|
|
 |
| |
Post office closures test our ability to look after the poor
• THE notion that Jeremy Corbyn, Labour MP for Islington North, was supporting the Conservatives in voting to defer the closure of post offices is simplistic (Tory motion splits Labour’s MPs on future of post offices, March 21). So is the observation of Emily Thornberry, Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury, who voted for immediate closure, and castigated those who sought the suspension of the closures for “political posturing”.
Ms Thornberry is unusually misguided because it has been determined that any post office saved from closure, such as that at Essex Road, where she was photographed, will cause the axing of another not yet on the condemned list. Has she an alternative for the axe in the constituency?
The reason for the difference between these two admirable MPs is the issue on which they were on opposite sides a few days earlier when Mr Corbyn voted for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and Ms Thornberry voted to the contrary. Each, of course, was elected on a promise that there would be a referendum. Mr Corbyn kept his promise. His actions were principled and consistent. For, as he pointed out to your reporter, it was a crazy law from Brussels, obediently followed by the government, that is causing the closure of post offices that do not make a profit.
Some people, no names, no pack drill, seem to have forgotten, if they ever knew, Oscar Wilde’s observation on the cynically prudent who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. People who will be particularly adversely affected by the closures are the poor, particularly the elderly poor without computers, not the reasonably well-off and those with taxpayer-funded staff and taxpayer-funded computers and privileged access to the exclusive post office in the House of Commons.
Isn’t it the high purpose of those of us in fortunate circumstances in the Labour Party to look after the under-privileged and to ensure that Parliament does not kow-tow to the Brussels Commission?
ROY ROEBUCK
Former Labour MP
Brooksby Street, N1
• LAST week’s Tribune yet again printed numerous letters opposing post office closures (Town Hall can’t stand by while post offices close, March 21). They have come from both our MPs, the leader of the council, the CWU trade union, pensioners and many other individuals. Now, the Mayor of London intends to take the Post Office to court “to force it to conduct a more thorough consultation with Londoners and reconsider its closure programme”.
Consultation has become a suspect process. This one restricted people’s objections to their local post office – a “divide-and-rule” ploy I refused to abide by when protesting to Postwatch on behalf of Islington pensioners. Why should we plead for our local post office to be spared when this may entail the closure of one somewhere else which may be needed even more than ours? Nimbyism in reverse!
Anyway, many people use more than one post office. Maybe you mainly use the one nearest to your home, but you may well also drop in to another one en route to your workplace or when you are away. Nowadays I’ve searched for one which doesn’t have exhaustingly long queues – but my observation is that they all do. Demand far exceeds supply.
I am objecting specially because of the hardship to the elderly and disabled. It’s tough for them to have to travel further or to stand queuing for up to 20 minutes just to get a letter or parcel weighed or to request a special delivery. But I object too for the sake of businesses – waiting wastes employees’ time unnecessarily. How many man hours are lost, reducing productivity?
The number of people using emails instead of posting letters has certainly increased, but there will always be demand for sending mail by post, such as letters with enclosures and greeting cards. And as Ken Livingstone points out, London’s population is increasing, needing more not fewer post offices.
Of course, running a reliable postal service costs money; all essential services do. So the system needed costly modernisation. But since private companies expect to make a profit out of it, why cannot the government ?
Support the Mayor of London’s demand for a judicial review, and send in your objections to post office closures to info@postwatch.co.uk before the consultation closing date of April 2. Let’s contribute to an overwhelming campaign nationwide to force the government to reverse its massively unpopular, penny-pinching policy.
ANGELA SINCLAIR
Islington Pensioners’ Forum
• I HAVE already been denied use of my nearest post office in Hornsey Road, just south of its junction with Seven Sisters Road, in Holloway, a few years ago, and have no intention of being denied the next best option, the post office, at 492 Caledonian Road.
In no circumstances will I tolerate the long and smelly/airless queues and gross inconvenience of Brecknock Road post office. I do not consider Brecknock Road to be part of my locality.
My present post office in Caledonian Road is a few short stops on the 91 bus. I can walk back a quiet way and see no reason to be denied that. The Post Office should leave well alone.
Most of the post offices facing closure could easily be made financially viable, by transferring back to them services which have been removed, and by adding others.
Our post offices are a vital community service. Those who spout rubbish about “choice” – one of their favourite but totally abused words – deny so many people what they do choose and most justifiably need and desire. In this way they continue to, deliberately fragment our society, isolating the elderly.
J ROSS
Seven Sisters Road, N7
• THE closure of Islington’s post offices is a serious issue. Not only is the post office at Essex Road threatened with closure but post offices in Caledonian Road and ones just over the borough boundary at Murray Grove, Wilton Way and Blackstock Road are all under threat.
It’s disgraceful that Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has not done everything he can to help block the closures. He has only threatened to announce his intention to call for a judicial review. To me, this looks like obvious political posturing – just attempting to sidestep the issue until after the London elections in May.
But the fact is that the major programme of shutting local post offices was a decision made by a Labour government and Labour MPs. The Labour Party is the cause of all this. Only this month the Liberal Democrats and Tories worked together to try to push a motion through Parliament to stop the closures. The government blocked it. Islington Labour MP Emily Thornberry voted against the motion too – effectively voting in favour of closing down our post offices in Islington.
So when Labour pretends it is on our side and on the side of residents who care about post offices, it’s hard to square that with its actions.
Apparently, even cabinet members, at the centre of the government that made this decision, were out campaigning to save local post offices in their constituencies. They were in the cabinet that approved the decision, and like Ms Thornberry they voted for closures in Parliament this month.
Are they trying to take us for fools? It’s pure hypocrisy. Labour is to blame for these closures, and that’s why the Liberal Democrats in Islington aren’t interested in working with them. They simply cannot be trusted.
CLLR MERAL ECE
Lib Dem, Mildmay ward
|
 |
|
| |
| Your Comments : |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
