Greasy Pole: Post Offices – Open or Shut? (2009)

The Greasy Pole column from the January 2009 issue of the Socialist Standard

“By all of capitalism’s standards of logic the Post Office must be under threat of disappearing”

Postman Pat, delighting children by zooming around Greendale with his observant cat Jess, became a TV success by cashing in on the romance which lingered around the workers who, in all weathers and at all places, delivered the mail. How would Pat survive now, with Greendales’s post brought by a tee-shirted trolley-pusher jigging along to loud calypso music from his radio, who is liable to stuff as much junk advertising material through the letter box as proper mail? It was not always like this; well within living memory postmen (they were always male) wore thick, dark uniforms topped by a hard helmet resembling the pickelhauber of the German Army at the start of the 1914/18 war (the peaked caps, just as obligatory, came later). No trolleys then; postmen had to carry the mail in a large, rough sack slung across their shoulder held by coarse string. And they came several times a day; before the age of the telephone it was common for people to tell their family or friends that they would visit them on the following day by writing them a post card – relying on the post to get the message there on time. No wonder the posties had so exhaustive a knowledge of their round – who lived where and with whom, how well, or how sick, they were, who had a birthday when. It was this sense of human contact that brought many postmen to be addicted to the job. Like Postman Pat.

Closure

Along with your friendly neighbourhood postman, as part of the same deal, is – or in some cases was – the local post office – also friendly, in fact at times so much so that it resembled a kind of minor, casual branch of the Samaritans. Because it was here that local people came, not just to buy their stamps and postal orders or draw their pension but to unload their anxieties or celebrate their successes. They were more small shops than post offices, selling newspapers, food and the like. It is a general assumption that they existed only in rural areas, in small sleepy villages but in fact they survive, supplying their locality, in many a town and city. One example was given by Keith Hill, the MP for Streatham, in a House of Commons adjournment debate on 13 March 2008. He described the Abbeville Road post office in Clapham, a part of London where roses do not grow sweetly around the doors of quaint cottages and no ploughman homeward plods his weary way. This post office was under threat of closure (it has now closed); in its defence Hill praised the services on offer there, making it “a focal point in the community” and “a lifeline of human contact for its many elderly customers”; a petition with over 2000 signatures testifies to this.

Loss

In that same debate Pat McFadden, the Minister for Employment Returns, after the customary emollients about what a brilliantly eloquent speaker and industrious MP Hill is, gently reminded him of the real facts of capitalism’s life, the sense of which is that it is all very well talking about how valued a service may be but what counts is whether it makes a profit or a loss. And by those standards the Post Office network does not show up well; according to McFadden last year it lost £174m, with the cost of some operations high enough to make any accountant with an eye to a balance sheet choke. The postal system as we know it, including pre-payment through adhesive stamps (the famous Penny Black), arose from the demands of 19th century industry and commerce. In the same way, many of the Post Office’s present problems are due to it falling behind changes in technology, which have led, for example, to eight out of 10 pensions being paid electronically into a bank instead of being drawn over the Post office counter, after a chat with the staff about their family. Car tax can now be paid online, which is quicker and easier than queuing up with people wanting a book of stamps. While people may get some relief, enjoyment even, in being able to drop into their local branch but that is not how commodity society operates. By all of capitalism’s standards of logic the Post Office must be under threat of disappearing as an unvarying, ubiquitous feature of social life.

Reprieve

Chosen to make this happen was Adam Crozier, a man who, even before he got to work on shredding the Post Office network, might have been described as controversial. For example after closing some 4600 offices, cutting the work force by 45,000, in 2007 he collected a 26 per cent increase in his basic pay; with his bonus and pension his total came to £1.250.000. However perhaps he will not be so busy in future. In November the government, anxious to placate back benchers being lobbied by irate Post Office customers and to persuade the electorate that they have the recession under control, decided that the Post Office would keep the contract to run the Card Account, which had seemed about to be passed to a private company. This surprising move is expected to prevent some 3000 closures. When it came to explaining so abrupt and emphatic a change of policy the government were able to call on Minister of Work and Pensions James Purnell, who has shown himself well capable of shamelessly defending any policy – or change of it. Taking time off from harassing the sick and unemployed he told MPs that the Post Office “…is seen as safe, secure and reliable as a provider of financial services. I believe that now cannot be the time for the government to do anything that would put that network at risk” and on BBC Radio that the Post Office is “…a social service which people look forward to visiting. It is often at the heart of local communities”. We should not be surprised at this hi-jacking of the case put by the government’s opponents for it is just another example of the blatant smoke-screening of the reality of capitalism’s chaotic nature. There is no need to watch this space because we can all guess what will happen next…  

Ivan

Greasy Pole: Weasels at Westminster (2008)

The Greasy Pole column from the July 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Ambitious” is a chameleon word, adapting itself to demands and conditions. An ambitious doctor may nurture an obsession to cure ravaging diseases. An ambitious sociologist may set out doggedly to unravel misconceived theories about the causes of crime, depression, homelessness. But…an “ambitious” estate agent? An “ambitious” tabloid hack? An “ambitious” politician?

