Reply to: Oh Dear - Capita and New Lie

[threaded]

xoggy: And what is more, in this particular case there are a specific set of laws against it: Honours Act (Prevention of Abuses) 1925

[xoggoth]

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's concede (ridiculous though the idea is!) that Blair has not been dishonest. Then, as over that dodgy Iraq dossier, his judgement is sadly lacking. It is not disputed that government accepted a loan from the director of a company that has won billions of pounds worth of government business and that in itself is something that should never happen.

If an employee of most large companies in the UK with any influence over disposition of company funds accepted even a modest gift or loan from a potential supplier they would be in hot water. I am sure I am not the only direct contractor to have received letters from clients warning against Christmas gifts to their employees. (Fat chance in my case!). Many large companies require their employees to take courses on ethics and this is a subject area that always comes up. It is considered highly unethical in business, no matter how honest the employee may be, as there is the reality of unconscious influence as well as a perception of conscious influence.

Yet this government seems to think it has done nothing wrong. They are absurd!

[bogeyman]

I did hear quite a few "interesting" stories about the shenanigans on other projects

Oh come on now, spill the beans you tease!

[eternalnomad]

As Zathras says, for years there was a close relationship between Andersens and NewLie. Hewitt was something to do with Andersens (I never found out what, but she certainly wasn't a director), Andersens used to get advanced warning of budget stuff, and access to govt ministers etc. They were always doing breakfast briefings (for their big clients) with treasury people.
One of the Andersens tax partners left to become an aide to Brownstuff (I can't remember his name though) and another of their senior partners was a Labour councillor.

Patricia Hewitt used to be Accenture (Andersons) research director

Ian Watmore (Accenture UK managing director) was appointed as the governments e-Tsar about 18 months ago

They are well and truly embedded into the corridors of Whitehall

I worked for them recently and they were genuinely trying to deliver a quality service to the client and in my view let the client take the p155 far too often at their own cost

They were always ok with me (even when I declined their kind offer of a permie job for the 3rd time) but I did hear quite a few "interesting" stories about the shenanigans on other projects

[Joe Black]

Oh, and by the way, you've all spelt Crapita wrong.

I worked for them years (and years) ago and they were not a bad company to work for then. Was certainly one of the best paid contracts I had at the time, though must admit the Council we were working for was paying huge amounts for our long-long lunch breaks...

[Mordac]

As Zathras says, for years there was a close relationship between Andersens and NewLie. Hewitt was something to do with Andersens (I never found out what, but she certainly wasn't a director), Andersens used to get advanced warning of budget stuff, and access to govt ministers etc. They were always doing breakfast briefings (for their big clients) with treasury people.
One of the Andersens tax partners left to become an aide to Brownstuff (I can't remember his name though) and another of their senior partners was a Labour councillor.

[zathras]

A bit like the old "IR35 conspiracy theory", you know the one where the big party donors, i mean organisations such as EDS, Capita & Accenture alledgedly influenced Gordon to change the rules to make it more difficult to hire contractors thus making in easier for the outsourcers.

When Mrs Thatcher fired the then Andersons after DeLorean the company cosied up to the then Labour Party. Evidence of this can be seen in that at least one former director is now a government minister.

When the Tories lost the election Andersons were given the job of advising the new Labour Administration on tax policy. Andersons included an IT Consulting Arm which was spun off to become Accenture and every since has been working on government projects. This despite the record over DeLorean of the old company. That this company worked on IT Projects and we got IR35 - ostensibly to force us into PAYE.

Now Andersons were also auditors of Enron which collapsed due to the number of off balance sheet items. The Labour government has had what amounts to a damaclean conversion to the benefits of the Private Sector getting involved in the public sector. Otherwise known as PFI. Also his use of Tax Credits.

Both PFI and Tax credits do not appear on the government's accounts as a cost. They are off-balance sheet. Bit like Enron

[NoddY]

As so the planets begin to align.

We've always realised that something was 'not quite right' in the murky world of NuLabore; as every week transpires little snippets of their shady inner workings begin to emerge.

[Hart-floot]

This has always been the problem with New Labour. That they act in a way which invites accusations of inpropriaty without any actual proof either way. short of a 'smoking gun' being found (in about 30 years time when papers are released, or 100 years if a Labour Government is in power then).

He may very well of decided to loan the Labour Party money but the fact his company has won contracts despite a lamentable record says the two are linked. Just as donations made to Labour by Bernie Eccleston were followed by the tobacco ban being lifted for F1 leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the two are linked.

Individually they may pass, but an accumalation of such events during the years 1997-2006 seem to stretch incredularity just a little bit too far.

A bit like the old "IR35 conspiracy theory", you know the one where the big party donors, i mean organisations such as EDS, Capita & Accenture alledgedly influenced Gordon to change the rules to make it more difficult to hire contractors thus making in easier for the outsourcers.

[privateeye]

It sounds like it was his personal money, not the company's.

..and where does he get his personal money from.

[Mordac]

You're right, it does. But then why quit?

Perhaps one of their projects is about to go tits up and he doesn't want to be the one standing in front of the fan when the tulip hits it.

Oh, and by the way, you've all spelt Crapita wrong.

[expat]

It sounds like it was his personal money, not the company's.

You're right, it does. But then why quit?

[VectraMan]

Really? Shouldn't it have been his own decision as chairman of the company? He shouldn't be spending the company's money "as an individual".

It sounds like it was his personal money, not the company's.

[DimPrawn]

Good point expat.


I think I'll spend all the companies money and when the IR investigate, I'll just tell them it was a decision as an individual.

HOW DO THESE FECKERS GET AWAY WITH IT????????????????????

[zathras]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4836024.stm

The chairman of outsourcing firm Capita has quit over "spurious" claims his £1m loan to the Labour Party resulted in the group getting government contracts.
Rod Aldridge, one of 12 donors who lent the party almost £14m in total before the last election, said he did "not want this misconception to continue".

The loan had been "my own decision as an individual, made in good faith".



Now this is downright illegal in my mind. Cnuts like Capita bribing the government for juicy public sector contracts at the tax payers expense.

This has always been the problem with New Labour. That they act in a way which invites accusations of inpropriaty without any actual proof either way. short of a 'smoking gun' being found (in about 30 years time when papers are released, or 100 years if a Labour Government is in power then).

He may very well of decided to loan the Labour Party money but the fact his company has won contracts despite a lamentable record says the two are linked. Just as donations made to Labour by Bernie Eccleston were followed by the tobacco ban being lifted for F1 leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the two are linked.

Individually they may pass, but an accumalation of such events during the years 1997-2006 seem to stretch incredularity just a little bit too far.