More right wing bololx. The work shy are either too stupid to vote the correct way or too lazy to vote as the areas with the highest unemployment rates tended to vote Brexit. Instead of blaming people who leave their families, risk their lives to get here we should be looking at the scum who exploit the vulnerable & desperate, wherever they are from.

The good old tried and tested right wing jibe. Usually coupled with the daily mail reader insult . Ironically holding the governments feet to the fire on this windrush scandal is the press. This is the industry that Tom Watson and his Labour Party chums want to legislate. Along with watsons lovie third rate showbiz coherts. Still I suppose if someone gives you large amounts of money you have to dance to his tune.

Quote ="Backwoodsman"The good old tried and tested right wing jibe. Usually coupled with the daily mail reader insult . Ironically holding the governments feet to the fire on this windrush scandal is the press. This is the industry that Tom Watson and his Labour Party chums want to legislate. Along with watsons lovie third rate showbiz coherts. Still I suppose if someone gives you large amounts of money you have to dance to his tune.'" Do you really believe this? We have the most biased right wing press in Europe. Is there any wonder that with the Sun, Star and Express ranting on about the EU years in year out for about 30 years, that places like Sunderland (with a helluva a lot to lose) voted for Brexit. All their problems according to this so-called free press could be solved by coming out of the EU. If memory serves it was this same "free press" that 30 years ago said that all our problems would be solved by hamstringing the trade unions. And look where that's got us? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 59266.html

Quote ="Backwoodsman"The good old tried and tested right wing jibe. Usually coupled with the daily mail reader insult . Ironically holding the governments feet to the fire on this windrush scandal is the press. This is the industry that Tom Watson and his Labour Party chums want to legislate. Along with watsons lovie third rate showbiz coherts. Still I suppose if someone gives you large amounts of money you have to dance to his tune.'" Do you really believe this? We have the most biased right wing press in Europe. Is there any wonder that with the Sun, Star and Express ranting on about the EU years in year out for about 30 years, that places like Sunderland (with a helluva a lot to lose) voted for Brexit. All their problems according to this so-called free press could be solved by coming out of the EU. If memory serves it was this same "free press" that 30 years ago said that all our problems would be solved by hamstringing the trade unions. And look where that's got us? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 59266.html

Steady on there Tigertot.
I was trying to have a pop at the Tories and their Fleet Street buddies.
The only common ground that I have with Sal, is that we both post on RLFans.

Please read my previous posts, which pretty much agree with your point on the vast majority of immigrants in the UK and especially those from the EU.

Why would anyone come to Britain just to claim benefits, this is just a myth to suit right wing sympathisers and please, dont put me anywhere near that category.

Sorry mate, I was agreeing with you not disagreeing. I quoted both posts for context.

Phew, I wasnt sure whether to get a blue rinse or douse myself with disinfectant.
I'm glad you cleared that one up though.

As majorhound pointed out. Our press is a joke. Take today’s dailymail headline about unemployment. A couple of brexiteers at work were beating their chest about it. Just like Cronus they took it at face value. When I mentioned that it included zero hour contracts they had no idea what that meant

Regards

King James

Quote ="majorhound"Do you really believe this? We have the most biased right wing press in Europe. Is there any wonder that with the Sun, Star and Express ranting on about the EU years in year out for about 30 years, that places like Sunderland (with a helluva a lot to lose) voted for Brexit. All their problems according to this so-called free press could be solved by coming out of the EU. If memory serves it was this same "free press" that 30 years ago said that all our problems would be solved by hamstringing the trade unions. And look where that's got us? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 59266.html'" More left wing clap trap - let's give the unions unlimited powers - you think productivity is bad now, it would be catastrophic if you gave the likes of McClusky their way When comrade Corbyn gets in power you will see what its like to have unions running feral Some of us have long memories what it was like when you had a large public sector and unrestricted union power - be careful what you wish for

