For obvious reasons, I had a quick look at the accounts for the Post Office this morning. This is the latest balance sheet:
Let me summarise its situation in a word: it's bust. Much of that is due to provisions for the subpostmaster's dispute.
Then let me make one further observation, which refers to this note in the directors' report:
So, everyone is on the hook for what happens at the Post Office except the directors.
That is what modern capitalism is all about: reward without responsibility.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The failure is surely also in significant part the fault of Government that has progressively removed service provision from the Post Office and handed it over to private sector. It started with closure the Giro bank, and has been continuing ever since.
Indemnity for carelessness might be OK…. even for incompetence (maybe… just about) – but indemnity for fraud and deceit surely can’t be the case??
Who knows?
Clive, I am trying to work out how an indemnity for careless driving might look like…………? Only Capitalism, or Governments dream up solutions like this.
Use of Directors and Officers liability insurance is commonplace & widespread. However, it doesn’t offer protection against criminal/illegal activity by company officers!
https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/choosing-the-right-insurance/business-insurance/liability-insurance/directors-and-officers-liability-insurance/
Was this criminal or illegal? Has that been proven?
Crushing.
Please put this on Twitter.
Good idea
Yet another tombstone labelled “an example of neoliberal failure”.
“Late Soviet Britain ” by Abby Innes is just wonderful in delivering a well reasonsed explanation for the Post Office & other nonesenses.
As she notes: “Soviet and neoliberal regiemes (i.e. the one running the UK) implement strategies & policies rooted in arguments about the universal truths of the political economy that are utopian and circular in their reasoning. Their assumptions and actions are valid, as distinct from true, by virtue only of their logical formulations, and their end goals are as impossible to realise as they are to refute”.
The last point – impossible to realise/refute, is why neoliberals press on. & there is no point in having a discussion – because they cannot be reasoned with. Evidence for this arrives daily on this blog site from the assorted Tufton street ciphers.
I am going to get a copy this afternoon…
Me too.
I was thinking the UK has been a quasi-fascist state for centuries for one main reason – the vast majority of its people can’t sensibly connect money creation and real resources together for the aim of providing adequate well-being for all.
Review of “Late Soviet Britain”:-
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2023/12/27/the-uks-brezhnev-years-and-the-failure-of-the-free-market-utopia/
Very good
Who owns the Post Office? I thought it was the government?
It is
You’re in favour of nationalising the English water companies. That’s state capitalism surely. How does that avoid the total lack of accountability at directorial level that seeps into organisations owned in this way.
The answer is that we cannot run public servcies as if they are private entities – which is the whole problem in this case.
We need a whole change in culture – and that starts with politicians who want to pretend that these entities are not their responsibility.
Problem is that it has been run at arms length, as though it was a private sector business. Checking the current board that are overwhelmingly from the private sector. With a government culture that said leave them to run themselves.
Henry Mance nailed it in the FT. Illustrative of the worst kind of profit-obsessed corporate culture. Combined with an outsourced relationship which meant government had little knowledge of what was going on, as so often happens in outsources – been there, seen that before.
Exactky right, Robin.
Bizarrtely, even HM Revenue & Customs is run in that way.
Robin Stafford describes fiefdoms then. Incidentally BBC Panorama did a show on the PO scandal and as they’ve removed it just recently from their online catalogue (no idea why, none at all…) anyone prompt can catch it here on Youtube before they remember it’s there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3by7G0VQ3A&t=10s
@Bill Kruse,
Thanks for the link. I caught most of it last night, but missed the start, I’m keen to watch the whole thing.
While I’m here, I’d like to add my appreciation of your efforts, in collating links, regarding money creation; sterling work!
Thank you
Thank Bill Kruse too
Drew, many thanks, I continue to expand the original document https://www.economania.co.uk/various-authors/where-money-comes-from.htm
@Bill Kruse:
Here’s a link to that Panorama, originally broadcast in 2022.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0016t20/panorama-the-post-office-scandal
Theresa – that’s interesting – are there two such shows? I don’t have access to Iplayer to compare.
There’s a summary of the BBC Panorama story and how they were threatened by the PO and the lawyers on their website:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67884743
I see it was John Sweeney investigating for the BBC, who has done great work on investigating Putin and his cronies and spends much of his time in Ukraine. Another fearless old school investigative journalist.
