FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Teeside Freeport
Teeside Freeport
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *deepdive OP Man 14 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
Taken from the Guardian
"Labour chair of Commons business committee says Teesside freeport scheme inquiry to show 'significant loss to taxpayer'
The government is expected to publish this afternoon the results of the inquiry ordered by Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, into allegations that there has been corruption in the Teesside freeport and redevelopment project.
In an interview on Radio 4’s World at One Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the Commons business committee, said he did not think the report would provide evidence of corruption. But he said he thought people would be shocked by what had been allowed to happen legally. He said:
I’ve got a nasty feeling that what is going to surprise us is what was actually legal.
Because it would appear, certainly looking at the accounts that we’ve pored over, it does look like here you’ve got a company that was basically given the option to buy public land at about £1 an acre, we’ve given away shares in a company that did this so that 90% are now owned by these two business people, and they were then able to go on and sell all of the scrap metal on the site for about £50m. They then leased the land that they’d been given to help build a windfarm factory, then sold that lease for £75m. So the developers have basically made about £124m in a couple of years without putting any money of their own in and, it would have been, without creating any jobs themselves …
At first blush, it does look like there’s been quite a significant loss to the taxpayer.
---------
How can this have been allowed to happen?
This was cited as something that was going to boost the economy, to bring jobs to the north and something that could not have been done had the UK still been in the EU (although that last part was incorrect).
The land was sold for £1 pet acre (or thereabouts) - surely someone within the government was responsible to ensure that such an important project was ran as per the proposal ?
Surely there was a proposal (a Freeport perhaps)?
Something stinks here.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Taken from the Guardian
"Labour chair of Commons business committee says Teesside freeport scheme inquiry to show 'significant loss to taxpayer'
The government is expected to publish this afternoon the results of the inquiry ordered by Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, into allegations that there has been corruption in the Teesside freeport and redevelopment project.
In an interview on Radio 4’s World at One Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the Commons business committee, said he did not think the report would provide evidence of corruption. But he said he thought people would be shocked by what had been allowed to happen legally. He said:
I’ve got a nasty feeling that what is going to surprise us is what was actually legal.
Because it would appear, certainly looking at the accounts that we’ve pored over, it does look like here you’ve got a company that was basically given the option to buy public land at about £1 an acre, we’ve given away shares in a company that did this so that 90% are now owned by these two business people, and they were then able to go on and sell all of the scrap metal on the site for about £50m. They then leased the land that they’d been given to help build a windfarm factory, then sold that lease for £75m. So the developers have basically made about £124m in a couple of years without putting any money of their own in and, it would have been, without creating any jobs themselves …
At first blush, it does look like there’s been quite a significant loss to the taxpayer.
---------
How can this have been allowed to happen?
This was cited as something that was going to boost the economy, to bring jobs to the north and something that could not have been done had the UK still been in the EU (although that last part was incorrect).
The land was sold for £1 pet acre (or thereabouts) - surely someone within the government was responsible to ensure that such an important project was ran as per the proposal ?
Surely there was a proposal (a Freeport perhaps)?
Something stinks here.
"
Somebody (a Tory ) is making money at the expense of the tax payer (again) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 14 weeks ago
|
The government having a somewhat good idea but being utterly incompetent at carrying it out.
Sums up the state of politics conservative incompetence is a permanent force that just exists |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdive OP Man 14 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"There’s a certain poster who is busy crafting their latest post to try and excuse and deflect from this. If they pull it off it will be genius  "
I guess that you are directing this at me with your "certain poster who is busy crafting their latest post to try and excuse and deflect from this".
Could you please elaborate what the post is trying to excuse and deflect from?
The post seems pretty straightforward to me and appears to be reporting facts.
I am intrigued as to why you have written this and, if directed at me, why you should do that?
Please could you clarify what (and perhaps whom) you mean? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The government having a somewhat good idea but being utterly incompetent at carrying it out.
Sums up the state of politics conservative incompetence is a permanent force that just exists"
I completely disagree. They have terrible ideas, (siphoning taxpayers money into their own and their pals bank accounts). And they are adept at doing it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 14 weeks ago
Brighton |
"There’s a certain poster who is busy crafting their latest post to try and excuse and deflect from this. If they pull it off it will be genius
I guess that you are directing this at me with your "certain poster who is busy crafting their latest post to try and excuse and deflect from this".
Could you please elaborate what the post is trying to excuse and deflect from?
The post seems pretty straightforward to me and appears to be reporting facts.
I am intrigued as to why you have written this and, if directed at me, why you should do that?
