What is the latest development in the Post Office scandal?

You could call it “Mrs Badenoch vs The Post Office”. There are few spectacles less edifying than a “he says/she says” row between two prominent figures in public life – and especially one in which each combatant’s main aim is to blame the other for some tragic injustice. So it is in the case of Kemi Badenoch, the business and trade secretary, and the former chair of the Post Office, Henry Staunton, whom she sacked on 26 January over the phone. She said someone had to “take the rap”. He disagrees it should be him.

Badenoch said around that time that she had asked Staunton to step down because his position as chair of the board “just wasn’t working”, and that fresh leadership was needed for the organisation because of concerns about “the entire business model” – ie it was about more than just the Horizon scandal.

More recently, Staunton levelled serious allegations against the minister and unnamed persons, not least that a “senior figure” had told him to stall the compensation process so that the government could “limp” into the next election. These allegations were published by The Sunday Times.

In rapid response, Badenoch tweeted that Staunton’s remarks were “a disgraceful misrepresentation of my conversation with him and the reasons for his dismissal”, adding: “Henry Staunton had a lack of grip getting justice for postmasters. The serious concerns over his conduct were the reasons I asked him to step down [...] That he chose to run to the media with made-up anecdotes and a series of falsehoods confirms I made the correct decision.”

Badenoch later doubled down in the Commons, albeit under the cover of parliamentary privilege; she referred to other allegations of “serious misconduct”, and added that Staunton was simply “seeking revenge following dismissal”.

No. There are subsidiary rows, including over who leaked the news (which Badenoch tried to suppress) of Staunton’s dismissal to Sky News before Staunton himself knew about it. Opposition MPs are now demanding full disclosure of all the relevant documents and communications between the business department, UK Government Investments (the holding company for the Post Office as a wholly state-owned nationalised industry) and the Post Office. Badenoch has agreed to make some of them public.

There’s also another dispute about a letter Staunton says was sent by Nick Read, chief executive of the Post Office, to the justice secretary, allegedly suggesting that some of those about to be exonerated through legislation were likely to be guilty.

Once Badenoch has published the readout of her conversation with Staunton, and certain minutes of meetings, it will be up to Staunton to respond as he sees fit. As a highly experienced businessman who has served on numerous boards, he may wish to defend and try to recover his reputation. Though he cannot sue over what Badenoch said in the Commons, he could do so in relation to her tweets, and in any case he might accuse Badenoch of abusing parliamentary privilege. He may have evidence to make public; or he may choose to move on.

Not many. It is one of those stories that will probably die down simply because the details are so arcane, and because the chances of Badenoch having to quit seem, at the moment, slim. But we shall see.

No one. One of the unfortunate side-effects of the row – for both Staunton and Badenoch – is that it puts the Post Office Horizon scandal into the headlines again, and thus reminds everyone that, wrangling aside, far too few former subpostmasters and subpostmistresses have yet received sufficient justice, sufficient money back, or sufficient restitution for lives ruined. It does look like the wronged Post Office staff are being forgotten, again; and that some elements at the top of the Post Office allegedly still think they were on the take.

She was her usual combative self in the Commons, the self-confidence and indignation sometimes veering into arrogance and gracelessness. For those Tories who are fans, she confirmed her qualities at the despatch box; for others, it merely demonstrated her drawbacks as a “retail politician”. Unless Staunton, or others, can convincingly prove that she herself hasn’t been straight with parliament, she has minimised the dangers this unseemly affair could inflict on her. But it would have been better if it hadn’t happened.

If No 10 had acted more quickly and decisively before the furore sparked by the ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office, the whole scandal could have redounded greatly to the benefit of the Conservative government. As things stand, it looks more like the Sunak government is not much keener on spending money on restitution than the Post Office was – an unfair impression, but perhaps inevitable because the public don’t see why it should now take more years to sort out.

The one figure to have suffered clear damage is Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, who was postal affairs minister about a decade ago in the coalition, and who (among many others in that role) arguably failed to press Post Office officials and civil servants hard enough about the scandal.