MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Wasn't the deal agreed during the previous Govt?
Democracy - the least worst system weve tried.
Labour, the least worst government we can vote for?
might turn it around.
they should sell the whole shytehole of a country while their at it.
Well it was actually privatised in 2013 during the Cameron gov't, but that's probably Labours fault as well. Somehow.
I thought it’d been sold in the 1980s
On the contrary, Margaret Thatcher was famously very opposed to the privatisation of Royal Mail.
And ironically the Tories needed the Liberal Democrats to help them privatised it.
The government are selling Royal Mail to a Czech billionaire
Well I hope they put a silhouette of his portrait on their stamps, otherwise I feel that they might be falling foul of the trade description act.
So you could say that the Czech is in The Mail.
The race to the bottom has well and truly accelerated now then.
Previous government, but could be stopped. Not really been the Royal Mail for a long time.
I've not really been paying attention to any of this, so this is a question.
How easy would it have been to stop something signed off by the previous Government? If they could stop it, what are the consequences? Is it even worth saving?
I spent 9 months working as a postie, I can’t imagine a worst employer no regard for worker safety or the law, knowingly send people out to work with vehicles with bald tyres and dangerous faults. Absolute them and us attitude between workers and managers and will run away and claim victimisation when you try and bring up a legitimate issue. Most people like their posties but loathe them as an organisation. Expect further price increases and more deterioration of service.
Interesting that press reports (presumably) are making people think it's a Labour government action.
@dovebiker I was a postie for nearly 26 years took the money and ran in 2009 best decision ever !
Interesting that press reports (presumably) are making people think it’s a Labour government action.
See also, the Chagos Islands deal and early prisoner release. The dishonesty of the mainstream media shouldn't be underestimated.
I was a postie for nearly 26 years took the money and ran in 2009 best decision ever !
I wondered why I never got that 20 quid my aunt sent me back then.
This whole thing barely registers on my giveashitometer. Most of my deliveries to my house are via a courier, I would say I get one Royal Mail letter every 2 weeks, other than junk mail that I have not asked for. The only useful thing Royal Mail do for me is collecting small parcels from the house, but I guess another courier would manage that just as well.
I do understand that the universal price is really important for rural communities and Royal Mail are better placed to preserve that, but I do not feel like it is some sort of cherished service that must be preserved at all costs.
Just read this on the BBC website, and the first half of the story does indeed read as if the government are selling it, rather than IDS. Weird reporting. Carry on reading to the end and you get the actual story.
@failedengineer. I'm genuinely curious that you are so animated about this. Makes me wonder what I am missing. How does it impact you and why do it make you want to change voting intention?
Interesting that press reports (presumably) are making people think it’s a Labour government action.
That does seem to be the populist opinion if Twitter is anything to go by. Which it probably isn't.
I’m genuinely curious that you are so animated about this. Makes me wonder what I am missing. How does it impact you and why do it make you want to change voting intention?
For all the crimes against the population that have been inflicted upon us by various governments both red and blue in my lifetime alone, this does seem to be a deeply odd hill to choose to die on. Like, the Iraq War under Blair was perfectly acceptable, but selling the Royal Mail (which they aren't, AIUI it was already sold by our favourite renowned pig-botherer) is a step too far?
ElShalimoFull Member
Wasn’t the deal agreed during the previous Govt?
Yeah, but we all know that Labour's *really* behind it all, somehow.
@failedengineer - I want to know why you've failed as an engineer? I've been winging and getting away with it for 36years now.
I'm sure all necessary Czechs and balances are in place
TBH what difference does it make to you (unless you work for them),everything else has literally been sold off
And anyway I am sure that Daniel Kretinsky wants to own Royal Mail because he was concerned that people in the UK weren't receiving the best postal delivery service possible. So a cheaper more efficient service I am positive is just around the corner.
How easy would it have been to stop something signed off by the previous Government? If they could stop it, what are the consequences?
Well when Keir Starmer was desperate to become Leader of the Labour Party he included the renationalisation of the Royal Mail in one of his 10 socialist pledges, so the former DDP obviously thought that it was doable:
5. Common ownership
Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.
Opinion polls have consistently shown overwhelming public opposition to firstly the privatisation of Royal Mail and then overwhelming support for renationalisation.
But presumably the wishes of a Czech billionaire are now more important to Keir Starmer than the wishes of British people, as is profits for shareholders......tough decisions and all that.
