Exempt from foi = is a vehicle for putting taxpayer cash in our mates pockets.
UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
91–100 of 210 posts
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s nice, but this isn’t what this will be about. This will be a means of funnelling cash to party donors without oversight, nothing more. Hence the FOI exception. I mean, just look at how they’ve fared in the last 18 months alone - how many unaccountable tens of billions did they pay out to their donors? I had Tory ministers’ children approaching me about putting together business plans to help them get covid gra…
For those doubting the above, here is an example from the recent past of corruption from the Prime Minister, paying his lover with public funds: https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/31/10000-grant-given-boris-johns...
The problem with this line of argument is that it applies to anything and everything done under the current conservative banner.
IE, Torrie/Boris corruption is the only topic. Whether it's a British DARPA, new sewage plant, or change to the tax code, the only thing to say is "They're corrupt. This is just another pilfering."
I'm sympathetic to the focus on corruption. Corruption is bad. That said, I don't think the UK is at the point where everything is just corruption and nothing more. There is room to talk about things other than corruption too. Besides, this particular flavour of corruption is almost always present. Whether it's the VC's boyfriend, bank manager's mistress or political boys clubs. Insiders get insider access. I don't like it either, but where/when is this not the case? It's not a coincidence that so many of your (or american) parliamentarians went to school together?
I am sure knowing people at DARPA, being married to a general or whatever is a big help too.
Americans are worse than you guys on these fronts, and they're not the worst either.
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#93The FOI part means this is dead on arrival and will be abused all ends up. For this to work you need the public to understand why DARPA worked. Hiding details of failures makes that impossible (and again, completely open to corruption).
Yep, seems more like a way to keep scandals like Cummings no-bid contract to his friends from coming to light. If it can be used as a slush fund, it probably will be, and eventually probably exclusively. https://www.theweek.co.uk/951989/what-next-for-dominic-cummi...
The data visualisation exercise My Little Crony [1] was featured in some UK media in November. It is described on the site as: A visualization of the connections between Tory politicians and companies being awarded government contracts during the pandemic based on a wide range of investigative reporting.
Perhaps it hit a raw nerve or two.
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#94It's amazing how government comes around in a circle.
There was DERA(Defence Evaluation and Research Agency) which the government pretty much privatised by spinning it off as Qinetiq
For me the issue is they intend to invest into 'projects', why phrase it like that? If it's research, then you're finding out new information, proving theories etc, so to deem it as high risk project is strange, just treat it as research, it's allowed to fail!
Another one is the FOI. This is just stupid, we should know what the money is being spent on, what the outcomes, things learnt etc. It doesn't have to be the costings down to how much a tea bag costs. Just the top level stuff. I'm happy for top secret projects to be exempt if there is serious national security concerns. But if the public aren't allowed to see it, then who is getting the benefit? Could very well be private companies (which isn't a bad thing, but we've paid for them to gain advantage...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Evaluation_and_Researc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinetiq
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#95[deleted]
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#96Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those doubting the above, here is an example from the recent past of corruption from the Prime Minister, paying his lover with public funds: https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/31/10000-grant-given-boris-johns...
The problem with this line of argument is that it applies to anything and everything done under the current conservative banner. IE, Torrie/Boris corruption is the only topic. Whether it's a British DARPA, new sewage plant, or change to the tax code, the only thing to say is " They're corrupt. This is just another pilfering. " I'm sympathetic to the focus on corruption. Corruption is bad. That said, I don't think the…
It's a good point, Labour did a bunch of PPI deals that didn't seem to benefit the public as much as the private collaborators. So it's not exclusive to one party, but the Conversatives have been in power for a fairly long time now.
Long term we need transparency from whoever is in charge.
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter. Genuinely, the only thing that mattered was working, safe vaccines as quickly as possible. Whatever government paid is absolute peanuts compared to the costs associated with locking down economies let alone the lives potentially saved. Covid19 was and is a crisis, you may well have a point in terms of other initiatives in this space, but with covid all that mattered was finding a solution as quickl…
> all that mattered was finding a solution as quickly as possible What's to stop someone spending a bunch of money on a dead-end project that benefits them and no-one else, and then saying "hey, it's risky, bummer we couldn't make a vaccine"? We can be generous to make sure it gets done by someone, but we should also make sure that people actually try. The current UK government has a lot of stories about procurement,…
In the context of shutting down significant percentages of economies for months, in the context of the government (in the UK) providing furlough schemes where they pay peoples salaries, in the context of essentially banning most social interaction and the population slowly going a bit mad, what the hell does it matter if we fund some dud vaccines? What does it even matter if some are outright corrupt and do nothing?
It's the worst kind of bike shedding, it's "well we can't do much about the most life changing event since WW2 but we sure can argue about the transparency of contracts!"
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not so positive. There is potential for this to become just another way to channel pork to friends and cronies. Which, considering the track record of the current executive, is probably the most likely scenario. I'm all for DARPA-like initiatives, but when it comes to taxpayers' money we should have decent accountability mechanisms.
The current UK government has a blacklist of left wing journalists who they won’t respond to freedom of information act requests and they are fighting a culture war about bullshit while Dominic Cummings has the gall to claim his friends happen to be the only marketing company in the UK who are trustworthy!
[deleted]
Re: UK to launch taxpayer-funded high-risk tech research agency exempt from FOI
#100OK so the British HNers commenting seem to be unimpressed. :) Leaving this specific agency/project aside, what would be the right way to do this? How do we do public investment in high risk projects well?
I'd be fine with this project, just without the FoI exception and under a government that didn't constantly break FoI laws and that didn't have endless examples of giving contracts corruptly to incompetent friends and donors.
I understand the FOI misgivings, playing devil's advocate:
(1) DARPA (and NASA) appear to be models. Secrecy and unaccountability are a big part of what makes them them. (2) The state of university grant making is currently terrible. A lot of what makes it terrible is accountability.
A agree with the premise that you need independence to pursue high risk stuff. The whole premise is investing in things that most people think it are stupid and will never work. That's just not compatible with standard accountability norms.
Meanwhile, as you say, contracts go to insiders regardless. It's not like FOI is preventing this corruption. I also feel that (at least on this thread) the British take on corruption is overblown. Was there ever a time or place where sleeping with the mayor of London was not good business? £100k seems cheap. Not saying this is good, just that I don't see the escalation that some here see.