View Delta

  From: Mike Cashman Sent: 26 April 2021  To: 'iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk'  Subject: OPEN LETTER TO IAIN STEWART on Covid. Brexit, UK AID, Post Office, Integrity, scrutiny and leadership   OPEN LETTER TO IAIN STEWART MP Dear Iain We corresponded last year and until now I have not followed up on those interactions this year. I am now taking this opportunity to write on these and other topics. I am afraid that the result is a 2000-word letter, but the issues are related so I have combined them in one letter.  There is a summary at the end. Let me say at the start that while you and I would often be on opposite sides of the argument, I have been vocal in encouraging those on my side of the argument to be understanding of those on your side. I have strongly made the case that we should not judge all Tory MPs by the actions of the leaders, and for some I am sure life has been difficult. I have also encouraged people to avoid the temptation to say “I told you so”

  I am confused about the scornful dismissal by Cressida Dick   of “armchair critics”.  Bearing in mind that the Policing Bill will make it difficult to protest in the public space, I thought that being an armchair critic was all that we were now allowed to do?

  Several “contributors” to the Commission on  Race  and Ethnic Disparities repot did not recognise “contributions” from them. Is it not both good manners and best practice that if you cite someone as a contributor to a report then you should check the “contribution” that you plan to include with the contributor before publication? This would be a way to check that bias has not been introduced by the reports’ authors. It also increases ownership of the end result. If, as it seems, this was routinely not done, then the authenticity of all the contributions must be questioned. The authors now complain at criticism of the report. If they have not involved contributors in this way, then the criticisms are for the authors  alone to answer.

  References to   Johnson’s clown/fool role including Richard III    bring to mind Johnson’s performance in the Eton School performance that was intended to be of Richard III with Johnson in the title role. He knew he was unprepared and put prompts on cuffs and pillars, but still had recourse to random ad-libs which set the audience laughing uproariously but wrecked the play for all other participants and for serious followers. In other words he was unprepared and made it up as he went along, with disastrous results, without losing support,   just as he later did with Brexit, Covid-19, and Prime Ministership in general. Show me the boy and I will show you the man.  

Seven people lost their  lives in the train crash at Southall on 19th of September, 1997.   Many others were injured. At Ladbroke Grove, on 5th of October, 1999, there was a crash in which 31 people lost their lives and many others were injured.      There was a common cause, namely the lack of protection against trains proceeding through red lights. That meant that there was a danger which the travelling public faced. There was great public concern about the extent of deaths and injuries. But no-one suggested that we wait until all possible deaths from unprotected train travel had occurred before holding a Public Inquiry . Indeed such a later Inquiry then would have had much less significance since the major cause would have been eliminated Professor Uff and Lord Cullen worked separately   and then together to make recommendations   as soon as possible – published   in 2001 in Lord Cullen’s case The need to learn lessons was taken seriously.     Reasons for proceeding wi

 Now that the starting pistol has been fired on the next Tory Leadership contest by the supposed front-runner then it is presumably acceptable to discuss what will happen after the current Prime Minister has retired to spend more time with his fantasies. Bearing in mind the extensive dossier of Government-approved deceit now chronicled so carefully by Peter Oborne is his recent book “The Assault on Truth”, then can I encourage the small group of people who have power to choose the next Prime Minister that they select someone not implicated in the corruptions and deceit of the current Government? Ideally I would like to see a Government of National Unity to respond to the greatest health crisis in our lifetimes and greatest economic crisis since the Napoleonic War or earlier. However, if we have to have a Tory Prime Minister, can I point out that there are people of integrity and experience chairing Select Committees? These people have the respect of   fellow MPs and are well placed

  Matt Hancock and Boris Johnson deploy one single argument, namely that they were in a hurry, to rebut all criticism. Public obligations should   not in fact be so easily dismissed. I have undertaken procurement during a pandemic (Ebola, Sierra Leone, with UK Government money). Much earlier, I have obtained a waiver for part of a public sector procurement process. And so I am aware that even in an emergency, even in a pandemic, the obligations for appropriate procurement never disappear, The requirements to ensure   Fitness for Purpose, Competence of Supplier, Value for Money and transparency still apply – why would they not do so? The supplier chosen must be competent and appropriate, and not vastly inferior to the expectations from the open market. Any waiver of aspects of the standard process does not remove these requirements, but should be obtained on the basis that the Senior Responsible Officer personally commits to ensuring that the requirements will still be met eve