steve
Member
Posts: 12,266
|
Post by steve on Jan 10, 2024 12:09:06 GMT
Let's see how our resident Tory apologist blames this one on the lib dems. Since 2019 while Sunakered has been either chancellor or prime minister Fujitsu, at the heart of the horizon scandal have been awarded £3.9 billion in government contracts and still run the post office IT system.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 10, 2024 12:17:14 GMT
colin"I really do think that it is this dismissive, high handed , patronising attitude which is pushing voters to more populist political offerings across europe."
Be careful, this can be an excuse for bigotry. A get out of jail card for people who have always held nativist and racist views. As a matter of interest, do you accept that a good proportion of people have always held these views and require no economic deprivation or high-handed dismissal by "wokery-mongers and liberals" to harbour and parade them? Quite often the people you caricature and deride in this way are often those in the vanguard who protect minorities from bigotry and discrimination. Or even something more extreme, potentially. I wonder if you've really been following the quite nuanced debate we've been having about language and the difficulty navigating our way through confronting uncomfortable truths about some people's motivations whilst avoiding the dangers of lazy labelling and generalisation.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,027
|
Post by neilj on Jan 10, 2024 12:23:09 GMT
This highlights the problem with just asking people if they want a tax cut in isolation, most people invariably will say yes However when you ask the question would you prioritise spending on better public services over tax cuts, most people say yes
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,822
|
Post by Danny on Jan 10, 2024 12:26:39 GMT
More or less this morning was discussing tax rises and the economy. Pointed out what I hope we see as obvious, that failing to raise income tax thresholds leads to automatic increases in tax take, and that this is rather bigger than anticipated because inflation is higher than expected.
However, they also discussed the problem of national debt, which has risen consistently under con while in office. They noted that in the past, ie labour up to the great bank fraud recession, each year we borrowed more but because the economy grew, in proportion the size of the debt fell. Whereas under con this simply has not happened. Growth has been miserable, and since our self imposed lockdowns...even more miserable.
The fact is that far from their attacks on Blair and Brown accusing them of not living within our means and paying back in good times for spending in bad, con have spent 14 years doing the exact opposite, treating this as a temporary bad time and steadily borrowing more. Whereas there doesnt seem to be any reason to think growth hasnt simply gone from bad to worse under their management, leaving a truly awful situation for the next government to pick up.
Obviously con are not acknowledging just how much the economic outlook has deteriorated under their management. But it doesnt look terribly like lab has either.
But leavign aside the problems for the next parliament, where is there any good news for this one? Those new polls this year, look like con support slipping again, heading more back towards the possibility of a total and utter rout at the next election?
Interesting to see how the post office saga pans out, but like so much lately, labour was complicit with con in supporting brexit, labour complicit in supporting lockdowns, labour complicit in excessive planning controls causing massive housing shortages, lab too should have know what was happening at the post office and ended that disaster when it began. This has become yet another example of what happens when you try to privatise public sector natural monopolies, and those new private sector institutions dash for cash. Or very possibly what they had in mind was not to upset the politicians trying to sell off those businesses by admitting they had a not fit for purpose accounting system. Or not admitting it to the public, anyway. To what extent where all these ministers aware of what was happening?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2024 12:37:32 GMT
colin "I really do think that it is this dismissive, high handed , patronising attitude which is pushing voters to more populist political offerings across europe."
