take over

[borders]

Mr Brain Fury, here is a good example of a Public Service and considering my water is privatised and the rates are over £600 quid I would love to swop :-


Scottish Water is a publicly owned company, providing all water and sewerage services in the country and accountable to the public through the Scottish Government.
It was founded in 2002 by a merger of three regional public water authorities and has an annual turnover of around £1bn. It provides 1.3 billion litres of drinking water every day to 2.4 million households and 152,000 business customers.
Scottish Water is funded by charges paid by its customers, and long term loans from the Scottish Government (unlike the water companies in England and Wales who must borrow at higher market rates).
Since 2002, the company has invested £5.5 billion and improved nearly 5000 miles of water pipes. The ongoing investment is supporting thousands of construction jobs across Scotland.
Over the last 9 years, leakage has been reduced by over 44%. This compares to a 5% reduction in leaks in England and Wales over the past 13 years. In the last year, leakage in Scotland was reduced by 70 million litres of water a day.
The average household charge was the lowest in the UK in 2013/14 at £334 or less than £1 a day. This is £54 less than the average in England and Wales and has remained the same for the fourth year running. Drinking water quality is at an all-time high in Scotland.
The Water Industry Commission for Scotland has described Scottish Water as the fastest improving water company in the UK. Since 2002, it has reduced its real operating costs by 40%, partly through using new technologies and innovative ways of working.
The company’s latest carbon footprint shows grid electricity use has fallen by 4%, and it has the lowest emissions per megalitre of drinking water in the UK water industry. The company is investing in renewables and producing energy of its own.
Scottish Water is asking customers for their views on the future of the service until 2040, in the biggest ever consultation carried out by a water company.

[dvbuk55]

Personally I think the one price goes anywhere is totally antiquated in this day and age when there are so many external issues involved. Instead of PIP we should have gone for a zonal by weight/size pricing structure it would certainly have been more understandable than PIP.

Really? Surprised you would like to move to zonal pricing after your legendary Londoncentric digs at the union.I dont think one price everywhere is antiquated I think in these times its a thoroughly modern idea and worth fighting for.

Londoncentric, moi? Nonsense, I distinctly remember seeing the CWU battle bus - no of course I didn't - because it didn't go further than Wandsworths Greggs. As for zonal pricing - that's the big boys way of doing things, because you charge what it costs, the idea that urban residents should subsidise the rural areas postal service is nonsense.

[taxi4leighton]

i think its called Socialism dvbuk55

[dvbuk55]

i think its called Socialism dvbuk55

Socialism - now there's a flashback - old labourites like me still call ourselves socialists, but then reality kicks in.

[Brain Fury]

Mr Brain Fury, how about explaining this piece of info that has come to light, considering you have based some of your opinions around it ? :-

Royal Mail’s IPO is currently scheduled for the coming weeks, with government insisting that privatisation will not mean reduced service quality for mail delivery.

But last week Fallon was forced to admit to Labour MP Tom Blenkinsop that he went too far in suggesting that a full Act of Parliament would be required to change the current requirement for six-day-a-week delivery.

Fallon said he had been wrong to state in Parliament on 12th September that the six-day service could not be changed through a Statutory Instrument.

“This was incorrect,” he confirmed in the letter shared by shadow postal affairs minister Ian Murray MP.

A Statutory Instrument, unlike a full Act of Parliament, is described by Parliament itself as “secondary” or “subordinate” legislation, which often only needs a cursory glance from a Parliamentary committee to approve, rather than full debates by both Houses. The official Parliamentary website states that in some cases both Houses of Parliament must expressly approve the measures, but states that Parliament’s “room for manoeuvre is limited” in Statutory Instruments.

You missed a bit from the quoted article ...

The official Parliamentary website states that in some cases both Houses of Parliament must expressly approve the measures, but states that Parliament’s “room for manoeuvre is limited” in Statutory Instruments. “Parliament can accept or reject an SI, but cannot amend it,” the official guidance states. “The minimum requirements could be amended by statutory instrument, but only with the approval of both Houses”

So ok it clarifies that primary legislation is not required but it does still require the approval of the UK Parliament. And of course the UK Parliament could not reduce the USO service below that specified by the EU. It's a long way from the suggestions that a privately owned Royal Mail could do as they wished or for example that a 3 day a week delivery model could be adopted for some parts of the country.

