Under the evidence that they said they could and I am going by the assumption that not everything is a big nasty conspiracy where people are lying all over the place. The tweets said one could do 500k a week and one could do 40k a week. That’s the evidence we are both presented with. If you’re making the leap that they’re just lying about anything and everything then that says something about your bias
Are you really that naive? The evidence is 'cos they say so'.
I can deliver 1m PPE a week. It's true because I've just said so. Or do you think someone should check my claim based on my past dealings of the quantity and quality delivered. Oh, you can't because I've only just set it up. What a shame. Guess you'll just have to take my word for it won't you.Now give me my money...
Or we can look at the previous contracts handed out.
You know, like the ones where they said they could get millions of PPE delivered revealed they were counting individual gloves as one piece of PPE, thus half of what people had been expecting to be delivered. (I expect this is part of the massive difference - they're again counting individual things rather than 'packs').
Or the one where they said the equipment was on the way from Turkey and it wasn't. And when it arrived it didn't meet standards and had to be binned. MILLIONS wasted. Was any of that money clawed back for the useless equipment? Was it fuck.
Or how about the millions given to the newly set up company to ferry things to and from Dover. The one that didn't have any boats. You'd think that'd be a standard thing to check before handing over millions of taxpayers money. Please explain how on earth they were going to even begin to meet the terms of the contract without any vessels?
Or the track and trace system that's cost more than anyone elses but barely works and runs off the most basic software that's totally unsuitable for the job at hand. And being overseen by someone linked to failures a normal person wouldn't be allowed near middle management. No advertising of the position, no interview process - just given to the person. Would you ever do that? I wouldn't. So you have to ask why they'd do it. And there's one bit of ingformation that stands out like a sore thumb.
It's got nothing to do with political bias. It's got everything to do with looking at evidence of what they've done before and applying that to the present. And that evidence is that they give massive amounts of money and important positions to donors and mates with little to no oversight.
It's not my bias making me see it, it's your bias refusing to let you see what's been happening for months right in front of your nose.