General Election, June 8th

[LiberalFox]

On 5/28/2017 at 08:59, katieakita said:

 Now have more time to explain why the Lib/Dems failed the public so badly over postal affairs. Royal Mail was sold off at a greatly reduced price everybody knows and accepts that. As a private company it can only be a matter of time before Royal Mail look at their business model, will they continue to deliver post for rivals at a loss or will they tell the regulator where to go. Will they continue to deliver post 6 days a week to non profit making routes or will they up prices one thing for sure is service levels will drop. As for the Liberals and the Post Office where to start. The 1st postal  minister Ed Davey promised £300 of extra government work and to make the Post Office the front office of government. Instead the figure has halved probably best highlighted by the DVLA saving £20 million a year by scrapping tax discs that were issued by the Post Office the fact that non payment of vehicle licence fees has risen by over £150 million a year since the scrapping of paper licences did not stop the bonus payments for DVLA officials for delivering this "£20 Million saving".

 

Vince Cable could and should have pushed for a Post Bank something that has been a success in every country that has launched one. There were a few options to go with this the major one would have been to rectify the failings of project Merlin that cost the taxpayer £190 billion at the start of the coalition government. Would it not have made more sense when it became very clear the banks would not lend to business's and targets were continually missed for the Business secretary Vince Cable to grow a pair and call time on the banks who were clearly not interested in meeting any agreed targets. Rather than give tens of billions to the banks as a reward for nearly bankrupting the country would it not have made sense for the government to lend money from its own bank to business setting the loan criteria and the rates rather than have the banks taking the p1ss saying nobody wants to borrow the money at rates of 24% (which my bank offered me for being a good business customer). Targets could have been reached and the profits would have come back to the treasury rather than the banks. If that is too extreme the French Post Bank model generates 1 Billion euros a year profit dealing with the mainly socially excluded for Bank accounts. Basically working with credit unions to remove the need for pay day loan companies  as all they do is keep the poorest poor or does the country need the likes of Wonga. 

 

From the pittance the government got for Royal Mail £1.34 billion was allocated to the Post Office to deliver the latest restructuring program Network Transformation and the management team that had failed to deliver on the 3 previous attempts were giving this vast some to try again notwithstanding that the Post Office as a government owned company has never been held to account or had to justify how taxpayers money was spent. Despite concerns raised by the likes of the union representing the Post Office, the Rural Shop Alliance, the Association of convenience stores, the Citizens Advice Bureau they were ignored and the idiots responsible for previous failed programs were given licence to spend and waste. A look around shows the success of this with Post Offices closing and turning up in the back of your local convenience store or tucked away in a corner of WH Smiths or rurally down to a van once a week or like Market Bosworth not having one. Of course they are open longer not that the advertised hours are kept or they have staff trained to do the work. When they were 15,000 post Offices we had to many so they were paid to shut by the taxpayer one of the many failings of the latest fools errand was to increase opening hours to more than when there was 15,000 offices but to pay those running the offices 15% less than before. Rurally nationwide many offices have shut or services have been slashed to one or 2 mornings a week. When asked about the rising amount of closures the Postal Minister Norman Lamb deferred to the Post Office and stated that numbers were not dropping whatever concerns MP's even though 3 rural offices had shut in just his own constituencies in the previous 12 months. When it was clear that the conversion targets were not being met the Post Office went to the next Postal Minister Jo Swinson with a proposal that another £680 billion was required for the program to be completed but that from being a voluntary program it would need to become compulsory for Post Offices to take on the new contract or be sacked. Post Offices have been shut down experienced Post Office owners paid off  and the business given to a neighbouring shop for little or no money but on greatly reduced pay to save costs. Sadly on a weekly basis new operators are now realising that this is a waste of time so the closure list continues to grow. 

 

Cross party concerns were raised continually about the conduct of the Post Office and the contracts on offer described as Dickensian by some Tory MP's in fact one of the savings the Post Office put in place was a change in contract to avoid them paying National Insurance contributions which has produced a saving to the Post Office of over £11 million a year at the exchequers expense. Something that went completely against government policy and something that all the parties plan to outlaw (well certainly the Conservatives and Labour) look forward to Matt P's explanation as to how the Conservatives are going to deal with sham contracts like Uber's when they are one of the worst culprits. 

