Why is the UK struggling more than other countries?

[stevenl]

43 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

1 . It was the remainers who caused the delay in the UK assigning contracts for PP printing as we wasn't sure whether we needed to write "European Union " on the front of the PP's or not .

2. The Polish printing Company had adequate security measures in place .

3 . I posted a link previously showing that what was required .

4 I have previously stated the difference between best and cheapest .

 

   You haven't been following this thread, have you , because all the info in this post has previously been posted by myself 

I have followed exactly so know that you have not answered any of the points. Partly, yes, fully. no. You're simply avoiding the issue. You have your opinion and stick to that, for a big part by very selective reading and answering.
No more point in this.

[Mac Mickmanus]

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I have followed exactly so know that you have not answered any of the points. Partly, yes, fully. no. You're simply avoiding the issue. You have your opinion and stick to that, for a big part by very selective reading and answering.
No more point in this.

OK, What point am I missing and what would you like me to answer and what issues am I avoiding  ?

   I have answered all the points raised and provided links to back up my claims and shown quite clearly I am correct.

  So, explain what you mean and tell me the points I miss , what issues I am avoiding and what I wont answer 

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

OK, What point am I missing and what would you like me to answer and what issues am I avoiding  ?

   I have answered all the points raised and provided links to back up my claims and shown quite clearly I am correct.

  So, explain what you mean and tell me the points I miss , what issues I am avoiding and what I wont answer 

I'm not repeating myself to you anymore, have done that in vain too many times already.

Edited January 3, 2023 by stevenl

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I'm not repeating myself to you anymore, have done that in vain too many times already.

Stop making false allegations .

If you make the suggestion that I am missing a point, you really need to state which point it is that you think I am missing .

   Your claim that I am missing points, have not answered questions and am avoiding issues has no basis in  fact 

   Feel free to prove me wrong by stating what they are are what you are talking about or they will just remain as baseless claims 

[Mavideol]

17 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, that is why I said lowest/best offer , the lowest offer is usually the best offer, but there may be other factors involved where the lowest offer isnt always the best offer . I initially said "lowest offer", then I thought some one would be argumentative and say that the lowest offer isn't always the best offer , so I then changed that to myself saying "lowest/best offer to stop people making an argument .

  

lowest offer and best offer don't go together and you keep confusing them 555

[Mac Mickmanus]

Just now, Mavideol said:

lowest offer and best offer don't go together and you keep confusing them 555

I have explained about three times already , the Gov has to accept the most cost effective offer and that is the best/cheapest offer .

   Please see my previous posts for further explanations 

[RayC]

10 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, I have explained about three times already .

No point in explaining again 

But still don't acknowledge the fact that you have changed the meaning of your original post. Whatever ......

 

From your comments, I very much doubt that you have been involved in the Tendering process on either side. If you had, you will know that in practice, there are ways and means - all within the letter, if not the spirit, of the law - to ensure that the preferred bidder wins the contract even if it is open tender.

 

The bottom line is if the UK government had been hell-bent on choosing a UK supplier to manufacture passports it could have.

 

For my part, this exchange ceased to have any purpose long ago. I have kept going because I have this childish desire to see this thread reach 100 pages!

[Mac Mickmanus]

8 minutes ago, RayC said:

But still don't acknowledge the fact that you have changed the meaning of your original post. Whatever ......

 

 

I admit it Ray .

I changed a word from Cheapest to best and used both words 

   I 100 % admit to that .

Now, please move on and stop going on about it 

Thanks 

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

 

From your comments, I very much doubt that you have been involved in the Tendering process on either side. If you had, you will know that in practice, there are ways and means - all within the letter, if not the spirit, of the law - to ensure that the preferred bidder wins the contract even if it is open tender.

 

The bottom line is if the UK government had been hell-bent on choosing a UK supplier to manufacture passports it could have.

 

 

The application process is deliberately set up so that the Gov doesn't know who the applicant is or where they come from .

[RayC]

11 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The application process is deliberately set up so that the Gov doesn't know who the applicant is or where they come from .

Mac, I know that you place personal anecdotes above empirical data so here's one for you.

 

I have worked on more contracts in various roles and guises - both from the buyer and supplier side -  than I care to remember. A fair few of them were anonymous, open tender bids in nature. 

 

When I worked on tender evaluation, I cannot recall one instance where I could not guess the identity of the supposedly, anonymous supplier from their bid. This was not due to me being particularly perceptive, it is simply (almost) inevitable in large contracts - such as this passport contract - to maintain anonymity.