The PO’s lawyers come out of this as being a truly nasty bunch, in the same league as the SLAPPs mob. I can’t help thinking that lawyers who take cases that turn out to be based on utter lies ought to lose a chunk of their fees. Might encourage them to interrogate their clients a bit more rigorously.
I worked with John a lot at one time – on Panorana and other programmes. We always got on air. It sometimes took some effort.
@Bill Kruse:
You asked “are there two such shows?”. Apparently, yes. The one I previously gave the link for was broadcast in 2022, but the one the BBC has an online article about today (mentioned in Robin Stafford’s comment) was made in 2015. That can be found on iPlayer here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0675m1j/panorama-trouble-at-the-post-office
As the article acknowledges, the truth about this scandal has been in the public domain for years, but it never really got any traction until ITV pulled it all together and dramatised it.
Therese, my thanks.
Hilariously, Douglas Ross MP, MSP is insisting in bringing the Scottish Government to account over the prosecutions in Scotland. There were prosecutions, so at one level; it is fair. But a Conservative MP? What makes this problematic?
Postal services are a Reserved matter, not a devolved matter. Almost all the responsibility for the Post Office is presumably a Westminster issue. What does Douglas Ross propose? A Section 35? That seems to be the new Westminster answer to Devolution.
Let me make this abundantly clear. Ross is playing a very cynical form of politics. The Scottish government is already considering relying on Westminster solutions. The problem there is, that from Hollinrake’s performance in Parlaiment yesterday, the “plan” is already well intentioned, but shambolic.
I have one thing to say to Ross. If you want to fix this problem; you are a Conservative, Westminster MP since 2017; you have had over six years to have an impacy on the Post Office scandal: physician, heal thyself.
One can argue a bit about when the problems at the PO surfaced, especially given the bare faced lying that was going on by the PO and Fujitsu. The Private Eye article is a good reference on this. What is unarguable is that from the early 2010s onwards, the problems and consequences for sub-PMs were in the public domain, even if the PO were denying them and lying to all and sundry. That means a succession of Tory governments and PMs in charge, as the noise and the stench got ever more obvious.
Who did nothing. Regarding them private sector organisations, quasi in the case of the PO so their operations are none of our business and it’s not for us to interfere. The Tories are scrabbling around for people to blame, be it New Labour in Horizon’s very early days or the odd LibDem minister during the early 2010’s. Turns out Davey was the first minister to actually meet with Alan Bates, whom when interviewed is distinctly uncritical of him. Not surprising as the Tories are desperate for anything to throw at LibDems who are a real threat in a lot of their SE and SW seats.
There is a lot of ill informed comment, not just from politicians but from media as well. Private Eye and Nick Wallis’s book are the go to sources and the basis of the ITV documentary.
John Sweeney talks about the programme here:
https://twitter.com/EdwardJDavey/status/1745820942624817604
A point he makes is that it’s not until August 2015 when the evidence really came out via a Fujitsu whistle blower that made it clear that the Post Office had been lying. So attempts by the Tories to blame earlier ministers such as Starmer or Davey are rubbish. Successive Tory ministers own this one.
One cant help thinking that this idemnity is a bit rich bearing in mind it was not available to the sub postmasters who had to personally replace any losses due from their daily balaances.
Precisely
Ambrose Bierce in his Devil’s Dictionary had the following definition:
Corporation [noun] – an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility
https://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/c.html
‘An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge’ – great short story by Bierce – well worth reading.
I have a collection of his short stories. They are all worth a read. I will certainly check that one out when I get home.
Here’s Private Eye’s take on it, along with all the culpable people.
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/justice-lost-in-the-post.pdf
Apologies if it’s been put on any other threads.
Thanks
Thanks Jen – looks like the best summary Ive seen yet, without going to the trouble of reading the book.
There are at least a few heroes in this from Alan Bates plus Private Eye, Computer Weekly and James Arbuthnot who kept digging away. Old fashioned investigative journalism of a type that is all too rare.
James Arbuthnot being of course a Tory MP (now Lord) of the old fashioned sort. Yes, there were a few decent ones
Echoing Richard, thank you for posting this. At the risk of “blowing my own hord” – the Post Office saga is exactly what you would expect given the neoliberalism as described in the book I mentioned “Late Soviet Britain”.