I have never denied that the USO might be changed just that it is not a forgone conclusion and not as simple as some would like to to portray it.

I have suggested that the USO could just as easily and necessarily be reduced with Royal Mail in government ownership.

[UnhappyGremlin]

Well it's a nice story but it is again only you speculating on what will happen. In your scenario is RM really losing money on the USO or just saying they are in order to boost profitability? Does the Govt just take RM's word for it or is there any burden of proof? Assuming RM is really losing money on the USO what are the options for resolving it? What conditions might the regulator attach? Is it certain that none of our competitors will be in a position to provide at least part of the USO service (there is nothing to say that it has to be done by a single company).

The thing is I don't really have an axe to grind - I don't care if RM is privatised or not. Either way I think it will have a very difficult future and the relationship between management and union is a much bigger risk to it's future than the question of ownership. The thing I generally find myself doing on this board is acting as devil's advocate to point out some of the facts e.g. that only the UK Parliament can amend the USO or to suggest an alternative view that might counterbalance some of the uninformed, mendacious or wildly speculative opinions.

You are also speculating what will happen. I have at least other privatisations to compare my opinions to, and they back up my view.
You are not a devil's advocate, you spout propaganda, nothing more. You do as all managers do, and shout down anybody with a different viewpoint to yours. You ignore anything said that you find inconvenient, and jump on other things written that you misinterpret/twist to your own ends. You seem to think you are superior to us all, you're not.
We were aware of 'the facts', long before you started spouting crap on here. I know the USO can only be changed by parliament. I think it will be. It's an opinion, just because you hold an opposing one you think I don't know what I'm talking about.

Just because I (and others) disagree with you, that means I'm uninformed? I have all the info I need, and past history shows what happens to privatised firms. All opinions are speculative, it's their nature.
You have also done what my own boss has accused some of us of doing, scaremongering. I have no agenda, other than protecting my job/pay/pension and T&C's, all of which I think are severely under threat.
I don't and won't swallow the propaganda currently being rammed down my throat by RM and the Government, but you do.

And yes, I think it is certain that no other company is in a position to provide even a small part of the USO. They are just not big enough, and won't be able to expand fast enough to change that.

I don't think I am superior to "us all" for example I don't go round telling anybody that they are "talking crap as usual". Also let me assure you my use of the word "uninformed" didn't apply to you. I'm happy to accept that you do know the facts. You just don't let them get in the way of a good story. "Mendacious" is the word you should be looking up. That's scaremongering. You're absolutely right to be worried about your job/pay/pension and t&cs but you should be worried about those whether the business is privatised or not). Of course you're going to call anything that comes out of RM or the Govt about privatisation "propaganda" - it's the simple kneekerk against information or opinions that threaten you. Thing is "propaganda" can be true even if you don't like the message.

Don't need to look up mendacious, know what it means thanks.
You say you don't go round telling anybody that they are talking crap as usual, then immediately follow that with 'not letting facts get in the way of a good story'. That's a superior and condescending attitude (or management).
I do not have a KNEEJERK reaction to RM press releases. If the 'propaganda' was true, then it wouldn't be required. It isn't that I don't like the message, it's that I believe it to be totally false.

For example, the 3 year deal (legally binding) offered on T&C's, is bollocks. First off, it cannot possibly be legally binding. And second, we're already nearly 6 months into that 'deal', even though it hasn't been agreed.
The small print on RM's propaganda clearly states that T&C's will not be touched before March 2016. So it isn't a 3 year deal.

I don't need to be a manager to feel superior to some people. However to put it in terms that you apparently find acceptable, your comments on "propaganda" are crap.

Right back at you.
I can see why you're a manager, you're clueless.
IF privatisation goes ahead, time will prove me right.

[UnhappyGremlin]

Why are managers so brain washed by RM propaganda?
They can't even work out that they'll be on the firing line before the rest of us.

[Brain Fury]

Why are managers so brain washed by RM propaganda?
They can't even work out that they'll be on the firing line before the rest of us.

I couldn't care less whether RM is privatised or not. It will make absolutely no difference to me. I'm not frightened about the impacts of privatisation so I don't have to come up with ever more exaggerated scenarios or condemn any information that undermines my opinion as propaganda in order to "prove" that privatisation is a bad idea. I can simply evaluate the information and opinions of all concerned and form my own view.

