By God, this is the last straw!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And as in this case if you were in Britain you wouldn't just be a customer , you through taxes would be the financier .
How happy would you be to have the profitable interests taken from you for a pittance while you retained the non-profitable parts and all accumulated and future debts ?

Why are you unhappy with Paulsen's decisions? Oh wait, this particular SNAFU is on YOUR side of the pond. I'll try not to conflate the UK's idiocies with our own.

[Sarmatian]

Indeed it is:

"The United States Postal Service (USPS) is an independent agency of the United States government (see 39 U.S.C. § 201) responsible for providing postal service in the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Postal_Service

Don't know about USPS, I got my stuff through FedEx and UPS.

BAH! We're talking about the bloody UK here, not some tiny pacific island. They've got the cash. As I said, for a government to start selling off stuff, they'd have to be in deep . The UK isn't even close. The postal service needs a billion or two for infrastructure, you say? Well then, the answer is easy; borrow some money(like states do all the freakin' time), take some from some other place, dig into the treasury reserve, etc etc. The UK isn't in the position where it has to sell stuff to caugh up some cash.

But, no, nobody is doing this "for fun". They're doing it for ideological reasons. Idealists. It has nothing to do with the real world, just like every other idiot privatization out there.

Note that I'm not criticizing privatization in general, I'm criticizing unnecessary privatization. For some people, privatization isn't a means to an end, it's the ultimate goal itself. Bad things happen when those people enter the real world, as there are a bunch of businesses who are much better of in state hands.

We may be talking about bloody US here, it wouldn't change anything. I didn't say how much money it needs, I don't know that. Maybe it needs half a billion, maybe it needs 5, it doesn't matter. Maybe they don't want to pay interest on something that isn't a sure investment. Royal Post, according to the article is getting less and less revenue. They have a monopoly on delivering residential mail and the amount of mail is dropping 7% each year. Just to make it simpler, that means 50% less in 2015. Their revenues fell for one third last year, again according to the article. You don't have to be Soros to recognize the trend here. TNT is already delivering business mail for BT. Why did BT decide for TNT instead of Royal Mail? Obviously they offer either better or cheaper services. Or both...

And as in this case if you were in Britain you wouldn't just be a customer , you through taxes would be the financier .

Valid point, worth discussing, unlike most others that were outcries because someone was selling "national pride".

I should be only a customer. I pay to have my mail delivered. I don't want to have to pay some more through taxes every year because the company is becoming unprofitable.

How happy would you be to have the profitable interests taken from you for a pittance while you retained the non-profitable parts and all accumulated and future debts ?

Maybe I got it wrong, but the article doesn't say future debts. All it says is the government is supposed to take on current pension commitments, not future ones. Also, I'd say it's much more important to have control over pension funds than mail. Even it is unprofitable, it's still better to have unprofitable pension funds than both pension funds and post. If something goes wrong with those pension funds, financial security of many people would be in danger...

[Tribesman]

Why are you unhappy with Paulsen's decisions? Oh wait, this particular SNAFU is on YOUR side of the pond. I'll try not to conflate the UK's idiocies with our own.

Well its like this Seamus , our government tends to have an interest in what happens in Britain ,they seem to watch closely every ballsup the conservatives and new labour do in terms of privatisation .
Then being the clever bastards that they are they see if they can make an even bigger ballsup of it than the Brits managed , and unfortunately they are pretty consistant in achieving that .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well its like this Seamus , our government tends to have an interest in what happens in Britain ,they seem to watch closely every ballsup the conservatives and new labour do in terms of privatisation .
Then being the clever bastards that they are they see if they can make an even bigger ballsup of it than the Brits managed , and unfortunately they are pretty consistant in achieving that .

Our politicos seem to employ that charming approach to "learning from the other person's mistakes" as well.

Figures THAT is what we'd have in common.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen, I realise this is an emotive subject but the level of bad language is breaching the unacceptable. I am running out of daisies, and if I need to spend the time to harvest some more, I will be forced in the interim, to use warnings instead.