I encourage everybody that visits the blog & wonders “how the hell did we get into this mess” to get the book. Warning – it is a very difficult read (at least for me) – because as you do so – example from real life keep poping into you head – & inevitably (vile habit) I start highlighting and adding notes.
The other word/phrase that pops up is “total& unremitting evisceration” of the whole of the neoliberal/neoclassical economics system.
(I have zero connection to the author or the publisher).
Now in my possession…..
That article is a great summary of what’s in Nick Wallis’s book.
Good piece in the Conversation which shows our political system gets in the way. None of the parties thought they had anything to gain by taking up the issue, given the games they insist on playing. A sad indictment.
https://theconversation.com/post-office-scandal-what-the-lack-of-action-tells-you-about-britains-polarised-politics-220958?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20January%2012%202024%20-%202846828857&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20January%2012%202024%20-%202846828857+CID_6675fbfd2d8a9c90f1c646f31141f111&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=Post%20Office%20scandal%20what%20the%20lack%20of%20action%20tells%20you%20about%20Britains%20polarised%20politics
“That is what modern capitalism is all about: reward without responsibility”.
A trenchant summation that says it all; well done, Richard.
I remember, it was in the 1990s that I started to observe that senior corporate executives, often in public companies began paying themselves huge bonuses (then it was at least not conventional), while their business profits declined, or they piled up losses. I was stunned. Nothing ever happened; so over time, but quite rapidly the bonuses for corporate failure grew exponentially. The shareholders, almost invariably did nothing. The reason for this is simple. Major institutional investors (the ones who matter), either back the management, or sell the shares. They are not interested in the small print, or the hassles that come with ownership; unless there is public reputation damage likely to their own institution through the association as shareholder alone; and that is capitalism, and for that matter that is Britain. Everything else is window dressing (the cultural change began in the 1980s, with Thatcher and Keith Joseph’s obsession with Monetarism; you hear little about it now, because it proved more of a political fashion accessory than a viable theory; but the neoliberals nevertheless rode in to power on the fashion).
I have written a blog for Bella Caledonia, with my very small contribution, to support the case of the victims versus The Government (which owns the PO and where the ‘buck’ really does stop; at Sunak’s door – tit is the piper, it calls the tune), in the Post Office scandal. I had to do something, it is so monstrous and unspeakable in a supposedly civilised and responsible society.
Thanks John
Might you share the link?
The link is here: https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2024/01/10/who-guards-the-post-office/
Thanks John
Thanks, Richard.
Thanks John and Richard
Isn’t Ben Dover an infamous porn star from the 80s?
Search me….
Most definitely not my atea of expertise
You got your article tweeted by Ian Fraser too!
Mr Warren – you lightened my morning with a misprunt… I have heard Sunak called a few things – your unforced error caused a giggle – all that said – Sunak along with so many Tories is a carbunkle/suppurating sore on what passes for the UK body politic. Thus your unforced error was by far too kindly.
Good article on Bella Cal’ btw.
My typtos (!) always seem to put my prose ‘a*** over *it’.
Thank you for the kind words. The victims need a lot more than that; as does Britain.
Always worth being reminded of Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph’s responsibility for the mess this country is now in.
To re-use the words of Tory Minister John Biffen of that time which one was the sewer and which one provided the sewerage?
Ow! Even by my standards that was unkind.
Richard,
I love your work, but I think this an unfair comment.
Neither of us are corporate lawyers (thank heavens!) but I suspect without indemnities, no person in their sane mind would come near trying to run the PO today, to try to fix the horrific mess created by past leadership and Government policy, to provide the service we all came to expect. And today’s Directors indemnities will not protect the wrongdoing of past directors.
Your broader point about modern (Anglo-Saxon) capitalism is correct though. If I own a dog and it hurts someone, I’m liable. If I own shares in a company that hurts someone, I get dividends and can sell my shares potentially for profit without any responsibility and be a very clever ‘investor’. The world would be a very different without limited liability.
I am not sure it is unfair.
I accept the non-execs may need an indemnity – but, did they really ask the right questikns for their money? I do wonder.
The execs were handsomeley paid. Should there not be a downside? I lived for many years knwoing that the payroll was my personal responsibilty. Why shouldn’t they – earning a great deal more?