Please could you clarify what (and perhaps whom) you mean?"
Nope not you. Not sure I have ever replied to a post by you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Taken from the Guardian
"Labour chair of Commons business committee says Teesside freeport scheme inquiry to show 'significant loss to taxpayer'
The government is expected to publish this afternoon the results of the inquiry ordered by Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, into allegations that there has been corruption in the Teesside freeport and redevelopment project.
In an interview on Radio 4’s World at One Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the Commons business committee, said he did not think the report would provide evidence of corruption. But he said he thought people would be shocked by what had been allowed to happen legally. He said:
I’ve got a nasty feeling that what is going to surprise us is what was actually legal.
Because it would appear, certainly looking at the accounts that we’ve pored over, it does look like here you’ve got a company that was basically given the option to buy public land at about £1 an acre, we’ve given away shares in a company that did this so that 90% are now owned by these two business people, and they were then able to go on and sell all of the scrap metal on the site for about £50m. They then leased the land that they’d been given to help build a windfarm factory, then sold that lease for £75m. So the developers have basically made about £124m in a couple of years without putting any money of their own in and, it would have been, without creating any jobs themselves …
At first blush, it does look like there’s been quite a significant loss to the taxpayer.
---------
How can this have been allowed to happen?
This was cited as something that was going to boost the economy, to bring jobs to the north and something that could not have been done had the UK still been in the EU (although that last part was incorrect).
The land was sold for £1 pet acre (or thereabouts) - surely someone within the government was responsible to ensure that such an important project was ran as per the proposal ?
Surely there was a proposal (a Freeport perhaps)?
Something stinks here.
"
The Freeport scheme is irrelevant in terms of good or bad if corruption is involved. You can have the best plan ever but if corrupt people get involved then the outcome is bad |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdive OP Man 14 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"Taken from the Guardian
"Labour chair of Commons business committee says Teesside freeport scheme inquiry to show 'significant loss to taxpayer'
The government is expected to publish this afternoon the results of the inquiry ordered by Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, into allegations that there has been corruption in the Teesside freeport and redevelopment project.
In an interview on Radio 4’s World at One Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the Commons business committee, said he did not think the report would provide evidence of corruption. But he said he thought people would be shocked by what had been allowed to happen legally. He said:
I’ve got a nasty feeling that what is going to surprise us is what was actually legal.
Because it would appear, certainly looking at the accounts that we’ve pored over, it does look like here you’ve got a company that was basically given the option to buy public land at about £1 an acre, we’ve given away shares in a company that did this so that 90% are now owned by these two business people, and they were then able to go on and sell all of the scrap metal on the site for about £50m. They then leased the land that they’d been given to help build a windfarm factory, then sold that lease for £75m. So the developers have basically made about £124m in a couple of years without putting any money of their own in and, it would have been, without creating any jobs themselves …
At first blush, it does look like there’s been quite a significant loss to the taxpayer.
---------
How can this have been allowed to happen?
This was cited as something that was going to boost the economy, to bring jobs to the north and something that could not have been done had the UK still been in the EU (although that last part was incorrect).
The land was sold for £1 pet acre (or thereabouts) - surely someone within the government was responsible to ensure that such an important project was ran as per the proposal ?
Surely there was a proposal (a Freeport perhaps)?
Something stinks here.
The Freeport scheme is irrelevant in terms of good or bad if corruption is involved. You can have the best plan ever but if corrupt people get involved then the outcome is bad"
Agreed regarding the irrelevance of the Freeport part in general however; for such a publicised venture and hailed by both Gove and Johnson at the time as being such a great initiative as well as being such a fantastic Brexit benefit (both the above statements are fact), you would have thought that the government would have made sure that this project was properly managed to ensure the right outcome.
You only need to do a search on here using the word "Freeport" to see the reaction and views people on here had at the time when it was announced.
In my mind it is simply incompetence on behalf of the government and, by the looks of things, the people who have made the money have done nothing illegal.
These projects need to be managed properly to ensure that taxpayers money does not go into the pockets of opportunists.
There are enough scandals (see Mone for example) and overspends (HS2 for example) without yet another one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Taken from the Guardian
"Labour chair of Commons business committee says Teesside freeport scheme inquiry to show 'significant loss to taxpayer'
The government is expected to publish this afternoon the results of the inquiry ordered by Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, into allegations that there has been corruption in the Teesside freeport and redevelopment project.
In an interview on Radio 4’s World at One Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the Commons business committee, said he did not think the report would provide evidence of corruption. But he said he thought people would be shocked by what had been allowed to happen legally. He said:
I’ve got a nasty feeling that what is going to surprise us is what was actually legal.