(Particularly reprehensible is the continued and widespread use of the word "Mandelson" which as you should know, outranks the f-bomb in most parts of Europe for vulgarity).

Thank you kindly.

[Slyspy]

We may be talking about bloody US here, it wouldn't change anything. I didn't say how much money it needs, I don't know that. Maybe it needs half a billion, maybe it needs 5, it doesn't matter. Maybe they don't want to pay interest on something that isn't a sure investment. Royal Post, according to the article is getting less and less revenue. They have a monopoly on delivering residential mail and the amount of mail is dropping 7% each year. Just to make it simpler, that means 50% less in 2015. Their revenues fell for one third last year, again according to the article. You don't have to be Soros to recognize the trend here. TNT is already delivering business mail for BT. Why did BT decide for TNT instead of Royal Mail? Obviously they offer either better or cheaper services. Or both...

Yes, but that is part of the problem. IIRC back when the Royal Mail had what to all intents and purposes was a monopoly it made money quite happily. It is, after all, business post which makes the money not residential. Then when the system was demonopolised (one might almost say, in effect, part-privatized) it was decided that while business post should be open to private firms like TNT the residential mail should continue to to be a monolpoy of the Royal Mail with its old fashioned public service ideal of 100% coverage with set and affordable prices. So the private firms, not saddled with the unprofitable residential mail, were able to easily undercut the Royal Mail in the areas that counted - business contracts. Hence the much of the problem with the Royal Mail today, especially as new communication methods like email and mobiles continue to reduce the level of residential mail.

This is one of the worries about privatization - that the universal service will cease to be as private firms with their eyes on their shareprice shed unprofitable delievery areas. We've already seen similar things with the bus and, especially, rail companies. They cancel unprofitable services, often upping the fares or reducing the service and using the subsequent drop in users as an excuse. All the while they get subsidized by the government anyway (and it is hard to shake the feeling that the government will have to catch them if they fall) and dodge as much tax as possible while the toothless, incompetant and/or corrupt regulators look the other way.

[Tribesman]

Particularly reprehensible is the continued and widespread use of the word "Mandelson" which as you should know, outranks the f-bomb in most parts of Europe for vulgarity

Perhaps "His Ladyship" would be less vulgar than "Mandelson" .
But more on topic .
Would this very contentious proposal to asset strip the tax payer in favour of giving profit to a corporation be slightly less of an issue if it didn't come from a person who (to put it mildly) has a very long history of extremely dubious business/political dealings with very dodgy compaies/individuals , not to mention some rather "interesting" personal financial transactions and errrrrr....."gifts" ?

[KukriKhan]

It's not a proper sale - the government takes all responsibility for the pension deficit - running at £7 BILLION and then sells off part of the rest for something to look good on the balance sheet.

Indeed, that sounds pretty short-sighted to me. If fixed rates, 'universal' collection and delivery, and citizen/customer/taxpayer input are all seen as desireable, a gov't-run (or semi-gov't-run, as is the US) would seem desireable, even with the inevitable shortcomings of gov't enterprise.

[Incongruous]

Ha!
Labour will be squirming under this kind of pressure, Mandey's attempt to "reassure" backbenchers will hopefully fail and have him cowering behind the PM, who is fast looking like Swiss cheese!

If this does not end Labour then the next revolt surely will, I hope Brown backs down over this. I expect a stand down will have to wait.

Linky:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5361526.ece

[LittleGrizzly]

Because of the various things that have happened Brown cannot get things through in the same way Blair could, this is mostly good in terms of individual policys but bad looking at a long term view of it, this can only make labour look bad and make a tory victory more likely... lose lose...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Because of the various things that have happened Brown cannot get things through in the same way Blair could, this is mostly good in terms of individual policys but bad looking at a long term view of it, this can only make labour look bad and make a tory victory more likely... lose lose...

Perhaps the Liberals could win by playing one off agin the other?

[LittleGrizzly]

Perhaps the Liberals could win by playing one off agin the other?

