Looks like the UK has one of the lowest hard-right polling figures in Europe at the moment.
Something to celebrate. I wonder what a Farage led RUK might poll? Would 15% be out of the question?
RUK are not a 'hard right' party. They want to leave the ECHR and aren't really bothered with climate change but it is not even a vaguely 'hard right' party.
A lot of 'hard right' views are proscribed and outlawed as extremism in the UK, they are put in a similar category to Islamic terrorism. Looking at what is going on in Europe, you have to wonder whether this situation will hold over the longer term.
What's hard right iyo then?
Reverse Indy Car - instead of putting your foot down and always turning left, you....
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
As far as Starmer is concerned, it perhaps complicates the line the Tories are taking against him if they say he was simultaneously soft on crime by not prosecuting criminals and at the same time enthusiastically prosecuting innocent postmasters. Not impossible, but complicated.
Davey's problem is he demanded everyone else resign when something went wrong. Now that its him in the box he's lacking the courage to lead by example. He wont go, but maybe he'll just shut up.
Davey is the smug school snitch who runs away if someone tries to pin anything on him.
I bet he was bullied at school.
I've seen some childish posts on here in the past but that takes the biscuit.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
He was different from James Arbuthnot.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
Why didn't Ed Davey? Years later?
He was lied to by the Post Office management, and had a full in-tray.
And it arrived at his in-tray *on day one* as post office minister.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
As far as Starmer is concerned, it perhaps complicates the line the Tories are taking against him if they say he was simultaneously soft on crime by not prosecuting criminals and at the same time enthusiastically prosecuting innocent postmasters. Not impossible, but complicated.
Davey's problem is he demanded everyone else resign when something went wrong. Now that its him in the box he's lacking the courage to lead by example. He wont go, but maybe he'll just shut up.
Davey is the smug school snitch who runs away if someone tries to pin anything on him.
I bet he was bullied at school.
Honestly, as a bunch of shut-ins spending our afternoons arguing on a political betting website, we should probably be a bit careful about accusing others of being bullied at school.
It's hardly a moral failing to have been bullied at school, though Casino implies differently. Weird.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
As far as Starmer is concerned, it perhaps complicates the line the Tories are taking against him if they say he was simultaneously soft on crime by not prosecuting criminals and at the same time enthusiastically prosecuting innocent postmasters. Not impossible, but complicated.
Davey's problem is he demanded everyone else resign when something went wrong. Now that its him in the box he's lacking the courage to lead by example. He wont go, but maybe he'll just shut up.
Davey is the smug school snitch who runs away if someone tries to pin anything on him.
I bet he was bullied at school.
Ed Davey was head boy at his private school before getting a first in PPE at Oxford. Like Rishi. (Was David Cameron head boy? I think Boris was but he did not do PPE.)
Doesn't mean he wasn't bullied or unpopular.
Some truly dreadful people became prefects at my school.
Prefects often used to prove the rule about people who want power. That it is a clear sign they shouldn't have any.
The modern equivalents at my daughter school seem almost human, though.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
As far as Starmer is concerned, it perhaps complicates the line the Tories are taking against him if they say he was simultaneously soft on crime by not prosecuting criminals and at the same time enthusiastically prosecuting innocent postmasters. Not impossible, but complicated.
Davey's problem is he demanded everyone else resign when something went wrong. Now that its him in the box he's lacking the courage to lead by example. He wont go, but maybe he'll just shut up.
Davey is the smug school snitch who runs away if someone tries to pin anything on him.
I bet he was bullied at school.
Honestly, as a bunch of shut-ins spending our afternoons arguing on a political betting website, we should probably be a bit careful about accusing others of being bullied at school.
It's hardly a moral failing to have been bullied at school, though Casino implies differently. Weird.
Davey had tough times in early life but not with bullying. Parental cancer at relatively young ages.
Yes, his father died when he was four, his mother when he was 11, and he was raised by his grandparents.
I’m not sure public services started deteriorating in the 90s. Or if they did, they were already in fast decline by 1993, which is when I spent a year in the UK.
It was a shabby, run-down, pessimistic country back then, and the contrast with 2000 when I returned was palpable.
What I will concede is that in the 90s, the boomer generation came to power. In the US - Clinton, in the UK - Blair.
I think the boomers brought with them a notably lower regard for various notions and conventions previously governing public service.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
He was different from James Arbuthnot.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
Why didn't Ed Davey? Years later?
