Forum menu
Peter Hearn ceased to be PWSC in September of 2023 of MPM Connect Ltd.
OPD Group Holdings is now the ‘person’ with SC.
Don’t you just love company structure.
Again, his company, directed by his son, it's just restructuring for business.
As for the Corbyn stuff, i raised that to highlight it's not a dodgy practice, it's pretty standard and advised in most instances, what used to be dodgy practices was hiding your donations via companies, so having a shell company set up with no links to the individual, so that donations being made appeared to be from another source.
Because they can’t think of any other way to justify it?
I thought it was to highlight the practice was widespread, which is not necessarily the same as justifying it. Even so, needs to be totally reformed regardless of donors or recipients.
As for the Corbyn stuff, i raised that to highlight it’s not a dodgy practice,
Not sure why you think it can't be dodgy just because Corbyn was involved?
Remember, a lot of us liked Corbyn because of his policies and approach rather than the man himself.
As for the Corbyn stuff, i raised that to highlight it’s not a dodgy practice
Corbyn is the epitome of integrity ?
It was more his barrister, and friend, again, it's gone off topic, but these companies are just vehicles, set up to allow donations to be done via individuals businesses, or to have a specific account to deal with this type of activity.
The real reason for mentioning it in the first place is that the two individuals who donated to Streeting with 'links' to private healthcare aren't actually in business to take over the NHS, one supports the private healthcare industry, the other is a venture capitalist who has funds in private healthcare.
one supports the private healthcare industry, the other is a venture capitalist who has funds in private healthcare.
And between them they have given the Health Secretary £175k?
I wonder why?
MPM Connect Ltd
Nature of business:
"Activities of head offices"
Lmfao.
Just wondering which one is the venture capitalist?
John Armitage is the venture capitalist, he donated as an individual.
Corbyn is the epitome of integrity ?
For clarity I am not suggesting that Corbyn is dodgy, I am just surprised that argee, of all people , seems to be arguing that something must be above board if Corbyn did it.
Although as rone has already pointed out it is quite hard to make a link between small crowdfunding donations from thousands of individuals to deal with large unexpected legal costs, and £175k from just two individuals, with interests in the private healthcare, to the now Secretary of State for Health
I wonder why?
I don't think there's ever been a pause in the claim that "They" are going to privatise the NHS at some point. Two things, Thing One; the Tories were in power for 14 years, and now it's Labour, neither of these govts have shown any indication that want to privatise Hospital provision, It would, by any measure be massively unpopular, and go against the tide of the realisation that the swathe of privatisations that happened over the last 30-40 years was a stupid plan, and there's generally a move towards more oversight and more govt control from both parties. and Thing Two. Without the existing private healthcare providers; 99% of GPs and dentists, every high street pharmacist, audiologist and optician, the NHS would've fallen over on day two.
Is the issue perhaps that amateur armchair political and economic commentators have set out very fixed opinions on what this government will/won't do on a cycling forum and are desperately looking for anything that will make them look correct - whichever side of the argument.
Yes, this is my first day on the forum/Internet.
Thing One; the Tories were in power for 14 years, and now it’s Labour, neither of these govts have shown any indication that want to privatise Hospital provision
Uh huh. Does Hinchingbrooke ring any bells?
It did hit the problem that it wasnt profitable enough and hence the experiment ended for the time being. Its best to selectively cherrypick profitable services then take on the high risk stuff. Which the 2012 act allowed for giving a massive increase in private provision under the NHS banner. Has the bonus when it fails the NHS gets blamed and strengthens the argument for private provision as well.
Thing Two. Without the existing private healthcare providers; 99% of GPs and dentists
Ah yes dentistry. That shining light of NHS provision.
I also wouldnt be announcing GPs are a sign of how great private provision is either but hey ho.
Is the issue perhaps that amateur armchair political and economic commentators have set out very fixed opinions on what this government will/won’t do on a cycling forum and are desperately looking for anything that will make them look correct – whichever side of the argument.
You don't know who I am and I don't know who you are., why would I care about looking correct? I just want better than Labour are offering, that is all.
Nick your long answer firstly doesn't answer the question which you apparently set out to answer......why have these two individuals/companies, with interests in private healthcare, donated £175k to the Secretary of State for Health
And secondly it completely ignores the straightforward fact that Wes Streeting has publicly stated that he intends to use the private sector to cut the NHS backlog - not an expansion of the public sector. So private sector involvement in the NHS will increase.