Quote ="majorhound"Do you really believe this? We have the most biased right wing press in Europe. Is there any wonder that with the Sun, Star and Express ranting on about the EU years in year out for about 30 years, that places like Sunderland (with a helluva a lot to lose) voted for Brexit. All their problems according to this so-called free press could be solved by coming out of the EU. If memory serves it was this same "free press" that 30 years ago said that all our problems would be solved by hamstringing the trade unions. And look where that's got us? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 59266.html'" More left wing clap trap - let's give the unions unlimited powers - you think productivity is bad now, it would be catastrophic if you gave the likes of McClusky their way When comrade Corbyn gets in power you will see what its like to have unions running feral Some of us have long memories what it was like when you had a large public sector and unrestricted union power - be careful what you wish for

Perhaps if these people were prepared to stand up and fight their oppresion then those despots who cause the misery wouldn't have it so easy. Whilst ever these cowards just pack up and run the likes of al-Assad will have their way.

You can't have it both ways - either they did vote for Brexit or they were too lazy to do so? Labour deliberately keep unemployment benefits at a reasonable level because these were key voters for Blair and his cronies.

Wow, more utter garbage.
Benefits kept to the max to ensure votes from the unemployed.??

Why was it then, that the Tories have slashed and burned the welfare state and yet, their majority all but disappeared



There is a huge amount of apathy among the voting public, you only have to look at the numbers in both the GE and more recent local elections to see this and apart from Corbyns late attempt to rally the young, with his give away manifesto, ALL parties and the media are guilty for not trying to drive voting numbers upMind you, this suits the Tories as they take the lions share of the "silver" vote and it isnt in their interests to encourage the under 25's to mark an "X"

You mean his fully costed manifesto - as opposed to the Tory one, that contained no sums at all, and has seen several key pledges scrapped?

Like the Palestinians this week perhaps?

Who were then shot in the head by bullets sold by the tories. WHich I suppose, is a cheaper way of reducing immigration.

Regards

King James

You don't still believe that claptrap do you?

Neither manifesto stood up to scrutiny but Labour's was laughable. Not surprising if Diane Abbott was anywhere near it.

Labour offered lots of sums on the back of a massive increase in debt at a time when national debt is already around 90% of national income. A 50% (£25 billion) increase in borrowing each year, in addition to over £250 billion to renationalise various services. That's before we include £10 billion on tuition fees, £8 billion for education, £6 billion for the NHS and £1 billion for social care. They were banking on increasing tax returns but clearly don't understand how they work and massively overestimated returns.

Staggeringly, they were going to funding this in part via increased taxes on high earners...while implementing an Excessive Pay Levy to reduce the number of high earners.

Quote ="Cronus"You don't still believe that claptrap do you? Neither manifesto stood up to scrutiny but Labour's was laughable. Not surprising if Diane Abbott was anywhere near it. Labour offered lots of sums on the back of a massive increase in debt at a time when national debt is already around 90% of national income. A 50% (£25 billion) increase in borrowing each year, in addition to over £250 billion to renationalise various services. That's before we include £10 billion on tuition fees, £8 billion for education, £6 billion for the NHS and £1 billion for social care. They were banking on increasing tax returns but clearly don't understand how they work and massively overestimated returns. Staggeringly, they were going to funding this in part via increased taxes on high earners...while implementing an Excessive Pay Levy to reduce the number of high earners. '" Perhaps if the top 1% wealthiest people in this country, who own 24% of its wealth, were deprived of some of it, there'd be more to go around. Thatcher sold the lie that if taxes came down, more people would be willing to pay, and not avoid tax by various means. The taxes were reduced, but they're still trying to avoid paying it, and the Tories are using the same old line again to justify cutting tax for the rich. Much wants more. https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-wealth-1-percent/

Quote ="Cronus"You don't still believe that claptrap do you? Neither manifesto stood up to scrutiny but Labour's was laughable. Not surprising if Diane Abbott was anywhere near it. Labour offered lots of sums on the back of a massive increase in debt at a time when national debt is already around 90% of national income. A 50% (£25 billion) increase in borrowing each year, in addition to over £250 billion to renationalise various services. That's before we include £10 billion on tuition fees, £8 billion for education, £6 billion for the NHS and £1 billion for social care. They were banking on increasing tax returns but clearly don't understand how they work and massively overestimated returns. Staggeringly, they were going to funding this in part via increased taxes on high earners...while implementing an Excessive Pay Levy to reduce the number of high earners. '" Perhaps if the top 1% wealthiest people in this country, who own 24% of its wealth, were deprived of some of it, there'd be more to go around. Thatcher sold the lie that if taxes came down, more people would be willing to pay, and not avoid tax by various means. The taxes were reduced, but they're still trying to avoid paying it, and the Tories are using the same old line again to justify cutting tax for the rich. Much wants more. https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-wealth-1-percent/

I wonder what it is about Diane Abbott that has right wingers of the belief that she's such an easy target...?