Be careful, this can be an excuse for bigotry. A get out of jail card for people who have always held nativist and racist views. As a matter of interest, do you accept that a good proportion of people have always held these views and require no economic deprivation or high-handed dismissal by "wokery-mongers and liberals" to harbour and parade them? Quite often the people you caricature and deride in this way are often those in the vanguard who protect minorities from bigotry and discrimination. Or even something more extreme, potentially. I wonder if you've really been following the quite nuanced debate we've been having about language and the difficulty navigating our way through confronting uncomfortable truths about some people's motivations whilst avoiding the dangers of lazy labelling and generalisation. I think what I was describing is "bigotry" ( obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices -Webster's). Of course there are bigots-which is why we have a word to describe them. Bigots in all corners of society -no doubt. The best responses to them I have seen are destruction of their arguments. What I have a problem with is the casual attribution of bigotry to arbitrary groups of individuals whose opinions are not actually on record. Couldn't agree more about the care needed with language when commenting on the personal characteristics of others.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 10, 2024 12:54:50 GMT
@robbialive "(1) I thought we had agreed to drop the term British Nationalist. Esp as you lot disdain the idea you are nationalists. It appears from previous posting that you regard virtually everyone in Britain as a nathionalist apart from yourselves. There is not a single poster on here who opposes Scottish independence." No, I'm very happy to be called a "Scottish Nationalist" if that is shorthand for a supporter of Scottish self-determination and independence. I deliberately used "British nationalist and unionist" to soothe the feelings of (1) those who support the continued existence of the current UK state but possibly don't support the continuation of absolute Westminster sovereignty (although the ending of that sovereignty is not a major issue for them as long as their team wins the UK General Elections). The future of Northern Ireland is generally an unstated exception to that point of view because few on here think about Northern Ireland at all. It is clearly not true that nobody on here opposes Scottish independence. (2) Most but not all seem to think that Scottish voters should at some unspecified point and subject to some unspecified conditions be allowed to vote on the question but not yet and not when the Scottish electorate has returned a pro-independence referendum majority to the Scottish Parliament. Few actually support Scottish independence and there is at least one who laments that devolution occurred. Ps There is an e in Robbie as in Burns 1 & 2 above1. I'm not sure who comprises this so carefully described group. It is indeed so conditionally defined that I'm not sure you know who they are either. I have not followed opinion polls on English views on Scottish independence carefully but my impression is that if you exclude DKs, the polls split split 50:50. Bit like Scottish voters! I detect a declining English opposition to Indpendence. But I don't know the polls. No the sovereignty argument is not important to English voters. Why would you expect that anymore than that Nats are much bothered about English matters. 2. Again, I don't agree that most posters hold the views you ascribe to them: the supposed majority you identify is once again described so conditionally, & their supposed views refined so minutely, & in such a calculated fashion, that I cannot see the residue that matches yr description comprising a large group, let alone a majority of posters. The one anti-devolutionist can surely be ignored. Hard cases make bad laws. If I may be allowed to express my own view, which I have the temerity to believe is as representative of posters on here as the picture you present. A. Brexit has invalidated the conditions under which the 2014 Ref took place as no one voting in that Ref can reasonably have anticipated Brexit. There should be another Ref. & it should have happened already. I hv said that several times. Its a pity the Ref did not take place until say 2017 or 2018. B. I don't agree that every SNP election victory is a mandate for independence or an automatic Ref. Some people who vote SNP don't want a Ref & why should they be yoked to one. If you have a Ref every few years then NO can never win, except in the short term. If YES wins one of em, it's irrevocable. I don't like the way the odds are stacked in YES's favour in the long run. Find some way of holding elections in which the Ref issue is tested separately. Stick a box on the ballot paper: I dunno. But the idea that Scotland should be on a permanent Ref-footing seems odd. To suggest a parallel: If Brexit had lost, its exponents would constantly be arguing for successive Refs every time a Tory majority existed to vote for one, & to avoid splitting the party the leader would probably have agreed to one.. Would you have been happy with that? C. Despite years of SNP government & Indy propaganda there has never been a consistent majority polled for Independence. Since Brexit, posters have naturally been wary of the divisiveness, proceduralism, etc. caused by a major & irrevocable decision based on a tiny majoirty, which if YES does win seems likely to be the case. I don't think the Nats have ever faced up to this problem. It's always been the Brexiteer's argument. The separation will be simple, Independence will be so good, everyone will soon get used to it, etc. D. The Nats on here are v aggressive & this of course puts people's backs up. As posters have no vote, & cannot influence those who do, no skin in the game (yuk) a personal reaction will creep in. Yr attitude seems to be: you lot vote for British Nationalist parties, ergo you are by definition British Nationalists. What are Labour voters supposed to do? Not vote Labour until their Indy policy meets yr criteria. Come on! My feeling is that we are always asked to sympathise with yr problems & POV: you show precious little sympathy with ours, by which I mean LOCs. I say Us & You because that is always how you have presented the issue.
|
|
|
Post by James E on Jan 10, 2024 13:15:24 GMT
Savanta puts Labour 19 points ahead.
FIRST Westminster Voting Intention of 2024
📈19pt Labour lead - largest since Oct '23.
🌹Lab 45 (+2) 🌳Con 26 (-1) 🔶LD 10 (=) ➡️Reform 8 (-1) 🌍Green 5 (+2) 🎗️SNP 3 (=) ⬜️Other 4 (-1)
2,268 UK adults, 5-7 January
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,027
|
Post by neilj on Jan 10, 2024 13:21:48 GMT
This alone should have alerted the Post Office and Fujitsu that there was something dramatically wrong with their Horizon system
Hollinrake (Government Minister) says, before Horizon was introduced, there were around five convictions of sub-post office operators a year. That went up to 60 a year after Horizon was introduced
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 10, 2024 13:57:52 GMT
@robbialive "(1) I thought we had agreed to drop the term British Nationalist. Esp as you lot disdain the idea you are nationalists. It appears from previous posting that you regard virtually everyone in Britain as a nathionalist apart from yourselves. There is not a single poster on here who opposes Scottish independence." No, I'm very happy to be called a "Scottish Nationalist" if that is shorthand for a supporter of Scottish self-determination and independence. I deliberately used "British nationalist and unionist" to soothe the feelings of (1) those who support the continued existence of the current UK state but possibly don't support the continuation of absolute Westminster sovereignty (although the ending of that sovereignty is not a major issue for them as long as their team wins the UK General Elections). The future of Northern Ireland is generally an unstated exception to that point of view because few on here think about Northern Ireland at all. It is clearly not true that nobody on here opposes Scottish independence. (2) Most but not all seem to think that Scottish voters should at some unspecified point and subject to some unspecified conditions be allowed to vote on the question but not yet and not when the Scottish electorate has returned a pro-independence referendum majority to the Scottish Parliament. Ps There is an e in Robbie as in Burns 1 & 2 above1. I'm not sure who comprises this so carefully described group. It is indeed so conditionally defined that I'm not sure you know who they are either. I have not followed opinion polls on English views on Scottish independence carefully but my impression is that if you exclude DKs, the polls split split 50:50. Bit like Scottish voters! I detect a declining English opposition to Indpendence. But I don't know the polls. No the sovereignty argument is not important to English voters. Why would you expect that anymore than that Nats are much bothered about English matters. 2. Again, I don't agree that most posters hold the views you ascribe to them: the supposed majority you identify is once again described so conditionally, & their supposed views refined so minutely, & in such a calculated fashion, that I cannot see the residue that matches yr description comprising a large group, let alone a majority of posters. Plus 3. Few actually support Scottish independence and there is at least one who laments that devolution occurred. Why should they support Independence? Posters, being democrats, & having no say, presumably abide by the view of the majority who do hv a say: whch presently is a marginal NO. The one anti-devolutionist can surely be ignored. Hard cases make bad laws. If I may be allowed to express my own view, which I have the temerity to believe is as representative of posters on here as the picture you present. A. Brexit has invalidated the conditions under which the 2014 Ref took place as no one voting in that Ref can reasonably have anticipated Brexit. There should be another Ref. & it should have happened already. I hv said that several times. Its a pity the Ref did not take place until say 2017 or 2018. B. I don't agree that every SNP election victory is a mandate for independence or an automatic Ref. Some people who vote SNP don't want a Ref & why should they be yoked to one. If you have a Ref every few years then NO can never win, except in the short term. If YES wins one of em, it's irrevocable. I don't like the way the odds are stacked in YES's favour in the long run. Find some way of holding elections in which the Ref issue is tested separately. Stick a box on the ballot paper: I dunno. But the idea that Scotland should be on a permanent Ref-footing seems odd. To suggest a parallel: If Brexit had lost, its exponents would constantly be arguing for successive Refs every time a Tory majority existed to vote for one, & to avoid splitting the party the leader would probably have agreed to one.. Would you have been happy with that? C. Despite years of SNP government & Indy propaganda there has never been a consistent majority polled for Independence. Since Brexit, posters have naturally been wary of the divisiveness, proceduralism, etc. caused by a major & irrevocable decision based on a tiny majoirty, which if YES does win seems likely to be the case. I don't think the Nats have ever faced up to this problem. It's always been the Brexiteer's argument. The separation will be simple, Independence will be so good, everyone will soon get used to it, etc. D. The Nats on here are v aggressive & this of course puts people's backs up. As posters have no vote, & cannot influence those who do, no skin in the game (yuk) a personal reaction will creep in. Yr attitude seems to be: you lot vote for British Nationalist parties, ergo you are by definition British Nationalists. What are Labour voters supposed to do? Not vote Labour until their Indy policy meets yr criteria. Come on! My feeling is that we are always asked to sympathise with yr problems & POV: you show precious little sympathy with ours, by which I mean LOCs. I say Us & You because that is always how you have presented the issue. It is clearly not true that nobody on here opposes Scottish independence. I was mistaken to say the opposite: withdrawn.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 10, 2024 14:01:17 GMT
This alone should have alerted the Post Office and Fujitsu that there was something dramatically wrong with their Horizon system Hollinrake (Government Minister) says, before Horizon was introduced, there were around five convictions of sub-post office operators a year. That went up to 60 a year after Horizon was introduced I think an understated issue here is that Post Office executives were convinced that large numbers of sub postmasters were on the take, but they had no way of proving it. So to them the shortfalls shown by Horizon proved that their suspicion was right, and this was the way to clamp down on it. If the evidence appears to confirm your presuppositions you are not going to challenge it, are you? It also ought to be noted that a small proportion of sub postmasters were almost certainly on the take. Of course a blanket pardon, which is required, will let them off the hook too. My view is that the politicians, who had no vested interests, or presuppositions, should have been more curious, particularly when lobbied by multiple MPs, particularly Arbuthnot who comes very well out of this, and also Bridgen (embarassingly, given his present persona non grata status).
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jan 10, 2024 14:36:58 GMT
One point occurs to me about the proposed legislation to acquit postmasters (laudable as it is to ensure that this is done quickly), it sets a precedent for the executive to overrule the Judiciary in specific cases. At the moment the only way to do that is with the prerogative power of "Pardon" which does not expunge the offence but reflects a view of it's criminality. If the Legislature (which in this country is not as separate from the Executive as it might be) can overrule by statute to acquit, then it is only our adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights which would stand in the way of the Legislature finding someone guilty of an offence by passing an Act of Parliament.
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jan 10, 2024 15:06:59 GMT
robbiealive There had been no majority for leaving the EU before the 2016 referendum. But a referendum was held because the Tories had included that commitment in their manifesto. So if in future winning parliamentary elections doesn't give a mandate for what is in an election manifesto what does? And what political authority decides that?
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jan 10, 2024 15:09:45 GMT
One point occurs to me about the proposed legislation to acquit postmasters (laudable as it is to ensure that this is done quickly), it sets a precedent for the executive to overrule the Judiciary in specific cases. At the moment the only way to do that is with the prerogative power of "Pardon" which does not expunge the offence but reflects a view of its criminality. If the Legislature (which in this country is not as separate from the Executive as it might be) can overrule by statute to acquit, then it is only our adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights which would stand in the way of the Legislature finding someone guilty of an offence by passing an Act of Parliament. wb61It does seem like a very dangerous precedent given the Westminster Parliament's absolute sovereignty. And presumably Westminster will be legislating for all three legal jurisdictions in the UK or is this for England and Wales only?
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jan 10, 2024 15:13:43 GMT
robbiealive"To suggest a parallel: If Brexit had lost, its exponents would constantly be arguing for successive Refs every time a Tory majority existed to vote for one, & to avoid splitting the party the leader would probably have agreed to one.. Would you have been happy with that? " Happy, no. But if it had been included in a General Election manifesto and the party had won that election then they would have a mandate to do so.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,266
|
Post by steve on Jan 10, 2024 15:17:31 GMT
hiretonThe Scottish legal system is separate and control is devolved to the Scottish parliament.
|
|
shevii
Member
Posts: 2,145
Member is Online
|
Post by shevii on Jan 10, 2024 15:39:53 GMT
What would be the point of flagging up "less well educated" other than to suggest that "less well educated" make bad voting decisions? Indeed "more concerned about immigration" is flagging up potential racism as we've seen in the debate on here. I take your point, and these terms can be used as euphemisms for less generous descriptors, but the flip side is the debate about demographics and voting determinants becomes a ludicrously self conscious tip-toeing on eggshells. Neither sort of language nor debate is very illuminating. I agree with that and a number of your other posts on this subject. I was going to write a long post about pros and cons of immigration and the EU but it's too complex a subject really that would need a very long post and affects different demographics in different ways. A simplified version might be that the more educated who flock to the cities need immigration to keep things running while the less educated who stay in the towns by and large don't but it's way more complicated than that and yes we have to recognise some of this anti immigration/anti EU might be down to social attitudes as well. As for tip-toeing on eggshells I'd have no problem going to Burnley away and singing "town full of racists, you're just a town full of racists" to open up a full and frank debate on the subject :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2024 16:25:39 GMT
shevii“ As for tip-toeing on eggshells I'd have no problem going to Burnley away and singing "town full of racists, you're just a town full of racists" to open up a full and frank debate on the subject :-)” You’d certainly open up a full and frank something. Maybe not a debate, as we know it though…
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 10, 2024 17:09:22 GMT
I take your point, and these terms can be used as euphemisms for less generous descriptors, but the flip side is the debate about demographics and voting determinants becomes a ludicrously self conscious tip-toeing on eggshells. Neither sort of language nor debate is very illuminating. I agree with that and a number of your other posts on this subject. I was going to write a long post about pros and cons of immigration and the EU but it's too complex a subject really that would need a very long post and affects different demographics in different ways. A simplified version might be that the more educated who flock to the cities need immigration to keep things running while the less educated who stay in the towns by and large don't but it's way more complicated than that and yes we have to recognise some of this anti immigration/anti EU might be down to social attitudes as well. As for tip-toeing on eggshells I'd have no problem going to Burnley away and singing "town full of racists, you're just a town full of racists" to open up a full and frank debate on the subject :-) I wouldn't want to judge who was or wasn't a racist or was motivated by simplistic national pride or maliciously wanted to kick us liberals or just wanted to register their discontent. I do have examples from members my own relatively comfortable but non university educated wider family and some were definitely motivated by curbing immigration due to actual racist and xenophobic instincts and just plain, old fashioned English exceptionalist "fu Europe" nationalism. They were given great power over the fate of all of us with very little reliable information to guide them and much pernicious propaganda (only advisory you see..) including power over the fate many of us who didn't get to vote on it and whatever their motivation the resulting outcome was that the country was screwed over economically, became a basket case politically and internationally, that I lost valuable personal rights that I held dear and many of my acquaintance from other EU states went through a very stressful time and wondered whether they were welcome. Many simply left and uprooted their families even after calling this place home for many years including the family of my daughter's best friend. They no longer felt at ease in this society.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,397
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 10, 2024 18:27:51 GMT
pjw1961 The sneering question. "I'm afraid to say I've seen it happen on this very site - although not by you as best as I can recall. Statements along the lines of (obviously I paraphrase for effect) "the red wallers voted for Brexit and/or UKIP in 2015 and/or Johnson in 2019 because they are dim and hate foreigners" - an explanation that neglects that this is a group that has been routinely ignored by politicians or all stripes for the last 30 years and are understandably pretty unhappy as a result. Have a think and I'm sure you'll recall examples."
I'm not always on the site but I'm not sure people have sneered in quite the way you say. (1) The problem with paraphrasing for effect, rather than quoting from actual examples, is that it makes it difficult to prove or disprove your claims about what people have said on this site. You are creating a contrived filter that may distort what people do in fact comment? . (2) What I do recall is that supporters of Brexit on this site have claimed that the opponents of Brexit stated/believed that Brexit's supporters are dim & racist. There are now two sets of paraphasers somewhat bizarrely claming the same thing! I would prefer some direct evidence. That's not v clear but it's as good as I can get it, (3) What remainers have said is that in general leavers are less well-educated than remainers & are more concerned with immigration. Both things are true. UKIP went nowhere as long as it merely argued for leaving the EU on constitutional, abstract nationalistic grounds. The EU was invisible as a concern. As we all know: the polling trackers show that: it was not until Farage linked the EU to increaing migration from eastern Europe that its polling/electoral success vaulted. I did once look at the kind of people UKIP put up as candidates when they stood everywhere. It made gruesome reading: many of them were out-and-out racists. (BTW I have removed my curse from yr house & progeny & removed the pins from the doll that resembles you.) As I have already said, people read the same posts we do and can form their own opinions, but all I will say is I had no difficulty in finding such cases from a brief look - to give an example, since it seems I must, a specific Midlands town that voted heavily for Brexit being described as "a bastion of xenophobic stupidity." All this is distracting from what my original post was about, which is that if you don't want working class voters in previously Labour areas to end up voting for the far right, then understanding their problems and actually doing something to address economic inequality is essential. Do that, and the right-wing 'culture wars' narrative will wither on the vine. Oddly enough the Guardian also musing today on the middle classes getting more progressive, while the left is losing the working class: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/10/europe-left-crisis-research-parties-progressive-politics
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 10, 2024 18:35:38 GMT
Reports that the writs for Wellingborough and Kingswood are likely to be moved tomorrow. If confirmed, a May election appears less likely.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 10, 2024 19:29:52 GMT
Reports that the writs for Wellingborough and Kingswood are likely to be moved tomorrow. If confirmed, a May election appears less likely. The May election boat more or less sailed when Sunak talked about his working assumption being that the election would take place later in the year. I know we should never totally hang our hats on the words of a politician, but I thought Sunak pretty much ruled May out in his recent statement on election timing.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 10, 2024 19:45:15 GMT
I wouldn't want to judge who was or wasn't a racist or was motivated by simplistic national pride or maliciously wanted to kick us liberals or just wanted to register their discontent. I do have examples from members my own relatively comfortable but non university educated wider family and some were definitely motivated by curbing immigration due to actual racist and xenophobic instincts and just plain, old fashioned English exceptionalist "fu Europe" nationalism. They were given great power over the fate of all of us with very little reliable information to guide them and much pernicious propaganda (only advisory you see..) including power over the fate many of us who didn't get to vote on it and whatever their motivation the resulting outcome was that the country was screwed over economically, became a basket case politically and internationally, that I lost valuable personal rights that I held dear and many of my acquaintance from other EU states went through a very stressful time and wondered whether they were welcome. Many simply left and uprooted their families even after calling this place home for many years including the family of my daughter's best friend. They no longer felt at ease in this society. How could they let such inferiors have a say against the "greater good" EU Federal project. Truly awful.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 10, 2024 19:56:00 GMT
Reports that the writs for Wellingborough and Kingswood are likely to be moved tomorrow. If confirmed, a May election appears less likely. The May election boat more or less sailed when Sunak talked about his working assumption being that the election would take place later in the year. I know we should never totally hang our hats on the words of a politician, but I thought Sunak pretty much ruled May out in his recent statement on election timing. I find this to be far firmer evidence than anything Sunak said last week. He did not explicitly rule out a May election but rather spoke in terms of ' a working assumption.' That could easily be construed as a form of words to keep his options open. However, both by elections are apparently scheduled to take place on 15th February despite the fact that the seats could have been kept vacant until Easter. The Tories appear lkely to lose both - and in doing so to generate momentum for Labour. A May election would have made it easy to avoid the by elections , and I find it significant that that is not going to happen. Were a May election now to be called - with Dissolution needed in late March - the obvious question from within Tory ranks will be 'Why on earth did you bother to hold the by elections?' Stranger things have happened - so we still cannot rule it out completely.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 10, 2024 20:41:36 GMT