There are too many non-execs, there because they are friends of the chair, taking their fees with little attempt to really understand the business. With no background in the sector concerned.
I recall being a senior manager in an international business where we hosted the board in an overseas location. One of the non-execs made a point of talking to all of us because he genuinely wanted to find out what was really going on rather than what he was being told. (There were no skeletons as it happened). We all commented on what an exception he was. As it happened he was chair of a major engineering company and an engineer himself by background rather than another lawyer, accountant or financier.
That last point might say it all. He needed / wanted to know how things work. How many accountants and lawyers look at real business risks with an open mind, or any mind at all?
Unless matters have changed, my recollection is that it is non-execs who sanction the fat bonuses, for failure. I couldn’t believe it; until I really thought about it. All that most non-execs ever see of the businesses in which they are engaged is set up, stage managed and controlled by the Execs. They do not see anything behind the scenes, unless it is what I will term a ‘fresh paint’ day in the operation; set-up and orchestrated.
There are a lot of lessons from this crisis.
Mainly the untenability of liberal solutions based on a small state and “hands off theory of management , governance and regulation”.
I commend reading of “Blunders of our Governments ” by Crewe and King .
We need to get back to commoning, stewardship and representative government.
And public ownership and control.
One issue which I feel is hardly covered in the press or politics is the de-skilling of our government.
As an example, our family was neighbour to a man who ran the Southwest Water Board. He was not just a delightful person, but a straight-thinking, qualified engineer. I am told he was responsible for signing off the work done at Lynton and Lynmouth after the flood disaster there. One aspect (I think it was the bridge) he considered to be well under par and the contractor had to dismantle and re-build. He had the authority and competence to ensure we the public were given value for money based on a contract written in the public interest.
My current understanding is that almost all government contracts are nowadays put together by private companies because our various parts of local and central government no longer directly employ experts.
I do wonder if this is appropriate? Comments?
Prof. Murphy, I am constantly impressed by your energy and motivation, thank you for all you do.
Best Regards, Brian
Thanks
And I wholly agree
My father was a man like that – utterly comepetent and asking only for a fair salareay to take serious decisions
Arguably there are two elements to this:
Governments outsourcing or privatising significant activities to the private sector, without retaining the expertise to know how to manage those companies and understand what they are doing. It’s an all too common problem in the private sector as well.
Then ministers who are too arrogant to listen to civil servants who might actually have some of the knowledge of the area in question, do not want to hear what might conflict with their ideology, and anyway move on before they have had a chance to learn anything.
Both are true and feed off each other – because the best civil servants leave
“That is what modern capitalism is all about: reward without responsibility.”
Which is underpinned and enabled by the fundamental sophistry of the corporation, and its legal status and protections, which allows the total abstraction of the beneficiary from the activity giving rise to the benefit and limits society’s remediation of wrongdoing to the use of nugatory corporate fines and a bit of scapegoating of lower feed-chain employees.
The Post Office Horizon Enquiry is now subject to further delay and obfuscation. The ‘Guardian’, “Post Office lawyers say it is unrealistic to demand they ‘leave no stone unturned’” today reveals the Post Office lawyers decline to work through the night/week-ends to leave no stone unturned to reveal wrongdoing. This is far beyond outrageous; we are turning justice into a mockery.
Corporate lawyers work through the night routinely on corporate transactions, small or large when there are fat fees involved (I know, ‘back in the day’ I have spent 24 hours in the lawyers office in London, several times, without leaving; working with the lawyers – and the transactions were of modest size).
David Davies and other MPs are flapping around helplessly complaining about the monstrosity of it all. The Post Office is the Government’s creature. The ‘arms length’ between Post Office and Government is a legal fiction. The Government problem is – they do not want the public to realise, in the end; the blame rests with THE GOVERNMENT; that is where the buck stops; and if they don’t like the heat, they can remove themselves from the kitchen at an election now (but whether or not they can allremove themselves from responsibility should be quite another matter).
I have also done that nonsense
Weird how selective they can be
I am watching the Enquiry. The Post Office only started to investigate the full extent of its data universe in June, 2023; two years after the Horizon Enquiry was set up.
Just let that proposition marinate in the mind for a few minutes.
The Horizon Enquiry is now struggling even to plan modules 5 and 6, given the Post Office data problem.