Because it would appear, certainly looking at the accounts that we’ve pored over, it does look like here you’ve got a company that was basically given the option to buy public land at about £1 an acre, we’ve given away shares in a company that did this so that 90% are now owned by these two business people, and they were then able to go on and sell all of the scrap metal on the site for about £50m. They then leased the land that they’d been given to help build a windfarm factory, then sold that lease for £75m. So the developers have basically made about £124m in a couple of years without putting any money of their own in and, it would have been, without creating any jobs themselves …
At first blush, it does look like there’s been quite a significant loss to the taxpayer.
---------
How can this have been allowed to happen?
This was cited as something that was going to boost the economy, to bring jobs to the north and something that could not have been done had the UK still been in the EU (although that last part was incorrect).
The land was sold for £1 pet acre (or thereabouts) - surely someone within the government was responsible to ensure that such an important project was ran as per the proposal ?
Surely there was a proposal (a Freeport perhaps)?
Something stinks here.
The Freeport scheme is irrelevant in terms of good or bad if corruption is involved. You can have the best plan ever but if corrupt people get involved then the outcome is bad
Agreed regarding the irrelevance of the Freeport part in general however; for such a publicised venture and hailed by both Gove and Johnson at the time as being such a great initiative as well as being such a fantastic Brexit benefit (both the above statements are fact), you would have thought that the government would have made sure that this project was properly managed to ensure the right outcome.
You only need to do a search on here using the word "Freeport" to see the reaction and views people on here had at the time when it was announced.
In my mind it is simply incompetence on behalf of the government and, by the looks of things, the people who have made the money have done nothing illegal.
These projects need to be managed properly to ensure that taxpayers money does not go into the pockets of opportunists.
There are enough scandals (see Mone for example) and overspends (HS2 for example) without yet another one."
Absolutely agree the problem is not the Freeports but the corruption that seems to have happened and as you rightly say poor management / incompetence from the government. Hopefully Labour will manage it better as I feel they are nailed on for being the next government. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Taken from the Guardian
"Labour chair of Commons business committee says Teesside freeport scheme inquiry to show 'significant loss to taxpayer'
The government is expected to publish this afternoon the results of the inquiry ordered by Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, into allegations that there has been corruption in the Teesside freeport and redevelopment project.
In an interview on Radio 4’s World at One Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the Commons business committee, said he did not think the report would provide evidence of corruption. But he said he thought people would be shocked by what had been allowed to happen legally. He said:
I’ve got a nasty feeling that what is going to surprise us is what was actually legal.
Because it would appear, certainly looking at the accounts that we’ve pored over, it does look like here you’ve got a company that was basically given the option to buy public land at about £1 an acre, we’ve given away shares in a company that did this so that 90% are now owned by these two business people, and they were then able to go on and sell all of the scrap metal on the site for about £50m. They then leased the land that they’d been given to help build a windfarm factory, then sold that lease for £75m. So the developers have basically made about £124m in a couple of years without putting any money of their own in and, it would have been, without creating any jobs themselves …
At first blush, it does look like there’s been quite a significant loss to the taxpayer.
---------
How can this have been allowed to happen?
This was cited as something that was going to boost the economy, to bring jobs to the north and something that could not have been done had the UK still been in the EU (although that last part was incorrect).
The land was sold for £1 pet acre (or thereabouts) - surely someone within the government was responsible to ensure that such an important project was ran as per the proposal ?
Surely there was a proposal (a Freeport perhaps)?
Something stinks here.
The Freeport scheme is irrelevant in terms of good or bad if corruption is involved. You can have the best plan ever but if corrupt people get involved then the outcome is bad
Agreed regarding the irrelevance of the Freeport part in general however; for such a publicised venture and hailed by both Gove and Johnson at the time as being such a great initiative as well as being such a fantastic Brexit benefit (both the above statements are fact), you would have thought that the government would have made sure that this project was properly managed to ensure the right outcome.
You only need to do a search on here using the word "Freeport" to see the reaction and views people on here had at the time when it was announced.
In my mind it is simply incompetence on behalf of the government and, by the looks of things, the people who have made the money have done nothing illegal.
These projects need to be managed properly to ensure that taxpayers money does not go into the pockets of opportunists.
There are enough scandals (see Mone for example) and overspends (HS2 for example) without yet another one."