This alone should have alerted the Post Office and Fujitsu that there was something dramatically wrong with their Horizon system Hollinrake (Government Minister) says, before Horizon was introduced, there were around five convictions of sub-post office operators a year. That went up to 60 a year after Horizon was introduced I think an understated issue here is that Post Office executives were convinced that large numbers of sub postmasters were on the take, but they had no way of proving it. So to them the shortfalls shown by Horizon proved that their suspicion was right, and this was the way to clamp down on it. If the evidence appears to confirm your presuppositions you are not going to challenge it, are you? It also ought to be noted that a small proportion of sub postmasters were almost certainly on the take. Of course a blanket pardon, which is required, will let them off the hook too. My view is that the politicians, who had no vested interests, or presuppositions, should have been more curious, particularly when lobbied by multiple MPs, particularly Arbuthnot who comes very well out of this, and also Bridgen (embarassingly, given his present persona non grata status). This reminds me of Mike Ashley's management style at Sports Direct. He worked on the assumption that most of his employees were thieves and he went from there. I accept business owners and managers have to be aware of the miniscule levels of employee pilfering that inevitably goes on, and try and prevent it where possible, but if you're right, and Post Office executives suspected that many of their employees were embezzling money at the post offices that they ran, then it sounds like a rotten business, devoid of trust, good faith and a moral compass. It reaped what it sowed in other words. Owners and Managers are ultimately responsible for the businesses that they run. They shape its culture and ultimate success. Employees depend on their calibre, competence and, in the end, basic humanity.
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Jan 10, 2024 20:47:03 GMT
@robbialive "(1) I thought we had agreed to drop the term British Nationalist. Esp as you lot disdain the idea you are nationalists. It appears from previous posting that you regard virtually everyone in Britain as a nathionalist apart from yourselves. There is not a single poster on here who opposes Scottish independence." No, I'm very happy to be called a "Scottish Nationalist" if that is shorthand for a supporter of Scottish self-determination and independence. I deliberately used "British nationalist and unionist" to soothe the feelings of (1) those who support the continued existence of the current UK state but possibly don't support the continuation of absolute Westminster sovereignty (although the ending of that sovereignty is not a major issue for them as long as their team wins the UK General Elections). The future of Northern Ireland is generally an unstated exception to that point of view because few on here think about Northern Ireland at all. It is clearly not true that nobody on here opposes Scottish independence. (2) Most but not all seem to think that Scottish voters should at some unspecified point and subject to some unspecified conditions be allowed to vote on the question but not yet and not when the Scottish electorate has returned a pro-independence referendum majority to the Scottish Parliament. Few actually support Scottish independence and there is at least one who laments that devolution occurred. Ps There is an e in Robbie as in Burns 1 & 2 above1. I'm not sure who comprises this so carefully described group. It is indeed so conditionally defined that I'm not sure you know who they are either. I have not followed opinion polls on English views on Scottish independence carefully but my impression is that if you exclude DKs, the polls split split 50:50. Bit like Scottish voters! I detect a declining English opposition to Indpendence. But I don't know the polls. No the sovereignty argument is not important to English voters. Why would you expect that anymore than that Nats are much bothered about English matters. 2. Again, I don't agree that most posters hold the views you ascribe to them: the supposed majority you identify is once again described so conditionally, & their supposed views refined so minutely, & in such a calculated fashion, that I cannot see the residue that matches yr description comprising a large group, let alone a majority of posters. The one anti-devolutionist can surely be ignored. Hard cases make bad laws. If I may be allowed to express my own view, which I have the temerity to believe is as representative of posters on here as the picture you present. A. Brexit has invalidated the conditions under which the 2014 Ref took place as no one voting in that Ref can reasonably have anticipated Brexit. There should be another Ref. & it should have happened already. I hv said that several times. Its a pity the Ref did not take place until say 2017 or 2018. B. I don't agree that every SNP election victory is a mandate for independence or an automatic Ref. Some people who vote SNP don't want a Ref & why should they be yoked to one. If you have a Ref every few years then NO can never win, except in the short term. If YES wins one of em, it's irrevocable. I don't like the way the odds are stacked in YES's favour in the long run. Find some way of holding elections in which the Ref issue is tested separately. Stick a box on the ballot paper: I dunno. But the idea that Scotland should be on a permanent Ref-footing seems odd. To suggest a parallel: If Brexit had lost, its exponents would constantly be arguing for successive Refs every time a Tory majority existed to vote for one, & to avoid splitting the party the leader would probably have agreed to one.. Would you have been happy with that? C. Despite years of SNP government & Indy propaganda there has never been a consistent majority polled for Independence. Since Brexit, posters have naturally been wary of the divisiveness, proceduralism, etc. caused by a major & irrevocable decision based on a tiny majoirty, which if YES does win seems likely to be the case. I don't think the Nats have ever faced up to this problem. It's always been the Brexiteer's argument. The