Hollinrake’s plans for swift and timely resolution of the crisis is falling apart under our eyes. We do not even seem to know whether What’s App or iPhones have been examined (but it becoming harder and harder to follow).
Dan Neidle has just published a damning indictment of the Post Office Compensation Application Form, with a lawyer’s forensic deconstruction of the content, here: https://www.taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/01/11/hss_scandal/
It would be worth providing as a blog, Richard because it is an extraordinary document.
Neidle provides one eloquent example. One victim ended the process presented by claiming the princely sum of £15.75p. Unfairness is built into the process, and is established at the beginning. Neidle says this near the beginning of his lengthy deconstruction: “I have heard (but do not know for sure) that the Post Office’s systems and recordkeeping were such a disaster that it in fact has little useful data. If so, it is outrageous that the Post Office expects elderly postmasters to have better recordkeeping than a large corporate, and – if they don’t – that this reduces the compensation they receive”. It seems to me the Horizon Enquiry is now providing the evidence for Neidle’s surmise.
This is beyond reality. This is the world of the lunatic asylum; managed or advised mostly – it must not be forgotten – by well paid “professionals; and with politicians and corporate institutions as the gatekeepers of sanity; but also known collectively as – Great Britain.
I am not sure what I can add to what Dan has done.
It’s what you get when a culture promotes the entitled and the connected over and above the able and does this generation after generation. The governance system evolves not to ensure the proper running of the nation but to protect and disguise the incompetence & dishonesty of those charged with that. Collapse is inevitable after a time, & we’re just about there. Don’t forget this is just the scandal du jour we’re discussing here, there’s all the others bubbling merrily under, thus far out of the common perception as it takes storytelling by moving pictures to properly communicate their horrors.
With a tax scam as well …
https://www.taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/01/12/934m/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Presumably approved by their auditors – PWC..?
As I said the other day, they are bust
The last thing the Government will want is to face is the insolvency of the Post Office. given its special corporate position; how would that unfold? It will not happen, for one reason only. The charade will end; full and unavoidable responsibility falls straight back on Sunak and his crew. That will never be allowed to happen; before a General Election. Money? Whatever it takes will be found at the drop of a hat; from a conservative view; cheap at any price.
Nevertheless, the PO Accounts 2022-23 really do “take the biscuit”.
Here is the first paragraph of the CEO, Nick Read’s Statement: “Given the events of the recent past, including the global pandemic, it seems almost extraordinary that once more the business has had to face into some of the most challenging conditions for retail in a generation. Soaring inflation, rising energy bills, and a cost-of-living crisis represent something of a perfect storm for the industry and its effects have been pronounced. As our new Chair notes, however, we have shown remarkable resilience across the year, recording a Trading Profit of £50 million for the financial year 2022/23. That performance must be seen in the context of the company’s wider financial position, which is considerably less robust with net liabilities of £799 million at year end (2022: £724 million), including the recognition of a £255 million impairment of the asset base representing the difficult financial outlook; it is nonetheless worth celebrating” (PO Accounts 2022-3; pp.5-7).
He is celebrating. Let that sink in.
It is p.7, towards the end of the statement before he turns to what he terms the ‘legacy’. He writes this first of three paragraphs on it: “Turning now to our legacy responsibilities, we have continued to support Sir Wyn William’s POHIT Inquiry with dedication, energy, and transparency, including by being accountable for things when they have gone wrong. Given past behaviours, it is understandable that some will suspect ill-intent when mistakes occur, as they have more recently in the context of the significant level of disclosure we are providing for the POHIT Inquiry, spanning more than two decades and more than 60 million records. However, and as I have said previously, we fully understand that there can be no new beginning for the Post Office until such time as it has fully reckoned with, and made amends for, its past. Any suggestion that today’s Post Office is deliberately placing obstacles in the way of that outcome is wholly misplaced”.
The statement is dated 11th December, 20213. Let that sink in. Read the Accounts, and the statements, here: https://corporate.postoffice.co.uk/media/4ozl33c3/post-office-limited-22-23-ara-v2-8-final-signed-pwc.pdf
11th December, 2023. Perhaps 20213 will be when the final compensation is received by the victims ….. Jarndyce v. Jarndyce………
As Robin says “presumably approved by their auditors – PWC..?” Indeed, and not just the most recent accounts. PWC’s approval of annual accounts covering the whole period in which it was known that Horizon was faulty leaves PWC open to criticism, reputational damage and potential prosecution themselves. How do they reconcile their audit reports with the facts that continue to emerge?:
1. The base data emerging from Horizon was unreliable and incorrect and therefore the consolidated accounts do not reflect an accurate picture of GPO’s real income and expenditure;
2. Over time, the funds required to compensate the sub-postmasters falsely accused/convicted of criminal activity grew significantly. Were the ever adequately provisioned?