 

For a start, for a specialised contract such as this, there will usually only be a handful of companies who are able to meet the requirements. Once you receive the bids, there will almost inevitably be something in a reply which will identify a company (deliberately or not). A fictitious example (and I would stress that it is just that. I have no knowledge of the specifics of this particular tender).

 

Requirement: The supplier shall be capable of printing up to 5000 passports per week.

 

Supplier response: We are capable of producing 10000 passports per week (They might add something like  "... at our two plants" or " ...at our facility in Poland, etc)". Either way, it either identifies the bidder or, as a minimum, eliminates other bidders. There will almost certainly be a number of requirements like this and the identity of the various bidders will become clear.

 

As I also said in a previous post, if the UK government had wanted to ensure that a UK company - in this case, De La Rue - won the contract it could have "massaged" the requirements to ensure that happened. 

 

Another fictitious example: Let's assume the French-Dutch company only has one plant and De La Rue has two.

 

Requirement: The supplier shall ensure that a backup plant is available to fulfil the orders in the event of a failure at the original plant (Note: A terribly written requirement).

 

Is this a moral approach to business?: I guess that depends on your values:  Is it legal? Almost certainly. In any event, any company disputing it would have a hard, expensive and time-consuming time arguing otherwise.

 

Phew: After all that, it really boils down to something simple: If the UK government had wanted De La Rue to win the contract, it could have ensured that was the outcome.

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

Mac, I know that you place personal anecdotes above empirical data so here's one for you.

 

I have worked on more contracts in various roles and guises - both from the buyer and supplier side -  than I care to remember. A fair few of them were anonymous, open tender bids in nature. 

 

When I worked on tender evaluation, I cannot recall one instance where I could not guess the identity of the supposedly, anonymous supplier from their bid. This was not due to me being particularly perceptive, it is simply (almost) inevitable in large contracts - such as this passport contract - to maintain anonymity.

 

For a start, for a specialised contract such as this, there will usually only be a handful of companies who are able to meet the requirements. Once you receive the bids, there will almost inevitably be something in a reply which will identify a company (deliberately or not). A fictitious example (and I would stress that it is just that. I have no knowledge of the specifics of this particular tender).

 

Requirement: The supplier shall be capable of printing up to 5000 passports per week.

 

Supplier response: We are capable of producing 10000 passports per week (They might add something like  "... at our two plants" or " ...at our facility in Poland, etc)". Either way, it either identifies the bidder or, as a minimum, eliminates other bidders. There will almost certainly be a number of requirements like this and the identity of the various bidders will become clear.

 

As I also said in a previous post, if the UK government had wanted to ensure that a UK company - in this case, De La Rue - won the contract it could have "massaged" the requirements to ensure that happened. 

 

Another fictitious example: Let's assume the French-Dutch company only has one plant and De La Rue has two.

 

Requirement: The supplier shall ensure that a backup plant is available to fulfil the orders in the event of a failure at the original plant (Note: A terribly written requirement).

 

Is this a moral approach to business?: I guess that depends on your values:  Is it legal? Almost certainly. In any event, any company disputing it would have a hard, expensive and time-consuming time arguing otherwise.

 

Phew: After all that, it really boils down to something simple: If the UK government had wanted De La Rue to win the contract, it could have ensured that was the outcome.

It is hardly a coincidence that so many eu countries use home based companies to print passports.

 

Whether awarded or through tendering process. 

[bannork]

Ouch!

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

8 hours ago, RayC said:

Mac, I know that you place personal anecdotes above empirical data so here's one for you.

 

I have worked on more contracts in various roles and guises - both from the buyer and supplier side -  than I care to remember. A fair few of them were anonymous, open tender bids in nature. 

 

When I worked on tender evaluation, I cannot recall one instance where I could not guess the identity of the supposedly, anonymous supplier from their bid. This was not due to me being particularly perceptive, it is simply (almost) inevitable in large contracts - such as this passport contract - to maintain anonymity.

 

For a start, for a specialised contract such as this, there will usually only be a handful of companies who are able to meet the requirements. Once you receive the bids, there will almost inevitably be something in a reply which will identify a company (deliberately or not). A fictitious example (and I would stress that it is just that. I have no knowledge of the specifics of this particular tender).

 

Requirement: The supplier shall be capable of printing up to 5000 passports per week.

 

Supplier response: We are capable of producing 10000 passports per week (They might add something like  "... at our two plants" or " ...at our facility in Poland, etc)". Either way, it either identifies the bidder or, as a minimum, eliminates other bidders. There will almost certainly be a number of requirements like this and the identity of the various bidders will become clear.