Now you might think that is a great idea and the way to go but you can't really deny that is the intention. Although you should bare in mind what is the primary motivation of the private sector and remember the staggering disaster was/is PFI
and remember the staggering disaster was/is PFI
Oh, this again? Did you miss the last time I pointed out that the entirety of existing PFI accounts for 2% of the overall NHS budget. If you'd like to find out how much either 1. running NHS properties, or 2 building new ones would've cost otherwise, there might be some mileage in calling it a "staggering disaster" until then, it's just nonsense.
No I completely remembered that fairly uniquely you believe that PFI wasn't a staggering disaster, which is why I included the link to the Guardian article.
It is pretty much universally accepted that PFI was a staggering disaster for the NHS
Also remember that it doesn't need to be a wholesale trumpeted privatisation for a small number of people to get very rich indeed. We're not talking Thatcher-style sell-offs here, we're talking about hyenas trying to bite a lump off of a big wounded animal.
Nick your long answer firstly doesn’t answer the question which you apparently set out to answer……why have these two individuals/companies, with interests in private healthcare, donated £175k to the Secretary of State for Health
It's a simple answer, same with every other donor, the donors are politically aligned to the party and/or MP, it's why the unions don't donate to the tories, or why two members of the Sainsbury family donate to different parties.
And secondly it completely ignores the straightforward fact that Wes Streeting has publicly stated that he intends to use the private sector to cut the NHS backlog – not an expansion of the public sector. So private sector involvement in the NHS will increase.
This again will be an answer only available to the department in charge, it's not some off the cuff response, there must be a reason, the same as in my industry where we employ contractors or consultants to support civil servants, it can simply be a case of having some 'route to green' plan, i have no idea what that is for the NHS, but i guess Streeting has been provided it, agrees to it and is providing responses for this.
I just want better than Labour are offering, that is all.
Me too, but I'm waiting for the practical detail that will be in the budget, rather than shooting them for whatever they said in the election, to get elected, and since then, to keep the Press happy.
The devil will be in that detail.
it’s why the unions don’t donate to the tories
Yes everyone knows why trade unions donate to the Labour Party (and the clearest most above board donations) because trade unions believe that donating to the Labour Party serves their members best interests.
I am glad that you have made the comparison - I totally agree. These two companies/individuals have obviously donated thousands of pounds to the current Secretary of State for Health because they believe that it will serve their best interests.
This again will be an answer only available to the department in charge, it’s not some off the cuff response
I wasn't asking a question, I was pointing out that Wes Streeting has said that he will use the private sector to deal with the NHS backlog. And it wasn't an off the cuff comment btw, it was a carefully considered policy which he has defended.
Streeting is committed to significantly expand the role of the private sector within the NHS. Whether or not this is desirable is debatable but his commitment to that policy is not.
We'll find out soon hopefully, and if it's a negative outcome for the NHS or elsewhere, then it'll be time to condemn the decisions, just not doing it before anythings been done, there's nearly 5 years for them to succeed, fail or be indifferent.
Me too, but I’m waiting for the practical detail that will be in the budget, rather than shooting them for whatever they said in the election, to get elected, and since then, to keep the Press happy.
The devil will be in that detail.
I'm not sold on this - there is no indication that it is going to be 'good' detail. The budget BTW will be past the golden first 100 days. The indications Reeve's has made so far are utterly inexplicable. She needs to seriously change her trajectory.
(At which point would they give up keeping the press happy - supposed to be running a country? I've always mainted for the right it doesn't matter what Labour do - they will still be attacked by right.)
I’m not sold on this – there is no indication that it is going to be ‘good’ detail.
I'm pretty sure whatever they announce you won't happy, nor will certain others on here. Brace yourselves we're not in a great position in this country and chucking money at stuff won't fix the broken culture that has permeated down from government through all layers of the public sector.
It's going to be a long slow slog to repair the Tory damage and frankly your expectations of what they could announce are wildly optimistic and in a similar vein anything they have announced you've immediately decided won't work. Change takes time, and it's going to take a couple of years for the dial to even start moving, expecting massive immediate improvement is naïve at best.
I’m pretty sure whatever they announce you won’t happy, nor will certain others on here.
That is probably because you are confusing your own personal determination to support "your side/team" no matter what position they take with other people's attitudes.
There is no evidence that anyone is, for example, criticising Wes Streeting's expansion of the role of the private sector in the NHS simply because he announced it, and that if he announced more public sector involvement that would be equally criticised.
I must admit to chuckling at the elephant trap set and that argee fell into.
Unions - millions of members and a tiny donation per member - acting in their interests.
A couple of rich blokes - huge donation per 'member' - acting in their interests.