He was lied to by the Post Office management, and had a full in-tray.
And it arrived at his in-tray *on day one* as post office minister.
The lied to thing needs consequences.
Lying to a Minister of the Crown in performance of their duties should be Misconduct in a Public Office.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
Doing nothing, and taking no decisions, followed by a massive overreaction when it breaks is the sign of weak government and weak leadership.
Before I get six likes for that because I dissed "The Tories" - and people want to encourage and cheer more of it - I extend that observation to all governments of the last 15-20 years.
I think our public governance started rapidly deteriorating in the late 1990s, both in the institutional space and in the quality of people entering public service.
You'd finger New Labour for that then?
Me, I think Boris Johnson as PM has damaged the public realm quite severely. I accept there might have been a longer term slide going on since well before him but boy did he give it a push.
New Labour started the culture of SPADs, spin doctors and researchers bleaching into politics and gesture politics. Candidate selection became woeful.
The Tory party got no better post 1997, because anyone serious started to leave or walk away. Then, they got into the A-list (Z-list) stuff and selected some truly awful candidates.
Well, SpAds were introduced by Wilson and really turbo-charged by Thatcher. Lawson resigned over a dispute with one. And candidate selection was hardly great before 1997 if you look at some of the cranks, soaks, and crooks who ended up as MPs.
It's getting very heated on here again and to be honest makes me less want to post, so will just re-iterate that I think all parties have questions to answer, all parties have failed to get a handle on this. And anyone trying to make political capital out of it frankly is beyond contempt. It's disappointing to see so many that have previously called our partisanship for Labour now doing the exact same thing for the Tories.
At the end of the day, lives have been ruined by this scandal, during both Tory and Labour Governments. They have both failed the victims and that is what really matters: the victims.
I am going to leave it there for now as I am not enjoying posting whilst the environment is so heated, so wish you all a good evening and see you soon.
Just look at the money they spend on Welfare and how generous some benefits are.
Those buggers getting subsidised holidays through the KDF and all those job creation schemes plus state direction of the economy just prove that Hitler was a socialist.
And Nerys complains about welfare spending. A lot of that is state pension. Invented by Fürst Bismarck, that well-known commie and revolutionary.
Bismarck did invent State Socialism - which was socialistic measures bolted onto a reactionary worldview, via the idea of noblest oblige. Be nice to your peasants, so they grow your crops better, basically.
Based less on "idea of noblese obige" and more on idea of thwarting real socialism: the rising Socialist Democratic Party of Germany (SPD).
I’m not sure public services started deteriorating in the 90s. Or if they did, they were already in fast decline by 1993, which is when I spent a year in the UK.
It was a shabby, run-down, pessimistic country back then, and the contrast with 2000 when I returned was palpable.
What I will concede is that in the 90s, the boomer generation came to power. In the US - Clinton, in the UK - Blair.
I think the boomers brought with them a notably lower regard for various notions and conventions previously governing public service.
This was also the time when those who had a wider perspective from serving alongside other classes in the war (or even national service) retired from politics.
I’m not sure public services started deteriorating in the 90s. Or if they did, they were already in fast decline by 1993, which is when I spent a year in the UK.
It was a shabby, run-down, pessimistic country back then, and the contrast with 2000 when I returned was palpable.
What I will concede is that in the 90s, the boomer generation came to power. In the US - Clinton, in the UK - Blair.
I think the boomers brought with them a notably lower regard for various notions and conventions previously governing public service.
I think that, over my lifetime, we have seen government move from
- government by ideology - to government by option poll - to government by focus group - to government by Twatter
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
It’s the way it’s always been. Enoch Powell used examples of meeting
“ a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.”
and the story of
“ (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war”
because they were people the reader would identify with and feel sympathetic towards. There’d been plenty of speeches about immigration before that didn’t have an impact at all. No one on here was talking about the post office scandal as much as they are since the tv programme, even though @cyclefree wrote about it a lot just for us. It’s because stories with real characters in are more relatable than the raw facts and legal details
Not to criticise Cyclefree’s work at all, she was ahead of the game. But I must admit I didn’t read any of it until just now. I never really read many of the headers on here
Yep Enoch knew how to grab the headlines. Some say he was taken aback at the reaction to his warnings about white supremacy being under threat in Britain. Others think he was looking for exactly that reaction. You'd have a view, no doubt? One of your hot topics.
