YOU may rest assured that if you keep asking the Right “Honourable” Michael Gove the same question you will be given an answer. Indeed several answers. Some of which cheerfully contradict the previous one. Nobody said the Chancellor of The Duchy of Lancaster required to be consistent. Just as well really.
Let us examine for a typical example – the current row over the use of a Covid related contract, paid for by you and me, which also allegedly contained questions about attitudes to the Union.
Actually, scrub round that allegedly, since the High Court papers gave us a clear steer as to the questions posed after the Good Law Project successfully proved the UK Government had broken the law. And was guilty of apparent bias in awarding the polling contract to known friends, forbye.
SNP MP Tommy Sheppard then sent in a Freedom of Information request for the results of the Union attitudes polling. When this was refused, he appealed to a First Tier Tribunal which found in his favour and gave Gove’s Cabinet Office 28 days to come up with the goods.
At one minute to midnight, the UK Government decided to appeal that decision. Not that they bothered to tell Sheppard, who found out via this newspaper.
And all the while our Michael perfected his version of events. Several versions in fact. First off he denied that there had been political polling in any health related contracts. Then he decided there had (doubtless having read the High Court judgement) but it had been signed off by someone else. The well-known “it wisnae me” defence.
Finally he blustered that in any case the Scottish Government polled attitudes to the Union as well. No, really? Well knock me down with a manifesto.
READ MORE: Michael Gove under fire after appealing order to release secret Union polling
Important as it is for us to know what they asked, what the results were, and how much public money was involved, I actually think there’s a more vital issue involved.
The obvious reason for kicking any inquiry about how these contracts were awarded into the longest available grass, is that it will shed much needed light into some very dark corners of the Johnson administration’s modus operandi.
Two separate court hearings have now found that Messrs Gove and Hancock broke the law by giving shedloads of money to friends and former colleagues with no tendering process, no advertising, and no scrutiny. Easier to avoid the latter when, as seems to be the case with the late Health Secretary, you use your own private email account.
The standard alibi is that it was a crisis demanding fast action. But demonstrably quicker action for anyone in the UK Government’s fast track, VIP lane.
We already know some of these firms were what we might charitably call “pop up” providers, and some had previous expertise only in areas totally unrelated to the NHS’ immediate and urgent needs.
If I wanted some seriously effective PPE I’m not sure a confectioner or a pest control company would be my first ports of call.
The UK Government has fought hard to keep these commissions well hidden, just as it is now doing over its secret polling. Sunlight, they say, is the best disinfectant, so best hang on for a winter or two eh?
For I’m betting that when the true story of this period is finally told we will be shocked at the extent of the favouritism and dodgy dealing unveiled.
However by then the story, and many ministers will have moved on. After all, even now Sajid Javid, faced with accusations about previous contracts awarded by the Department of Health and Social Care, can truthfully say well “it wisnae me”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel