Reply to: Post office to be sold off

[lukemg]

Service will remain the same - adequate.
Please tell me ANY public sector org that can be held up as value for money, efficient, lean etc ?

This has been an expensive running sore for gvmt for years and has been freshly fattened for sell-off (increase in stamp price, hiving off of existing pension liability), defo needs a private sector sort out and yes there will be grief and job losses.
Give shares to workers and let them fill boots if they want more - good shout, makes them one of the 'us' and more committed.
Anyway - WGAS, can I make any money from this ? - probably yes as they will be determined to make this be seen as a 'success' and pitch it relatively cheap, as with most of the other sell-off's and since it was essentially free, any cash back is profit and they usually retain a chunk just in case it takes off/further sell off when the market price settles.
SO - I will be filling my boots at sell-off time but unlikely to keep them longterm.....

GLA

[d000hg]

I don't know why but since postage costs have gone up and some competition has been introduced I've found the postal service to be shockingly bad.

It seems great to me. A 1st-class letter nearly always reaches its destination the next day, I can organise door-to-door courier service of a large heavy item for very little, the postman comes the same time every day, etc.

[Old Hack]

Is it a no brainer to buy shares when they get issued? I heard news of a website somewhere?

[AtW]

Post Office is not a very attractive asset even if they did not have unions calling the shots there.

Anybody who wants to invest into a modern efficient delivery company should be buying Amazon shares.

HTH

[SueEllen]

You're saying the government are better at running things than the private sector?

Depends on what it is -

London Buses are run fine and the number of people taking buses in the London area has increased. The buses are all run by private companies like Stagecoach but the central control and planning is done by TFL, government.

The train franchises that ended back in government hands were run efficiently but the government (labour and the condems) supressed the news so they could put them back in private hands.

[northernladuk]

You're saying the government are better at running things than the private sector?

Different arguments. Efficiency wise then absolutely not but it is committed to a fair service for all. Private sector aims for profit first and foremost. This has been clearly demonstrated by the comments about rural locations not getting a service.

Question is, would the government be better at giving a fair service to all than private sector and the answer would have to be yes.

[northernladuk]

I can't remember the last time I had a twice a day delivery from the RM and to be honest I'd barely notice if it went down to once every 2 days for regular mail.

But would you notice if it stopped altogether and you had to pay to get anything at all?

[Spacecadet]

They were discussing this on Radio 4 and there was a rep from the communication union and unfortunately I didn't hear who the pro sell off guy was. Anyway, the communication union rep pointed out that remote places would get no service where as major hubs would get two a day. Rather astoundingly the pro guy said that is exactly how it should be and if remote areas wanted service they would have to pay a premium. His argument was that if they chose to live in a lovely countryside area they should be charged a premium due to it being remote. I was flabbergasted. Just completely dismissed it without a thought. Makes business sense but still, not an opinion that is going to go down well at all.

I can't remember the last time I had a twice a day delivery from the RM and to be honest I'd barely notice if it went down to once every 2 days for regular mail.

[amcdonald]

You're saying the government are better at running things than the private sector?

No, they're just incompetent at privatisations generally, if it works and we keep countrywide postal prices without the cost increasing rapidly, we'll end up paying huge subsidies to someone like Capita instead to run down the service

[DodgyAgent]

Royal Mail is a joke anyway...

We need something funny to fill the void left by only fools and horses

[gingerjedi]

You're saying the government are better at running things than the private sector?

That depends on what you mean by running things? I think back to the buses, around my way they were less frequent and more expensive once privatised, obviously better for the non travelling tax payer but not the people who want a service.

Transpose that to train services where the public demand is still massive and they bend you over a barrel for the service the public demand, I'm not entirely convinced private is always best when basic infrastructure is concerned.

I don't know why but since postage costs have gone up and some competition has been introduced I've found the postal service to be shockingly bad.

[d000hg]

So in short services will get worse, everyone will pay more and rural service will be cut back even more stopping those living in the country living off selling tat on ebay

You're saying the government are better at running things than the private sector?

[amcdonald]

So in short services will get worse, everyone will pay more and rural service will be cut back even more stopping those living in the country living off selling tat on ebay

[gingerjedi]

Will this be a public issue type sell off like 'Tell Sid'?

My dad made a tidy sum on all the privatisations in the 80's, he used every family member who was eligible to to buy the max allocation and sold within a few days at a decent profit.

[northernladuk]

They were discussing this on Radio 4 and there was a rep from the communication union and unfortunately I didn't hear who the pro sell off guy was. Anyway, the communication union rep pointed out that remote places would get no service where as major hubs would get two a day. Rather astoundingly the pro guy said that is exactly how it should be and if remote areas wanted service they would have to pay a premium. His argument was that if they chose to live in a lovely countryside area they should be charged a premium due to it being remote. I was flabbergasted. Just completely dismissed it without a thought. Makes business sense but still, not an opinion that is going to go down well at all.