A topic I’m interested in, yes. I’d say he was looking for that reaction. Obviously the words ‘white supremacy’ are very loaded, and I don’t agree with the implication he was a white supremacist
He was though. At best you can say he aspired to be a benign white supremacist - his early career ambition was to be Viceroy of India, to which end he learned two Indian languages - but he took it as axiomatic that races could not peacefully coexist on equal terms and that therefore either one had to hold the whip hand or they had to lead separate lives.
Not sure White Supremacist quite covers it in Enoch Powell's case.
Certainly a British Imperialist, albeit a rather unorthodox one (naturally).
I'd agree that there's no neat definition that fits Powell, certainly not in his entirety. However, I don't think we can escape the conclusion that he believed white governments should rule the world, and that white countries should stay white-dominated and -run.
There's a lot to him, some of it contradictory, but his views on Empire, Nationalism, and Immigration taken together indicate somebody steeped in white supremacy racism. Of course this doesn't mean he'd answer "yes" if asked that question directly. An intelligent white supremacist will usually be able to construct alternative rationales. And Powell was very intelligent. He was way brighter than the average bear.
That was once the position of intelligent people.
The human genome had not yet been decoded and, in conjunction with the scientific evidence of Charles Darwin on evolution, selective breeding, and observations on economic and political development of various nations around the world at the time (which of course we know now correlated but were not causated) it looked like it was true.
Very little excuse after the 1940s/1950s, however, people can find it very hard to change such beliefs quickly.
Hence why people are rightly cut more slack (on this) the further back they lived.
I think I've posted before that in my view white supremacy racism was both fuel for western colonialism and a legacy of it.
If you believed the white man to be superior you'd think it only right and proper he colonises others. And the success (for so long) of that endeavour duly reinforces the belief.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
He was different from James Arbuthnot.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
Why didn't Ed Davey? Years later?
Why didn't Cameron and Sunak, or for that matter the the other three now departed Tory prime ministers, show any interest even more years later when the miscarriage of justice was blatant? This isn't whataboutery. Beyond his former job title there isn't really any reason, as far as we know, to pick out Davey specifically.
There is, because Bates named him specifically, and he is the most high profile current politician with direct involvement.
Didn't Bates recently say it was wrong to single him out ?
Did he? Probably right, but the fact he is leader of one of the big parties means he’s going to get more stick than backbenchers or retired politicians. Bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time
Just look at the money they spend on Welfare and how generous some benefits are.
Those buggers getting subsidised holidays through the KDF and all those job creation schemes plus state direction of the economy just prove that Hitler was a socialist.
And Nerys complains about welfare spending. A lot of that is state pension. Invented by Fürst Bismarck, that well-known commie and revolutionary.
Bismarck did invent State Socialism - which was socialistic measures bolted onto a reactionary worldview, via the idea of noblest oblige. Be nice to your peasants, so they grow your crops better, basically.
Based less on "idea of noblese obige" and more on idea of thwarting real socialism: the rising Socialist Democratic Party of Germany (SPD).
That was the *goal*. The ideological pitch to the Junkers was about living up to their feudal obligations. "Do the this, as in the old ways, and we can see off the Socialists as well."
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
Doing nothing, and taking no decisions, followed by a massive overreaction when it breaks is the sign of weak government and weak leadership.
Before I get six likes for that because I dissed "The Tories" - and people want to encourage and cheer more of it - I extend that observation to all governments of the last 15-20 years.
I think our public governance started rapidly deteriorating in the late 1990s, both in the institutional space and in the quality of people entering public service.
I would observe that, in this timeline, the decline of governance coincided with the rise of the internet and has accelerated with the rise of social media and the difficulties of controlling the information space.
The case against Davey is at least vaguely plausible. And as I’ve said since the weekend, Davey has not handled this well.
The case against Starmer is so laughably flimsy that it actually undermines by extension the “case” against Davey.
I wonder if Tories will rue the day they (or their outriders) started trying to pin blame on Starmer. The Davey attacks had some teeth and given the emotional reach of the ITV drama could have been pretty effective. Labour would have sat back and happily spectated. But as soon as they attempted to link this to Starmer as DPP they 1. looked like they were finger pointing for partisan reasons, 2. lost credibility because the Starmer link is so tenuous, 3. took the spotlight off Davey
I’m not sure public services started deteriorating in the 90s. Or if they did, they were already in fast decline by 1993, which is when I spent a year in the UK.
