I note in this forthnight's [iPrivate Eye[/i, that Osborne has appointed a couple of well-respected organisations to handle the sell-off of Royal Mail. i.e. Goldman Sachs and UBS, both noted for their probity and caution. Nice of Osborne to give them a chance to pick up some cash, they must be a bit short after the hefty record-breaking fines they've incurred... despite, in the case of Goldman Sachs, the millions in tax they were let off in a "sweetheart" deal with HMRC. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10656699 www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/libo ... andal.html

I note in this forthnight's [iPrivate Eye[/i, that Osborne has appointed a couple of well-respected organisations to handle the sell-off of Royal Mail. i.e. Goldman Sachs and UBS, both noted for their probity and caution. Nice of Osborne to give them a chance to pick up some cash, they must be a bit short after the hefty record-breaking fines they've incurred... despite, in the case of Goldman Sachs, the millions in tax they were let off in a "sweetheart" deal with HMRC. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10656699 www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/libo ... andal.html

Yet another unnecessary privatisation that won't work.

I've no doubt it'll work just fine for Deutsche Post and various current cabinet ministers

Typical scum Tories selling off everything.

IIRC, in order to make RM an attractive proposition to any would be purchaser, the government took responsibility for the pension fund. So we will be in the strange situation where the UK taxpayer is funding the pensions of private individuals.

Some small fooking state that is

Including - presumably - the senior management of any privatised entity, for whom pension benefits tend to form a sizeable part of their remuneration package.

Would that be the same Goldman Sachs that cleared Greece's accounts for entry to the Euro?

No. That can't be right. Can it?

There's nothing new about that. If they apply the same approach to what happened when the Labour Govt privatised the nuclear industry (BNFL) then the employees' pensions will be frozen in the current scheme and the government will have the liability for that, and the new owner will be required to implement a new pension scheme into which all future pension contributions will be paid. The employees will be given the option of freezing their current pension (and keeping the index-linking) and making future contributions into the new scheme, or transferring their whole pension fund into the new scheme (unlikely). In summary, the government will only be liable for pensions accrued up to the point of sale.

Next big one is RBS, according to reports today Osbourne has insisted that it be flogged by end of 2014 (war chest for an election, maybe) but experts reckon it needs to be delayed to be of a value to get the taxpayers money back and it's likely to be a fire sale just to raise 'bribe' money.

Which is why Hesters gone apparently.

The loopy idea being put forward is the taxpayers take out a loan to buy RBS off the government. Then when we sell the shares we keep any profit and then pay the government back the loan.

Now I thought the taxpayers already owned the bank because it was bailed out with taxpayers money so at the very least they should simply give us the shares if they want the taxpayers to own the bank.

Osborne can't do that though because that wouldn't raise any cash and he can't sell it on the open market because it isn't worth enough and it will leave him open to accusations of selling the taxpayer short which is what he would be doing.

So the touted solution is we have a government loan to buy the shares at a price no doubt large enough to let him have his war chest.

All this is therefore is the government borrowing money to loan to us which we give it back for an asset no doubt not worth the investment cost at this point in time to fight an election presumably with a tax cut.

It is quite frankly so transparent everyone on the Jeremy Vine show who rang in this lunchtime had it in for Osborne. I don't think they could find anyone except the nutter from the policy exchange who proposed the idea to support it.

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