Government bets £500million on a horse

JohnD

JohnD

Joined
15 Nov 2005
Messages
88,787
Reaction score
6,653
Location
South
Country
Cook Islands
(buying a half-share in a bankrupt company)

"Ministers pursued the deal despite Sam Beckett, the then acting permanent secretary at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, questioning the wisdom of the move in a letter sent on June 26 and made public on Wednesday.

It is rare for mandarins to issue “ministerial directions” of this nature which require ministers to overrule objections from the civil service before proceeding with a spending proposal. Government departments are required to make ministerial directions public."


"Are you sure that's wise, Sir?

180




“While in one scenario we could get a 20 per cent return, the central case is marginal and there are significant downside risks, including that venture capital investments of this sort can fail, with the consequence that all the value of the equity can be lost.” As such the investment did not meet the value-for-money requirements set out by the government.

The letter reveals that the Treasury did not give the investment its usual “full Green Book-compliant business case” analysis, which would have examined whether other alternative investments might have delivered a better return"

https://www.ft.com/content/d0721bad...egmentId=3f81fe28-ba5d-8a93-616e-4859191fabd8
 
Sponsored Links
Yeah, the logic there is pretty odd. Completely wrong for a GPS equivalent, but the business case for yet another GPS clone was always negligible. LEO satellite networking has potential for serious profit but it needs a huge investment.
 
JohnD said:
(buying a half-share in a bankrupt company)

"Ministers pursued the deal despite Sam Beckett, the then acting permanent secretary at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, questioning the wisdom of the move in a letter sent on June 26 and made public on Wednesday.

It is rare for mandarins to issue “ministerial directions” of this nature which require ministers to overrule objections from the civil service before proceeding with a spending proposal. Government departments are required to make ministerial directions public."


"Are you sure that's wise, Sir?

180




“While in one scenario we could get a 20 per cent return, the central case is marginal and there are significant downside risks, including that venture capital investments of this sort can fail, with the consequence that all the value of the equity can be lost.” As such the investment did not meet the value-for-money requirements set out by the government.

The letter reveals that the Treasury did not give the investment its usual “full Green Book-compliant business case” analysis, which would have examined whether other alternative investments might have delivered a better return"

https://www.ft.com/content/d0721bad...egmentId=3f81fe28-ba5d-8a93-616e-4859191fabd8
Click to expand...

Just to point out the FT links you sometimes post are subscription links and can't be read by non subscribers.
 
I thought they made them free during the Covid emergency?

Maybe that was just Covid stories.
 
Sponsored Links
In other news,

"Public sector workers, including doctors, teachers and police officers, will see above inflation pay rises this year, the Chancellor has announced today."

Nurses do not get it, because are already on a scheme giving about 2% a year for this year, last year and next year, which is about in line with inflation, so no real-terms increase. MPs and Pensioners get more.

Government supporters say that's ample and they don't deserve any more.

In some quarters it was wrongly claimed that the rise was in recognition of the extra work and terrible conditions brought by the CV crisis.

Since nurses are excluded, this is obviously not the case.

The NHS is short of about 40,000 nurses. Nobody can think why this might be.
 
well that's funny

"Reflecting the vital contributions public sector workers make to our country, these pay rises cover the Armed Forces, teachers, police Officers, the National Crime Agency, prison Officers, doctors and dentists, the Judiciary, senior civil servants and senior military personnel.


Nearly 900,000 workers will benefit across the country, with teachers and doctors seeing the largest rise at 3.1% and 2.8% respectively recognising their efforts on the frontline during the battle against COVID-19."

but no recognition for nurses.
 
Some people are taking the view the health workers shouldn't be getting a rise because most of them, including clerical staff and 'back of house' workers have been getting preferential treatment at shops such as early shopping and in a lot of shops getting as much as 20% off their bill.
I personally know of 1 health worker who never came anywhere near a risk area and has practically done no normal work for at least 3 1/2 months. Most of the time, she says, is sitting in the department rest room drinking tea/coffee and playing board games or doing things like crosswords, knitting and even playing cards! Yet she is still happy to 'jump the queue' at supermarkets and get her 20% discount wherever they are giving it. She freely admits that her and her colleagues have never had it so good.
 
conny said:
Some people are taking the view the health workers shouldn't be getting a rise because most of them, including clerical staff and 'back of house' workers have been getting preferential treatment at shops such as early shopping and in a lot of shops getting as much as 20% off their bill.
I personally know of 1 health worker who never came anywhere near a risk area and has practically done no normal work for at least 3 1/2 months. Most of the time, she says, is sitting in the department rest room drinking tea/coffee and playing board games or doing things like crosswords, knitting and even playing cards! Yet she is still happy to 'jump the queue' at supermarkets and get her 20% discount wherever they are giving it. She freely admits that her and her colleagues have never had it so good.
Click to expand...

We're a private company.
When it kicked off, no-one really knew how it was going to pan out.
Our best guess was that we'd mothball for a few months, then start bringing people back when the work came back.
However, the social housing contracts never really stopped, so we had quite a few people who never stopped at all.
Plus, we've had a lot of people working in hot zones, fitting respirators to NHS staff. We've had some contract the 'rona.
Those lads and lasses won't be getting a pay rise.
 
conny said:
Some people are taking the view the health workers shouldn't be getting a rise because most of them, including clerical staff and 'back of house' workers have been getting preferential treatment at shops such as early shopping and in a lot of shops getting as much as 20% off their bill.
I personally know of 1 health worker who never came anywhere near a risk area and has practically done no normal work for at least 3 1/2 months. Most of the time, she says, is sitting in the department rest room drinking tea/coffee and playing board games or doing things like crosswords, knitting and even playing cards! Yet she is still happy to 'jump the queue' at supermarkets and get her 20% discount wherever they are giving it. She freely admits that her and her colleagues have never had it so good.
Click to expand...
how dare you
 
JohnD said:
(buying a half-share in a bankrupt company)

"Ministers pursued the deal despite Sam Beckett, the then acting permanent secretary at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, questioning the wisdom of the move in a letter sent on June 26 and made public on Wednesday.

It is rare for mandarins to issue “ministerial directions” of this nature which require ministers to overrule objections from the civil service before proceeding with a spending proposal. Government departments are required to make ministerial directions public."


"Are you sure that's wise, Sir?

180




“While in one scenario we could get a 20 per cent return, the central case is marginal and there are significant downside risks, including that venture capital investments of this sort can fail, with the consequence that all the value of the equity can be lost.” As such the investment did not meet the value-for-money requirements set out by the government.

The letter reveals that the Treasury did not give the investment its usual “full Green Book-compliant business case” analysis, which would have examined whether other alternative investments might have delivered a better return"

https://www.ft.com/content/d0721bad...egmentId=3f81fe28-ba5d-8a93-616e-4859191fabd8
Click to expand...
your posts are pointless. you just reiterate whats reported in the media. why?
 
conny said:
How dare I what?
Click to expand...
speak like that about saintly health workers. i’ve been to hospital many times and never seen staff leaning on desks having a larrrf or sitting with their feet up drinking tea, or roaming around aimlessly with a clipboard trying to look purposeful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links

Similar threads

JohnD
Major EU governments shamed into crackdown on tax evasion
7 8 9
Replies
126
Views
8K
Brigadier
B
JBR
  • Locked
UKIP - a 'one trick pony'?
11 12 13
Replies
188
Views
18K
RNReindeer
R
Back
Top