 

My real gripe though with the LIb/Dems though is the handling of the horizon (useless outdated computer system) fiasco. For a number of years there has been complaints about the conduct of Post Office Ltd and the treatment of Postmasters accused of "stealing money". People have gone to prison, at least one killed themselves people have been bankrupted by the Post Office and lost their business and reputation. Complaints about this have been going on for years and hundreds of cross party MP's have raised concerns having looked at the information themselves or finding themselves unhappy with the response and conduct of the Post Office. Every single time during their spell in power when either this latest closure program that was costing around £7 million a week or the conduct and integrity of the Post Office was questioned the spineless successive Lib/Dem Minister deferred to the Post Office and read out and maintained anything this accused tax payer funded organisation told them at no time having the courage to look for themselves. After threats of legal action against the Post Office it was announced that the Post Office had appointed the best Independent firm of forensic accountants and computer experts to look into these claims and exonerate them. Despite taking years and costing millions in legal fees to the tax payer to get to this stage it would be hard to argue that things were not moving on. However problems arose at the cross party committee meeting when the Best Forensic accountants gave their initial findings and were clearly a little bit more independent than the Post Office had bargained for. 18 months or so down the line they had found a number of issues with the computer and the Post Offices conduct but their biggest problem was that the Post Office had constantly failed to co-operate with them and would not release information to them that they had requested to help conduct their investigations. The committee were furious with the conduct of the Post Office and ordered them to comply and assist this firm of Forensic Accountants with their investigation. The Post Offices CEO who is paid around £1 million a year by the taxpayer maintained the mistake was by the accountants who had requested the wrong information by giving the Post Office the wrong dates. When questioned directly about this by the Chair of the committee  the Forensic accountants maintained they had given the correct dates but the Post Office maintained the wrong dates had been supplied. The Chairman of the committee actually had the evidence  in front of him and new the accountant was telling the truth and the Post Office were not something the Liberal Minister was made aware of. At what stage if you are supposed to be in charge of this does alarm bells start ringing and do you keep giving the accused £7 million a week to carry on with a program only they maintain is succeeding. There is little point for me in seeking power when if you get it you do nothing with it. 

 

Finally a date was given for the completed investigation by this company 2nd sight to be released and then HMG could at least deal with the findings. The day before the report was to be published 2nd sight were sacked by the Post Office and ordered to destroy all evidence and a gagging order was imposed on them. Thankfully a Conservative MP got wind of this and stopped the disposal of evidence and gagging order and the completed report was published by the BBC despite threats of legal action from Post Office Ltd. The Post Office hastily supplied their own findings clearing themselves, something the Lib/Dem Minister endorsed.

 

In the present we have a high court action taking place this has cost tens of millions to get under written as single people have grouped together to take on the tax payer funded Post Office and we also have a high number of criminal case reviews taking place A group of MP's so disgusted by the conduct of the Post Office went to "friends in the City"  to underwrite this class action and a quick look at the evidence was all they needed to come up with the funding. When prosecuting these individuals one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Post Office was that nobody else had access to the computer system as it was totally secure hence any losses would be down to the individual. The Post Office have now reluctantly disclosed that in fact 3rd party access to the system had happened and had always been happening. Something that not only casts huge doubts on any convictions but now also leaves the Tax payer owned Post liable to a charge of miss selling contracts to anyone who has bought a Post Office. The Lib/Dems when in control of the Post Office did nothing despite all the warning signs and concerns. £2 billion has been wasted that is nearly half what we the tax payer got for Royal Mail, the Post Office has been destroyed and I would not like to put a price on the cost to the taxpayer of rectifying the Post Offices conduct. In the scheme of things this is a drop in the Ocean but honestly o what basis could you or would you trust the Lib/Dems to run the country if given power.

 

Sorry for not responding sooner.

 

I can't disagree with most of this. I don't know why individual Lib Dems chose to act the way they did, it sounds like the conduct of senior employees of the post office has been quite questionable. As you say there is no point seeking power if you do nothing with it, I think that sums up a lot of the failures of the coalition from a Lib Dem point of view. 