It was a shabby, run-down, pessimistic country back then, and the contrast with 2000 when I returned was palpable.
What I will concede is that in the 90s, the boomer generation came to power. In the US - Clinton, in the UK - Blair.
I think the boomers brought with them a notably lower regard for various notions and conventions previously governing public service.
I think that, over my lifetime, we have seen government move from
- government by ideology - government by option poll - to government by focus group - to government by Twatter
not much left to shorten the loop, is there?
For idealistic democrats like me, it’s very dispiriting to mark the decline in political standards and civic life.
I’m generally an optimist, at least about humanity, so I console myself that while our politics, intellectual standards, and discourse is much poorer, perhaps we are kinder and technology continues to allow people generally fuller and longer lives?
I’m not sure public services started deteriorating in the 90s. Or if they did, they were already in fast decline by 1993, which is when I spent a year in the UK.
It was a shabby, run-down, pessimistic country back then, and the contrast with 2000 when I returned was palpable.
What I will concede is that in the 90s, the boomer generation came to power. In the US - Clinton, in the UK - Blair.
I think the boomers brought with them a notably lower regard for various notions and conventions previously governing public service.
Two strands to this. One is the ethical stuff, and there have been examples of bad stuff being swept under the carpet forever. See Westminster council and Homes for Votes.
The other is the preference for cheap and shoddy to try and avoid the cost of doing things properly (spoiler: it rarely works). That, again, has been around for ages. Is Britain uniquely prone to it? Probably not, but we suffer it badly.
I’m not sure public services started deteriorating in the 90s. Or if they did, they were already in fast decline by 1993, which is when I spent a year in the UK.
It was a shabby, run-down, pessimistic country back then, and the contrast with 2000 when I returned was palpable.
What I will concede is that in the 90s, the boomer generation came to power. In the US - Clinton, in the UK - Blair.
I think the boomers brought with them a notably lower regard for various notions and conventions previously governing public service.
The mid 1990s were a strange time combining absolutely desolate high streets, vast numbers in negative equity, burgeoning NHS waiting lists and a big question mark over the safety of most of what we ate, yet also optimism, a sense that the best was yet to come, and a feeling of Britain as a country on the up.
Or is that just because I was a sixth former and first year student then?
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
We were often described as bringing up a "boring subject" whenever we posted comments about it in the past.
It’s getting boring again
If our whole species was like you, we’d all still be sitting in the jungle doing creative origami with banana skins.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
He was different from James Arbuthnot.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
Why didn't Ed Davey? Years later?
Why didn't Cameron and Sunak, or for that matter the the other three now departed Tory prime ministers, show any interest even more years later when the miscarriage of justice was blatant? This isn't whataboutery. Beyond his former job title there isn't really any reason, as far as we know, to pick out Davey specifically.
Um, his former job title was minister for postal affairs and refused to investigate Horizon.
It was literally his job.
I'll make a slightly different point. It is in my view very important to assign responsibility to those who actually have the responsibility. If you say everyone is responsible then in some way no-one is. It lets the guilty off the hook to some extent.
The Post Office and Fujitsu and their key personnel are responsible for their respective organisations acting ethically and within the law. If they don't, they should need held to account for it. I don't think this scandal is primarily a failure by any politician.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
He was different from James Arbuthnot.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
Why didn't Ed Davey? Years later?
Why didn't Cameron and Sunak, or for that matter the the other three now departed Tory prime ministers, show any interest even more years later when the miscarriage of justice was blatant? This isn't whataboutery. Beyond his former job title there isn't really any reason, as far as we know, to pick out Davey specifically.
Um, his former job title was minister for postal affairs and refused to investigate Horizon.
It was literally his job.
I'll make a slightly different point. It is in my view very important to assign responsibility to those who actually have the responsibility. If you say everyone is responsible then in some way no-one is. It lets the guilty off the hook to some extent.
The Post Office and Fujitsu and their key personnel are responsible for their respective organisations acting ethically and within the law. If they don't, they should need held to account for it. I don't think this scandal is primarily a failure by any politician.
This is also my view, save that by 2015, and possibly earlier, it was clear that redress required a political solution.
However that wasn’t good enough for resident conspiracy theorist / witchfinder-general @Malmesbury.
" I don't think this scandal is primarily a failure by any politician. "
I agree, but it is primarily a failure by government. The failure is in its relationship with the businesses it owns and runs, a failure which is apparent in more than one sector.