Which do we think more likely to be acting in the best interests of everyone? Do we think this is the political version of trickle down economics?
Now, let me think...
Did you miss the last time I pointed out that the entirety of existing PFI accounts for 2% of the current overall NHS budget.
After the contracts expire???
That is probably because you are confusing your own personal determination to support “your side/team” no matter what position they take with other people’s attitudes.
On the contrary, I'm not going to rush to support or condemn either side. We are 6 weeks in to a 10 year battle to try and undo the damage that the Tories have done to this country.
Just seems premature to immediately condemn practically every statement from the government until the budget has painted a broader outline of the plan. The fact that the summer recess has delayed that is unfortunate.
I'm very disappointed at the way Starmer has rolled back on my initial hopes from when he became leader. I am glad we no longer have nasty Tory government. How disappointed I will remain going forwards we shall gave to see.
It’s early days with the Labour Government, but already Reeves has achieved what she set out to do in politics: get photographed striding through Washington like she’s in West Wing. Go Rachel!
(yeah I know it’s not Washington but that doesn’t fit with my narrative)
https://twitter.com/hmtreasury/status/1823639952111915508
Chancellor @RachelReevesMP was in North America last week, where she met with pension funds & industry leaders to talk about action the government is taking to attract UK investment, boost growth & make every part of the country better off.
Every single time something is put up about her - it's absolute posturing economic garbage.
She has the power to make the country better off without this ridiculous approach.
The last person we need in charge of government finances is in charge of government finances.
The 'Canadian Model'. PFI by another name - adding a layer of inefficiency by hoping the private sector jumps in to cream the cost of doing a job at a higher rate.
She would have been better served visiting the USA where the government created a stimulus directly instead of poncing around with 'growth funds.'
The root cause of Canada's declining long-term growth in GDP per capita—recent and projected—is very low or negative growth in labour productivity reflecting weak investment in physical and human capital per worker
Canada sit below the UK in growth and export far too many resources. Canada's GDP is a 12th of the USA. Canada's economy has grown 4% in a decade. USA's 47%.
But yeah enjoy Trudo's growth fund.
The only upside keeping this shallow approach up - is she will fail. Then hopefully can be replaced by someone a **** sight less '90s' in their understanding of economics.
Honestly the nerve of this twit.
There's a real lot of hate for Reeves on here. People either actually know her well enough to have an informed opinion on her and her personality, or enjoy projecting.
There’s a real lot of hate for Reeves on here. People either actually know her well enough to have an informed opinion on her and her personality, or enjoy projecting.
I'm not having that. It's based on what she's offering up.
Did anyone try to protect Lizz Truss in the same way or was it a free for all?
I don't know Reeves as a person - she seems a very confident articulate type but in her role she's doing the wrong things for a country so desperately in a mess.
The hate for the Tories was justified which makes the focus on Labour greater in my opinion.
She's also speaking with more than a whiff of Thatcher. I'm sorry but it's really hard to like that sort of thing, given its probable devastation on lives.
(EDIT my Canadian numbers were not correct but couldn't edit them in time.
CAD GDP/Capita 2014 50,956 - 2024 GDP/Capita 44,965 est
USA GDP/Capita 2014 55,123 - 2024 GDP/capita 85,373 est
Fwiw.
Sigh!
How is everyone enjoying their new 'boring' and 'serious' tory govt? Rachel Reeves seems to be on a mission to be the most hated chancellor in decades. Starmer won't be far behind her in being the most hated PM.
Ed Siliband pretending that things are out of his control when it comes the nation's energy prices. (The government being the effective 'regulator' of Ofgem - doh.) Not to mention the fact that Labour campaigned on the price cap increases being a Tory problem.
They also put a lot of effort into claiming they will put a stop to these increases.
This, and the ridiculously unnecessary winter fuel payment adjustment, and the increase in winter prices are shaping up to be an absolute mess for the country.
Labour appear to have no idea what it means to begin to fix things.
The Tories are going to look generous compared.
This idea the government can't fix things or affect interest rates for example, and spend to invest in the country because of it just being the way it is - for the birds. But hey made up fiscal rules are the way to go.
Apparently pragmatic - I'd say pro-failing the electorate.
Awaits chant of "but they have only been in power for 50 days"
Maybe we need a counter on the thread to show the number of days and then an arbitrary number when it is deemed okay to criticise Starmers glorious Labour Party?
I can guarantee that for the usual suspects there will never be a time when it will be okay to be in any way critical of Starmer.
