Cras wrote:
So we're back to what essential services a post office provides that can't be effectively provided elsewhere.
Mostly financial services (banking/benefits/pensions/etc) for older customers in rural areas, I'd argue. There was a big to-do a few years back about how people could use the Post Office as a bank if all their local branches closed; now that's going away. I am not convinced by Cavey's "they can use the internet" for older customers, which smacks of "let them eat cake" condescension to me. Two thirds of our population owns a smartphone. That's an awful lot of people who don't.
There's a nice Commons briefing paper here:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N00385.pdf. Notable that the banks are not closing branches because they aren't used, they're closing branches that are being used because they aren't profitable. So there is demand.
Cavey wrote:
It's interesting to note, is it not, the knee-jerk reaction of some in terms of the 'we must save our Post Offices' but when actually asked what specific services they're referring to, they can't really answer, just some stuff about sending parcels at 10:30pm, which isn't even accurate AFAIK (notwithstanding why this should even be so invaluable and worth saving over, say, building 50-odd new schools every couple of years or so). Clearly, it's pseudo-politics-by-meme.
I cannot imagine why, after 261 pages in this thread of you not listening to anything except your own pre-existing political ideology, that people might have lost interest in engaging with your arguments. Quite astonishing.