I understand that you are frightened about your future if the business is privatised. You're probably right but IMO you should be just as if not more worried if it isn't privatised.

[UnhappyGremlin]

History will prove privatisation is a bad idea, should it occur.
As it has in EVERY other privatised company.

And you are right, I am concerned about the effects of privatisation should it happen, those of us who lose this job in that event, will have incredible difficulty getting another one.
Because there just aren't the jobs out there, let alone decent ones.

I am not condemning the info pumped out as propaganda because it suits me/my argument/viewpoint or in any way undermines my own, self developed, stance on the issue.
I am condemning it because it's sole purpose is to convince the workforce it's a good idea, when I believe it isn't, and also believe would lead to many of us on the dole queue.
I wouldn't call reiterating RM rhetoric as forming your own opinion either.

I would be considerably less worried under public ownership, certainly not more as you claim.

And why would it make no difference to you? I know a couple of managers are convinced that after privatisation there will be vast VR for management, and can't wait to get their name on the list.
I don't think that would happen either. VR isn't cheap, and I can't see them wanting to pay out vast sums for it, there are much cheaper ways to cull staff.

[Shambles]

History will prove privatisation is a bad idea, should it occur.
As it has in EVERY other privatised company.

And you are right, I am concerned about the effects of privatisation should it happen, those of us who lose this job in that event, will have incredible difficulty getting another one.
Because there just aren't the jobs out there, let alone decent ones.

I am not condemning the info pumped out as propaganda because it suits me/my argument/viewpoint or in any way undermines my own, self developed, stance on the issue.
I am condemning it because it's sole purpose is to convince the workforce it's a good idea, when I believe it isn't, and also believe would lead to many of us on the dole queue.
I wouldn't call reiterating RM rhetoric as forming your own opinion either.

I would be considerably less worried under public ownership, certainly not more as you claim.

And why would it make no difference to you? I know a couple of managers are convinced that after privatisation there will be vast VR for management, and can't wait to get their name on the list.
I don't think that would happen either. VR isn't cheap, and I can't see them wanting to pay out vast sums for it, there are much cheaper ways to cull staff.

[Brain Fury]

History will prove privatisation is a bad idea, should it occur.
As it has in EVERY other privatised company.

And you are right, I am concerned about the effects of privatisation should it happen, those of us who lose this job in that event, will have incredible difficulty getting another one.
Because there just aren't the jobs out there, let alone decent ones.

I am not condemning the info pumped out as propaganda because it suits me/my argument/viewpoint or in any way undermines my own, self developed, stance on the issue.
I am condemning it because it's sole purpose is to convince the workforce it's a good idea, when I believe it isn't, and also believe would lead to many of us on the dole queue.
I wouldn't call reiterating RM rhetoric as forming your own opinion either.

I would be considerably less worried under public ownership, certainly not more as you claim.

And why would it make no difference to you? I know a couple of managers are convinced that after privatisation there will be vast VR for management, and can't wait to get their name on the list.
I don't think that would happen either. VR isn't cheap, and I can't see them wanting to pay out vast sums for it, there are much cheaper ways to cull staff.

I don't doubt that your stance is self developed. And because you are 100% right that must mean that anything or anybody that contradicts your self developed stance must by definition be wrong, propaganda, rhetoric etc. The fact that your self developed stance is based on what you imagine would be best for you shouldn't suggest any bias or element of a closed mind. I get it and it's pointless to suggest otherwise. We shall all see in time.

I'm not relying on VR. It would be nice but it will either be available or it won't. To be honest I'm not taking too much notice of what you "think" will happen in that respect or your veiled threat about other ways to reduce headcount. In any case there is no scenario that would cause me undue concern.

[Brain Fury]

History will prove privatisation is a bad idea, should it occur.
As it has in EVERY other privatised company.

And you are right, I am concerned about the effects of privatisation should it happen, those of us who lose this job in that event, will have incredible difficulty getting another one.
Because there just aren't the jobs out there, let alone decent ones.

I am not condemning the info pumped out as propaganda because it suits me/my argument/viewpoint or in any way undermines my own, self developed, stance on the issue.
I am condemning it because it's sole purpose is to convince the workforce it's a good idea, when I believe it isn't, and also believe would lead to many of us on the dole queue.
I wouldn't call reiterating RM rhetoric as forming your own opinion either.