I fully expect to hear "But the Tories were in government for 14 years, you can't expect Starmer to do much in just 4 years", and "I always said it would take at least 2 terms before Labour could turn things round".
The time they will give Starmer before they feel it is acceptable to criticise him will exceed the time that he is PM, for sure.
I can guarantee that for the usual suspects there will never be a time when it will be okay to be in any way critical of Starmer.
Maybe, just maybe, the 'usual suspects' are actually waiting for something to actually happen that they can be critical off, rather than a guardian article based purely on hypothesis rather than fact.
The ‘Canadian Model’. PFI by another name – adding a layer of inefficiency by hoping the private sector jumps in to cream the cost of doing a job at a higher rate.
The Canadian Model that she wants is their pension model where pension funds invest in the infrastructure that she wants for the UK. The Canadian pension system is rated B, the same as the UK, "A system that has a sound structure, with many good features but has some areas for improvement that differentiate it from an A-grade system"
Pension funds would be better under a better system https://theconversation.com/the-problem-with-rachel-reeves-plan-to-boost-britains-pension-pots-236984
After the contracts expire???
+1 PFI has been, continues to be and will be a financial disaster in Scotland https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66543735
Maybe, just maybe, the ‘usual suspects’ are actually waiting for something to actually happen that they can be critical off, rather than a guardian article based purely on hypothesis rather than fact.
That would be Labour's current self-imposed fiscal rules. You're simply choosing to ignore them. The irony is they're built on a mythical misunderstanding of economic data and forecasting.
Imagine that.
I think Reeves has already shown her intent. So yeah, sure, she has time to make it better.
But I don't think you're reading the situation correctly if you think Labour understand the economy and what to do.
Pension funds would be better under a better system
Ahem leveraged LDIS.
Whenever you look at the workings of the financial system you basically see folk extracting money supplied by the government (in the first instance ) in the gilt markets - and then basically gambling the nuts of it.
The word investment is a bit too loose in nearly all examples.
That would be Labour’s current self-imposed fiscal rules. You’re simply choosing to ignore them. The irony is they’re built on a mythical misunderstanding of economic data and forecasting.
A government, made up of hundreds of experts, thousands of civil servants and so on have put this plan into place, nothing has happened yet to prove it's good or bad, but if you could post another Richard Murphy post about how all governments are wrong and he is right i'll stick around for a few minutes.
I fully expect to hear “But the Tories were in government for 14 years, you can’t expect Starmer to do much in just 4 years”, and “I always said it would take at least 2 terms before Labour could turn things round”.
That's going to keep being preserved in every debate.
For me, the time isn't the argument (though we need to move fast) - it's the intent.
The same people - above will make noises about ideological purity. Etc, not realising Miliband is obtusely not pushing back against the ideological market driven outcomes. Our hands are tied. Blah. Blah.
Yeah he's only the Energy Minister. What's the point of him?
They seriously campaigned on the railings of the price cap. Numpties.
Centrists are the most ideological people in the political system because they are fixated that the market system is the best way of delivering services. Whilst watching it fail and deliver awful results.
Meanwhile, one of my mates is ranting that the government hasn't solved the badger cull issue yet, so the whole PFI, immigrant, economy thing will just have to wait.
A government, made up of hundreds of experts, thousands of civil servants and so on have put this plan into place, nothing has happened yet to prove it’s good or bad, but if you could post another Richard Murphy post about how all governments are wrong and he is right i’ll stick around for a few minutes
You want to show me the data supporting the fiscal rules? Part copied from the Tories and part wonky OBR 5 year forecasting supporting suppression of spending - is a good thing?
Nothing has happened yet?
Example 1)Lord Vader Reeves just threw a load of people under a bus to plug a fabricated hole - that economically was a total lie. And makes no sense with just 5 mins of analysis. Martin Lewis agrees it's shoddy and he's not Richard Murphy.
Example 2) Reeves is going around telling everyone there is no money whilst committing to spending money 3bn per year for Ukraine.
Example 3) Despite campaigning on the price cap crippling everyone - Labour's Ed Miliband was on telly yesterday looking like a rabbit in the headlights claiming there is little he can do. He's only the Energy Minister who sets the rules.
Here's one part of his short term solution:
"reforming the regulator so it is a consumer champion"
Lmfao.
Why would you even defend such mythical bullshit?
Maybe you're are correct nothing has happend yet that is good.
(Last time I checked their were hundreds of people involved in running the country they made a load of bad decisions too.)
Maybe, just maybe, the ‘usual suspects’ are actually waiting for something to actually happen that they can be critical off
You mean something like not scrapping the Tory child benefit cap, for example?