By God, this is the last straw!

[PBI]

this Mandleson thinks he is god.

The man literally has no shame, so this latest turn of events is depressing but not surprising.

What I am still scratching my head about is how a man who is almost universally unpopular and with a known record of incompetence and corruption still managed to worm his way back into power despite having been twice previously forced to resign in disgrace.

Regarding the privatisation itself; although I can see the argument that the free market can be more efficient and deliver a better service than a state-owned entity, the fact is that every major privatisation of a public service in my lifetime has resulted in a sharp drop in service and all manner of scandals and dirty dealings. I honestly don't know whether this is simply due to the government consistently favouring their cronies every time there is such a selloff, or if there are just some areas which are simply to conducive to price fixing and profiteering for a free market to function properly.

[Sarmatian]

Royal, bloody, Mail, the oldest postal service in the world is being flogged off in the most incompitent fashion. Whats more, they swore they would not do it, not even The Iron Lady dared to, this Mandleson thinks he is god.

Fresh capital? Improvement! What the hell? Do even know what happens when a public service is privatised? Clearly you do not. There is no competition really is there? These called shareholders (who make large sums of money by doing piss all) will do everything in their power to ruin a national institution.

I have every reason to be angry at a known criminal! And one in government at that.

Bah. As a customer I'm interested only how good is the service and how much money it costs. Whether it's owned by bunch of corrupt and morally bankrupt politicians or a bunch of corrupt and morally bankrupt businessmen - not really important. I agree that in certain areas government should always have a final say and I'd understand your point of view if they'd tried to sell of 2/3, but since they're in control of more than 51%, I see no reason for such an outburst.

If I'm not mistaken, postal services are private in the US. I've never had any problem with postal services there. Quick, cheap and efficient...

Fresh capital? That's the reason a private company sells off some stock... Government owned companies have access to the biggest source of income in the nation, the treasury. There's no need to sell stuff off to get money, unless the country in question is doing seriously bad and desperately needs some quick cash. I honestly can't say Britain is in that situation... This is idealism, nothing else. Market libby idealism.

You obviously have a wrong idea how it works. Treasury is not some room where huge piles of money are stored. It's not like prime minister can tell the janitor: "Hey, bring me a couple of billions from the treasury, we need to invest in postal system!". No, every penny has it's purpose. It's a time of relative big economic crisis, British budget certainly felt it. Hell, only that 2.5% (or whatever) VAT cut means billions and billions less revenue for the state. Post probably needed some investment, and they decided that instead of taking away more money from an already tight and strained budget, they get that capital from abroad. It's only 1/3, so the state is still fully in control. And I'd be surprised if Royal Post brought some huge revenues to the state.

I admit I'm not familiar with this particular deal, but I sincerely doubt that someone from the government decided to sell of 33% of the Royal Post just for the fun of it...

Discussing whether that money was needed, how much (if any) revenues the state would lose long term because of it, will the service be improved etc... is ok. But instead of it, it's all about: "Hey, it's Royal Post. You know, I mean Royal Post. Like, Royal Post."

[HoreTore]

I've never had any problem with postal services there. Quick, cheap and efficient...

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

You obviously have a wrong idea how it works. Treasury is not some room where huge piles of money are stored. It's not like prime minister can tell the janitor: "Hey, bring me a couple of billions from the treasury, we need to invest in postal system!". No, every penny has it's purpose. It's a time of relative big economic crisis, British budget certainly felt it. Hell, only that 2.5% (or whatever) VAT cut means billions and billions less revenue for the state. Post probably needed some investment, and they decided that instead of taking away more money from an already tight and strained budget, they get that capital from abroad. It's only 1/3, so the state is still fully in control. And I'd be surprised if Royal Post brought some huge revenues to the state.

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Indeed it is:

"The United States Postal Service (USPS) is an independent agency of the United States government...

So are Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae -- do not assume that "independent agency of the United States government" is anything resembling a panacea.

Even when semi-privatized, the USPS retained a monopoly on 1 oz. "first class" mail. FEDEX and others were competing for everything else. The USPS service is the same, or slower but costs slightly less than FEDEX or DHL....but for some reason they keep raising the price of stamps on their monopolized service FASTER than any other analogous service.

Consider this: In 1984, the year Ma Bell was broken up, the average long-distance phone call cost 28 cents per minute. Meanwhile, a first-class stamp cost 20 cents. Today, the average long-distance telephone rate has plummeted to 11 cents, while stamps have soared to 37 cents. If telephone prices had risen with inflation like stamps, a long-distance call today would cost a whopping 51 cents per minute

.

Today, that LD call is under $05/minute, but the stamp is $0.42 and going to $0.43 in May.


You can make arguments that government can provide services no other provider could or that government can apportion a resource or service more equitably (I'd argue that, but it is at least a valid argument), but do NOT assume that cost and efficiency are hallmarks of goverment control. The best to hope for with government is that it's "break-even" compared to the private sector.

[Tribesman]

Bah. As a customer I'm interested only how good is the service and how much money it costs.

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 ?

[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 .

[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.

[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