Kaleigh's politics blog.

Why are we saying goodbye to post offices?

2008-04-20T17:14:00.003+01:00

The news these days is filled with stories of post offices closing, and communities attempting to fight these closures. But how did post offices go from being so vital to a company losing around £4million a week (1)?

Post offices have long been known as the centre of life in small rural villages. It was the place for the elderly to collect their pensions, the place for those on benefits to collect them, and often just a general meeting place for residents.

The importance of post offices was even shown to children, with one of the most popular cartoons of the 1980s and 1990s being about a postman in a small village.

The stories of Postman Pat show how local communities have depended on post offices as their lifeline to the outside world.

The world has been changing, and the post office has been forced to change with it.

Until a few years ago, people could only collect pensions and benefits at the post office, but now they can get them paid directly into their bank accounts. This change had a huge affect on the custom of post offices. It is said that post offices have lost four million customers in the last two years alone. (2)

However, some people, mainly the elderly, still do depend on post offices to get their pensions.

It is not about the services the post office provides that is threatened by closures, it is also the general community spirit, and also a way of the community to keep an eye on the more vulnerable members of society.

A traditional rural post office, in the village of Clifton Hampden in Oxfordshire.
Image from Flickr user sparker

In a recent BBC article (3), a resident of a tiny village in Yorkshire called Burton Fleming said how the post office was vital. He said that the staff in the post office knew every member of the village, and what times they usually came in to collect their money. This allows them to keep residents safe, as if someone does not come at their usual time, the staff can alert someone to check on them.

Ever since the motion of closing post offices has been suggested, there have been campaigns and protests against it. There are groups such as CAPOC – Communities Against Post Office Closures. (4) Political parties, such as the Liberal Democrats have vehemently protested the scheme (5). Even on social networking sites such as Facebook people are against the idea, as shown by groups such as “Save our Post Offices” (6). Four million people signed a petition against the closures (7), however around two million people were thought to have marched against war in Iraq in 2003 with the government ignoring this (8)…

But why is it all happening?

As with everything else in the world, it comes down to money. In 2006, the government announced that they plan to withdraw the Post Office card account. They also brought in the Direct Payment scheme, meaning benefits and pension can go directly into bank accounts. (9) This was a huge blow to post offices, as this has, according to the BBC Action Network, led to a loss of up to 75% of some post offices’ incomes (10).

Also in 2006, the Post Office lost its TV License contract, another blow.(11)

However, despite the huge losses from the Post Office, Royal Mail’s overall profits in 2006 were £233 million (12), so maybe it isn’t all down to the money.

Either way it seems like the small village post office has no future in modern Britain, and may even lead to the end of village life as we know it.

Links:
1 – BBC: Why are post offices at risk?
2 - The Independent: Post office closures: Death of the village
3 - BBC: Last post for rural post office?
4 - CAPOC
5 - Liberal Democrats: Post office
6 - Facebook: Save our Post Offices
7 - What price a post office?"
8 - BBC: 'Million' march against Iraq war
9 - The Guardian: Loss of benefits contract 'threat to post offices'
10 - BBC Action Network: What can you do about rural post office closures?
11 - BBC: Post Office loses TV license deal
12 - Pension fund trustees 'could sink Royal Mail'

The Guardian: Q&A post office closures
The Post Office

58 post offices to go in the region

2008-04-20T16:54:00.006+01:00

Two post offices in Southport will be closed along with 56 others in the region, despite protests to keep them open.

The two post offices, located on Forest Road and Manor Road, will be closed on May 7, with other local post offices being closed between April 29 and May 11.
Forest Road Post Office employs two staff, Jude and Caroline Cropper, who have been in charge of the post office for nine years.

Post mistress Caroline Cropper told the Southport Visiter: “We are devastated and just trying to get our heads around the decision. It will affect the elderly the most, a lot of them don’t have their own transport and will really struggle getting to a new branch.

“The Post Office said they have made a fully assessed decision so we can only go by their word. We’d like to thank everyone who has supported us over the last couple of months.”

Southport MP John Pugh at Downing Street protesting the closures, with Cllr Colin Elderidge
(Image from Flickr user libdems)

However, the Forest Road Post Office closure will have a smaller impact on the local community than other closures across the region, due to it being located near the central Southport post office.

This Google map shows all the post offices in the local area which will be closed.

View Larger Map

Many of the post offices across Lancashire which are to close are in the more rural areas, which will make it harder for local residents to get to their local post offices, especially elderly people or those without cars.

The residents of the village of Shirdley Hill, in Ormskirk will be some of the worst hit.

After the closure of the local post office, their nearest post office will be 1.6 miles away in Southport.

There is only one bus which services Southport and Shirdley Hill, which is only every 30 minutes.

However, this service does not go by the nearest post offices, so residents will either have to catch another bus, or walk to it, which is not convenient for those who cannot get around easily.

