Kemi Badenoch went to the House of Commons yesterday to insult a man who is understandably upset at being sacked by her for doing something he had not done whilst simultaneously doing what she had asked.
Henry Staunton is not the sort of man who I usually defend on this blog. A long-time part of the financial elite who have spent their careers hoovering up excessive fees from the companies that they supposedly manage, Staunton denied himself semi-retirement at the government's bidding to become chair of the Post Office.
That might not have been his wisest decision. I presume that he did it out of either political loyalty, or for the hope of a gong. In either case, his trust in this government was misplaced.
That said, as far as I can see, he is a man whose track record to his mid-70s is unblemished. He has moved from job to job but without the hint of either misdemeanour or failure that such a progression can sometimes imply. It might be argued that he was, instead, promoted to reflect his ability.
And then, he got to the Post Office. There, he had to deal with Badenoch. I suspect that he is not the first to have found that a demand too much for any career to suffer. I suspect, even more strongly, that he will not be the last, because she is the person who we know that the membership of the Conservative Party thinks is their leader in waiting.
What we also know, based on her House of Common performance yesterday, is that she is a very angry woman, willing to say many things that the wise might have reflected a little more upon before suggesting them. She appears able to do such things because the capacity to both reflect and feel remorse appear to have been omitted from her character.
Do I believe Staunton's version of events? His claim is that he was instructed, prior to his sacking, to delay payments to sub-postmasters to assist government finances before it limps towards an election. Yes, I do believe that he was told that.
Do I believe Badenoch's claim that he was simply seeking revenge for being sacked? No, I do not.
I think it is very likely that Staunton told the truth about the way in which Badenoch was seeking to micro-manage a situation in which, in theory, she should have had no involvement. I also think it is very likely that she demanded that he be sacked for doing something for which she should have accepted responsibility.
However, responsibility, truth-telling and competence are qualities not now known to this government. I am sure, however, that Badenoch can reassure herself by asking why she should accept responsibility for anything when none of her colleagues ever accept the blame. As a consequence, she proved that she could be very angry without the slightest justification during the course of her performance (that word being used wisely, in this case) at the Dispatch Box yesterday.
We should get used to this. When the rump of the Conservative party reassembles in Westminster after the next election, Badenoch is the person that they are most likely to choose as their leader since it seems unlikely that the good people of Saffron Walden will grant us the favour of dispatching her as their MP. In all likelihood, Starmer is going to have to face her vitriol week in and week out. It will make for mild entertainment, but thankfully, it will do the Tories no good.
The question that might be asked is whether a party that thinks Badenoch is the answer to any question ever likely to be fit to govern again? I correctly suggest that the question might be asked, because I think the answer is obvious. That makes the question superfluous.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Let me make it Kier “turn-again Dick Whittington” has nothing on me and Badenough!
Staunton and Badenoch can’t both be right. I’d be very surprised if Staunton, as Post Office Chairman, does not have access to a recording of their conversation. Certainly Badenoch as minister will have all her phone calls recorded, and simply has to make them available. Not doing so suggests something to hide.
On Twitter some commentators were suggesting that Badenoch can lie with impunity in Parliament. This is incorrect. Parliamentary privilege means that MPs are free to tell the truth, it does not mean they are free to lie: that is the misleading of parliament. The Treasury & Civil Service Committee said that any minister who was discovered to have knowingly lied to parliament should resign
We live in the era of AI. I doubt recordings or even videos can be regarded as reliable evidence any more.
Agreed. Very sadly the people of Saffron Walden are likely to re-elect Badenoch, and a potential Tory leader. However, Farage (who the Tories, especially the right wing nutters like Truss, Braverman, and Badenoch, dance to the tunes of) has been very clear his contempt for the Conservative Party and wanting to destroy it (see the interview with Lewis Goodall after the “Pop Con” conference).
From this, I think Farage is clearly biding his time waiting for the election to be called, and replace Tice as leader of Reform for maximum impact.