If that is addressed as a result of this scandal, the colossal cost might even have been worth it.
I’m not sure public services started deteriorating in the 90s. Or if they did, they were already in fast decline by 1993, which is when I spent a year in the UK.
It was a shabby, run-down, pessimistic country back then, and the contrast with 2000 when I returned was palpable.
What I will concede is that in the 90s, the boomer generation came to power. In the US - Clinton, in the UK - Blair.
I think the boomers brought with them a notably lower regard for various notions and conventions previously governing public service.
The mid 1990s were a strange time combining absolutely desolate high streets, vast numbers in negative equity, burgeoning NHS waiting lists and a big question mark over the safety of most of what we ate, yet also optimism, a sense that the best was yet to come, and a feeling of Britain as a country on the up.
Or is that just because I was a sixth former and first year student then?
I think on a wider level the 1990s feels in retrospect to have been the sweet spot (certainly in the west) between technological advancement and economic and political freedom on one hand, and over-globalisation and information and media saturation on the other.
Not to say that there weren’t an awful lot of bad things that happened subsequently that are a direct cause of events in the 1990s.
I often blame the internet for everyone generally seeming to get a lot unhappier and more troubled in recent decades. Yes it was around in the 1990s, but nothing like what it would become. And yes, I note the irony of writing this on a website.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
Doing nothing, and taking no decisions, followed by a massive overreaction when it breaks is the sign of weak government and weak leadership.
Before I get six likes for that because I dissed "The Tories" - and people want to encourage and cheer more of it - I extend that observation to all governments of the last 15-20 years.
I think our public governance started rapidly deteriorating in the late 1990s, both in the institutional space and in the quality of people entering public service.
I would observe that, in this timeline, the decline of governance coincided with the rise of the internet and has accelerated with the rise of social media and the difficulties of controlling the information space.
There is nothing new in corruption and incompetence in government.
I think that it is just easier to expose bad governance in the era of electronic communications. These are far more permanent as a record than paper and telephone conversations.
While the Internet is full of fake news and conspiracy theories to sucker the gullible, it also does allow a lot more sleuthing and exposure than was possible previously.
Money for Michelle Obama in last few days - she is now 2nd favourite for the Democratic Nomination:
Biden 1.39 Obama 11.5 Newsom 13.5 Harris 29 Bar 75
So there's a 28% chance Biden drops out somehow. And if he does, Michelle would be favourite!
There will be many movies made if Joe stands aside for Michelle and she whups Trump. Or maybe not. Maybe that would be so Hollywood that movies would become redundant.
I’m not sure public services started deteriorating in the 90s. Or if they did, they were already in fast decline by 1993, which is when I spent a year in the UK.
It was a shabby, run-down, pessimistic country back then, and the contrast with 2000 when I returned was palpable.
What I will concede is that in the 90s, the boomer generation came to power. In the US - Clinton, in the UK - Blair.
I think the boomers brought with them a notably lower regard for various notions and conventions previously governing public service.
The mid 1990s were a strange time combining absolutely desolate high streets, vast numbers in negative equity, burgeoning NHS waiting lists and a big question mark over the safety of most of what we ate, yet also optimism, a sense that the best was yet to come, and a feeling of Britain as a country on the up.
Or is that just because I was a sixth former and first year student then?
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
We were often described as bringing up a "boring subject" whenever we posted comments about it in the past.
It’s getting boring again
If our whole species was like you, we’d all still be sitting in the jungle doing creative origami with banana skins.
Speaking of boring, I confess to being less than fascinated by "Eid balloons". Boy we had a lot of posts on that yesterday.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
They're not going after Davey either - note that Sunak deflected 30 IQ Lee's "question".
Unless they are spectacularly dim there has to be someone cautioning Sunak. He personally issued a load of new Fujitsu contracts long after this all blew up. One of his Cabinet is married to Mr Fujitsu. The Business Secretary has been at best glacial and at worst obstructionist with the enquiry. And a long line of Tory ministers in a line waiting for the spotlight to be swung in their direction...
Vennells’s good fortune, honours and preferment after leaving the PO, when the scandal was already in plain sight, suggests that she is very well connected. To get a job in the Cabinet Office from the Tories, when the facts were already out there - is remarkable (and scandalous), if you think about it! And as CEO of a government-owned business she’ll have been in regular contact with junior ministers and officials.
