Osborne has staked everything on deficit reduction and debt reduction but is doing so poorly that he'll be desperate for large amounts of cash to make some kind of dent in the debt before the 2015 election and maybe get a temporary GDP boost from it too.
He'll be tempted to offer shares at a knock-down price a la Thatcher privatisations, which will mean a nice tidy profit for those who can afford to buy the shares (which will be a far smaller group than those who actually paid for it).

It will be worse than that if what I detailed in my previous post is the chosen mechanism. Mansion house speech due soon apparently and the sell off details expected to be announced then.

This lot will be having a fire-sale of any and every state asset that could turn a few bob, just to get some money in the exchequer. And bugger whoever follows afterwards.

If Labour have got any goolies at all, they should announce that any asset that was privatised at a knock-down price, will be taken back into public ownership by them, with zero compensation.

Let's see how Osborne's car boot performs then

Labour and their goolies parted company a long time ago.

Yep. The latest lack of backbone being Labours decision to abstain on an EU in-out referendum vote, thereby letting it in.

Yup, you're right.
I didn't spot your post, we both posted at the same time.

After painting a pillar box gold to mark the success of paralympian Ellie Simmonds in 2012, the Royal Mail have withdrawn it from service.

It is to be hoped it'sjust a temporary measure.

Flogging off Royal Mail could be chickenfeed when compared to the proposal to:

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/jun/13/raise-interest-rate-student-loans-secret-reportHawk off the student loan book[/url

If that goes through there's going to be some seriously pi[is[/ised off students knocking around

There was another idea put forward recently by certain Universities who are seeking to protect their researchbudget. There is a link on the same page as the article you quoted but here it is:

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/may/06/student-loans-repayment-level-lowered?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487[/url

The level of cynicism in both of these proposals is astonishing.

In the one you linked to the sales pitch is for pre-2012 students the terms will still be better than those post-2012. Well if that isn't an admission of post-2012 students being shafted with an interest rate od 3%+RPI I don't know what is.

Then in the one I linked to above we have the idea put forward the terms can be varied easily enough because parents and students don't really understand the implications!!!!

The problem stems from the fact Willets points out that "...words to the effect that governments reserve the right to change the terms of the loans". And now we have two proposals to do just that.

"Money Saving Expert" Martin Lewis has been at the forefront of government propaganda in selling the new students loans to students. He acknowledges the terms can be varied but often says it's never happened before so we may as well assume it won't happen in the future or words to that effect.

Really? I am sure he'd never tell anyone to take out a loan on that basis from a commercial lender as it would an obvious financial trap.

LOL - thats not just a timebomb, its a nuclear weapon of mass destruction for the Conservatives and especially for the LibDems if they ever put their name to any such legislation - what 20-something year-old is ever going to vote for either of them for the rest of their life when they find that they've been royally shafted and their student loans aren't ever going to be paid off, for the rest of their lives - its like a constant reminder at every annual statement that you were sold down the river by two political party's who are now knocking on your door and asking you to vote for them again

The problem is that Osbourne, Cameron & Clegg will be thinking 'whats another £25 a month, a half bottle of decent red'

Surprisingly this seems to have been conveniently ignored by the loony left on here eh Mr Fish!!

You wouldn't get a decent half bottle of red for that

Ey up, the real world must've broken up for the weekend.

I seriously doubt that the BNFL pension scheme was comparable to Royal Mail's scheme. They certainly had nowhere close to the number of members, RM's pension scheme has more members than even the NHS. I also doubt BNFL's pension deficit was nywhere close to RM's £9bn

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/mar/19/royal-mail-pension-transfer-meansMore here[/url

Looks like Osborne wants to get his grubby mits on the £28bn of assets and then spread the £37bn of liabilities over the coming years. Another brilliant deal for the taxpayers

It isn't about the numbers is it - it is about the principle - you do actually agree the same protocol has been applied?

