Sunaks wifes company gets 35 BILLION IT contract for NHS

There is also a ministerial code governing ministers and share holding and despite all the ridiculous claims on this thread, there have been no claims that these have been breached by the Sunaks, or any other member of their family.

Germanshepherdsmum

Callistemon21

I'm not disputing any of that.

Just corrected the erroneous and misleading heading.

Even now there is no joined up efficient IT system for the NHS after all that has been spent by various governments over many years.

Indeed, as I found out at the weekend and was trying to explain to my husband …

It's not that I'm a fan of any government but inaccuracies and misleading information annoy me.

Callistemon21

I'm not disputing any of that.

Just corrected the erroneous and misleading heading.

Even now there is no joined up efficient IT system for the NHS after all that has been spent by various governments over many years.

Indeed, as I found out at the weekend and was trying to explain to my husband …

Of course, Blair did so well to improve the NHS IT system

If there were an award for the world's most mismanaged national health project, England's National Programme for IT in the NHS would be a strong contender, if not outright winner. Started in 2002, Tony Blair's brainchild has, like the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey, gone badly wrong.
The main aim of the project was to create a fully integrated centralised electronic care records system to improve services and patient care by 2007. The budget for the undertaking was a substantial £11·4 billion. 9 years on, the Department of Health has spent £6·4 billion on the project so far, failed to meet its initial deadline, and has had to abandon the central goal of the project because it is unable to deliver a universal system.

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61275-0/fulltext
13/8/2011

If the proposed one is efficient and works well, at £3.4 billion it will be a snip!

Callistemon21

I'm not disputing any of that.

Just corrected the erroneous and misleading heading.

Even now there is no joined up efficient IT system for the NHS after all that has been spent by various governments over many years.

I don't know about pre 2010, but since then the government hasn't put enough money into the NHS to be able to completely overhaul and update its IT systems.

That's what shrinking the state was all about... In real terms, until fairly recently, they've kept it short of what it needed; claiming that would make it more efficient. Like you can really achieve efficiency gains with outdated and non networked systems.

I'm not disputing any of that.

Just corrected the erroneous and misleading heading.

Even now there is no joined up efficient IT system for the NHS after all that has been spent by various governments over many years.

Forgot to finish the sentence ☹️

If Labour had announced such a massive spend based on the vague prospect of it saving more than it cost, the media wouldn't have let it pass for a minute...

Callistemon21

Whatever the IT contact and whoever gets it:
It was stated in the Budget that the investment in IT would be £3.4 billion which would, it was hoped, deliver £35 billion in savings through more efficient systems.

What I'd like to know is, why aren't all the RW media grilling the tories about how they are going to pay for it? If Labour had announced such a massive spend based on the vague prospect of it saving more than it cost.

And also pointing out that many of our much heralded proposed new IT systems have, over the years, ended in disarray.

Visgir1

I posted that is was 3.4b yesterday. I think if this is for the whole of the UK, it's not expensive.
But if it was reported on FB of course it's true!

Apologies to repeat what you said Visgirl (worth repeating though!)

Whatever the IT contact and whoever gets it:
It was stated in the Budget that the investment in IT would be £3.4 billion which would, it was hoped, deliver £35 billion in savings through more efficient systems.

Hope all is well now with your DIL, paddyann

Grantanow

Err, could we just stick to facts?

This is Gransnet Grantanow 😂

The OP has posted click bait, probably to draw attention away from other news stories, cause a smoke screen.

Visgir1

I posted that is was 3.4b yesterday. I think if this is for the whole of the UK, it's not expensive.
But if it was reported on FB of course it's true!

The opposite is being claimed, as there is only one post, it's bogus. Although The National may have posted then retracted the claim.

I posted that is was 3.4b yesterday. I think if this is for the whole of the UK, it's not expensive.
But if it was reported on FB of course it's true!

Here is the correct plan for NHS IT I hope the OP that grossly a
exagarated the amount will apologize

www.digitalhealth.net/2024/03/spring-budget-includes-3-4billion-extra-investment-in-nhs-digitisation/

The same information is on the FT platform but behind a paywall

The only ‘evidence’ we have seen was from another poster - a screenshot of a fb post by some unknown person. The OP said she read about it on a ‘news site’ - that’s what happens when people rely on social media for their ‘news’. And posters here have just swallowed it hook, line and sinker and made their own unpleasant comments. How can anyone accept completely unsubstantiated posts as the truth? It’s obvious that there’s no truth in the story of the contract or the allegations about Mrs Sunak and her family’s ownership of the company.

paddyann still hasn't given us a link to the news site she used. It would be good to know which one is so inaccurate and untrustworthy, so as to avoid it in the future.

Maizie, false statements have been made which are damaging to the reputations of the company, Mrs Sunak and her family and those who deal with the awarding of NHS IT contracts.

The wider publication is not the opinion or policy of GN it is the opinion or the original poster, you see these in the media all the time, the media including GN has a disclaimer saying just that.

As I said in a previous post we should not make personal attacks or allegations just because we hide behind a user name.

Germanshepherdsmum

I have also reported the thread again. The OP’s allegations are wholly inaccurate and libellous.

Inaccurate, yes. But lots of threads contain inaccuracies. They aren't reported and removed.

Where is the libel?

I have also reported the thread again. The OP’s allegations are wholly inaccurate and libellous.

TinSoldier

Old Frill and maddyone.

I reported this thread when it first appeared on Saturday evening as it is factually inaccurate. The Gransnet terms of use say:

This Web site and its contents are copyright Gransnet. All rights reserved. Reproduction of all or any substantial part of the contents in any form is prohibited.

We rely on you to present us with User Content that contains accurate and factual material.

It should be deleted. I have reported it again.

Well done.
HQ must be away for the weekend (calling it HQ cracks me up) 😀

Old Frill and maddyone.

I reported this thread when it first appeared on Saturday evening as it is factually inaccurate. The Gransnet terms of use say:

This Web site and its contents are copyright Gransnet. All rights reserved. Reproduction of all or any substantial part of the contents in any form is prohibited.

We rely on you to present us with User Content that contains accurate and factual material.

It should be deleted. I have reported it again.

Oh my Lord, I don’t think I want to.
Whatever have I said in the years I’ve been on Gransnet?