 

As I also said in a previous post, if the UK government had wanted to ensure that a UK company - in this case, De La Rue - won the contract it could have "massaged" the requirements to ensure that happened. 

 

Another fictitious example: Let's assume the French-Dutch company only has one plant and De La Rue has two.

 

Requirement: The supplier shall ensure that a backup plant is available to fulfil the orders in the event of a failure at the original plant (Note: A terribly written requirement).

 

Is this a moral approach to business?: I guess that depends on your values:  Is it legal? Almost certainly. In any event, any company disputing it would have a hard, expensive and time-consuming time arguing otherwise.

 

Phew: After all that, it really boils down to something simple: If the UK government had wanted De La Rue to win the contract, it could have ensured that was the outcome.

Ray, that would have been illegal .

Had the UK Gov choose a UK based printing company on the basis they were located in the UK  , that would have broken E.U laws .

   You personally may have gotton around laws by acting unscrupulously for your own personal gain , but a Government official isn't going to go against the law when his job and reputation is on the line and he doesn't get any personal benefit .

   The Gov named its requirements and all the applicants would have been able to fill those requirements .

   The applicants who filled the requirements gave their price and the Gov had to choose the applicant who gave the best price  .

  The Gov needed to comply with E.U rules and couldn't be deceitful and avoid those rules , like small business  can 

[Mac Mickmanus]

8 hours ago, RayC said:

Mac, I know that you place personal anecdotes above empirical data so here's one for you.

 

I have worked on more contracts in various roles and guises - both from the buyer and supplier side -  than I care to remember. A fair few of them were anonymous, open tender bids in nature. 

 

 

Could you clarify your experience ?

Have you worked for a Government office that needed to comply with the E.U.s new 2018 rules , rules about offering contracts fairly and openly and choosing the most cost effective bidder ?

   If not, then you personal experience is irrelevant , because you were not required to follow the current rules 

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, bannork said:

Ouch!

 

We shall see.

[bannork]

 

[Bluespunk]

*Deleted post edited out*

 

Yeah pesky facts that show the negative impact of brexit. 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Scott

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 hours ago, bannork said:

Ouch!

 

Its like a game of tennis :

"Brexit caused all the current problems in the UK"

"No, it was Covid and Ukraine that contributed to the current woes"

   Back and forth 

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Its like a game of tennis :

"Brexit caused all the current problems in the UK"

"No, it was Covid and Ukraine that contributed to the current woes"

   Back and forth 

Who said brexit caused all the problems. 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

 

[kwilco]

3 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Its like a game of tennis :

"Brexit caused all the current problems in the UK"

"No, it was Covid and Ukraine that contributed to the current woes"

   Back and forth 

As ever after all this time you have displayed a basic and profound misunderstanding of the topic.

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, kwilco said:

As ever after all this time you have displayed a basic and profound misunderstanding of the topic.

Fair enough , peoples opinion has now changed and they realise that Brexit and Ukraine are the main reasons for UK's problems and I failed to keep up with that manoeuvre .

   Now that the wholesale gas price has  gone back to pre Ukraine war prices , hopefully the UK can get inflation back under control

[Mac Mickmanus]

18 minutes ago, kwilco said:

As ever after all this time you have displayed a basic and profound misunderstanding of the topic.

If you read the posts in the replies on the twitter feed , in the link that I replied to, you will see that posters on twitter were indeed blaming Brexit and that is whom I was replying to 

[bannork]

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

33 minutes ago, bannork said:

 

A number of NHS trade unions in England have voted to take industrial action, with strikes currently scheduled for late December and early January. The proposed nursing strike days of 15 and 20 December are expected to affect 44 trusts. Nine ambulance trusts are expected to be affected on the proposed ambulance strike days of 21 December and eight ambulance trusts are expected to be affected on 28 December. There are further ballots of other groups of NHS workers, with midwives announcing they have not reached the required threshold. Physiotherapists have announced their members support industrial action but have not yet announced what action they will take following this result.

 

https://www.england.nhs.uk/briefing-industrial-action-winter-2022/

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

A number of NHS trade unions in England have voted to take industrial action, with strikes currently scheduled for late December and early January. The proposed nursing strike days of 15 and 20 December are expected to affect 44 trusts. Nine ambulance trusts are expected to be affected on the proposed ambulance strike days of 21 December and eight ambulance trusts are expected to be affected on 28 December. There are further ballots of other groups of NHS workers, with midwives announcing they have not reached the required threshold. Physiotherapists have announced their members support industrial action but have not yet announced what action they will take following this result.