Why would any private company want to accept a pension fund deficit of this size on such a marginal business? The business itself is technically insolvent i.e. it has a negative balance sheet. On that basis it is worth nothing. So if you want to sell it then what options do you have. This is a marginal business at best and a deep financial pit at worst. It doesn't appear the public sector can run it with even a small surplus at operating level so surely it would be better to let somebody else have a go?

So that's how business is conducted in the real world? Privatise the profits and socialise any losses and liabilities?

Some free market that is

If this was a private company the pension losses would never have got that big, the arrangements would have been changed to minimise the exposure. If this were a private company the pension deficit would have taken it under years ago. This is the cost of public ownership - something you need to reflect on when espousing public ownership as the true way!!

No wonder the government want rid of it.

Increase profits by paying staff too little to live and socialising (in effect) this so that taxpayers pick up the difference through in-work benefits, including, but not limited to, housing benefit (which itself also sees the taxpayer increasing the profits of private businesses/individuals).

It's not really insolvent as it can meet its obligations, the majority of its liabilities being long term. Also just because a company has zero net worth does not necessarily mean it is worth nothing.
Since it seems so difficult to run at a profit then I think most people would question the wisdom of placing it into a situation where it has to make a profit or die. It would seem, to me at least, an ideal organisation to be run and partly subsidised by the public sector.


The Royal Mail introduced a new DC pension scheme 5 years ago.
11 FTSE 100 companies have pension deficits greater than their EMV. 3 huge British corporations are committed to paying out pensions worth double their market value.

I agree. Unfortunately, as signatories to (not to mention co-authors of) the WTO any attempt to subsidise domestic businesses leaves us wide open to lawsuits by national and international competitors (UPS, DHL etc.) for unfair competition and loss of income. The figures would undoubtedly be big and sans some special exemption for Royal Mail (the proposed sale of which seems a good indicator of its non-existence) we (us) foot the bill.

It's interesting how few in the media are willing to mention this crucially important factor whenever governments decide to sell off public assets. As motivators go I'd say the threat of being taken to the cleaners in secret, unelected and unaccountable courts by foreign corporations demanding their right to equal treatment is just that bit more credible than unproven ideological guff about private = better.

How is it possible to have any faith in our system of democracy when treaties of such magnitude (at the very least comparable with those EU agreements the Tories never cease harping about) can be proposed, authored and signed over a period of years with almost no discussion beyond the endless mantra "Free Trade" (the definition of which is never stated) with the resulting consequences practically never mentioned as motivators for government policy?

I had a quick look at a few old union papers this morning and we started resisiting privatisation twenty three years ago. I think we will try and fight this one and if and only if the Tories can not get what they want for it, then it will proceed. Its too close to an election and the Tories ( both parties) will not want a row going on about being ripped off. One thing is for sure the mail system will alter for the worse forever, Monday to Friday deliveries , universal tariff etc, because no private company will continue with Royal Mails current profit sapping delivery system. The Labour party has not been very supportive and wanted to sell us off earlier, the country has bigger problems then RM to worry about.

Why whould not people living in the Orkneys, Cornwall or the depths of Scotland pay more for mail and people living in London, Birmingham and Glasgow pay less. Why should people have six day a week deliveries when we can do it in five and make bigger profits, we could deliver three days a week to some rural area's. Changes are a foot now to alter the delivery times to even later in the day, decisions are now taken on cost grounds not quality of service. They are doing things now to alter the way we organise the union, not to save money but at a cost to the business to destroy our organisational structures at local and national levels. Bullying and harrassment are part of working for Royal Mail, its part of our daily working day and its not coming from the public or our brothers and sisters. The place is no longer the same, there is no longer the same will to help each other people are now more dog eat dog too many "bosses knarks" around willing to drop you in it.

