Tipical Turds.

Topical Tories. Doing the same forever, time and time again. The government is facing a legal challenge over claims it funnelled cash to Tory areas with its "levelling-up" fund.
The leafy market town constituencies of Rishi Sunak and Robert Jenrick are among areas to benefit from an unusual funding formula that critics accused of amounting to "pork parallel politics".
Now legal campaigners from the the Good Law Project are will take the government to court contending that the design of the £4.8bn Levelling Up Fund is unlawful.
They cite an investigation by the National Audit Office, which found that the government's list of targets for the cash had been published without supporting information to explain why they had been chosen.
The House of Commons' cross party Public Accounts Committee had also said the lack of transparency had left to concerns of "political bias" in the allocation of funds.
In a letter of claim sent last week, the campaigners argue that the project is unlawful on four counts.
They say ministers appear to have breached their duty under the equality act to carry out an equalities impact assessment, breached their common law duty of transparency, acted irrationally because of flaws in their methodology, and that “decisions were tainted by irrelevant considerations/improper purpose, namely the electoral advantage (or potential electoral advantage) of the Conservative party”.
Jolyon Maugham, the barrister who founded the campaign group, said: "If you think that it's coincidence that Tory marginals are huge beneficiaries I have a fine bridge to sell you. To ensure the Tories don't use public money for party purposes, the Good Law Project is suing."
The campaigners cite Chris Hanretty, Professor of Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London, who looked at the funding formula and evidence presented by the National Audit Office and government.
"On the basis of the data collated by the ministry and published by the NAO, there is robust evidence that ministers chose towns so as to benefit the Conservatives in marginal Westminster seats," he wrote.
"This evidence is robust in the sense that the effects persists even when controlling for other town characteristics that might justifiably affect selection.
'Choosing towns to benefit a particular party goes against the seven principles of public life (the ‘Nolan principles’), and in particular the obligation to 'take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias'."
The Good Law Project has previously challenged the government to court over alleged cronyism in PPE contacts, clean air, and access to remote education during the pandemic.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “The £4.8bn Levelling Up Fund is open to all places in Great Britain and will play a vital role in helping to support and regenerate communities.
“The published methodology makes clear the metrics used to identify places judged to be most in need. It would not be appropriate to comment on potential legal action'.

the government have legal proceedings against them from a few sources, some very good legal people are challenging them over fraud and covid / closing the country down etc......the ones bringing the claims are the same people who won against the banks, and volkswagen cars, so they are no mugs .

it would be nice to think boris johnson, whitey and hancock would be brought to justice, but they wont, just like tony blair wasnt ......

Being a politician is purely a career for the vast majority of MP's, only a few grass roots politicians in it to genuinely try to make a difference and as they climb the ranks they become disillusioned and can change their spots.

I admire anyone who gets into politics to try and change things for the ordinary joe average, blokes such as ourselves, but it must be a hard slog to be up against the "system".

Absolute Truth there Barnie. Most - except those born with a silver spoon in their gobs, Start off hoping to improve peoples lots. To do some good.
However that soon gets lay laid as it become more futile as time passes.
They then accept maybe they can do like the other and inject a little to help if nor to hard, and make a spectical of themselves... and want to stay with the 'Incrowd'1

Just the same as pigeons. Many get voted on with every good intention ... then find it impossible to combat the hierachy and either give up, or go a long for peaceful life and misbeggotton prestige ...

bang on the money there colin ,they all p1$$ in the same pot come the end

At one time people knew their local MP as they had to live in the area in order to be put up for election. Not such a bad idea as nowhere to hide if the locals weren't happy. Times change. Got this direct from Government info site:

"MPs do not have to live in their constituency. In fact, there is no residency qualification at all - an MP could even live outside the UK."

Sums it up for me........

Well, once we had the 'Expence' scandle. So M.P/S did as now, claim their morgages etc. and travelling expences. Or cleaning the 'Moat around their properties etc. Horrodous swindling. Now legal due to the Chameleon CHameron who passed it to be ok.

I see he was Lobbying Sundick for money to save a 'Money leanding concern'. he was involved in. His payment to be £17 million first payment, then another £44 million afterwards. 7 emails to the chanchellor and more to his hoppo's. But was caught with his hand opening the till ... Via ... still he now will have to wait till the concern is paid of after becoming Bank crupt.
But of course he and other Top table boys get their money first ... then after none left they consider the lower hands lol.
makes sad reading when he says the biggest mistake he made when Prime Minister was only guarenteeing that the Investors of the N.H.S. had to be paid their monthly intrest and loan money of the PFL.

Now that the N.H.S. is privately own nigh. Branston for instance invested £2Billion! The U.S.A. investors £billions. So 80% of money, - tax payers money, goes to them every Month.
No the Tories can rightly swear that they put in, a vast amount of money into the N.H.S. ... and the inveastors take out a vast amount every Month!

yes, your spot on there daz, the nhs is mainly privately owned, and not a lot of people know it ........quite a lot of the buildings at our local hospital arnt even owned by the nhs / government, they are rented .......

a very large part of our mps / politicians are in it for personal gain, very few are there for the right reasons of doing good for the country and running it the best way they can .

https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/national/uk-today/18401888.richard-branson-sue-nhs-dispute-virgin-founder-health-service-explained/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-richard-branson-virgin-care-legal-settlement-tendering-contract-a8080961.html

In fact, Virgin Group and Sir Richard Branson have invested more than £60m of additional funding into the business and have pledged that any profit made in the future (over and above the original investment) will be re-invested into the NHS

Branson's company Virgin Care sued the NHS after it lost out on an £82million contract to provide children's health services in Surrey in 2016.

The company cited concerns over "serious flaws" in the way the contract was awarded.

The NHS settled the legal dispute in November 2017 with an out of court settlement for an undisclosed sum.

NHS Surrey Downs clinical commissioning group (CCG) initially disclosed that its liability in the case was £328,000 in its October public finance papers, the Health Service Journal reported at the time.

Virgin Care’s co-founder, Dr Vivienne McVey, said the money from the NHS settlement went into developing services for patients.

“Virgin Care has never made a profit and the Virgin Group has actually invested more than £75 million across the UK in people and technology, supporting doctors and nurses in their jobs and significantly reducing waiting lists,” she said.

Richard has publicly pledged that when it does make a profit, all profits and dividends (over and above his investment) will go back into helping NHS patients.

Now Branston says 'No profits taken etc and other lies .
If true, why sue!