The Post Office say that the changes will not affect many people, with 99% of the population being within 3 miles of their nearest post office, and 90% of the population to be within 1 mile of their nearest post office.

As well as the closures, six post offices in the region will be replaced by outreach outlets, which are reduced hours openings held in local places, mainly village and church halls.

The post offices being replaced by outreach outlets will be the Bashell Eaves branch in Clitheroe, the Bolton by Bowland branch in Clitheroe, the Calder Vale branch in Preston, the Glasson Dock branch in Lancaster, the Quernmore branch in Lancaster, and the Chipping branch in Preston.

Royal Mail say that these outlets will “transact core Post Office products and services”, however, they do not specify what these will be.

Post offices, especially rural ones, are relied on by people for not only sending post, but for collecting benefits and pensions, and paying car tax.

These sorts of services are vital for people without bank accounts or access to the internet, generally the more elderly people.

Overall, Royal Mail are to close 2500 post offices across the UK, with 500 of these becoming outreach units, after making losses of £4 million a week in 2006.

Southport Visiter: Southport's Forest Road and Manor Road post offices WILL close

Council force staff to share desks yet pay £100,000 salaries

2008-03-28T14:52:00.003Z

In yesterday's Preston Reporter, their main story was about how Lancashire County Council is so short of money that they keep selling off council buildings and have in some cases made workers share a desk.

Today, the LEP website reports six council executives earn more than £100,000 a year, with the chief executive earning £188,677 in 2006/7.

A few weeks ago the LEP also reported that 640 council employees get free parking, whereas the rest of the council workers have to pay £8 a day.

Council tax keeps rising. I had a quick look at the amounts in Preston, and for most areas in band A you have to pay £1009.89 a year in 2008/9. In 2007/8 it was £974.78. This is a massive increase, especially for lower income homes. And the council use this money to give free parking permits and to pay executives over £100,000 a year salaries? This is ridiculous.

As anyone who reads the news will know, there are high amounts of crime in the Preston area. Every day it seems you hear about a gang attacking someone. One of the most high profile recently was the death of Sophie Lancaster in Bacup last August.

Surely the council should be spending the money they get from their residents on making the area they live safer instead of overpaying fat cat executives?

Sources:
Lancashire Evening Post: Cash-stapped council makes workers share a desk
Lancashire Evening Post: Revealed: How much council fat cats get paid
Lancashire Evening Post: Row over council workers' free parking
Preston Council: Council tax bands 2007 - 2008
Preston Council: Council tax bands 2008 - 2009
BBC News: Boy convicted of goth park murder

Stock up on booze on Saturday...

2008-03-12T17:31:00.002Z

....because its budget time.

To try and combat the problems caused by drinking in our society, the government has today announced that alcohol duty rates will go up by 6% above inflation. Which means, a pint of beer will cost an extra 4p, a bottle of wine will be 14p more and spirit prices will rise by a massive 55p a bottle.

Is this really going to make any difference?

The problem is not the cost of alcohol. The problem is how society views alcohol. Kids are caught drinking these days at younger and younger ages. Their excuse? They're bored. People see alcohol as a way of forgetting your life and problems.

Even if the costs go up, people will still drink. Its just going to upset people who like the odd drink or two a few times a week.

The government needs to do something to make life better for the people they're aiming to hurt with this budget. Better education, better social activities, even helping with a better home life.

Its these sorts of things which can fix our drink problems, not making us pay more for our alcohol.

Source: Q&A: What the budget means for you

student debt.

2008-03-10T17:15:00.002Z

I just got an email reminding me that I signed a petition asking the government to scrap student debt and saying that the government had responded.

Here's their response.

I hate politicians and the way they make excuses and throw in pointless facts to distract from real issues.

China & cruelty

2008-03-09T14:50:00.004Z

This isn't really directly related to politics, but for my journalism issues assignment I've been having to buy the "fabulous" piece of journalism that is the Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday.

Today I saw this article, which made me sick & really upset.

Olympics clean up Chinese style: Inside Beijing's shocking death camp for cats

This is absolutely disgusting. As if China's policy on baby girls isn't bad enough, they do this to poor defenceless animals?

I cannot believe the world supports this sick, perverse country by allowing them to host the Olympic games. And I especially cannot believe our own government wants to have good relations with this country. Trade between the UK and China amounted to about £20.2 billion in 2007. Surely we should be distancing ourselves from this country until they sort out their human and animal rights?

And yes, I do feel sort of dirty for agreeing with something in the Mail!

Sources:
The Mail on Sunday article
BBC: Brown's first China visit as PM

Cameron wants lower abortion time limit

2008-02-26T17:21:00.007Z

In a interview on Monday, Conservative leader David Cameron called for the abortion time limit to be lowered.