The mail centre where I work is due to close this October, so no one gives a toss either way anymore. No chance of getting anyone motivated for a fight for privatisation, pay rises or TNT mail, most are looking to a pay off and a new job. Sure they all voted in the consultative ballot, BECAUSE THATS ALL IT WAS A, ask them on a full rule 19 strike ballot and I bet the result will be a whole lot different.

I do not intend retiring just yet, I could go and some say I maybe should given my health. I am still able to perform my duties with little problem and I will continue for a while longer, but I am sorry for those at the begining of there RM service whilst I consider myself very lucky to near the end. In what itme I have left I will continue to fight to make it a better place for those left.

As one who uses Royal Mail regularly for parcel post in preference to any other private courier I wish you well in your fight.

Just as an example yesterday I walked to my local Post Office (5 minutes walk) and posted a 60cm long, 5cm wide, 200gm weight tube to the Republic of Ireland for £3.50, first class.

In the past I have used a parcel booking service such as Parcel2Go which gives quotes from all of the major couriers, just checking that now the lowest quote on there is £15.90 and if I want it to go first class then TNT wil charge me £29.24 for a 3 day service.

I'm willing to wager that my client in Ireland received his parcel today.

But its not only the cost, I've booked seven or eight deliveries in the past via Parcel2Go and its not their fault (or their problem either), but the courier that you eventually choose and pay in advance for really can't be bothered collecting your single parcel when they already have a full list of collections and deliveries from regular business customers, they are not set up for the domestic business at all and I have not yet had one collection made on the day they said they would collect, in one case I gave up waiting after five days, got a refund and took it to the post office - you could always leave the parcel at one of their "drop off" points of course, yes of course you can, but each time that option has been suggested to me the address has been either a local sweet shop or a dry cleaners, yep, I'll trust that sort of service above the post office every time.

Add me to that list.

Couriers do seem to be getting better but I still prefer Royal Mail, they always find my address (maybe they understand what a postcode is for), and if I'm out and they leave a card, the office is only 10 mins away on foot... and I don't have to drive to another county to collect my "delivery" from my "local" depot.

I use both RM and Interparcel (another courier consolidator) on a regular basis.

Since April 4th, the new RM rates for parcels are a bloody minefield. It was bad enough before with Letter, Large Letter and Parcel, now you can add in Small Package, Medium Package and Large Package (only available through Parcelforce WW). For UK (excepting highlands & islands), [url=http://www.interparcel.com/Interparcel[/url can often undercut both RM and Parcelforce on medium or large parcels, if you use their 48 hour service (invariably UPS). UPS have never failed a collection and I only ever had one problem when a Christmas Cracker (seasonal temp), decided it was easier to leave a folding bike in a neighbour's derelict shed but we got to the bottom of the matter and I got a refund.

I only ever ship on a signed-for basis and for anything getting towards RM Airmail's 2kg max, it's often cheaper by a courier.

I have no wish to see RM privatised and we could see a vision of the future if the proposed refusal to deliver 3rd party mail on the "Final Mile" does materialise. RM have been placed under a tremendous "commercial" disadvantage by having to make the final sort and delivery on behalf of DHL et al. The courier companies offering "mail deliveries" offer nothing of the sort: they collect bulk mail that has already been sorted into postcode areas, this is then delivered to RM sorting offices and it's RM who have to sort and deliver. All the courier companies do is collect and deliver some boxes.

If anyone wants an easy to use postal calculator for various RM delivery options then I can highly recommend [url=http://www.seajays.org.uk/postage/Seajays Postage Calculator[/url

s'easy for me, I use the same sized 60cm tube for everything now and it fits into the "package" zone without needing to get ParcelForce involved - we had to jump through the hoops the first time though as they didn't have "tube" on the list, trying to apply length depth and height to a tube doesn't work - she knows me now and has had a "tube guide" sent



Mind, I once had to send a large but light parcel to Australia with ParcelForce, approx 100cm x 70cm x 10cm - £58 - I almost got on a flight myself with it.