The government are selling Royal Mail to a Czech billionaire, according to the news.
The news (including BBC) seem to be, for whatever reason, strongly implying that this is the (Labour) government's doing, by saying the takeover has been "approved"
but could be stopped
I don't think it could though? AIUI, the "approval" means that it passes whatever checks it needs to in terms of national security, etc, and that being the case there simply isn't the mechanism to deny what is essentially otherwise a fairly ordinary takeover bid. It's already been sold off from public ownership, years ago, it's simply being sold on now.
don’t think it could though? AIUI, the “approval” means that it passes whatever checks it needs to in terms of national security, etc, and that being the case there simply isn’t the mechanism to deny what is essentially otherwise a fairly ordinary takeover bid. It’s already been
There was no need to stop it. If Starmer had stuck to the “pledge” he made when he claimed that public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders, and the government had a policy of renationalising Royal Mail, then I very much doubt that Daniel Kretinsky would have been interested in it and there would be no takeover happening now.
With the correct legislation nationalisation is perfectly legal. If Charles the First managed to do it I am sure that it is not beyond Keir Starmer's capabilities. He certainly previously thought that he could do it.
I'm similarly outraged that a company that for too long was a monopoly and has continued to give crap service for expensive prices has been sold to someone else. You'd kind of hope this billionaire businessman has some kind of idea of how to run a successful business and as a result we may actually see something resembling a decent vfm postal service...
It doesn't affect me personally. It's the principle. A Labour government should be re-nationalising the sold off assets, not carrying on with the sale. By trying to appeal to people who would probably never vote Labour, they are alienating old lefties like me. I'm sure that they (or certainly Starmer) don't care in the slightest because I'm part of a dying (literally) breed.
@rustynissanprairie - I never actually failed as an engineer (I was a design draughtsman/Project Engineer back in the pencil days), I moved into sales and marketing. I just wish that I'd stuck it out, it was the only thing I've ever been good at!
With the correct legislation nationalisation is perfectly legal.
I'd have preferred it not to have been sold off in the first place but, as above, where would the money come from to buy it back? is it even worth spending that kind of public money on a declining industry?
By trying to appeal to people who would probably never vote Labour
I don't think this particular issue has anything at all to do with Labour trying to appeal to Tory voters.
Don't be mistaken into thinking that STW reflects public opinion, according to a recent yougov poll 75% of voters support renationalising Royal Mail and only 15% oppose it.
Even if every single one of the 15% was a Tory voter that is still a lot of Tory voters who don't oppose the renationalisation of Royal Mail.
Renationalisation of the nation's assets is massively popular with voters, including Tory voters, if Starmer's government makes the "difficult decision" not to renationalise Royal Mail it has to be for ideological reasons, certainly not because it lacks voter appeal.
have the government got 3.6bn to buy royal mail
So it is debatable whether the UK government can afford to buy something which it turns out that a Czech billionaire can afford?
Where would the money come from to buy it back?
Taking Northern Rail back into public ownership has certainly worked out well.
if Starmer’s government makes the “difficult decision” not to renationalise Royal Mail it has to be for ideological reasons, certainly not because it lacks voter appeal.
Considering the ferocious resistance they're encountering on every front where they're trying to raise taxes or cut spending I suspect they're looking at the 3.6 Billion it would cost them and have decided that the plaudits they'll get for re-nationalising the RM will be more than outweighed by the pain of raising the money.
Oh, and if the sale had already been agreed under the previously government they'd probably end up in court and on the hook for a very hefty legal bill if they quashed it now. Which I'm sure the press would have a field day about as well.
I'm not a Labour supporter but.. government is tough.
@johnnystorm the Royal Mail isn't anywhere near profitable enough to cover the interest payments on £3.6B of government bonds
Oh, and if the sale had already been agreed under the previously government they’d probably end up in court and on the hook for a very hefty legal bill if they quashed it now.
As I said previously no need to quash the takeover bid, just nationalise Royal Mail. The courts could do about as much about that as they could about privatisation.
Which I’m sure the press would have a field day about as well.
So "the press" sets the agenda, not voters and the government which they elected?
Excuses, excuses, excuses, always an excuse for not doing the right thing.
Where would the money come from to buy it back?
Same place it always comes from.
And the government gains an asset.
Look Labour or the Tories - both are signed up to private-is-best.
And as terrible as the Tories are we have a Labour government that is working in the interests of capital - why on earth is anyone shocked these days?