How she chooses to pitch her evidence will be critical. I have no inside information but wouldn’t be surprised if she has the potential to drop some government figures right in it. So perhaps the Tories are simply trying to get their retaliation in first, fearing what might be coming?
Being cynical, the ‘powers-that-be’ are probably leaning heavily on Vennells to take the rap and keep the best of what she knows to herself, in return for a promise of as much leniency as can be delivered. Since Vennells clearly has a track record of valuing the trusty sword of truth somewhat less than more material or concrete rewards, she may well succumb to such pressure. Or, perhaps her religiosity is genuine and she will use the inquiry to tell everything as it really happened?
I bet her session, when it comes - probably summer this year - will have more than 3,500 live viewers, no spare seats in the room, and a big demonstration outside.
I’m not sure public services started deteriorating in the 90s. Or if they did, they were already in fast decline by 1993, which is when I spent a year in the UK.
It was a shabby, run-down, pessimistic country back then, and the contrast with 2000 when I returned was palpable.
What I will concede is that in the 90s, the boomer generation came to power. In the US - Clinton, in the UK - Blair.
I think the boomers brought with them a notably lower regard for various notions and conventions previously governing public service.
Two strands to this. One is the ethical stuff, and there have been examples of bad stuff being swept under the carpet forever. See Westminster council and Homes for Votes.
The other is the preference for cheap and shoddy to try and avoid the cost of doing things properly (spoiler: it rarely works). That, again, has been around for ages. Is Britain uniquely prone to it? Probably not, but we suffer it badly.
There’s obviously something deeply Anglo about cheap and shoddy, as NZ has pretty much the same instincts. Presbyterianism?
The US too, but it’s leavened somewhat by the impulse to make a show.
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
He was different from James Arbuthnot.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
Why didn't Ed Davey? Years later?
Why didn't Cameron and Sunak, or for that matter the the other three now departed Tory prime ministers, show any interest even more years later when the miscarriage of justice was blatant? This isn't whataboutery. Beyond his former job title there isn't really any reason, as far as we know, to pick out Davey specifically.
Um, his former job title was minister for postal affairs and refused to investigate Horizon.
It was literally his job.
I'll make a slightly different point. It is in my view very important to assign responsibility to those who actually have the responsibility. If you say everyone is responsible then in some way no-one is. It lets the guilty off the hook to some extent.
The Post Office and Fujitsu and their key personnel are responsible for their respective organisations acting ethically and within the law. If they don't, they should need held to account for it. I don't think this scandal is primarily a failure by any politician.
Totally agree.
Actually there's probably a few civil servants on top who were supposed to be supervising this and fucked up - were either incompetent or gave terrible advice - but we'll never hear about them.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
We were often described as bringing up a "boring subject" whenever we posted comments about it in the past.
It’s getting boring again
If our whole species was like you, we’d all still be sitting in the jungle doing creative origami with banana skins.
But much of it is boring, very boring. That's just the way when you need to have professionals meticulously sorting out what happened by interrogating witnesses who are often far from willing to help.
I had hoped we would see a different approach from the Post Office following the extraordinary developments during the Inquiry's recess, but if today's specimen is anything to go by we are going to see more of the dishonesty and prevarication that was so characteristic of the proceedings last year.
Whilst I welcome the recent rapid moves by the government to aid the SPMs, one thing it could have done at zero expense which would have helped a lot would have been to tell the PO, its client, to start assisting the Inquiry to the full.
So the PO scandal is ignored for years. Then itv do a tearjerk drama and, boom, suddenly every tom dick and harry has a strong and similar take on it, the government rushes to override the legal system, and anyone with the remotest connection to it is stuffed and really ought to be resigning and preferably locked up.
It's great that the whole thing has exploded, finally, but at the same time it feels a pretty ludicrous state of affairs. At least to me it does. This is surely not the way things should work in this mature liberal democracy of ours.
We were often described as bringing up a "boring subject" whenever we posted comments about it in the past.
It’s getting boring again
If our whole species was like you, we’d all still be sitting in the jungle doing creative origami with banana skins.
Speaking of boring, I confess to being less than fascinated by "Eid balloons". Boy we had a lot of posts on that yesterday.
I seriously think Leon is going senile. I looked at the clip - actually saw it elsewhere first - and thought “floating and tattered plastic shopping bag”.
If that’s the next the alien truthers can manage, then I think we’re safe for a few more decades at least.