The interview, with the ever fair and balanced Daily Mail, said Cameron would vote for the deadline to be lowered as MPs discuss the proposed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

Abortion is always a controversial subject. It became legal in 1967 with the Abortion Act, and the time limit was reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks in 1990. Before this act came in, women would often resort to backstreet abortions, and often risk their lives doing so.

There's often extreme views on the matter of abortion. There's groups like the Prolife Alliance who believe abortions should be banned. Then there's the Pro-choice groups who believe it is a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue with an unplanned pregnancy, who want abortion on demand.

The government currently says they have no plans to change the time limit and the Guardian reports that both the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists do not believe the time limits should be changed.

The danger of changing the time limits for abortion is obvious. If a woman is denied a legal abortion, she will look for other options. How can this be beneficial for society?

The current law says there must be a risk for the woman's health or mental health, or the well being of her existing children for her to be allowed an abortion. This can cover all circumstances, from teenage pregnancy, to a woman who already has children who could not afford another.

I, personally, have always been very pro choice. I believe a woman should have the ability to choose whether or not to have a child. Without allowing this right, this could lead to more cases of infanticide, poverty or a generally low quality of life. Surely a woman forced to have a child she did not want will resent the child in some way in the future?

The pro life argument for reducing the time limit is that due to advances in medicine drastically premature babies can now survive. New technology shows videos of foetuses in the womb walking and acting like newborn babies.

It does have to be noted that it is only a very small majority of women who do have abortions past the 20 week point. In 2006, around 194,000 abortions took place, and of these only 1,263 were past the 22 week point. But these are probably the most drastic cases. For example, women in denial, who have refused to admit their pregnancy. Or even just women who genuinely were not aware that they were pregnant. There should be an allowance for these woman.

There's also more practical reasons why a woman may want a later abortion. Two doctors have to agree for the abortion to take place. If a doctor does not agree with abortion, or think the woman is a suitable candidate, then she has to be referred to another doctor. This practise obviously takes time. There is also the risk of possible delays with the NHS.

The fact that Cameron has re-ignited the debate about abortion at this time suggests that it could be an important policy in the run up to the next election.

Sources:
Cameron: Cut the abortion limit to 21 weeks
Cameron backs abortion limit cut
Q&A: Abortion law
Prolife Alliance
Abortion Rights
The Voice of the Pro-choice Majority

Elderly man attacked with machete

2008-02-25T15:46:00.003Z

A 86 year man was attacked during a burglary in Longridge by masked men with a machete. He suffered deep cuts to fingers and is in hospital.

View Larger Map

A walk of Preston

2008-02-25T13:18:00.001Z

Here's a video I made in Windows Movie Maker, showing you the sights you would see walking from Avenham Park to the Foster Building.

DNA drama?

2008-02-24T16:32:00.002Z

In the news this week, two high profile murder trials have finished, with guilty verdicts for both. Steve Wright, was found guilty of murdering five prostitutes in Ipswich, and Mark Dixie was convicted for the murder of 18 year old Sally Anne Bowman in London. Both of these were convicted on DNA evidence.

This has led to calls for a universal database with all our DNA on. Currently, if you are arrested for a criminal offense, your DNA will be put on the database. There are currently about 4.5 million people's DNA on it.

As with everything, there are pros and cons.

The pro is highlighted by the Sally Anne case. Dixie was arrested in 2006 for assault and had his DNA taken. They made the link with Sally Anne and he was arrested five hours later. If there was already a database of all of us, Det Supt Stuart Cundy, the policeman in charge of the Sally Anne case, said he would have been identified in 24 hours. This, therefore, could speed up murder convictions, and minimise risk from re-offenders.

However, there is a obvious con. Does everyone want their DNA on this database? Personally, I don't. Why should the government be able to access the DNA of everyone? Recent stories of the government losing sensitive data, such as bank details of people on benefits, suggests that our DNA data would not be safe either. As technology evolves and cloning becomes more advanced, the government having this sort of data on all of us puts everyone at the risk of cloning, identity theft and general fraud.

Also, the ability to match criminals in this way would not necessarily cut down on crime, just make convictions easier for the CPS. A released murderer could murder again, and the DNA would not stop this.

Luckily, the government rejected the plans. For now.

Sources: DNA database debate urged
Man gets life for model's murder
Suffolk killer will die in prison
Nation of suspects fear on DNA
Mandatory DNA database rejected

Entry no. 1 - welcome/mission statement

2008-01-29T00:45:00.000Z

Welcome to my blog!

I'm a second year journalism student at the University of Central Lancashire in Preston. For this module, I have to create & update a blog.

But what to blog about?

Choices, choices.

I've decided that rather than limit myself to just one subject to talk about, I'm going to look at current affairs as a whole. From local news, to entertainment, to world news, maybe with a bit of politics thrown in. No sport though, sorry! My own comments & my own analysis will be included, as well as stories from different sources, including news websites, online newspapers & other blogs.

Hopefully it'll be interesting & informative!