 

The point about the post bank is interesting, as you say the banks dragged their heels a bit in making credit available for businesses which was the rationale behind supporting the banks in the first place. I'm a big fan of credit unions and hate payday loan companies as I think they are highly exploitative. I think credit unions are a great idea as they can provide the same service as the loansharks without the negatives. I'd like the government to encourage less monopololisation in the banking sector too. 

 

On restructuring, I think a lot of the problem is the way the government tries to save money by taking a top down approach with not a lot of joined up thinking involved. 

 

I read about the class action over the Horizon computer system, I'm not a legal expert but the case does sound concerning, I just hope the truth is revealed whatever that is. I'll certainly never try to run a post office after reading about that. There's a few things from reading about it that concern me but I'm not an expert, I only know what I've read in a few hours of looking it up.

 

-I can believe the computer system is rubbish. The public sector is great at paying a fortune for bespoke IT systems that are obsolete before they enter service. 

-I don't like the amount of strict liability that people are asked to take on when buying a post office.

-The problems with "plea bargaining" appear to arise again. Lots of individuals pleaded guilty under advice from their legal advisers to avoid potential custodial sentences - this made it harder for any injustices to be uncovered.

 

It all sounds quite nightmarish.

 

I wouldn't trust any politicians to run the country, good Liberals should be standing up against concentrations of power and providing and maintaining the conditions that allow the country to run. It's a shame the party may have failed on this issue. It's good to hear about things like this so thank you for writing it out.

 

 

 

 

[katieakita]

13 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

 

Sorry for not responding sooner.

 

I can't disagree with most of this. I don't know why individual Lib Dems chose to act the way they did, it sounds like the conduct of senior employees of the post office has been quite questionable. As you say there is no point seeking power if you do nothing with it, I think that sums up a lot of the failures of the coalition from a Lib Dem point of view. 

 

The point about the post bank is interesting, as you say the banks dragged their heels a bit in making credit available for businesses which was the rationale behind supporting the banks in the first place. I'm a big fan of credit unions and hate payday loan companies as I think they are highly exploitative. I think credit unions are a great idea as they can provide the same service as the loansharks without the negatives. I'd like the government to encourage less monopololisation in the banking sector too. 

 

On restructuring, I think a lot of the problem is the way the government tries to save money by taking a top down approach with not a lot of joined up thinking involved. 

 

I read about the class action over the Horizon computer system, I'm not a legal expert but the case does sound concerning, I just hope the truth is revealed whatever that is. I'll certainly never try to run a post office after reading about that. There's a few things from reading about it that concern me but I'm not an expert, I only know what I've read in a few hours of looking it up.

 

-I can believe the computer system is rubbish. The public sector is great at paying a fortune for bespoke IT systems that are obsolete before they enter service. 

-I don't like the amount of strict liability that people are asked to take on when buying a post office.

-The problems with "plea bargaining" appear to arise again. Lots of individuals pleaded guilty under advice from their legal advisers to avoid potential custodial sentences - this made it harder for any injustices to be uncovered.

 

It all sounds quite nightmarish.

 

I wouldn't trust any politicians to run the country, good Liberals should be standing up against concentrations of power and providing and maintaining the conditions that allow the country to run. It's a shame the party may have failed on this issue. It's good to hear about things like this so thank you for writing it out.

 

 

 

 

Your honesty does you credit. It is a sad on going state of affairs that I can sit with the local Tory MP for my office point out the conduct of Post Office ltd have them admit their conduct breaks not only government policy, Criminal law and Business contract law then do nothing about it. With the Uber ruling imminent the Government owned Post Office does face very interesting times ahead. Public spending needs to be kept in check but how that money is spent does need to be accounted for. At best the sitting Ministers were naive and hoodwinked but the upcoming court case will be very damaging for many and deservedly so.

[Dr The Singh]

28 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

 

I'd like to ask Mrs May about this.

Absolutely, I've been in that part of the world, where the fook are they going to get all of those Virgins?

[LiberalFox]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57e8c2eae4b0e81629aa08f4

If that was UKIP on Islam it would be considered racist.