I don’t think there’s any incompetence here, I think things have gone exactly as planned. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Taken from the Guardian
"Labour chair of Commons business committee says Teesside freeport scheme inquiry to show 'significant loss to taxpayer'
The government is expected to publish this afternoon the results of the inquiry ordered by Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, into allegations that there has been corruption in the Teesside freeport and redevelopment project.
In an interview on Radio 4’s World at One Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the Commons business committee, said he did not think the report would provide evidence of corruption. But he said he thought people would be shocked by what had been allowed to happen legally. He said:
I’ve got a nasty feeling that what is going to surprise us is what was actually legal.
Because it would appear, certainly looking at the accounts that we’ve pored over, it does look like here you’ve got a company that was basically given the option to buy public land at about £1 an acre, we’ve given away shares in a company that did this so that 90% are now owned by these two business people, and they were then able to go on and sell all of the scrap metal on the site for about £50m. They then leased the land that they’d been given to help build a windfarm factory, then sold that lease for £75m. So the developers have basically made about £124m in a couple of years without putting any money of their own in and, it would have been, without creating any jobs themselves …
At first blush, it does look like there’s been quite a significant loss to the taxpayer.
---------
How can this have been allowed to happen?
This was cited as something that was going to boost the economy, to bring jobs to the north and something that could not have been done had the UK still been in the EU (although that last part was incorrect).
The land was sold for £1 pet acre (or thereabouts) - surely someone within the government was responsible to ensure that such an important project was ran as per the proposal ?
Surely there was a proposal (a Freeport perhaps)?
Something stinks here.
"
. Assuming you summary is correct did the civil servants involved correctly evaluate all the benefits and risks . ? Cabinet ministers can only make decisions on the information supplied to them by civil servants . Did any lawyers review the contracts and point out their concerns. At least you have bought to our attention that civil servants and lawyers might have let us down though we would need to know what information they had in their possession at the time that these decisions were made. Where's does the figure of £50 million for scrap metal come from? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man 14 weeks ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
The fact that The UK is able to have a Freeport in Teeside (along with the others ) is a Brexit Benefit
NB you remoaners out there PLEASE do NOT point out that The UK had Freeports while a EU member until 2012 when The Conservative Government (lead by the currently unelected Foreign Secretary ) decided there were not worth having
Oh and also PLEASE do NOT mention there are approximately 80 Freeports within EU countries
If you do so it will appear that the brexitiers are claiming a Brexit benefit which isn't a brexit benefit |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Taken from the Guardian
"Labour chair of Commons business committee says Teesside freeport scheme inquiry to show 'significant loss to taxpayer'
The government is expected to publish this afternoon the results of the inquiry ordered by Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, into allegations that there has been corruption in the Teesside freeport and redevelopment project.
In an interview on Radio 4’s World at One Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the Commons business committee, said he did not think the report would provide evidence of corruption. But he said he thought people would be shocked by what had been allowed to happen legally. He said:
I’ve got a nasty feeling that what is going to surprise us is what was actually legal.
Because it would appear, certainly looking at the accounts that we’ve pored over, it does look like here you’ve got a company that was basically given the option to buy public land at about £1 an acre, we’ve given away shares in a company that did this so that 90% are now owned by these two business people, and they were then able to go on and sell all of the scrap metal on the site for about £50m. They then leased the land that they’d been given to help build a windfarm factory, then sold that lease for £75m. So the developers have basically made about £124m in a couple of years without putting any money of their own in and, it would have been, without creating any jobs themselves …
At first blush, it does look like there’s been quite a significant loss to the taxpayer.
---------
How can this have been allowed to happen?
This was cited as something that was going to boost the economy, to bring jobs to the north and something that could not have been done had the UK still been in the EU (although that last part was incorrect).
The land was sold for £1 pet acre (or thereabouts) - surely someone within the government was responsible to ensure that such an important project was ran as per the proposal ?
Surely there was a proposal (a Freeport perhaps)?
Something stinks here.
. Assuming you summary is correct did the civil servants involved correctly evaluate all the benefits and risks . ? Cabinet ministers can only make decisions on the information supplied to them by civil servants . Did any lawyers review the contracts and point out their concerns. At least you have bought to our attention that civil servants and lawyers might have let us down though we would need to know what information they had in their possession at the time that these decisions were made. Where's does the figure of £50 million for scrap metal come from? "
I'd like to see the evidence that lawyers and civil servants are letting us down before commenting.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 14 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Taken from the Guardian
"Labour chair of Commons business committee says Teesside freeport scheme inquiry to show 'significant loss to taxpayer'
The government is expected to publish this afternoon the results of the inquiry ordered by Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, into allegations that there has been corruption in the Teesside freeport and redevelopment project.