Anyhow, by way of demonstrating the double standards on display in this regard - the hapless white middle-aged man Chris Grayling said during an interview on national TV yesterday, that their forced adoption of one of Labour's best policies, the nationalisation of train services, was because, and I quote "all involved got their sums wrong." Where is the derision of the right - who appear by their attacks on Diane Abbott to place great stock in being good at sums?

A passing comment in an interview in which Grayling clearly states Stagecoach got their sums wrong (as he has said repeatedly elsewhere) and submitted a non-viable (in hindsight) bid, is nothing like the bumbling, mumbling, embarrassing mess Diane Abbott, who gets worse every time she speaks.

Procurement on this scale is a highly complex process and there's always an element of trust in any bid, regardless of due diligence and risk checks. In that context, yes the DoT 'got their sums wrong', but a tender that doesn't deliver in hindsight is a fairly common business issue, and a long way from one of Diane Abbott's comedy skits.

I'll deride Abbott all day long. She's anti-UK, highly racist, a hypocrite and a terrorist sympathiser. She's failed to declare earnings, claimed outrageous expenses and she's only in her position thanks to having previously tickled Jeremy's pleasure. Labour supporters should be horrified she's one of your leaders. She's doing a fine job keeping the Tories in power.

Aah look, majorhound with the race card again.

No there isn't.

Offer
Acceptance
Intention
Consideration
Capacity

It's up to the purchaser to satisfy themselves of the integrity of the bid.

Much of which is based on data, statements, projections, legalese, SLAs and pricing provided by the bidder.

How, pray tell, would the purchaser be able to proceed without trusting the information they are given? There are of course (limited) checks and balances to confirm the substance of the bid, but ultimately the bidder is the sole source of the majority of the information.

I've been on both ends of enough tenders to know how it works.

The first part of your post is correct.

However, regarding "the purchaser to satisfy themselves of the integrity of the bid.", I dont believe this is always the caes and there are circumstances where, if the information given in any tender is proven to be incorrect, there will be a get out clause for any supplier or, as usually happens, they carry on until the end of the tender period and use the experience to guide them in future deals with whichever company.has "wronged" them.
There can also be occasions when "fixed" pricing can be altered during the period of supply.

I start from the basis of not trusting a word a bidder tells me. It is up to me to satisfy myself that key information is true. Perhaps my industry is even more dishonest than normal. That's the reason why lawyers make a fortune out of contracts & why procurement legislation is in place.

Given the track record (geddit) of the previous private operators on the East Coast Mainline, I'd have thought that the DofT would have gone through the bid with a fine toothed comb. However, the fact that they wanted to get through before possibly losing an election may have affected their judgement.
After all the previous public operator was producing a profit for the taxpayer. Bigotry and dogmatism were behind the awarding of this franchise. So no wonder they cocked up so badly.

Contractually & legally you are correct. However my job is to identify upfront the lies & dishonesty in a bid & subsequent contract. If I just sat here & said "Don't worry boss, it might be 6 months late & £1m over budget, we've got a thousand students with nowhere to live & nowhere to study, but I've just sussed they lied in their bid so we have grounds for breach of contract" I wouldn't last long. This is the industry & business that gave you Grenfell.

That's all very nice and you are quite right to be as thorough as possible, but ultimately at some point you have to make a decision based on data and information provided by your bidder - some of which you will have no way of independently verifying.

Unless, of course, in your line of work EVERYTHING is on public record and can be disclosed without fear of confidentiality, compliance, antitrust and data protection liabilities. Which would be very unlikely.