 

Were they actually anything to do with Momentum though? It looks like some asshole was handing out leaflets to people as they arrived but doesn't look like they were organised by momentum. 

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, Bryn said:

I'm going to ask a genuine question here, because my knowledge of economics isn't brilliant (probably above average in the grand scheme of things and I'm probably more likely to ask when I don't know as well); what's the evidence that having a larger economy (as in, more pounds in the pot and more production) is directly equivalent to a safer, healthier, and happier population?

I'm not really qualified to answer my A-level in economics is well out of date, but I'll have a go:

 

Having growth and a larger economy doesn't mean anything if the distribution of wealth is uneven. At the moment there is clear inequality the rich are getting richer and the cost of living is going up and more and more are earning less than a living wage, despite reported growth many companies and individuals are not paying their share of tax. Growing the economy will not help if taxes are not collected and instead funds are channeled off shore and end up in the pockets of the elite where the government can't reach them. On the other hand in an efficient free market growth and re-investment will see job creation and higher wages which should in theory make everyone happier and richer but doesn't necessarily improve public services without the correct level of taxation and regulation.

 

So economic growth is not a guarantee of increasing the public coffers. Even if it does increase the public pot there is no guarantee of increased wealth distribution, improved national security, a better health service and increased general happines. It does give the government more money to fund the projects it sees as important, but if they spunk it up the wall on vanity projects and white elephants then it doesn't help anyone.

 

 

[The Doctor]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

 You have fell into that trap a lot have by assuming anyone who disliked Clinton wanted the Donald, which again, simply isn't true and isn't backed up by any evidence. 

Except it is true simply because of how much of a two party system the US is. Rejecting Clinton meant wanting trump, even if just as a lesser of two evils view.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Except it is true simply because of how much of a two party system the US is. Rejecting Clinton meant wanting trump, even if just as a lesser of two evils view.

Gary Jonson?

[Foxxed]

3 hours ago, Bryn said:

I'm going to ask a genuine question here, because my knowledge of economics isn't brilliant (probably above average in the grand scheme of things and I'm probably more likely to ask when I don't know as well); what's the evidence that having a larger economy (as in, more pounds in the pot and more production) is directly equivalent to a safer, healthier, and happier population?

It depends on how the money is spent and distributed and of course there are non monetary factors to a good life. But trying telling a mum who's visiting a foodbank to feed her kids that money won't necessarily make her happier, and that the government having less tax money for her kids' schools and doctors isn't such a big deal. Get the mentally unwell off the streets and families no longer needing foodbanks and the argument has more weight of course.

[The Doctor]

34 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Gary Jonson?

I don't believe you're ignorant enough to genuinely not understand the point (that in a two party system rejection of one party is by default endorsement of the other), nor to think that the US isn't a two party system, so I've got to ask what the point of this post was.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

I don't believe you're ignorant enough to genuinely not understand the point (that in a two party system rejection of one party is by default endorsement of the other), nor to think that the US isn't a two party system, so I've got to ask what the point of this post was.

It's possible to vote for another candidate other than Clinton or Trump. You don't have to support either.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's possible to vote for another candidate other than Clinton or Trump. You don't have to support either.

Of course it is possible, but given the current situation over here a vote for any other candidate either intentionally or unintentionally plays into the hands of one of the two main candidates, and can therefore be thought of as tacit support for them - simply because no other candidate stands a chance and therefore third-party votes have more overall significance in removing vote numbers from one of the two main candidates than giving one to the third-party one.

 

I don't like it, but that's the way the system is here. I don't like people voting third-party and then washing their hands of what is going on Stateside and bleating that they're not in any way responsible.

[The Doctor]

13 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's possible to vote for another candidate other than Clinton or Trump. You don't have to support either.

So, you genuinely don't get how a two party system works... You can waste your vote on a third party, but refusing to get behind one candidate by default aids the other.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

So, you genuinely don't get how a two party system works... You can waste your vote on a third party, but refusing to get behind one candidate by default aids the other.

Which candidate are you helping by not voting for either?

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Which candidate are you helping by not voting for either?