A future Badenoch led Tory party (which is a horrible thought, as would any of the other iterations would be as well!) will have to deal with a Faragest threat not interested in “reintegration” with the Tories. Thus a permanent split on the right?
There is a real chance of that
We’ve been given a window into a very dark world that abuses power so easily that it barely registers to this bunch miscreants.
Public reaction and even public knowledge was not even considered I bet. They thought Staunton was ‘one of us’ because they could not be bothered to check.
As for Badenoch – all I see is an unsuitable person who has gained a ‘good name’ and high office through a political party with no moral compass whatsoever.
But that does not matter, because if she does become leader the billionaires who will bankroll here will help her to win.
Politics is about money now – nothing else, so forget policy, forget character, forget trust – it’s all gone.
Nationalise party political funding NOW!
“Politics is about money now – nothing else, so forget policy, forget character, forget trust – it’s all gone.
Nationalise party political funding NOW!”
So pertinent PSR. Both here and in the US, the funding of politcal parties and the influence of special lobbying groups is malign. It is at the heart of the rotten core of the current government, and possibly influencing the wayward meanderings of the opposition; it is not highlighted often enough.
I really don’t understand what is going on here. I guess there are two elements; first, the truth behind who said what to whom and second, why make such a fuss about it?
All my working life my phone calls have been taped, my messages archived – even classroom teaching videoed – all for “compliance”. I have often been asked “are you worried?” … and my answer was no – the tape is for MY protection. However, it seems that for senior people this is not the case – most famously in the call between Paul Tucker (BoE) and Bob Diamond (Barclays) regarding LIBOR setting – but now with Henry Staunton. That their calls are not recorded immediately raises the question “what are they trying to hide?”.
I think the contemporaneous note made by Staunton following the call from the civil servant is strong evidence. First, the content of the call was sufficiently important and surprising to justify writing the note…. but we need to see the note made by the civil servant concerned. What they have to say is critical… but probably career ending for them if they speak up.
With regard to the conversation directly between Badenoch and Staunton I don’t really see what the fuss is. Whilst the note taken will not be verbatim it will state “someone has to take the rap” in less colloquial/more diplomatic language but it is certainly reasonable for the minister to sack the Chair if “bad things” happened on his watch. (Letting Staunton hear about it in the media is very wrong… but the sacking is not necessarily wrong).
So, why the pantomime in Parliament with all sorts of other extraneous stuff? It must be a distraction from the substance – what instructions were given to Staunton? By whom? Why? We need to hear from the key civil servants.
In the court of opinion that is the BTL comments in the FT Staunton has strong support from those that (claim to) know him; Badenoch, none. I think she has focused on internal Party positioning without a thought to the real world.
Most of us live in an untaped world, Clive. However, throughout my professional career, I noted the vast majority of conversations that I had, and most, especially those where any information was imparted. I am still inclined to do that how toprotect myself. I very much doubt the Kemi Badenoch knows anything about this.
I have always been in the habit of following up significant conversations with an email to confirm what has been agreed. Getting things in writing is the only real protection.
Indeed.
Even if your e-mail is not a perfect representation of the call/meeting it is then up to others to correct it; silence is agreement. Occasionally I have been a bit naughty and written what I wish I had said rather than what I actually said… but in all my time I have never been pulled up.
Clive Parry
“it is certainly reasonable for the minister to sack the Chair if “bad things” happened on his watch”
Staunton was appointed in December 2022. Have bad things happened ‘on his watch’?
Probably not… but possibly.
If, for example, he chose to “go slow” off his own bat then sacking would be entirely reasonable. Indeed, even if the Post Office slowed payments without his knowledge sacking might be OK; the person at the top has to take responsibility of what happens – whether they know about it or not.
This seems unlikely to be the case here… but we should not exclude the “unlikely” out of hand.
Staunton’s note sent after the civil servant call is almost a smoking gun… but we should also hear the civil servants side, too.
What is pretty clear is that Kemi Badenoch is a loose cannon who should not be allowed to run anything except an egg and spoon race.
