Forum menu
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.
very last blade of bloody grass is for sale to the highest bidder in this shitty country and I’ve just had enough of it
Bye, then.
Or instead of impotently shouting on a remote forum, get off your arse and be the change you want to see. Get yerself or an avatar elected and influence things.
Make a change. Make an effort.
Otherwise you are just shouting at rainclouds
Are you happy with foreign governments owning vital British industries
Vital - which ones are they?
I am struggling to think of any apart from possibly key defence and research. Certainly not one of many companies moving bits of paper and parcels around the country.
Since all the blame for privatisation of Royal Mail is apparently being placed on the Tories it might worth remembering that the minister responsible for the privatisation has never been a member of the Tory Party:
Vince Cable recalled by MPs over Royal Mail privatisation controversy
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/07/vince-cable-recalled-mps-royal-mail-privatisation
Vince Cable has been recalled to give further evidence on the privatisation of Royal Mail following a damning National Audit Office report that found the government had cost taxpayers £750m in a single day by undervaluing the postal service.
The business secretary will be called before the business select committee on 29 April to answer claims that he botched the sale and allowed City traders to make instant profits at the expense of taxpayers.
Cable, who took the lead role in arranging the privatisation alongside business minister Michael Fallon, endured a bruising encounter with the select committee when he first appeared to explain the Royal Mail deal.
So a botched privatisation led by a senior Liberal Democrat politician then. Still, a few 'liberal lefties" on here seem fairly comfortable with whole situation so maybe not quite as surprising as it might first appear.
For Margret Thatcher Royal Mail privatisation was a privatisation too far and she strongly opposed it, but for today's centrists it's a perfectly logical progression, despite massive voter opposition (you can be sure that the only reason Thatcher was opposed to RM privatisation was because she was smart enough to know that she would never be able to sell it to voters, today's centrists don't care because as far as they are concerned voters have no choice)
Which other first world country would allow directors of failing monopolies to draw huge bonuses whilst being fined for killing our waterways?
I would hazard a guess of; pretty much all of them. I don't think the UK is alone is having groups of politicians of all stripes just making awful decisions (often as unintended consequences to be fair) about stuff they don't pay enough attention to, don't know enough about, and is mostly driven by ideological choices rather than necessity or fact that haven't ever left a policy paper, and often fail when exposed to real life. [Insert Mike Tyson quote here]
Take my own industry, pretty much all GP practices are private for profit businesses that are given very regulated, very tightly drawn contracts that are pretty generous, and mostly (if we're judging by the regulator) run reasonably well. Compared to the nationalised sector - Trusts, which generally do the same job, but do it less well. I'm not advocating for the privatisation of Trusts at all, but it comes with consequences, and choices.
And for democratically run politics - which for better or worse is partly a beauty contest, I can understand the desire to have one less avenue of criticism - and the fact that overall, parliament - the Government, have a pretty bad record of running large national infrasture, both in the form of one-off projects and on going business, have a pretty bad record of making poor procurement choices, and often fail to agree on the long term aims of what they're doing or trying to achieve.
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.
I'm not saying they should, but since pretty much everything Labour will do will be negatively reported it's best they pick their battles - remember, to win a war you don't need to win every battle, just the right ones.
For Margret Thatcher Royal Mail privatisation was a privatisation too far and she strongly opposed it
Who gives a shit really. I mean, she was also opposed to BA taking the stylised flag off the tails of their planes, and famously draped a hanky over a model once. Thatcher wasn't clear-minded and determined about what she could or couldn't sell to the public, she was driven by her own internal logic, and ideology as much as the next politician. c.f. The poll tax.
The '90's round of privatisations is coming to and end, and as Engels points out, they'll be changed in name, and the same groups of people will both profit from and avoid the consequences of their decisions, and will still be in control, and will likely as not re-privitise them again when the time comes around.
For Margret Thatcher Royal Mail privatisation was a privatisation too far and she strongly opposed
That was decades ago. We now live in a world that is totally unrecognisable from then on the communications front. It’s like advocating the nationalisation of candlestick makers as they are also an essential piece of public infrastructure
the Government, have a pretty bad record of running large national infrasture, both in the form of one-off projects and on going business, have a pretty bad record of making poor procurement choices, and often fail to agree on the long term aims of what they’re doing or trying to achieve.
Business is no different, just they usually run out of money...
For Margret Thatcher Royal Mail privatisation was a privatisation too far and she strongly opposed
That was decades ago. We now live in a world that is totally unrecognisable from then on the communications front.
That is precisely my point!!
Thatcher claimed to be strongly opposed to the privatisation of Royal Mail but the reality is that she would have been very aware that British voters would never buy the idea. And at that time both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were totally opposed to privatisation so it would likely have had electoral consequences.
Today the situation has utterly changed, both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are now enthusiastic supporters of privatisation, there are no electoral consequences if one of those parties is responsible for an unpopular privatisation, and Royal Mail privatisation has been unpopular from the very start.
The question decades ago was "do you want X privatised?" the question today is no longer asking voters if they want something privatised but whether they have a preference over who privatises it.
It’s like advocating the nationalisation of candlestick makers as they are also an essential piece of public infrastructure
No it isn't, because candlestick makers are not also an essential piece of public infrastructure. And btw that sort of idiotic comparison is exactly the sort of comment that you might expect to hear from a right-wing Tory, today we are hearing it from someone who claims to be a Labour Party member. We have indeed gone a very long way.
Who was it who once said "the more they argue the more they sound the same"? That's a rhetorical question btw.
Why does anybody care about the fact many previously state owned companies are now privatised - except of course for hard left wingers who think the means of production should be owned by the state?
Some don't like "foreign governments owning vital British industries" - nobody's defined what is a vital industry, but I can't imagine one of the many companies delivering letters and parcels these days is somehow any more "vital" than say steel production.
And as for "foreign governments", in the specific case of the Royal Mail it was a bloke from Czechia, not a "foreign government." It sounds to me like all this fuss about foreigners coming over and buying British companies is a bit Daily Mail "Little Englander". Ironic really.