James Mark Dakin Purnell is the Labour MP for Stalybridge and Hyde. Succeeding to the seat in 2001, he was swept into the Commons by an electorate not then recovered from the hysteria of the 1997 slaughter of Tories and the raptures of Tonylove. Purnell’s was a well-worn path to Westminster; a “first class” degree at Oxford (Balliol College) in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, an Islington councillor, part-time holiday researcher for Tony Blair and then, after a couple of intimidatingly titled jobs, the dizzy heights of speech-writer to Prime Minister Blair. Being by then known as a “media expert” could have done him no harm but some may have reflected that twenty years before he could, with the same type of background, have fitted comfortably into the pattern of those other Oxford Firsts who, weighing up their chances, opted to favour the Tories with their talents. In the 2005 election, as the experience of Labour government induced a more stark realism in the voters, Purnell’s majority was reduced but still held firm at 8348 – although, as the Labour vote crumbles away, even his seat cannot be considered to be entirely safe. But Balliol graduates are renowned for their superiority so there is reason to believe that his survival and future have been carefully planned.

The DWP
Firstly, there is his experience in government, from more junior jobs in Creative Industry and Tourism (in which he “liberalised” alcohol licensing laws) and Culture, Media and Sport (which enabled him to offer to bemused Labour delegates vacuous speeches which included both the words “culture” and “community” without acknowledging any historical dependence between them). And then, in January 2008, replacing the sacked Peter Hain in charge at the massive, challenging and unhealthy Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) – a promotion described by TV’s Andrew Marr as “from threatening the BBC to threatening the unemployed”. Purnell had in fact done a previous stint at the DWP, which had earned him a commendation in Which magazine as Consumer Champion of the Year – something the unemployed may soon wonder about. He was given the testing job of opening the recent Budget debate, although a measure of his standing in the party was that this was to conspicuously unpopulated Labour benches. And now he is being spoken of as a possible replacement for Gordon Brown as Labour Leader – which cannot be entirely because the MPs are desperate about their security.

Purnell’s future may depend on his success or failure in carrying through what Labour’s welfare guru Frank Field, among others, once called “thinking the unthinkable” – to so “reform” the benefits system as to virtually force the unemployed (including the incapacitated) back to work. Purnell is in no doubt about his contribution to this. In his interview with Andrew Marr he promised : “For people who can work, we’re going to require them to look for work, we’re going to get a million people off capacity benefit into work, 300,000 more lone parents into work…so it’s a major reform of the system”. This “ major reform” is planned to include roping in all claimants of incapacity benefit, who will have to submit themselves to a rigorous assessment of whether their claim fits in with what the government thinks should be incapacity. If it doesn’t fit in they will be provided with something menacingly called “extra support” to get them into work. And what if they still don’t toe the line? Purnell replies: “For those who don’t play by the rules, there will be clear consequences from their behaviour”. Those who are not on Incapacity Benefit but simply unemployed will be tested for their suitability for training; if they refuse to attend for this they will also face clear consequences – a reduction in their benefit.

On 28 February, presenting something going by the resounding name of a Commissioning Strategy, Purnell proudly announced his own contribution as a minister to the unemployed statistics – “headcount reductions” (more precisely known as sacking people) of DWP employees leading to “increased productivity” of 11 per cent (more precisely known as making those who are not sacked work harder). And he summed up “Beveridge would be familiar with our goals, but not the methods by which we deliver them”. Beveridge is not, of course, available to comment on this piece of historical distortion.

Deception
Purnell is not the first government minister, and he will not be the last, to blame the unemployed for being out of work and to ascribe unemployment to the eagerness of the workless to luxuriate on meagre state benefits instead of to the intractable vagaries of capitalism’s economic system. He is not the first to try to bolster his own ambitions and to try to conceal his own impotence by diverting popular anxiety and prejudice about a problem onto handily identifiable scapegoats, if at the cost of driving them deeper into apathy and despair.

So how does his own behaviour compare to the standards he sets for others? In September 2007 it was arranged for the five local MPs to pose for a group photo at the construction at the new Tameside General Hospital, But only four turned up for the photo; Purnell was 20 minutes drive away when the shutters were clicking and by the time he arrived the others had left. So a separate photo of him was taken and digitally added to the group shot, which appeared in the hospital newsletter. But a vigilant local editor noticed the deception, which meant that Purnell had some explaining to do – at which his customary confidence seemed to have deserted him. Grilled by a news presenter on BBC North West he squirmed as he doggedly insisted that the whole matter was a “misunderstanding”, the deception was done without his knowledge. However the interviewer just as doggedly reminded him that his own press office had said repeatedly that he had consented to the doctored photo. This was a trivial matter compared to other New Labour deceptions – some of which Purnell will have to promote as a loyal minister and MP – such as cash for honours, bribes to sell arms to the Saudis, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction due to take off in a few minutes. But it illuminates the obsessive trickery bound up with capitalism’s politics and, for Purnell, must raise the question of how many other “misunderstandings” should he own up to?.

Weasels
Perhaps to avoid such distressful episodes in future Purnell has engaged an aide – Phill Collins, who is not the famed multi-millionaire warbler of pop songs but an aspirant who recently upset a local Labour Party by sulking when he was not joyfully selected to stand as their MP. But the prospects of a constructively harmonious partnership between Purnell and his adviser are not good for they seem to have crucial differences on important matters. Purnell rates Gordon Brown as a leader who “has the strategy and determination to be a great Prime Minister” while Collins thinks “Brown doesn’t need a speech writer. He needs a magician”. On the wider issue of whether Labour has a future Purnell sunnily informs us that it “is not a tired government. This is a government which is excited about the reforms that we are bringing in” but Collins thinks that “Labour’s future, after three terms, looks bleak”. This confusion is a matter for Purnell and Collins to reconcile with their claim to have a clear-headed, consistent remedy for capitalism’s inhuman anarchy. Meanwhile, it will be instructive to keep an eye on these two Westminster weasels – ambitious, ruthless, calculating but not yet clever enough to avoid the pitfalls which expose them for what they are and the system they represent.

Ivan