You seem to be assuming that Starmer is going to win his seat. I live in hope of a different outcome.
Given the latest drift to the right of the Tory Party, I do wonder how much traditional tory support actually likes the direction of travel offered by the likes of Badenoch, Truss and Braverman. Assuming they win their seats at the next election, they are most likely to be the front runners to be next leader. The Tory membership is clearly hardcore right, they did after all, vote for Truss, but I’m not sure that across the country of middle England, traditional tory support likes them. For instance, in the last local election, while Sunak was trying to make a culture war of Ulez, 20mph speed limits and putting back net zero policies, many Tory voters were voting Lib Dem or Green because they actually like these policies. They like 20mph speed limits in their areas and many Tory councils have voted for them. They want flood defences because their homes are at risk. They like many green agenda policies – take note Starmer with your fiscal rules – that public opinion, even from many traditional Tory supporters is pretty clear about change and it is not to move further to the right.
As for Badenoch, well, after all the covid enquiry forgetfulness, lost whatsapp messages, changed phones, “I don’t recall” BS, no one should be surprised. They are a bunch of crooks. With a bit of luck the Tory Party will destroy itself.
Kemi Badenoch has already produced a useful immediate result. On BBC Radio 5 Live’s Nicky Campbell phone-in, I noticed that public at last has realised that the problem is now less the Post Office, but the Government (and by implication, Parliament). A public questioner made clear it was not possible to trust either the Post Office, or the Government; about anything to do with the Postmasters. Acutely, the questioner had read the reports on the Cameron Government’s awareness of Post Office activities:
“Ministers in David Cameron’s administration were told that Post Office bosses had dropped a secret investigation that may have helped to prove postmasters’ innocence while continuing to deny that the Horizon computer system was faulty, it has been claimed.
A 2016 internal investigation into how and why cash accounts on the Horizon IT system had been tampered with – which spanned 17 years of records – was suddenly dropped after postmasters began legal action.
According to the BBC, ministers in Lord Cameron’s administration were told Post Office bosses had dropped the inquiry – while denying Horizon computer system was faulty. Despite the investigation, the organisation still argued in court, two years later, that it was impossible for Fujitsu to remotely access subpostmaster accounts” (‘The Independent’, 20th February, 2024).
This is the real core of the matter. The Horizon system was introduced by the Post Office in 1999. The prosecutions and convictions began in 2000. Nobody noticed. This is how it unfolded:
• In 2000, there were 6 shortfall convictions that relied on Horizon data.
• In 2001, there were 41,
• In 2002, there were 64.
• In 2003, there were 56.
• In 2004, there were 59.
• In 2005, there were 68.
• In 2006, there were 69.
• In 2007, there were 50.
• In 2008, there were 48.
• In 2009, there were 70 (Nick Wallis, ‘Post Office Trial’, April, 2021).
Until 2009 still nobody noticed, not even, it seems the diligent James Arbuthnot. It was the Postmasters themselves, under Bates that started the co-ordinated fightback; self-help, not Parliament, MPs or least of all the owner of the Post Office, the Government. The Law itself badly failed the Postmasters.
The Post Office is the government’s tethered scapegoat. The Government leaves the Post Office in the firing line, and having to address the issues with money it doesn’t have, and its credibility in ruins; because the government fears having to face the responsibility directly; where it belongs. The key here is not even the 2016 failure of Cameron. There were 499 convictions by 2009; an average of 50 per year. There were circa 12,000 post offices in 2009 (a steep fall from over 20k in 1982). The persistent level of prosecutions and convictions 2000-2009 produced no interest or challenging questions from the Government, as owner of the Post Office. There was no apparent attempt to monitor the credibility, or reason for the trends, in the Post Office, Government, Parliament or even the Law. This is a failure of oversight on the grand scale. This whole situation is indefensible. The Post Office cannot be expected to be trusted by Postmasters. Neither can the Government; but the Postmasters are entitled to expect the Government finally to accept full, direct responsibility; and stand in the firing line.