Tentative Andy
I'm in the Meal Deal
What are people's thoughts on this whole situation?
So, the postal sell-off shenanigans.....
- Thread starter Tentative Andy
- Start date
scottdisco
rip this joint please
reflexive unease, extreme unease.
(my emphasis.)
there again
but also
(from here.)
happily admit my complete ignorance as to what modernisation Crozier thinks is needed, whether what he thinks is needed are agreed upon, commonly held beliefs among (independent minded) Royal Mail watchers, etc etc.
nice blog Andy!
(my emphasis.)
there again
but also
(from here.)
happily admit my complete ignorance as to what modernisation Crozier thinks is needed, whether what he thinks is needed are agreed upon, commonly held beliefs among (independent minded) Royal Mail watchers, etc etc.
nice blog Andy!
Last edited:
Tentative Andy
I'm in the Meal Deal
Thank you Scott! You may well be the blog's very first visitor....
I've been in the boozer, so expect a saloon-bar-opinion level of analysis for now. But anything's a start, I guess.
Your last point seems the important one to me - the fact that, notwithstanding an undoubted general reduction in the use of mail services, the postal service is currently turning a profit. It therefore seems strange and unfair that the governement will refuse to offer direct help to what is after all one of its own services, whilst simultaneously spending comparable ammounts to prop up independent banks that are on the very brink of collapse.
I admit that issue is a difficult one for me though. As a point of principle, I believe it is very important that the royal mail remains in public ownership. However, the immediate practical concern must be that their employees can remain certain about their pensions and general job security, no matter what that may require.
I've been in the boozer, so expect a saloon-bar-opinion level of analysis for now. But anything's a start, I guess.
Your last point seems the important one to me - the fact that, notwithstanding an undoubted general reduction in the use of mail services, the postal service is currently turning a profit. It therefore seems strange and unfair that the governement will refuse to offer direct help to what is after all one of its own services, whilst simultaneously spending comparable ammounts to prop up independent banks that are on the very brink of collapse.
I admit that issue is a difficult one for me though. As a point of principle, I believe it is very important that the royal mail remains in public ownership. However, the immediate practical concern must be that their employees can remain certain about their pensions and general job security, no matter what that may require.
scottdisco
rip this joint please
even Nick Robinson was able to point out the apparent contradiction to Mandelson you've hit upon in the first paragraph of yours i'm quoting here, and i definitely join you in finding it strange and unfair.
agreed upon the same point of principle, also.
what the unions say about how the govt is linking the part-privatisation to the pension issue, that gets me, too.
matt b
Indexing all opinion
Crozier is an ex-Saatchi boy and FA Chief Exec, so his view of the public sector is pretty clear.
He's also been doing a good job emulating the bankers:
"In November 2007, the Daily Telegraph reported that he had received a 26% pay increase in base pay, taking out £1,256,000 in 2007. His achievements in this year included shrinking the workforce by 45,000, and closing 4,600 post offices, with another 2,500 to follow. The goal of this reduction in workforce and in retail outlets was to increase profitability of the corporation [...]. In 2008, the BBC reported that Royal Mail's trading position had worsened dramatically to an annual loss of £279 million a year in financial 2007. Crozier's remuneration almost tripled to £3 million.
(From: Wikipedia)
The PO has had to sell off its most profitable parts, whilst the government has enforced a policy of making what's left run as a private business. This has been cloaked in 'we must because of EU regulations' statements. Of course, they don't- the likely buyer of the 30% share is the nationalised/un-asset stripped Dutch PO.
Mandelson's justification for the part privatisation is that a gvt sponsored report recommended it, so he has to follow it through. Twat. The last publically discussed gvt sponsored report was about drug classification, which was resoundingly ignored.
Of course the government could cover the the relatively small deficit if it wanted to, but the real aim is ideological warfare, plain and simple.
The political class are somehow still in thrall of the private sector even after all that's happened over the past year.
Evil Fuckers.
He's also been doing a good job emulating the bankers:
"In November 2007, the Daily Telegraph reported that he had received a 26% pay increase in base pay, taking out £1,256,000 in 2007. His achievements in this year included shrinking the workforce by 45,000, and closing 4,600 post offices, with another 2,500 to follow. The goal of this reduction in workforce and in retail outlets was to increase profitability of the corporation [...]. In 2008, the BBC reported that Royal Mail's trading position had worsened dramatically to an annual loss of £279 million a year in financial 2007. Crozier's remuneration almost tripled to £3 million.