In an interview on Radio 4’s World at One Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the Commons business committee, said he did not think the report would provide evidence of corruption. But he said he thought people would be shocked by what had been allowed to happen legally. He said:
I’ve got a nasty feeling that what is going to surprise us is what was actually legal.
Because it would appear, certainly looking at the accounts that we’ve pored over, it does look like here you’ve got a company that was basically given the option to buy public land at about £1 an acre, we’ve given away shares in a company that did this so that 90% are now owned by these two business people, and they were then able to go on and sell all of the scrap metal on the site for about £50m. They then leased the land that they’d been given to help build a windfarm factory, then sold that lease for £75m. So the developers have basically made about £124m in a couple of years without putting any money of their own in and, it would have been, without creating any jobs themselves …
At first blush, it does look like there’s been quite a significant loss to the taxpayer.
---------
How can this have been allowed to happen?
This was cited as something that was going to boost the economy, to bring jobs to the north and something that could not have been done had the UK still been in the EU (although that last part was incorrect).
The land was sold for £1 pet acre (or thereabouts) - surely someone within the government was responsible to ensure that such an important project was ran as per the proposal ?
Surely there was a proposal (a Freeport perhaps)?
Something stinks here.
. Assuming you summary is correct did the civil servants involved correctly evaluate all the benefits and risks . ? Cabinet ministers can only make decisions on the information supplied to them by civil servants . Did any lawyers review the contracts and point out their concerns. At least you have bought to our attention that civil servants and lawyers might have let us down though we would need to know what information they had in their possession at the time that these decisions were made. Where's does the figure of £50 million for scrap metal come from? "
BINGO! Took your time with that one Pat  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdive OP Man 14 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"Taken from the Guardian
"Labour chair of Commons business committee says Teesside freeport scheme inquiry to show 'significant loss to taxpayer'
The government is expected to publish this afternoon the results of the inquiry ordered by Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, into allegations that there has been corruption in the Teesside freeport and redevelopment project.
In an interview on Radio 4’s World at One Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the Commons business committee, said he did not think the report would provide evidence of corruption. But he said he thought people would be shocked by what had been allowed to happen legally. He said:
I’ve got a nasty feeling that what is going to surprise us is what was actually legal.
Because it would appear, certainly looking at the accounts that we’ve pored over, it does look like here you’ve got a company that was basically given the option to buy public land at about £1 an acre, we’ve given away shares in a company that did this so that 90% are now owned by these two business people, and they were then able to go on and sell all of the scrap metal on the site for about £50m. They then leased the land that they’d been given to help build a windfarm factory, then sold that lease for £75m. So the developers have basically made about £124m in a couple of years without putting any money of their own in and, it would have been, without creating any jobs themselves …
At first blush, it does look like there’s been quite a significant loss to the taxpayer.
---------
How can this have been allowed to happen?
This was cited as something that was going to boost the economy, to bring jobs to the north and something that could not have been done had the UK still been in the EU (although that last part was incorrect).
The land was sold for £1 pet acre (or thereabouts) - surely someone within the government was responsible to ensure that such an important project was ran as per the proposal ?
Surely there was a proposal (a Freeport perhaps)?
Something stinks here.
. Assuming you summary is correct did the civil servants involved correctly evaluate all the benefits and risks . ? Cabinet ministers can only make decisions on the information supplied to them by civil servants . Did any lawyers review the contracts and point out their concerns. At least you have bought to our attention that civil servants and lawyers might have let us down though we would need to know what information they had in their possession at the time that these decisions were made. Where's does the figure of £50 million for scrap metal come from? "
Okay - this is going to be difficult to answer.
Perhaps I should have demanded a copy of the accounts from the company that apparently has made money from this before posting and, even if I had a copy of the accounts, would anyone have believed it?
Perhaps I should have just said that two chaps have apparently made a good profit and left it at that.
I quoted an article in the Guardian which also quoted BBC Radio 4.
Perhaps I should have done more research and interviewed the authors and checked the facts by vetting bank accounts.
Even had I done so, would you have believed me?
What does it take on here to post something before people actually accept that the information is correct?
What would YOU prefer I had written?
Perhaps "Teeside Freeport investment going jolly well as per predictions by Gove and Johnston - another Brexit benefit"
Is that better?
If we are now questioning absolutely everything - what does it take to satisfy people that a statement and a quotation from two sources are correct and not fantasy?
Should all posts on here simply be about perceived Brexit benefits?
I managed to change some currency to Euros last week and got 1.17€ to £1 - yet another Brexit benefit.
Happy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
