|
|
Post by allentc on Nov 1, 2023 11:17:09 GMT
In my opinion this not only goes for NHS, other government departments and private companies, the biggest con in my eyes are preferred supplier contracts. They are sold as you will get all you supplies from them in return for a discounted price. What happens in reality is you end up paying more than if you got it off the open market. I have a firend who works at a South London hospital, says he can purchase something of Amazon for under £60. To get it from the hospitals preferred supplier £800. I heard exactly this on LBC a few months ago, How can this be allowed to happen? Either it is gross incompetence by those who sign off such contracts at the Dept of Health in which case they should be fired or else it is deliberate and they are receiving backhanders/promises of cushy non-exec directorship roles when they leave the NHS if they award such contracts. People are clearly benefiting from such scandalous contracts! Follow the money... |
|
|
|
Post by allentc on Nov 1, 2023 11:24:30 GMT
I find it more interesting that TfL won’t release figures on how much air pollution has decreased until after the election. It could be nothing and yet we won’t have a clear idea until after. That is key information that would no doubt help voters decide who to place in the position. Call me a cynic but that is very convenient. If the figures were predicted to show a massive drop in pollution I have no doubt Khan would find a way of getting this information out before the election i.e. twist a few arms of his mates at Imperial College. Rather the figures are likely to show - as they have long been predicted - to show a negligible fall in pollution and will be released a la Labour's Jo Moore on a "good day to bury bad news". |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 1, 2023 11:26:49 GMT
In my opinion this not only goes for NHS, other government departments and private companies, the biggest con in my eyes are preferred supplier contracts. They are sold as you will get all you supplies from them in return for a discounted price. What happens in reality is you end up paying more than if you got it off the open market. I have a firend who works at a South London hospital, says he can purchase something of Amazon for under £60. To get it from the hospitals preferred supplier £800. I heard exactly this on LBC a few months ago, How can this be allowed to happen? Either it is gross incompetence by those who sign off such contracts at the Dept of Health in which case they should be fired or else it is deliberate and they are receiving backhanders/promises of cushy non-exec directorship roles when they leave the NHS if they award such contracts. Are these deals done at a national level or local level? I maybe incorrectly thought each trust negotiated their own contracts. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 1, 2023 11:41:49 GMT
I find it more interesting that TfL won’t release figures on how much air pollution has decreased until after the election. It could be nothing and yet we won’t have a clear idea until after. That is key information that would no doubt help voters decide who to place in the position. Call me a cynic but that is very convenient. If the figures were predicted to show a massive drop in pollution I have no doubt Khan would find a way of getting this information out before the election i.e. twist a few arms of his mates at Imperial College. Rather the figures are likely to show - as they have long been predicted - to show a negligible fall in pollution and will be released a la Labour's Jo Moore on a "good day to bury bad news". The figure will no doubt show a drop in pollution. The figures for the original ULEZ did, but not huge, which were proudly trumpeted as a success. What they conveniently failed to tell you was non-ULEZ areas fell by virtually the same figure, in fact the average reductions was marginally greater in non-ULEZ areas. That is the trouble with raw statistic. Bigger enough sample, you can probably find evidence to prove and disprove arguments, if you are selective enough. Like when they were trying to justify our LTN, they claimed traffic had risen 276% over a 5 year period. As residents, we knew this was hogwash. When we got the raw data, there were extreme spikes and troughs. The figures taken, happen to be a January when we were in the middle of a snow storm and imagine it was difficult for traffic to pass, and then two months that happend to show a huge spike up before returning to the norm. The council could offer not explaination as to why the figures were so high for these 2 months. They confirmed there was no record of a diversion being in place at this time, and when pushed for maintenance records of counter, they confirmed an engineer visited the site after the last high reading, but had no record of his findings. They said the records were probably unreliable and should not be used, despite the council having done this. The overall trend was ever so slightly down, but statistics were produced by the council that declared a huge increase! Politicians are despicable b'stds. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 1, 2023 11:42:00 GMT
And if Khan is re-elected next year wait and see how much is raised when he alters the goalposts and more cars are deemed non-compliant I'm not sure he will change the goalposts but I do see more anti-motorist rules coming into force. One of his tactics to justify the excessive tunnel charge in East is to say there's not enough help from government. I suspect such charge will make it to the Rotherhithe and potentially Tower Bridge. Issue is he has an extremely weak competitor. The only time I'd even consider voting for her over Khan is if she makes it a headlining policy to review tube staff wages and also probably removing the nominated travel pass for people who don't actually work on TfL. Not sure why you think a mayor must sort out tube staff wages  |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 1, 2023 11:49:33 GMT
The issue is the NHS is excessively bloated in terms of its finances. The more money thrown at it, the more gets gobbled up somewhere it doesn't need to be. In my opinion this not only goes for NHS, other government departments and private companies, the biggest con in my eyes are preferred supplier contracts. They are sold as you will get all you supplies from them in return for a discounted price. What happens in reality is you end up paying more than if you got it off the open market. I have a firend who works at a South London hospital, says he can purchase something of Amazon for under £60. To get it from the hospitals preferred supplier £800. I worked for a company in the private sector, had a meeting with a supplier whose presentation extolled the virtues of why they are doing such a good job saving money for the company. Well I had a limited budget, worked out what I could buy via the manufacturers sale to public RRP website. To my horror the quote came in higher. Contacted the guy who did the meeting to query what was quoted, and guess what, very quickly got an email saying the had made an error in the calculations and the new quote supplied was over 30% cheaper. People just send these orders off and accept the quote. It is not their money, and they follow the required process to procure items. These contracts make the suppliers huge profits, and probably the person agreeing the contract a huge kickback. I am aware of someone having a huge extension built by a supplier. Government seems to have less controls on costs than the private sector, so expect them to be abused more by this practice, but my exposure to the public sector is limited, but definitely not zero. I remember a few years ago Boris mentioned this, but the usual Labour hags went on to think he was trying to scrap the NHS etc. End of the day it is not just happening to the NHS but the local councils and a lot of them is Labour councils this is happening to. With loads of these so called housing projects and various urban realm nonsense roadworks. They charge an arm and a leg for these organisations but other private companies they sell to would not sell at these prices. They know they are a soft target and is a way for easy profits. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 1, 2023 11:51:49 GMT
