THE Royal monopoly of postal deliveries is about as antique as any monopoly. It predates the assumption that money has to be exclusively issued by the state mint the Crowns. It predates the assumption that disputes could only be resolved by the state courts the Crowns.
Now the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI ) is to relax this inhibition and licence postal services in Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh. We ought to welcome this small liberalisation but why is it so tentative? Why is it so timid? A duopoly is marginally better than a crude monopoly but why not just liberalise? Why not let us just have an open market in letters?
The recent discovery at the Roman garrison of Vindolanda, near Carlisle, of fragile letters illuminates the nature of the state. Imperial Rome had a courier service. How could it not? Imperial authority had to relay its instructions across its territories. Its far-flung staff had to convey messages back including gold and other booty from war or trade.
This transmission of both money and information hints at the reasons the British state, like every other one, has long been jealous of the monopoly of the Royal Mail. It was both an instrument of competence and once a major source of revenue. We do not readily see the pretty stamps we stick on envelopes as taxes, but that is what they are they are simply tax receipts.
The history books do not seem to agree on the origins of the Royal Mail. We know that Elizabeth Is head of espionage, Robert Walsingham, sought the authority to open anyones mail to eavesdrop on Catholic conspirators (such as the Blundells of south west Lancashire), the Tudor equivalent of Islamic terrorists. The court had to have a delivery mechanism to send instructions to servants of the Crown on the latest twist of the states ever more convoluted logic.
Now modern technology has rendered a state postal monopoly redundant. The state can now speak to all its agencies by phone, fax and e-mail and the long, lucrative letter privilege has now rusted into a liability. It is a measure of the Post Offices widespread ineptitude that it can convert such an advantage into a loss-making prospect. Competition is needed urgently.
The Post Office plc does not make a profit. As a tax it has ceased to be a source of revenue. The Royal Mail survives on the occasional cash infusion directly to itself, or to its pension fund. A once-mighty, proud and really rather competent entity has dissolved into a flawed, fractious and expensive folly. The Post Office is simply an unreformed nationalised industry.
It seems Margaret Thatcher, with an affection for the long-gone Post Office of Grantham, regarded the Royal Mail in some sense as an adjunct of the monarchy which must be preserved. She had a blind spot about this creaking entity while she was busy brushing away the privileges of all the other nationalised industries.
I have to agree that in the brief moments when the postal monopoly has been lifted at times of strikes, the private stamps have tended to carry adverts. I tried to build a collection of such stamps, but Stanley Gibbons disapproved. Maybe the Competition Commission should investigate its market dominance?
The new licensee in the three experimental cities is TNT. It is a model of competence at courier services and can be taught no new tricks by Post Office executives. We can see a faithful parallel in America where Federal Express, led by the brilliant Fred Smith, is regarded as hyper-competent compared to the bureaucratised US Mail.
Much of the contemporary defence of the postal monopoly is in camouflage as a social service. It is argued that our remote communities would go unserved. The vast Post Office is thus a redistributive force balancing the advantages of urban l