I can't see anything other than a hung parliment giving power to the liberals, thier accussed of populism but if they're the smaller partner in a coalition i don't think that would be such a bad thing, they have been against a lot of labours worst policys, Iraq, General erosion of civil liberty's and it wouldn't surprise me if they were against privitisation as well.

Originally back when i made my first vote i figured the LD's (liberals) were closer to me idealogically so i would vote them, but if needed i would be prepared to switch my vote to labour to keep out the tory's..... These days i just don't now if i can bring myself to do it....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Originally back when i made my first vote i figured the LD's (liberals) were closer to me idealogically so i would vote them, but if needed i would be prepared to switch my vote to labour to keep out the tory's..... These days i just don't now if i can bring myself to do it....

Very close to the "ringing" level of support I felt for John McCain. I understand the dilemma.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Perhaps the Liberals could win by playing one off agin the other?

I can't see anything other than a hung parliment giving power to the liberals, thier accussed of populism but if they're the smaller partner in a coalition i don't think that would be such a bad thing, they have been against a lot of labours worst policys, Iraq, General erosion of civil liberty's and it wouldn't surprise me if they were against privitisation as well.

Originally back when i made my first vote i figured the LD's (liberals) were closer to me idealogically so i would vote them, but if needed i would be prepared to switch my vote to labour to keep out the tory's..... These days i just don't now if i can bring myself to do it....

How could the Tories possibly be worse than Labout short of Cameron being Hitler in a zip-up bodysuit a la Bill and Ted 2?

[Incongruous]

Cameron's Broken Society talk has me tingling in the back of my mind.

[Fisherking]

Maybe you should just sell off the prime minister’s office and be done with it.

If you are going to be robbed blind you may as well have them put their cards on the table.

[KukriKhan]

Maybe you should just sell off the prime minister’s office and be done with it.

If you are going to be robbed blind you may as well have them put their cards on the table.

Rofl. :)

The primary purpose of any national postal system is communication between a government and its citizens. It is the reason that 'universal' service is demanded, even though sending mail to far-flung parts of the nation might be economically inefficient and costly.

That primary mission often gets lost sight of by the commercial uses that piggy-back that communications channel. We're so accustomed to seeing catalogs and adverts and other junk in our mail, that we begin to think that postal services are just another arm of business - and we're thus tempted to believe that it should be run like one.

God knows government-run services are never cost-efficient, and do a poor internal job of preventing waste, fraud, and abuse. But, in my opinion, the primary purpose and value of the systems outweighs those considerations. We just have to get better at policing the waste, fraud, and abuse, and sometimes be willing to let heads roll when we find gross inefficiency. But the citizens, and their governments need to keep control themselves; not auction off the profitable bits on eBay.

[HoreTore]

Rofl. :)

The primary purpose of any national postal system is communication between a government and its citizens. It is the reason that 'universal' service is demanded, even though sending mail to far-flung parts of the nation might be economically inefficient and costly.

That primary mission often gets lost sight of by the commercial uses that piggy-back that communications channel. We're so accustomed to seeing catalogs and adverts and other junk in our mail, that we begin to think that postal services are just another arm of business - and we're thus tempted to believe that it should be run like one.

God knows government-run services are never cost-efficient, and do a poor internal job of preventing waste, fraud, and abuse. But, in my opinion, the primary purpose and value of the systems outweighs those considerations. We just have to get better at policing the waste, fraud, and abuse, and sometimes be willing to let heads roll when we find gross inefficiency. But the citizens, and their governments need to keep control themselves; not auction off the profitable bits on eBay.

Right. I'm going to bed now, Kukri, and in my dreams you won't be a middle-aged guy, you'll be something along the lines of this.

Seriously, if you ever visit Norwayland, I'll buy your beer. You don't happen to have any unwed daughters, do you?

[Incongruous]

Rofl. :)

The primary purpose of any national postal system is communication between a government and its citizens. It is the reason that 'universal' service is demanded, even though sending mail to far-flung parts of the nation might be economically inefficient and costly.