In my opinion this not only goes for NHS, other government departments and private companies, the biggest con in my eyes are preferred supplier contracts. They are sold as you will get all you supplies from them in return for a discounted price. What happens in reality is you end up paying more than if you got it off the open market. I have a firend who works at a South London hospital, says he can purchase something of Amazon for under £60. To get it from the hospitals preferred supplier £800. I heard exactly this on LBC a few months ago, How can this be allowed to happen? Either it is gross incompetence by those who sign off such contracts at the Dept of Health in which case they should be fired or else it is deliberate and they are receiving backhanders/promises of cushy non-exec directorship roles when they leave the NHS if they award such contracts. People are clearly benefiting from such scandalous contracts! Follow the money... It is nothing new, it has been happening for years. The same goes for the ULEZ contract, and even the Congestion Charge contract from years ago. They NEVER really solve any problem but there as stealth taxes and money earners for private companies and the government. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Nov 1, 2023 12:01:03 GMT
In my opinion this not only goes for NHS, other government departments and private companies, the biggest con in my eyes are preferred supplier contracts. They are sold as you will get all you supplies from them in return for a discounted price. What happens in reality is you end up paying more than if you got it off the open market. I have a firend who works at a South London hospital, says he can purchase something of Amazon for under £60. To get it from the hospitals preferred supplier £800. I worked for a company in the private sector, had a meeting with a supplier whose presentation extolled the virtues of why they are doing such a good job saving money for the company. Well I had a limited budget, worked out what I could buy via the manufacturers sale to public RRP website. To my horror the quote came in higher. Contacted the guy who did the meeting to query what was quoted, and guess what, very quickly got an email saying the had made an error in the calculations and the new quote supplied was over 30% cheaper. People just send these orders off and accept the quote. It is not their money, and they follow the required process to procure items. These contracts make the suppliers huge profits, and probably the person agreeing the contract a huge kickback. I am aware of someone having a huge extension built by a supplier. Government seems to have less controls on costs than the private sector, so expect them to be abused more by this practice, but my exposure to the public sector is limited, but definitely not zero. I remember a few years ago Boris mentioned this, but the usual Labour hags went on to think he was trying to scrap the NHS etc. End of the day it is not just happening to the NHS but the local councils and a lot of them is Labour councils this is happening to. With loads of these so called housing projects and various urban realm nonsense roadworks. They charge an arm and a leg for these organisations but other private companies they sell to would not sell at these prices. They know they are a soft target and is a way for easy profits. The NHS is the worlds 5th largest employer and the 3rd largest state owned employer. It has the power to produce many of the products it buys in house, the power to force suppliers to lower their prices and the power to ensure prices are kept low based on volume of usage. But it uses none of this power to centralise purchasing and procurement to one national level team instead allowing trusts to organise purchasing locally. The NHS needs to be looked at like a business rather than a collective of small businesses sharing a semi-organised back office system. It needs to start behaving like a cartel and flex its power. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 1, 2023 23:09:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Nov 2, 2023 8:27:14 GMT
Call me a cynic but that is very convenient. If the figures were predicted to show a massive drop in pollution I have no doubt Khan would find a way of getting this information out before the election i.e. twist a few arms of his mates at Imperial College. Rather the figures are likely to show - as they have long been predicted - to show a negligible fall in pollution and will be released a la Labour's Jo Moore on a "good day to bury bad news". The figure will no doubt show a drop in pollution. The figures for the original ULEZ did, but not huge, which were proudly trumpeted as a success. What they conveniently failed to tell you was non-ULEZ areas fell by virtually the same figure, in fact the average reductions was marginally greater in non-ULEZ areas. That is the trouble with raw statistic. Bigger enough sample, you can probably find evidence to prove and disprove arguments, if you are selective enough. Like when they were trying to justify our LTN, they claimed traffic had risen 276% over a 5 year period. As residents, we knew this was hogwash. When we got the raw data, there were extreme spikes and troughs. The figures taken, happen to be a January when we were in the middle of a snow storm and imagine it was difficult for traffic to pass, and then two months that happend to show a huge spike up before returning to the norm. The council could offer not explaination as to why the figures were so high for these 2 months. They confirmed there was no record of a diversion being in place at this time, and when pushed for maintenance records of counter, they confirmed an engineer visited the site after the last high reading, but had no record of his findings. They said the records were probably unreliable and should not be used, despite the council having done this. The overall trend was ever so slightly down, but statistics were produced by the council that declared a huge increase! Politicians are despicable b'stds. Not just politicians, but the whole MSM is like that in general, I just switch it off and ignore it |
|
|
|
Post by allentc on Nov 2, 2023 12:52:43 GMT
Not just politicians, but the whole MSM is like that in general, I just switch it off and ignore it And the politicians wonder - or maybe they know - why the public distrust them so much. They never directly answer questions asked and anything that is put out has been spun, twisted and manipulated. That is regardless of what party it is and whether they are in power or opposition. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 3, 2023 17:23:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 20, 2023 7:28:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 20, 2023 9:34:47 GMT
No surprise, the guy is corrupt. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Dec 7, 2023 18:04:33 GMT
|
|