(From: Wikipedia)
The PO has had to sell off its most profitable parts, whilst the government has enforced a policy of making what's left run as a private business. This has been cloaked in 'we must because of EU regulations' statements. Of course, they don't- the likely buyer of the 30% share is the nationalised/un-asset stripped Dutch PO.
Mandelson's justification for the part privatisation is that a gvt sponsored report recommended it, so he has to follow it through. Twat. The last publically discussed gvt sponsored report was about drug classification, which was resoundingly ignored.
Of course the government could cover the the relatively small deficit if it wanted to, but the real aim is ideological warfare, plain and simple.
The political class are somehow still in thrall of the private sector even after all that's happened over the past year.
Evil Fuckers.
Last edited:
Tentative Andy
I'm in the Meal Deal
Good points from both of you. Crozier increasingly appears to be a thoroughly unpleasent character, I would have to say. Agree about the tone of the governents' statements, there is an air of blackmail in the way they keep bringing up the pensions (along with the good old 'taxpayers' money' chestnut), like they're trying to scare the union into submission.
Keeping the debate moving - what chance do you think there is that the proposal could be defeated in the Commons vote? At the moment it certainly seems possible, based on the reported polls, but I worry that as the vote approaches, potential Labour rebels will get nervous and resistance will dwindle. Especially once the whips get involved of course.
Keeping the debate moving - what chance do you think there is that the proposal could be defeated in the Commons vote? At the moment it certainly seems possible, based on the reported polls, but I worry that as the vote approaches, potential Labour rebels will get nervous and resistance will dwindle. Especially once the whips get involved of course.
scottdisco
rip this joint please
can i say i thoroughly enjoyed Matt's post: he has the figures to justify what he's saying, and i had a grim chuckle at some of the details of Crozier's CV.
i have the same long-term issues (and then some) with Mandelson that many people have, but - aside from a vague unease related to his smarmy time at the FA - had Crozier pinned down as some generic technocrat type, though he seems a bit more worrying than that.
his time at the FA was during one of its greatest periods of PR-using bullshit, but i didn't know he'd worked for the ad agency: i shouldn't be surprised, should i?
i know there are a hell of a lot of Labour rebels on this issue (what, 120?) and last thing i read was Harman saying a free vote (i don't think she's happy with Mandelson on this one, though i could be entirely wrong there), but i must admit i am incredibly pessimistic, given that nearly all the Tories are reported as going with the govt.
when is the vote due Andy?
ta.
i have the same long-term issues (and then some) with Mandelson that many people have, but - aside from a vague unease related to his smarmy time at the FA - had Crozier pinned down as some generic technocrat type, though he seems a bit more worrying than that.
his time at the FA was during one of its greatest periods of PR-using bullshit, but i didn't know he'd worked for the ad agency: i shouldn't be surprised, should i?
i know there are a hell of a lot of Labour rebels on this issue (what, 120?) and last thing i read was Harman saying a free vote (i don't think she's happy with Mandelson on this one, though i could be entirely wrong there), but i must admit i am incredibly pessimistic, given that nearly all the Tories are reported as going with the govt.
when is the vote due Andy?
ta.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Would that be the time he got spooked by chelsea's interest into making Sven the best paid manager in the world, on a 4-year contract they had to buy him out of 2 years later at a cost of £12m?
Cleary the right man to sort out the PO.
Tentative Andy
I'm in the Meal Deal
Yeah, matt clearly knows his stuff, useful and good to see.
Surprised but very pleased that Harman is currently allowing for a free vote. Though I guess it correlates with her recent views on the RBS pensions. Hope she manages to stick to her guns.
Sifting through the newspapers here, but not having any luck in finding the actual date for the vote. Can anyone help here? Perhaps it has not been announced yet.
Surprised but very pleased that Harman is currently allowing for a free vote. Though I guess it correlates with her recent views on the RBS pensions. Hope she manages to stick to her guns.
Sifting through the newspapers here, but not having any luck in finding the actual date for the vote. Can anyone help here? Perhaps it has not been announced yet.
Tentative Andy
I'm in the Meal Deal
However, the search did bring to my attention this article from the Grauniad, which would seem to back up matt's assertion that this is just the start of a wider ideological change:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/02/royal-mail-privatisation-unions
Worrying news indeed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/02/royal-mail-privatisation-unions
Worrying news indeed.
matt b
Indexing all opinion
blimey, its a bit of of a love-in round dissensus at the moment isn't it? 