That primary mission often gets lost sight of by the commercial uses that piggy-back that communications channel. We're so accustomed to seeing catalogs and adverts and other junk in our mail, that we begin to think that postal services are just another arm of business - and we're thus tempted to believe that it should be run like one.

God knows government-run services are never cost-efficient, and do a poor internal job of preventing waste, fraud, and abuse. But, in my opinion, the primary purpose and value of the systems outweighs those considerations. We just have to get better at policing the waste, fraud, and abuse, and sometimes be willing to let heads roll when we find gross inefficiency. But the citizens, and their governments need to keep control themselves; not auction off the profitable bits on eBay.

God, if only British national pride went further than the Pound Sterling...

[rory_20_uk]

Rofl. :)

The primary purpose of any national postal system is communication between a government and its citizens. It is the reason that 'universal' service is demanded, even though sending mail to far-flung parts of the nation might be economically inefficient and costly.

That primary mission often gets lost sight of by the commercial uses that piggy-back that communications channel. We're so accustomed to seeing catalogs and adverts and other junk in our mail, that we begin to think that postal services are just another arm of business - and we're thus tempted to believe that it should be run like one.

God knows government-run services are never cost-efficient, and do a poor internal job of preventing waste, fraud, and abuse. But, in my opinion, the primary purpose and value of the systems outweighs those considerations. We just have to get better at policing the waste, fraud, and abuse, and sometimes be willing to let heads roll when we find gross inefficiency. But the citizens, and their governments need to keep control themselves; not auction off the profitable bits on eBay.

BT hasn't done such a bad job after privitisation. It had strick rules as to what it had to do.
A privitised Royal Mail (not a fire sale with the pension disaster taken off) could again have strict rules that it has to deliver al all houses, no if or buts. They can then sort out the efficiencies.

[CountArach]

A privitised Royal Mail (not a fire sale with the pension disaster taken off) could again have strict rules that it has to deliver al all houses, no if or buts. They can then sort out the efficiencies.

How could they sort out the efficiencies? What would force them to do that? The idea of sorting out efficiencies assumes that there is perfect competition between several different companies attempting the same deliveries for more profit. By ordering that they must deliver to every house and then not giving other companies the same order a situation is created where there is no reason to sort out efficiencies... you might as well have not sold the entity off in the first place.

At least with public companies we have elections to sort these things out.

[rory_20_uk]

Elections to sort this out? When was the last one? Oh, you mean general elections...

I'm a GP. The money practices are paid is often reduced with the monies returned for services (QOF). Private companies are therefore directed by the government restricting the money. The saving would be that prices are dependent on the government but the business can manage itself however it likes. To make a profit requires efficiencies or more sales, but not merely by tripling the price of a stamp.

[Tribesman]

Private companies are therefore directed by the government restricting the money

errrrrrr no .
If you were a private practice then you wouldn't be getting NHS patients would you

[rory_20_uk]

errrrrrr no .
If you were a private practice then you wouldn't be getting NHS patients would you

Errrrrr no, you're completely wrong. All GP practices are private and have been since the inception fo the NHS. All GPs tender for work from the NHS. More and more and becoming PLCs.

Taking on private patients is something completely different.

[The Black Ship]

Your government also just sold off ownership of your only nuclear weapons research center. It's now owned by American companies.

[Tribesman]

Your government also just sold off ownership of your only nuclear weapons research center.

Sorry BS but they didn't .
Britain has lots of research centres , there is a nice one in Teddington called the NPL .
Aldermaston was once a research center , that was when it was called AWRE , the "R" standing for research , then it became AWE which means its just for production , just like Burghclere is just for assembly of what is produced at Aldermaston not research .
Now in my opinion both should be shut down as there are serious legal cases , in such that they are both illegal developments on common land (NPL is different as that is on a royal estate) and the temporary wartime measure allowing airfields(as they originally were) has long since gone .
Though of course the levels of contamination do mean that they cannot really be returned to common use