separation will be simple, Independence will be so good, everyone will soon get used to it, etc. D. The Nats on here are v aggressive & this of course puts people's backs up. As posters have no vote, & cannot influence those who do, no skin in the game (yuk) a personal reaction will creep in. Yr attitude seems to be: you lot vote for British Nationalist parties, ergo you are by definition British Nationalists. What are Labour voters supposed to do? Not vote Labour until their Indy policy meets yr criteria. Come on! My feeling is that we are always asked to sympathise with yr problems & POV: you show precious little sympathy with ours, by which I mean LOCs. I say Us & You because that is always how you have presented the issue. On your B above I think about 90% of the supporters of independence I know (which is about 70% of the people I associate with) would agree there should be no referendum: they think a simple vote for independence should be enough and a referendum is a Westminster trick to block independence
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 10, 2024 20:59:10 GMT
I wouldn't want to judge who was or wasn't a racist or was motivated by simplistic national pride or maliciously wanted to kick us liberals or just wanted to register their discontent. I do have examples from members my own relatively comfortable but non university educated wider family and some were definitely motivated by curbing immigration due to actual racist and xenophobic instincts and just plain, old fashioned English exceptionalist "fu Europe" nationalism. They were given great power over the fate of all of us with very little reliable information to guide them and much pernicious propaganda (only advisory you see..) including power over the fate many of us who didn't get to vote on it and whatever their motivation the resulting outcome was that the country was screwed over economically, became a basket case politically and internationally, that I lost valuable personal rights that I held dear and many of my acquaintance from other EU states went through a very stressful time and wondered whether they were welcome. Many simply left and uprooted their families even after calling this place home for many years including the family of my daughter's best friend. They no longer felt at ease in this society. How could they let such inferiors have a say against the "greater good" EU Federal project. Truly awful. I guess I wasn't very clear. What I meant was this power was handed to everyone with absolutely no reliable guidance or information on how to use it or what the likely results of using it would look like. That was the cock up. But Cameron in his post Indy ref arrogance thought it wouldn't be a problem which is why zero preparation was done to prepare for what actually happened. I'm sure some people did actually vote leave for principled reasons of sovereignty or because they believed the economic idea of global Britain etc but I do think the moral onus was on leavers to have a greater understanding of what they were doing because the result of their action was such an intangible unknown. In voting remain we knew exactly what we were voting for. To keep our EU rights and economic opportunities, to keep the status quo at least in the arena of European relations.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 10, 2024 21:06:10 GMT
How could they let such inferiors have a say against the "greater good" EU Federal project. Truly awful. I guess I wasn't very clear. What I meant was this power was handed to everyone with absolutely no reliable guidance or information on how to use it or what the likely results of using it would look like. That was the cock up. But Cameron in his post Indy ref arrogance thought it wouldn't be a problem which is why zero preparation was done to prepare for what actually happened. I'm sure some people did actually vote leave for principled reasons of sovereignty or because they believed the economic idea of global Britain etc but I do think the moral onus was on leavers to have a greater understanding of what they were doing because the result of their action was such an intangible unknown. In voting remain we knew exactly what we were voting for. To keep our EU rights and economic opportunities, to keep the status quo at least in the arena of European relations. One could argue our pendular divorce from the EU was a bit extreme. I suppose it will be on the next Government to "make Brexit work", at least better. A vote for Brexit could be seen as a vote against a complacent establishment, possibly well exemplified in Cameron. In any case, we're still to find the right lane on the European relations superhighway.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 10, 2024 21:08:40 GMT
I guess I wasn't very clear. What I meant was this power was handed to everyone with absolutely no reliable guidance or information on how to use it or what the likely results of using it would look like. That was the cock up. But Cameron in his post Indy ref arrogance thought it wouldn't be a problem which is why zero preparation was done to prepare for what actually happened. I'm sure some people did actually vote leave for principled reasons of sovereignty or because they believed the economic idea of global Britain etc but I do think the moral onus was on leavers to have a greater understanding of what they were doing because the result of their action was such an intangible unknown. In voting remain we knew exactly what we were voting for. To keep our EU rights and economic opportunities, to keep the status quo at least in the arena of European relations. One could argue our pendular divorce from the EU was a bit extreme. I suppose it will be on the next Government to "make Brexit work", at least better. A vote for Brexit could be seen as a vote against a complacent establishment, possibly well exemplified in Cameron. In any case, we're still to find the right lane on the European relations superhighway. "In any case, we're still to find the right lane on the European relations superhighway." - As opposed to the drainage ditch we're currently in?