Three from the last year or two, boasting of being the DPP in charge of ALL prosecutions across England & Wales then another, from today, laughing at the idea he could have been expected to know about every prosecution in England & Wales
I'll stick my neck out and gently predict that a) Davey won't resign, and b) there'll be no damage to Starmer.
On the latter, it's notable that neither Sunak nor other Tories are publicly going after Starmer on the PO stuff - rather, they're leaving it to their outriders in the press etc. Why? Because there's nothing in it.
Davey's specific issue (a) he had a role with the words "Postal Affairs" in the job title and (b) he's still in politics. It's unfortunate for him but it's hardly a smoking gun. Beyond that he showed no interest in the postmasters, but in that he was no different from anyone else up to and including Sunak.
He was different from James Arbuthnot.
He didn't even have the brief but smelled a rat and launched a parliamentary campaign about it.
Why didn't Ed Davey? Years later?
Actually no.
Unlike every other junior minister, before and after, Davey was (after an initial refusal during the very early days of the coalition), curious enough to agree to a meeting with Bates to hear his concerns first-hand (a silly mistake, in retrospect, since if he’d just refused like all the others, he wouldn’t have singled himself out). Then followed this up asking the Post Office all the right questions. Which no other junior minister has done. And the PO reassured him that everything was hunky-dory. And he believed them - of course he did, because they’re the Post Office.
Arbuthnot was first contacted by his local subpostmistress Jo Hamilton about her situation (as dramatised), and so he presented her concerns to the Post Office. And the Post Office assured him everything was hunky-dory and, just like Davey, he believed them. He did nothing further until residents of another village within his seat complained to him about their post office being closed. When Arbuthnot investigated, he found that the owner of the SPSO had been suspended, due to apparent Horizon losses, and that that owner had taken over the SPSO from another subpostmaster who had walked away from the office having had a similar sequence of (Horizon-generated, as we now know) losses, but hadn’t complained to anyone about it. Arbuthnot, to his credit, then started join the dots, and dug further.
Credit to Arbuthnot for his taking up this issue. But, just like Davey (who was a lot busier than him), Arbuthnot had, at first contact with the issue, been willing to take the Post Office’s account on trust. Well, you would, wouldn’t you?
Comments
And as I’ve said since the weekend, Davey has not handled this well.
The case against Starmer is so laughably flimsy that it actually undermines by extension the “case” against Davey.
It's not a failing. It's an observation.
The modern equivalents at my daughter school seem almost human, though.
Do you need to be called out for this again by the mods and eds ?
You do realise they get to see all that, right?
It was a shabby, run-down, pessimistic country back then, and the contrast with 2000 when I returned was palpable.
What I will concede is that in the 90s, the boomer generation came to power. In the US - Clinton, in the UK - Blair.
I think the boomers brought with them a notably lower regard for various notions and conventions previously governing public service.
Lying to a Minister of the Crown in performance of their duties should be Misconduct in a Public Office.
It's getting very heated on here again and to be honest makes me less want to post, so will just re-iterate that I think all parties have questions to answer, all parties have failed to get a handle on this. And anyone trying to make political capital out of it frankly is beyond contempt. It's disappointing to see so many that have previously called our partisanship for Labour now doing the exact same thing for the Tories.
At the end of the day, lives have been ruined by this scandal, during both Tory and Labour Governments. They have both failed the victims and that is what really matters: the victims.
I am going to leave it there for now as I am not enjoying posting whilst the environment is so heated, so wish you all a good evening and see you soon.
- government by ideology
- to government by option poll
- to government by focus group
- to government by Twatter
not much left to shorten the loop, is there?
I think I've posted before that in my view white supremacy racism was both fuel for western colonialism and a legacy of it.
If you believed the white man to be superior you'd think it only right and proper he colonises others. And the success (for so long) of that endeavour duly reinforces the belief.
Biden 1.39
Obama 11.5
Newsom 13.5
Harris 29
Bar 75
So there's a 28% chance Biden drops out somehow. And if he does, Michelle would be favourite!
I’m generally an optimist, at least about humanity, so I console myself that while our politics, intellectual standards, and discourse is much poorer, perhaps we are kinder and technology continues to allow people generally fuller and longer lives?
The other is the preference for cheap and shoddy to try and avoid the cost of doing things properly (spoiler: it rarely works). That, again, has been around for ages. Is Britain uniquely prone to it? Probably not, but we suffer it badly.