The ship has sailed
Until we change the whole damn outlook on the way markets don't actually work then we will keep getting these shitty governments not operating in the interest of the majority.
No real point in keeping going on about the Tories now - it's up to Labour to fix things.
have the government got 3.6bn to buy royal mail
Of course they have.
All this is down to political will.
It's never due to lack of funds. Ever.
Don't forget they gain an asset which supports the balance sheet too.
(Remember 3bn for Ukraine every year no matter what.)
Labour are totally boxed in by believing in the private sector to fund things. It's a fail and it's Tory thinking.
Expect more dumb-assery as we move into 2025.
according to a recent yougov poll 75% of voters support renationalising Royal Mail and only 15% oppose it.
Genuine question because I don't understand, how does "renationalising" work? That thing we sold you, we'll have it back now, thanks. You can't unsell something, what do we do, out-bid the private competition?
You pass legislation in parliament.
I cant see the problem. If someone wants to buy this failing business, thats a good thing, and will probably lead to investment.
Certainly I havent seen the same level of thread about foreigners buying football teams
Therein precisely lies the rub; for, so long as the propertied classes remain at the helm, nationalisation never abolishes exploitation but merely changes its form — in the French, American or Swiss republics no less than in monarchist Central, and despotic Eastern, Europe.
— Friedrich Engels
The problem that Murphy has is that private industries receiving Govt bonds in exchange for their property happened precisely once, at the end of WW2 when there was literally no alternative. That hasn't been the case since, and every nationalised industry has been bought at market value on borrowed cash. It's worth noting that even McDonell and Corbyn in their 2017 manifesto wouldn't either 1. put the cost of any nationalisation plan, or 2. the route they planned to raised the money in writing (their 'fully costed' manifesto excluded it) and at the time, they were being briefed by none other than Murphy himself.
I don't think the water industry or the rail or any other monopoly should've been sold off, but these things tend to come in circles, and what was privatised becomes nationalised again. Only to be reprivatized when they become too expensive, bureaucratic and unwieldly and used as political points-scoring for the opposition of the day.
Engels was right all along.
Royal Mail is all about managed decline, without restoring its monopoly status. Why should “the state” take that on? People don’t really want a single state owned delivery service… they are just attached to the memory of one. Their services won’t really be a priority for many people at all in the future, while they have other options… unlike water, transport, renewable energy… all of which are here to stay, and all of which it is well worth the state owning and running for the benefit of us all. If the government made moves (beyond rail and a bit of other tinkering it has planned) to have more publicly owned infrastructure and services, Royal Mail would be well down the list of “assets” it could acquire or develop. Liberalizing the market for deliveries, and splitting up and privatizing the state owned parts of it, whether the right option or not, isn’t worth unpicking over the next ten years, is it?
I could forgive them a lot, but not this ….
A company privatized by the Tories a decade ago is being sold to another owner. What's the big deal?
Out of all the things wrong in the world, or in the UK, this is must be close to the very bottom of the heap.
have decided that the plaudits they’ll get for re-nationalising the RM
Would last about the same length of time it's taken for the shine to rub off the Starmer govt. Any nationalised industry is a stick with which to beat the govt, and a massive elephant trap of failing to improve, rising costs, arguments with it's management and/or it's unions when trying to not incur costs, and disapproval from the public over every industrial action. Personally I can't wait for the railways (for instance) to be run as well as every council.
The company agreed to be bought whilst the Tories were in government but it is has been up to Labour to give the final go ahead in terms of transfer of ownership.
they should sell the whole shytehole of a country while their at it.
@ton They did that years ago.
Still can't work the bloody quote function
Not sure why anyone would want to buy it?
It's on borrowed time surely?
Although, TBF, around here, Parcelforce and the Royal Mail, offer a very good service, I've got a very helpful and friendly postie and the regular Parcelforce bloke is top as well.
Personally I can’t wait for the railways (for instance) to be run as well as every council.
Where buses are once again being run as a public service (and in places that never stopped being run that way) the service tends to be better. The railways are currently... [ insert any swear word you fancy ] ...across much of the country.
And why should they not give approval to a private company selling an operation to another private company?
Because, rightly or wrongly RM are considered vital national infrastructure with a universal service obligation.
Because, rightly or wrongly RM are considered vital national infrastructure with a universal service obligation
. . .which is a fair point. But the government considered this when deciding whether to allow it to be sold on and obviously decided it was not a significant issue.