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 10, 2024 21:17:29 GMT
pjw1961 The sneering question. "I'm afraid to say I've seen it happen on this very site - although not by you as best as I can recall. Statements along the lines of (obviously I paraphrase for effect) "the red wallers voted for Brexit and/or UKIP in 2015 and/or Johnson in 2019 because they are dim and hate foreigners" - an explanation that neglects that this is a group that has been routinely ignored by politicians or all stripes for the last 30 years and are understandably pretty unhappy as a result. Have a think and I'm sure you'll recall examples."
I'm not always on the site but I'm not sure people have sneered in quite the way you say. (1) The problem with paraphrasing for effect, rather than quoting from actual examples, is that it makes it difficult to prove or disprove your claims about what people have said on this site. You are creating a contrived filter that may distort what people do in fact comment? . (2) What I do recall is that supporters of Brexit on this site have claimed that the opponents of Brexit stated/believed that Brexit's supporters are dim & racist. There are now two sets of paraphasers somewhat bizarrely claming the same thing! I would prefer some direct evidence. That's not v clear but it's as good as I can get it, (3) What remainers have said is that in general leavers are less well-educated than remainers & are more concerned with immigration. Both things are true. UKIP went nowhere as long as it merely argued for leaving the EU on constitutional, abstract nationalistic grounds. The EU was invisible as a concern. As we all know: the polling trackers show that: it was not until Farage linked the EU to increaing migration from eastern Europe that its polling/electoral success vaulted. I did once look at the kind of people UKIP put up as candidates when they stood everywhere. It made gruesome reading: many of them were out-and-out racists. (BTW I have removed my curse from yr house & progeny & removed the pins from the doll that resembles you.) As I have already said, people read the same posts we do and can form their own opinions, but all I will say is I had no difficulty in finding such cases from a brief look - to give an example, since it seems I must, a specific Midlands town that voted heavily for Brexit being described as "a bastion of xenophobic stupidity." All this is distracting from what my original post was about, which is that if you don't want working class voters in previously Labour areas to end up voting for the far right, then understanding their problems and actually doing something to address economic inequality is essential. Do that, and the right-wing 'culture wars' narrative will wither on the vine. Oddly enough the Guardian also musing today on the middle classes getting more progressive, while the left is losing the working class: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/10/europe-left-crisis-research-parties-progressive-politicsAs others have pointed out more eloquently there's a danger of patronising those belonging to whatever 'white working class' means this days by leaning towards excusing xenophobic or nativist attitudes held by certain groups. Such attitudes exist across society and shouldn't be excused anywhere, we're all grown-ups, whatever newspapers we read. The very phrase 'white working class' is difficult to define anyway as it could potentially cover everything from the reasonably wealthy who may just have not gone on to higher education, ie tradesmen (and I've met many very thoughtful examples of them) to the vulnerable and really struggling who in reality probably don't vote at all, to everything in between, some far more deserving of political attention than others.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,822
|
Post by Danny on Jan 10, 2024 21:29:42 GMT
I think an understated issue here is that Post Office executives were convinced that large numbers of sub postmasters were on the take, but they had no way of proving it. So to them the shortfalls shown by Horizon proved that their suspicion was right, and this was the way to clamp down on it. If the evidence appears to confirm your presuppositions you are not going to challenge it, are you? It also ought to be noted that a small proportion of sub postmasters were almost certainly on the take. I am still puzzled how you can be on the take without it being traceable? The post office mostly handles transactions and gets commission on them. What post office business is it possible to transact without there turning up shortfalls of something? Classically, you might in a shop buy and sell twice as much stuff as you are declaring to authorities, but post offices can't buy stamps down the market and then pass them off as real stamps. How do you sell a car licence or TV licence and pocket the cash without recording you handed out the license? It would surely become obvious that a car had no recorded licence? Amongst other problems, horizon doesnt seem to have allowed postmasters to check their own accounts to see how errors could have entered the totals.
|
|