Or is that just because I was a sixth former and first year student then?
The Post Office and Fujitsu and their key personnel are responsible for their respective organisations acting ethically and within the law. If they don't, they should need held to account for it. I don't think this scandal is primarily a failure by any politician.
However that wasn’t good enough for resident conspiracy theorist / witchfinder-general @Malmesbury.
" I don't think this scandal is primarily a failure by any politician. "
I agree, but it is primarily a failure by government. The failure is in its relationship with the businesses it owns and runs, a failure which is apparent in more than one sector.
If that is addressed as a result of this scandal, the colossal cost might even have been worth it.
Not to say that there weren’t an awful lot of bad things that happened subsequently that are a direct cause of events in the 1990s.
I often blame the internet for everyone generally seeming to get a lot unhappier and more troubled in recent decades. Yes it was around in the 1990s, but nothing like what it would become. And yes, I note the irony of writing this on a website.
I think that it is just easier to expose bad governance in the era of electronic communications. These are far more permanent as a record than paper and telephone conversations.
While the Internet is full of fake news and conspiracy theories to sucker the gullible, it also does allow a lot more sleuthing and exposure than was possible previously.
How she chooses to pitch her evidence will be critical. I have no inside information but wouldn’t be surprised if she has the potential to drop some government figures right in it. So perhaps the Tories are simply trying to get their retaliation in first, fearing what might be coming?
Being cynical, the ‘powers-that-be’ are probably leaning heavily on Vennells to take the rap and keep the best of what she knows to herself, in return for a promise of as much leniency as can be delivered. Since Vennells clearly has a track record of valuing the trusty sword of truth somewhat less than more material or concrete rewards, she may well succumb to such pressure. Or, perhaps her religiosity is genuine and she will use the inquiry to tell everything as it really happened?
I bet her session, when it comes - probably summer this year - will have more than 3,500 live viewers, no spare seats in the room, and a big demonstration outside.
The US too, but it’s leavened somewhat by the impulse to make a show.
Actually there's probably a few civil servants on top who were supposed to be supervising this and fucked up - were either incompetent or gave terrible advice - but we'll never hear about them.
I had hoped we would see a different approach from the Post Office following the extraordinary developments during the Inquiry's recess, but if today's specimen is anything to go by we are going to see more of the dishonesty and prevarication that was so characteristic of the proceedings last year.
Whilst I welcome the recent rapid moves by the government to aid the SPMs, one thing it could have done at zero expense which would have helped a lot would have been to tell the PO, its client, to start assisting the Inquiry to the full.
No sign yet that this has been done.
I looked at the clip - actually saw it elsewhere first - and thought “floating and tattered plastic shopping bag”.
If that’s the next the alien truthers can manage, then I think we’re safe for a few more decades at least.
NEW THREAD
Three from the last year or two, boasting of being the DPP in charge of ALL prosecutions across England & Wales then another, from today, laughing at the idea he could have been expected to know about every prosecution in England & Wales
https://x.com/timmyvoe240886/status/1745502690472329592?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Unlike every other junior minister, before and after, Davey was (after an initial refusal during the very early days of the coalition), curious enough to agree to a meeting with Bates to hear his concerns first-hand (a silly mistake, in retrospect, since if he’d just refused like all the others, he wouldn’t have singled himself out). Then followed this up asking the Post Office all the right questions. Which no other junior minister has done. And the PO reassured him that everything was hunky-dory. And he believed them - of course he did, because they’re the Post Office.
Arbuthnot was first contacted by his local subpostmistress Jo Hamilton about her situation (as dramatised), and so he presented her concerns to the Post Office. And the Post Office assured him everything was hunky-dory and, just like Davey, he believed them. He did nothing further until residents of another village within his seat complained to him about their post office being closed. When Arbuthnot investigated, he found that the owner of the SPSO had been suspended, due to apparent Horizon losses, and that that owner had taken over the SPSO from another subpostmaster who had walked away from the office having had a similar sequence of (Horizon-generated, as we now know) losses, but hadn’t complained to anyone about it. Arbuthnot, to his credit, then started join the dots, and dug further.
Credit to Arbuthnot for his taking up this issue. But, just like Davey (who was a lot busier than him), Arbuthnot had, at first contact with the issue, been willing to take the Post Office’s account on trust. Well, you would, wouldn’t you?