But that was not the tone of the OP, or of several posters wondering if it can be/should be renationalized.
As someone else said earlier, I can't see why this would register on the giveashitometer - let alone be unforgivable.
It should have registered on the giveashitometer because it is sort of infrastructure - the fact it was state owned for all those years tells us that. And state ownership -> listed company -> private buyer is exactly the same route as taken by the water companies. And look where that has led us.
It should have registered on the giveashitometer because it is sort of infrastructure – the fact it was state owned for all those years tells us that. And state ownership -> listed company -> private buyer is exactly the same route as taken by the water companies. And look where that has led us.
Its hardly comparible though. If the water company ceased to exist tomorrow we'd all know instantly as its sort of important that we have running water.
If the Royal Mail ceased to exist tomorrow, how long do you reckon it would be before you even noticed?
I take the point of all you who say it doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things. However, it seems that every last blade of bloody grass is for sale to the highest bidder in this shitty country and I've just had enough of it. There are 'For Sale' signs in woodlands all over the place up here, for instance. I think we would be a better country if all this was reversed. I'm not advocating full-on communism, just a little caring socialism, or social democracy, if you like. Which other first world country would allow directors of failing monopolies to draw huge bonuses whilst being fined for killing our waterways?
Still can’t work the bloody quote function
Its simple.
Copy the text you want to copy. Press the quote symbol and hit paste.
Then press enter twice.
Add your witty retort.
Hit submit.
There are ‘For Sale’ signs in woodlands all over the place up here, for instance.
So what? There are For Sale signs on woodlands down here too. I see nothing wrong with someone who owns a woodland deciding they want to sell it. Forestery Commission land, NT, etc is a different matter - but you didn’t say they are all being sold off?
As for water ownership - I think the regulator has been useless for many years and there is a good argument for it being nationalised, although also good arguments against it. But electricity, gas, telecommunications have all been « sold to the highest bidder » in most first world countries and generally work reasonably well.
But the main point is that the belief most things would be better nationalized is as silly and naive as the belief that everything must be privatised. I agree with DB on this - there are much more important things to give a shit about.
In my experience a vast majority of the population don't know that the Post office and Royal mail are two different entities, so those stats stating that 75% of the public want RM re-nationalised could be erroneous.
Any how, this could all go south for the Czech billionaire and the government could pick it up cheap in a couple of years when he tries to off load it.
Let’s fix the Health Service before the Post Service.
What are we some sort of third world country that can't have a functioning health service and a postal service that isn't foreign owned?
Where does fighting homelessness come into the equation? Can the UK "afford" to build more homes or does this also have to wait until the health service has been fixed?
postal service that isn’t foreign owned
So it’s the foreigners you object to, rather than the grasping capitalists?
Where does . . . come into the equation?
There are lots of things that would be nice to spend money on, but government resources are finite so choices must always be made. In that world, nationalizing the Royal Mail would be stupid.
So it’s the foreigners you object to, rather than the grasping capitalists?
Eh, in case you haven't figured out it can't be under democratic control if it is foreign owned, nor are profits likely to stay in the UK.
Are you happy with foreign governments owning vital British industries as long as they aren't "grasping capitalists"?
Of course postal services should not be foreign owned, in the same way that the railways should not be foreign owned.
Edit : Btw the "foreign owned" comment in my post was in reference to treating the UK as if it is some sort of third world country, I expect third countries to maybe have their vital industries foreign owned but not the world's 7th wealthiest nation.
Under the control of the democratically expressed will of the people, and serving their needs. Answerable to politicians, not industrialists.
Copy
Does it work
Edit Nope not my phone anyway
Labour are totally boxed in by believing in the private sector to fund things. It’s a fail and it’s Tory thinking.
And as I keep pointing out, to even state otherwise will then be slaughtered right across the vast majority of the UK's media.
Which other first world country would allow directors of failing monopolies to draw huge bonuses whilst being fined for killing our waterways?
That little one over the pond, the supposed 'leader' of the free world!
And as I keep pointing out, to even state otherwise will then be slaughtered right across the vast majority of the UK’s media.
So what? Just because you expect the government to do what media moguls tell them doesn't mean we agree, I think the attitude of appeasement to the media is a much much bigger problem to democracy than having the daily mail say nasty things. And with Musk now clearly spelling out that he is going to use twitter to disrupt democracy for the benefit of the few, to still keep parrating that the media should in any way dictate policy is becoming rather sad and pathetic.