3. The latest scandal of the unlawful tax relief of £934 million claimed but not provisioned in the 2022-23 accounts. Never mind the GPO not understanding the tax laws, but how about PWC? It’s almost an Arthur Andersen moment all over again!
I asked this question on Twitter a few days ago
I am staggered they have not seen this as a risk before now
Here is the Auditor’s report on the PO Accounts by PWC, on the going concern issue, for. the first section, titled ‘Material uncertainty related to going concern’:
“In forming our opinion on the financial statements, which is not modified, we have considered the adequacy of the disclosure made in note 1 to the Consolidated financial statements and note 1 to the Company financial statements concerning the Group’s and the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. For the Group and Company to continue to meet their liabilities as they fall due, continued funding and support is required from the Government. Accordingly, the Directors have received written assurances from the Department for Business and Trade (‘the Shareholder’) of its intention to continue to support Post Office, however, these assurances do not constitute a financial guarantee, and include certain caveats making clear that any funding is subject to His Majesty’s Treasury (‘HMT’) consent and the application of the Subsidy Control Act 2022, namely referral to the Subsidy Advice Unit (‘SAU’) of the Competition and Markets Authority (‘CMA’), and consideration of the SAU’s report, which is outside the control of the Group and the Shareholder. These processes have been concluded in respect of £252 million of requested funding, however at the time of approving these financial statements the funding is not yet contractually committed by the Shareholder, and required covenant waivers beyond July 2024 are not guaranteed. Management’s base case forecast assumes receipt of the required Government funding and support and, if this is not forthcoming, those forecasts indicate the Group will breach the terms of its borrowing facilities with Government and exhaust those facilities within the going concern period, such that it will not be able to settle its liabilities as they fall due. These conditions, along with the other matters explained in those notes to the financial statements, indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt about the Group’s and the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include the adjustments that would result if the Group and the Company were unable to continue as a going concern” (PO Accounts, 2022-23 p.69).
As I said, they are bust.
It is as much the sheer impudence of it all. The effect of forty years of neoliberal, corporatised PR guff has rendered the formal language meaningless and unusable; worse everything comes to mean the opposite of its plain meaning.
My essential point through thus is that the Post Office scandal, unlike anything else has briefly flooded a little light, a glimpse of the dark underbelly of the real British state.
Kevin Hollinrake MP, Post Office Minister now floundering in charge of the sinking ship is now talking openly about jail time; and confessing suddenly that jail time should have followed the Financial Crash. Unbelievable. Whose fault is that? How long have the Conservatives been running the country? Do they really think nobody will notice what a mess they have made of everything they have touched; and even be re-elected? We are going to find out. Very soon I trust.
They tried to palm the responsibility for the whole mess on Labour, because of Liam Byrne’s idiot note. They were part of the creation of this mess, over decades before. Indeed in 2006 a new Fraud Act was passed by Parliament. The Conservatives worked hard to draw its teeth; particularly for the financial sector; read Hansard on the debates, lots of appeals not to jeopardise the liberty of the finance sector. This was twelve months before the crash.
Fighting back. Hope it happens in lots more constituencies.
https://skwawkbox.org/2024/01/13/postmistess-announces-electoral-bid-to-oust-davey/
Doing the Tories job for them… Nice. Join the Spectator.
Read the Private Eye long article or watch the 2015 Panorama with. John Sweeney. In 2010 it was Alan Bates word vs 2 large and supposedly reputable organisations (and the civil servants) who turned out to be lying.
After 2015 it was clear that they had been lying and should have been tackled. This one is on the Tories. Which is why they are desperate to deflect onto LDs and Labour.
Why should I join the Spectator?
Which Private Eye long article are you asking me to read?
It sounds like Ed Davey was being quite nasty to his constituents and others by ignoring them when he was in charge of the post office. Or did you not read the link?