Whichever candidate comes from the party you disagree with more. Traditional Republicans who instead voted libertarian or tea party did nothing more than take votes away from trump, and traditional democrats who voted green just took votes from Hilary.

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Of course it is possible, but given the current situation over here a vote for any other candidate either intentionally or unintentionally plays into the hands of one of the two main candidates, and can therefore be thought of as tacit support for them - simply because no other candidate stands a chance and therefore third-party votes have more overall significance in removing vote numbers from one of the two main candidates than giving one to the third-party one.

 

I don't like it, but that's the way the system is here. I don't like people voting third-party and then washing their hands of what is going on Stateside and bleating that they're not in any way responsible.

Yes but we are in England and not eligible to vote, so can quite easily not support either ffs.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Yes but we are in England and not eligible to vote, so can quite easily not support either ffs.

Of course, you're under much less duress to make a choice between them over here where the choice doesn't matter much.

 

That all being said...I'm reasonably sure that there is practically no-one, in England, the US or otherwise who is reasonably well-acquainted with the situation who did and does not have a preference between the policies of those two candidates, even if they think they're both so bad they wouldn't vote for either.

 

If a person has a preference for Trumps policies, I'd rather they just come out and say it than using the figleaf of Clinton being so bad (which, incidentally, she was).

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

8 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

Show me where I wrote that - now you jog on internet warrior.

Swan Lesta

• First Team
• 
•  
• 5,635 posts

More posts than me you internet warrior....

[Strokes]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Of course, you're under much less duress to make a choice between them over here where the choice doesn't matter much.

 

That all being said...I'm reasonably sure that there is practically no-one, in England, the US or otherwise who is reasonably well-acquainted with the situation who did and does not have a preference between the policies of those two candidates, even if they think they're both so bad they wouldn't vote for either.

 

If a person has a preference for Trumps policies, I'd rather they just come out and say it than using the figleaf of Clinton being so bad (which, incidentally, she was).

I dislike them both isn't enough for you? For what benefit does it matter that I would have preferred Trump to Clinton (it doesn't mean I endorse anything from him), I would have preferred most other would be candidates to both. 

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I dislike them both isn't enough for you? For what benefit does it matter that I would have preferred Trump to Clinton (it doesn't mean I endorse anything from him), I would have preferred most other would be candidates to both. 

 

If you preferred Trump to Clinton, I would assume that there would be at least some policies he espoused that you were in favour of? Like I said, I honestly don't think there were many truthful fence-sitters.

 

But yes, because you're not a US voter, what you and all other non-US-voters think of them (including myself) on here is so much hot air. The discussion as it relates to the problem of an ingrained two-party system and how third-party voters play into that is however, IMO, interesting.

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If you preferred Trump to Clinton, I would assume that there would be at least some policies he espoused that you were in favour of? Like I said, I honestly don't think there were many truthful fence-sitters.

 

But yes, because you're not a US voter, what you and all other non-US-voters think of them (including myself) on here is so much hot air. The discussion as it relates to the problem of an ingrained two-party system and how third-party voters play into that is however, IMO, interesting.

I'm not big on US politics, so I don't know. 

If I asked you which do you prefer out of rape or child abuse, does that help you understand?

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I'm not big on US politics, so I don't know. 

If I asked you which do you prefer out of rape or child abuse, does that help you understand?

 

 

That's fair enough.

 

Can't personally see why folks wouldn't make a distinction between the two candidates (I'm not sure the analogy used here is a good one, but it's been used by a few folks before), but that's up to them and fair enough.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Fcuk sake lads we have an election about social justice here. Save your little liberal pet topics like Trump and voting reform for other threads.

[Strokes]

16 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Fcuk sake lads we have an election about social justice here. Save your little liberal pet topics like Trump and voting reform for other threads.

Fair point, have you got any enlightening meme's to help get us back on track?

[LiberalFox]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 40% (-6)

LAB: 39% (+5)

LDEM: 8% (-)

UKIP: 5% (+2)

(via Survation / 03 Jun)

 

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Except it is true simply because of how much of a two party system the US is. Rejecting Clinton meant wanting trump, even if just as a lesser of two evils view.

Nonsense. Not wanting May doesnt mean you want Corbyn and vice versa.