who say he didn't intend to devalue it - look how much money he's gotten out of it. For Blair the Lords has always been a dream ticket: a way of extracting cash which simultaneously devalued the institution he didn't respect. I don't like much or any of what Blair has supposedly done or stands for but in this respect I think he's done good. Only people who think it's worth it will continue to pay to be members of the house of lords. The absurd mystical classiness of it that probably existed 60 years ago has been flushed away, and good riddance.
the tories are, remember they can nominate a few for titles as well. Take Lord Laidlaw for example. Michale Howard nominates him for a peerage, and low and behold £2million turns up in tory coffers.
A number of people seem to be missing the point of Guido's post: that the Labour party is getting large loans and donations from those who are on the receiving end of large sums of government money.
This is something that distinguishes them from the Tories, whose major donors (Wheeler, Laidlaw, Ashcroft et al) are not associated with firms whose business is to rake up HMG contracts.
Continuing the covering all bases theme - what if the Tories published their list and exactly nthe same people were on it, now there would be some irony for you...
Laidlaw is an academy sponsor....
and of course there's michael brown who gave £2.4million to them from the luxury of his skiing chalet in switzerland, coincidentally where his business is based - making him an off-shore donor.
Besides the fact that he is wanted by the state of florida for skipping bail on atrial there 7 years ago.
them, of course being the liberal democrats
Best of all is when the schools in an area are all to be rebuilt. The only game in town is PFI.
So transferring the schools to the private sector for a PFI rebuild is not really the kind of privatisation to upset the voters.
Then again selling off surplus land for housing as part of the rationalisation of playing fields looks lucrative....................how much did you say you wanted Lord Levy ?