The Great British Post Office Scandal has taken the media by storm following an ITV drama about how Postmasters/Mistresses were in their hundreds convicted of fraud, when in fact a flawed new computer system called Horizon was introduced to (mis)manage their local accounts. All of a sudden Post Office branch accounts went into the red, and the prosecutions started. Now every MP in the land is jumping up and down demanding answers, compensation and blanket reversals of convictions. Which is all very well, but since the scandal was well known for many years how did it take so long to get to this point? It’s been 15 or so years in the making—right back to the time when I was an MP before 2010. Did I get any local correspondence about this? I really can’t remember, and I had developed friendly relationships with local Sub-Postmasters in various campaigns, not least to save their businesses threatened by ‘modernisation’ and ‘rationalisation.’ Anyway, there’s now a big blame game going on, and on the obverse a self credit game of MPs’ trying to exculpate themselves by ordering their caseworkers to see if they ever wrote on behalf of a constituent to a minister on the subject.
Who was the first MP to take up the Sub Postmasters/Mistresses cause in the House of Commons? It takes a lot of digging to find out, and it turns out to be someone whom the establishment of all political persuasions would have preferred to have disappeared without trace (that’s s hint). Here’s what the MP said: ‘in view of the fact that over 20,000 sub-postmasters in shops receive as remuneration only £20 to £40 a year for working a day of twelve hours, without a meal hour, and that many of them are compelled out of this sum to pay for assistance if they desire to absent themselves for a single evening, whether he [the Postmaster General] will take steps, without at present reopening the general question of postal employees’ grievances, to make some improvement in the cases cited.’ Yes, not today’s case, but a parliamentary question dating from February, 1908 asked by one Victor Grayson, the Socialist member for Colne Valley. Perhaps he should be made the parliamentary patron saint of Sub Postmasters/Mistresses. (Quotation in Victor Grayson: In Search of Britain’s Lost Revolutionary, Harry Taylor, Pluto Press, 2021 p. 107) Well Grayson did disappear without trace, although he left behind quite a story (which I’m still reading). I think we could do with a few Graysons now.
0 Comments
+Elections, elections. Getting some coverage today is the Tory Party’s choice of candidate to replace Peter Bone, the now disgraced ex-MP for Wellingborough. And the candidate is . . . . his current partner! Talk about Bone Idol! Beyond that, I feel there’s little more to say, although I am bound to wonder where Bone’s oft-cited ex-wife will put her cross and if her pencil will break in the process.
+The world’s eighth most populous country has just had an election, but it’s not important enough to get much attention here. Bangladesh has re-elected Sheikh Hasina for her fifth term. I met her in 2009 after her first victory, and can only ponder on how little things have changed. Bangladesh, since its creation has been in the grip of two families, the other, now seemingly eviscerated were the Zia’s. It used to be the case that you knew who was in control when you saw their family name on Dhaka’s international airport terminal. +It’s the first of January as I start writing this and a major piece of news has hit the airwaves, viz, the original image of Mickey Mouse is no longer copyrighted having passed its 70-year protection. But what, you may wonder has this got to do with the downfall of our current model of capitalism? (In this blog I get to ask the questions.) I’ve been struggling for some time with the oft-bandied phrase ‘late capitalism,’ almost as if the beast has entered its death throes. Personally I don’t think the gorgon is anywhere near dead, but then I bought (half-price at Waterstones) Yanis Varoufakis’s latest book Techno Feudalism: What Killed Capitalism. It’s a good title which is not borne out by its contents. I will now attempt to figure out what the liberation of Mickey Mouse has to do with any of this.
I think Varoufakis has nailed a new trend very accurately—this is the ‘techno feudalism’ part, which is to say the new cyber magnates who control Google et al have amassed immense new technologies and economic powers which make of us poor humans mere feudal vassals. They gather information on us all with our willing connivance, and that information—freely given—then becomes ‘cloud capital.’ This info-capital is a highly lucrative commodity, and increasingly influences the choices we make and the very way we make them. The tentacles of cloud capital spread far and wide, and traditional capitalist ventures will increasingly be submissive to the new monster. Want to sell without Amazon? Try your luck. Want a suggestion for a birthday present? Ask Bing. Let’s not even mention the spies in the house, Alexa or Siri. Let’s not even mention Tesla cars, which monitor your every move and have built-in technologies to stop you using unauthorised (cheaper) servicers. It is Varoufakis’s argument, if I understand it correctly that cloud capitalism is draining away the power or perhaps the dominance of received capitalism. That may be so, but I don’t think it as the book title suggests will ‘kill capitalism.’ It may just have a bigger hand in shaping it. In other words, we are not witnessing ‘late’ capitalism, unless of course the c-word is to be purely and only defined in the rip-roaring Victorian sense. And just as that form of capitalism flourished as an essential component of the industrial revolutions of the nineteenth century, cloud capitalism is a variant borne of the techno/cyber revolution of the last 20 or so years. Varoufakis makes much of the Cloud—but seems to accept some of the hype. In reality the Cloud is no more than a collection of physical temperature controlled servers distributed in such a way as to access regular energy supplies. The Cloud cannot escape the constraints of the planet, and consequently could be forced to obey, (parochially, where that anonymous server shed sits) whatever the local regime dictates (should it take the option). Talk of a Cloud suggests we are dealing with an amorphous unaccountable and even untraceable entity. Not so. Those evil algorithms can’t operate without machines humming away, consuming shedloads of electricity. This is one place where legislators could look to exercise control over the Cloud. And what of Mickey Mouse (not forgetting Minnie)? If you are so minded you can now use without penalty the original images of this pair. Disney can’t stop you. But they would if they could. What stops them is the law. The law that protected their ownership no longer does so. I’m sure Disney would prefer it otherwise, but this is a simple demonstration of the power of the law over a massive (and Cloud headed) corporation. If patent and copyright laws didn’t exist, the Cloud would be desiccated beyond repair as its proprietors struggled to hang on to their intellectual property, which after all is all they have. If we don’t like the Cloud we should look to changing a few laws. The Cloud as Varoufakis clearly demonstrates poses many risks, but the trouble is not everyone agrees. Ask Google (ha!) ‘How many Alexas have been sold?’ and back comes the answer—100 million. How many people have iPhones? 1 in 8 of the world’s entire population. Oh, and what of ‘late’ capitalism? I think it's better to think in terms of Capitalism Mk.1, Mk. 2, Mk. 3 etc, etc. We may be heading for Mk.4 or 5 depending on your definitions. +A thought for the new year: I’ve now been a member of the Labour Party for 40 years. My message to anyone thinking of leaving is: the party always outlives its leaders. Perhaps that’s not much of an encouragement but it’s nevertheless true. |
Archives
March 2024
|