This bit of the Guardian article stuck out:
"The bill also contains radical changes to the regulation of the postal services to protect the guarantee of a "universal, six day a week mail service". These include provisions giving the regulator Ofcom powers to charge rival companies, such as parcel delivery services and other postal services, fees to subsidise the universal postal service. The aim would be to stop other firms cherrypicking services and also relieve Royal Mail from having to carry the full cost of delivering mail to remote locations across the UK."
So, the rhetoric that markets are better/more efficient is still being dolled out like sweets, whilst at the same time policy makers know the market will not provide a universal service on it's own.
See the current PFI debacle.
Re: the commons vote- the Labour rebels are not important as the Tories will vote with the gvt
This bit of the Guardian article stuck out:
"The bill also contains radical changes to the regulation of the postal services to protect the guarantee of a "universal, six day a week mail service". These include provisions giving the regulator Ofcom powers to charge rival companies, such as parcel delivery services and other postal services, fees to subsidise the universal postal service. The aim would be to stop other firms cherrypicking services and also relieve Royal Mail from having to carry the full cost of delivering mail to remote locations across the UK."
So, the rhetoric that markets are better/more efficient is still being dolled out like sweets, whilst at the same time policy makers know the market will not provide a universal service on it's own.
See the current PFI debacle.
Re: the commons vote- the Labour rebels are not important as the Tories will vote with the gvt
crackerjack
Well-known member
There was some suggestion that the tories may vote agains the bill, notionally deeming it insufficient, in reality to see the govt defeated.
edit@ although this probably won't happen
Last edited:
matt b
Indexing all opinion
from the guardian article:
Officially, George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, welcomed the bill yesterday. He told BBC1's Politics Show: "Of course we will scrutinise the decisions they take [on Royal Mail's part-privatisation] but the overall direction is correct and they must not bow to their rebels and their union paymasters. Peter Mandelson is doing the right thing. He should ignore the voices off in cabinet; he will have the Conservatives' support to do the right thing."
which would make a vote against politically difficult
crackerjack
Well-known member
lol, yeah, it would a bit
Tentative Andy
I'm in the Meal Deal
blimey, its a bit of of a love-in round dissensus at the moment isn't it?
*gently fondles everyones' hair*
... Ummm, anyway, re the vote: aware this may be clutching at straws, but part of me hopes that even though the Tory position means that the chance of actually defeating the motion is slight at best, if the Labour opposition stays at a considerable level in the run-up, the government may withdraw the proposals or at least modify them in order to avoid a split in the party, with the attendent bad publicity and decrease in election prospects that this would entail. But of course, to some extent the split has already happened, and they're likely just to stick it out, which at least would make them look determined. I think it part it depends if opposition spreads beyond being mainly on the backbenches to include major figures in the cabinet. At the moment we have Harman, sort of, and.... anyone else?
Tentative Andy
I'm in the Meal Deal
http://nastybrutalistandshort.blogspot.com/2009/03/neoliberal-undeath.html#links
This guy used to post here a bit, right? I largely agree with what he's saying anyway, takes a broadly similar position to matt.
Have to say I'm a little dissapointed by the lack of response to the debate in the political-philosophy blogs which I've mainly learned about through this site. Perhaps there's not a great deal that can be said about it from a theoretical perspective, but I do feel it's an important issue.
This guy used to post here a bit, right? I largely agree with what he's saying anyway, takes a broadly similar position to matt.
Have to say I'm a little dissapointed by the lack of response to the debate in the political-philosophy blogs which I've mainly learned about through this site. Perhaps there's not a great deal that can be said about it from a theoretical perspective, but I do feel it's an important issue.
vimothy
yurp
Can you just explain to me Andy, what is the rationale for selling off (parts of?) the post office, and why is it wrong?
And that link, hmm -- would Keynes really have advocated a "punitive hike in income taxes" in the depths of a recession? Would a punitive hike in income taxes increase aggregate demand?
And that link, hmm -- would Keynes really have advocated a "punitive hike in income taxes" in the depths of a recession? Would a punitive hike in income taxes increase aggregate demand?
Last edited:
Tentative Andy
I'm in the Meal Deal
Perfectly fair and reasonable questions vim, but just give me a minute to forumate my answers properly...