 

https://www.england.nhs.uk/briefing-industrial-action-winter-2022/

Perhaps some of the £350,000,000 per week should have arrived on the BREXIT bus by now.

 

Put that towards wage increases to keep NHS staff in work rather than having to strike to get their pay to keep pace with inflation.

 

Brexiteers will of course support this, increased wages for working people was a claimed BREXIT bonus.

 

Of course nobody really expected working people to get a pay ride out of a Tory Government without fighting for it.

 

Next up:

 

We can’t see the benefits of Brexit, they’ve been wiped out by strikes.

‘Jam tomorrow’, ‘warm sunlight uplands’ just over the horizon.

Meanwhile UK food price inflation hits 13.3%, of course workers are demanding wage rises that keep up with inflation, they have families to feed, clothe and provide a home for.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/04/record-133-uk-food-inflation-raises-fears-of-another-difficult-year

[bannork]

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/UK-Citizens-Pay-The-Highest-Electricity-Bills-In-The-World.html

 

[puchooay]

On 1/3/2023 at 5:08 AM, RayC said:

But still don't acknowledge the fact that you have changed the meaning of your original post. Whatever ......

 

From your comments, I very much doubt that you have been involved in the Tendering process on either side. If you had, you will know that in practice, there are ways and means - all within the letter, if not the spirit, of the law - to ensure that the preferred bidder wins the contract even if it is open tender.

 

The bottom line is if the UK government had been hell-bent on choosing a UK supplier to manufacture passports it could have.

 

For my part, this exchange ceased to have any purpose long ago. I have kept going because I have this childish desire to see this thread reach 100 pages!

Thanks for your acknowledgement of the rules. Finally.

 

You now agree that UK would have had to bend the rules in order to have given the deal to a UK bidder.

 

Thank you.

[Chomper Higgot]

47 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Thanks for your acknowledgement of the rules. Finally.

 

You now agree that UK would have had to bend the rules in order to have given the deal to a UK bidder.

 

Thank you.

But the UK didn’t have to leave the EU to issue ‘Blue Passports’.

 

Arguably the only tangible BREXIT benefit was not actually a BREXIT benefit.

 

 

[RayC]

15 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Ray, that would have been illegal .

As has been explained countless times that is not necessarily the case.

 

15 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Had the UK Gov choose a UK based printing company on the basis they were located in the UK  , that would have broken E.U laws

And of course, the UK government is such a paradigm of virtue that it is inconceivable that it could possibly act in an immortal, underhand way? Imo that's a touch naïve.

 

In any event, as I outlined in my example, there are ways to circumvent these rules. Which of the two example requirements which I gave is illegal and why? 

 

15 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

 .

   You personally may have gotton around laws by acting unscrupulously for your own personal gain

Another completely illogical conclusion. Again, are you really that naïve? Ever heard of lawyers, tax accountants, etc? 

 

Where did I say that I gained anything personally?

 

15 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

, but a Government official isn't going to go against the law when his job and reputation is on the line and he doesn't get any personal benefit .

As of 2019, there were 560,000 UK civil servants. No doubt you know each and every one of them personally and can vouch for their character. 

 

As an aside, interesting how you know I would get some personal benefit but none of the 560,000 civil servants would. Crystal ball working overtime?

 

15 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

   The Gov named its requirements and all the applicants would have been able to fill those requirements .

Once the tender had been issued that would most likely would had been the case. However, I would have thought that it was intuitively obvious that I was talking about the period before issue. Clearly I was wrong. 

 

(Note: I have seen some bids  which didn't fulfill the mandatory requirements. Don't ask me why they were submitted)

 

15 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

   The applicants who filled the requirements gave their price and the Gov had to choose the applicant who gave the best price 

Again, not necessarily the case. The government could still have chosen another bidder so long as they could have justified their decision.

 

15 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

.

  The Gov needed to comply with E.U rules and couldn't be deceitful and avoid those rules , like small business  can 

To be SEEN to be complying with the rules: Yes.

 

The government couldn't be deceitful? Naivety again.

 

I'd suggest that it's a lot easier to take on a small business than a government.

 

If you had any experience in this field, you would know that any organisation can be creative when it comes to tenders. However, the vast majority of the time it is unnecessary because organisations do not have a hidden agenda. Their objective is to find the best (value for money) bid.