a former cabinet minister alongside Lord Heseltine in the 1990s.

Nonsense.

Sorry, where’s the Heseltine connection? Shurely you haven’t just made that up for the sake of a headline?

@1

Wikipedia says “From 1995 to 1997, he was a junior Scottish Office minister”.

Unless you can prove otherwise?

@ 3 Richard

Wikipedia says “From 1995 to 1997, he was a junior Scottish Office minister”…..

and since when did junior Scottish Office ministers sit in the Cabinet?

Sorry. My speed-writing mistake entirely – shouldn’t have said ‘cabinet’ I’ll ask Sunny to correct (I don’t have admin rights.

Doesn’t change substance of the piece, mind.

what substance? it looks like smear to me

Good to see the usual tory trolls who pollute this site every day complaining about people on welfare being so positive about corporate welfare for rich tories.

The tory troll has absolutely no principles.

@5

‘speed writing mistake’ ROFL – classic smear tactics, ruins your point (if there really was one)

“Good to see the usual tory trolls who pollute this site every day complaining about people on welfare being so positive about corporate welfare for rich tories.

The tory troll has absolutely no principles.”

I’m not a Tory. Neither am I a troll. I just don’t see where this supposed connection with Heseltine is, so I’m calling this what it is: a cheap, shameless smear.

Perhaps I’m being naive, but I do believe that the days when politicians could distribute largesse to their cronies went out with the last Labour government.

RGF bids are examined and scored by civil servants according to pre-set criteria.

Also, the degree of transparency in the distribution of public money and the ethics-in-public-life rules have tightened some since the dark days when a Labour donor could secure an exclusive contract to supply vaccine, add a middle-man mark up, enrich his company by a reported £20m, and then collect a peerage and a ministerial post as if it had all never happened.

“a) dormant, in accounts made up to June 201o (see Companies House website);

b) changed its company name just before the submission of its bid (previously called Tribute Campaigns Ltd)

c) supposedly going to create jobs in Liverpool, but which no one there has ever heard of, and whose registered address is in Cambridge back street.”

Erm, you do understand how you go and get a company to start a new business do you?

a) You go through Companies House and do it yourself.

b) Think bollocks to that and go and buy one already registered, “off the shelf” for a couple of hundred quid.

If you take route b) then you’ll change the registered name to whatever you want it to be, add a director or two so that your partners in this new venture are also directors. While the off the shelf company is waiting for someone to do this it will be dormant (ie, telling HMRC etc that it’s not doing anything) and have a registered address of whatever bunch of accountants or lawyers first registered it: while they wait for someone to walk in and say “I say old chap, I need a company!”

Now, do I believe that the politically connected might have a better chance at these sorts of government grants than the not politically connected? Sure I do, it’s why I oppose such grants, because they go to the politically connected.

But all you’ve managed to prove here is that you don’t understand how company registrations work.

Sorry, but how exactly is this particular company linked to Heseltine? I appreciate it’s the fault of the headline writer but all this article manages to prove is that a company got £1 million and happens to be in the same business sector as a completely unrelated business that was advised by Heseltine to apply for funding. A smoking gun that is not.

@ Tim W

I believe that the politically connected might have a better chance at these sorts of government grants than the not politically connected?

Yes it’s difficult to prove corruption in this sort of area but it is strange that a £100 start up company (if that’s what it is) is being given a £1m grant is it not?

And why are the detail of these grants not being made public?

@10 – Sure, now it’s crooks, not cronies.

Pagar

it is strange that a £100 start up company (if that’s what it is) is being given a £1m grant is it not?

Not if it is a special purpose vehicle being set up by the financial director of one of the major market players and a publicly quoted company. Most likely they don’t want to give the game away at this stage, but prefer to launch their product/service when they’ve got their ducks lined up.

Why tell everyone what a good business wheeze you have before you’re ready to exploit it yourself?

@ Flowerpower

It’s certainly a good business wheeze all right. But to who’s benefit?

I have very good information on this which looks to me like a major scandal. I’ll post it tomorrow (if Sunny has the balls to publish).

pagar @ 16

If your very good info involves Terry Bate, I suggest you consult your learned friends before risking Sunny’s sometimes ‘over-enthusiastic’ headlining…..

It only involves Bate tangentially.

But you’re right.

I’m going to insist on my own headline!!!!!

If it’s a really good story talk to Private Eye – they love this sort of thing