A Moan About Mone
Lovely poster of Michelle Mone from @pennyamott I suspect everyone has already heard about Michelle Mone and her alleged involvement with the PPE scandal that has come to light at last. In this case, Michelle Mone, a Tory peer, seems to be inextricably linked to PPE Medpro, a company that, until the pandemic broke out, didn’t exist. The main contention here is that Mone specifically lobbied using the government’s “VIP” lane to get PPE Medpro awarded a contract for providing PPE because they could do so quickly. As such, I thought I would have a Moan about Mone and PPE Medpro. So far, sounds good – we were in a crisis after all, so why is this a problem? Well, the problems start to arise when you look at the details. PPE Medpro Experience As mentioned above, PPE Medpro was a brand new company. In fact, they had no history whatsoever of manufacturing and sourcing PPE. One would therefore be forgiven for completely discounting them as a potential supplier because they just didn’t have the track record to back up their proposal. One might also be forgiven for taking a look at their proposal and arguing that – despite their lack of track record – they were well placed to provide said equipment. Value for Money One of the greatest arguments for government procurement is to be able to show decent value for money for the taxpayer. If PPE Medpro had approached the government with an excellent deal, this would be a good reason to bypass the usual tendering process, as the taxpayer would ultimately be better off. Example of PPE being worn In this case, however, the underlying items in the contract were purchased by PPE Medprod for far less than they were then sold on to the government for. In fact, the Guardian reported in March 2022 that the items sold to the UK government for £122m were actually bought for £46m. It is genuinely hard to believe that a new small company would be able to achieve such favourable terms compared to the entire UK government, so that markup of £76m comes across as frankly greedy profit-gouging. Quality of PPE The above might be excusable if this particular source represented the best quality PPE known to man. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The gowns making up a good proportion of this order (£122m) were never used, as the quality was deemed to be below acceptable standards for frontline workers. In fact, the government has had to pay more to store these useless items since the provision. You might think that failing to come up to code would be grounds for the contract to be voided and the payment returns, but apparently not. The government is still in mediation with PPE Medpro to get money back for these useless items that were specifically bought at the insistence of a Tory peer. A Genuine Mistake? Did Michelle Mone make an honest mistake here? Did she really think that this company was best-placed compared to existing providers of this type of equipment? In short, no, she was not that stupid. Instead it seems she was greedy. Recent reports show that, of the c. £200m paid to PPE Medpro, some £65m was paid out to Douglas Barrowman, Michelle Mone’s husband. From that, he then made a payment of some £29m into her personal control. This brings the whole issue to a close in my eyes. In essence, Michelle Mone did not make an honest mistake, she deliberately recommended a firm that she and her family would personally benefit from and since taking taxpayer money has so far refused to give it back despite the products purchased being defective. In short, she is a great example of why the House of Lords is utterly unfit for purpose. She is entitled to sit there for life and will never be subject to an election, but will have influence over the UK and its finances for years to come. For this reason, part of my personal manifesto is the abolition of the House of Lords*. * incidentally my goal to abolish the House of Lords predates Kier Starmer’s announcement this week to do the same. However, his plan is to replace the House with an elected body, while my own view is that we should still fill a second chamber with experienced experts, but we should almost completely eliminate their actual political power. This would put the power in the hands of a single elected chamber, with some form of oversight or expertise from a fairly academic chamber with minimal actual power.
The Monarchy and Aristocracy in General
Buckingham Palace This week we have seen another example of how out of touch the monarchy and aristocracy in general is with society, with a prominent lady-in-waiting acting in a manner which can only be described as wholly inappropriate towards a black lady attending the palace. There are already vast numbers of people defending her because of her age, but the fact is that she was in position as a representative of Buckingham Palace, and if she had a character flaw which would make guests feel uncomfortable, then it was not a good decision to leave her in post rather than quietly retiring her. Unfortunately, the cat is now out of the bag, and it has led to her being dismissed in disgrace rather than retiring with dignity. I genuinely do not see that any of the complainants bear her any ill-will personally, but institutionally any representative of the county must make sure they are beyond reproach when it comes to inclusivity of all citizens and guests of the country. This raises a wider question of how we select representatives of the country. At the moment, Buckingham Palace is pretty much entirely represented by people with hereditary positions both within and without the Royal Family. Equality and Equity It’s a fairly common adage that equality and equity are two different things. The cartoon opposite shows this really well, essentially summarising that: Equality vs Equity The reality of the Crown specifically but a wider aristocracy is that equity becomes impossible. The only way to become part of that group is to be born into it or to marry into it, essentially relying on a fluke of birth to gain a position of privilege in the form of vast wealth and political influence. This is completely contrary to the principles of equity and results in the exact opposite of a meritocracy in that specific part of society. As such, if we agree that equity (or at least equality of opportunity) is a good thing, and we agree that the country should be represented by people because of their merits, I believe it is clear that we should retire the Monarchy from public duties to avoid future need to excuse the behaviour of senior ambassadors. Wider Aristocracy On this basis, it is genuinely hard to defend the wider concept of hereditary aristocracy in general. Much of the UK is still owned by large landed estates that have been held by the same family for almost a millennium, so others wishing to purchase a proportion of those estates have no opportunity to do so if they were born into the “wrong” family. It is genuinely hard to fathom why we as a country tolerate the ownership of up to 50% of the land in the UK by the aristocracy, especially when we are currently struggling so much with acquiring land needed for housing. I talk more about this as part of my Family Politics Episode 2 – Tim and Wealth Distribution.
Universal Basic Income
How could we pay for a meaningful Universal Basic Income?
Requesting OBR Forecasts – Part 3
This attempt to actually get the Government to share its analysis of the projected impact of Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-Budget in ongoing. Today I had a response to my request for an internal review, which was as follows: I think it is fairly clear from this that the Treasury is desperate not to share this information with the public. As I already argued to them, the OBR forecasts for Kwarteng’s statement represent statistical information which should have been used to make informed policy decisions. The fact that the projections were only requested after the date of the Statement does not change the fact that the policy in question was, at that time, finalised and announced, meaning s35(1)(a) cannot possibly apply. I have referred this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office for their view on the matter, and I will continue to post updates as and when I receive them. Story so far: Part 1Part 2
Episode 3 – Dad and Electoral Reform
A slightly delayed episode of Family Politics in which I chat to my dad about electoral reform – what is it, why is it needed, and how does it relate to cake?
My Personal Manifesto
My views are still changing, but I believe some of my positions are worth setting out below, with an invitation to anyone to get in touch with me to discuss my views. Please note, some of my personal views do not align directly with Liberal Democrat positions on some issues. As a party, we are constantly debating ideas to add to the party manifesto, and as a result the positions below are ones that either I would already vote for in line with existing Liberal Democrat policy or I would put my policy proposals to the Party as a whole in an attempt to persuade them of my views. My voting record in future will be drawn from my personal manifesto, the manifesto of the Liberal Democrat party, and above all my constituents. Electoral Reform Brexit Land and Property Tax Reform Pensions Trusts Education & Healthcare Utilities Transport