I would be considerably less worried under public ownership, certainly not more as you claim.

And why would it make no difference to you? I know a couple of managers are convinced that after privatisation there will be vast VR for management, and can't wait to get their name on the list.
I don't think that would happen either. VR isn't cheap, and I can't see them wanting to pay out vast sums for it, there are much cheaper ways to cull staff.

Every other privatisation has been a bad idea? It obviously depends the criteria that you are using e.g. are you just basing it on the effects on employees but even so are you sure?

I don't doubt that your stance is self developed. And because you are 100% right that must mean that anything or anybody that contradicts your self developed stance must by definition be wrong, propaganda, rhetoric etc. Clearly, the obvious fact that your self developed stance is based on what you imagine would be best for you shouldn't suggest any bias or element of a closed mind. I get it and I now see it's pointless to argue otherwise. We shall all see in time.

I'm not relying on VR. It would be nice but it will either be available or it won't. To be honest I'm not taking too much notice of what you "think" will happen in that respect or your veiled threat about cheaper ways to reduce headcount. In any case there is no scenario that would cause me undue concern.

[Shambles]

I hear Africa is nice, especially if your in De Nile....

[Pete22]

History will prove privatisation is a bad idea, should it occur.
As it has in EVERY other privatised company.

And you are right, I am concerned about the effects of privatisation should it happen, those of us who lose this job in that event, will have incredible difficulty getting another one.
Because there just aren't the jobs out there, let alone decent ones.

I am not condemning the info pumped out as propaganda because it suits me/my argument/viewpoint or in any way undermines my own, self developed, stance on the issue.
I am condemning it because it's sole purpose is to convince the workforce it's a good idea, when I believe it isn't, and also believe would lead to many of us on the dole queue.
I wouldn't call reiterating RM rhetoric as forming your own opinion either.

I would be considerably less worried under public ownership, certainly not more as you claim.


























Must be great to have made enough on bonuses to be independently wealthy or have a rich wife.
Hey the rest of us aren't so lucky and we are concerned about our future so get off your arrogant high horse.








Have you made enough in bonus over the years to be independently wealthy

And why would it make no difference to you? I know a couple of managers are convinced that after privatisation there will be vast VR for management, and can't wait to get their name on the list.
I don't think that would happen either. VR isn't cheap, and I can't see them wanting to pay out vast sums for it, there are much cheaper ways to cull staff.

Every other privatisation has been a bad idea? It obviously depends the criteria that you are using e.g. are you just basing it on the effects on employees but even so are you sure?

I don't doubt that your stance is self developed. And because you are 100% right that must mean that anything or anybody that contradicts your self developed stance must by definition be wrong, propaganda, rhetoric etc. Clearly, the obvious fact that your self developed stance is based on what you imagine would be best for you shouldn't suggest any bias or element of a closed mind. I get it and I now see it's pointless to argue otherwise. We shall all see in time.

I'm not relying on VR. It would be nice but it will either be available or it won't. To be honest I'm not taking too much notice of what you "think" will happen in that respect or your veiled threat about cheaper ways to reduce headcount. In any case there is no scenario that would cause me undue concern.

[UnhappyGremlin]

Every other privatisation has been a bad idea? It obviously depends the criteria that you are using e.g. are you just basing it on the effects on employees but even so are you sure?

Yes I am. I never said it was a bad idea, if done correctly, if the be all and end all wasn't dividends (which it is), privatisation COULD be good, but it never is. It's all about the money.

It isn't just about jobs, not by a long shot.

ALL privatised companies have raised prices without fail. Service has disintegrated. There is little maintenance in the water industry, they lose hundreds of millions of gallons every year, and the money that should be invested in this goes in one direction, shareholders. The 'big six' energy companies operate a virtual cartel, the regulator does nothing about it. Even Milliband has acknowledged that they're taking the piss. Railtrack is now more subsidised than ever. RM will head the same way.

I don't doubt that your stance is self developed. And because you are 100% right that must mean that anything or anybody that contradicts your self developed stance must by definition be wrong, propaganda, rhetoric etc. Clearly, the obvious fact that your self developed stance is based on what you imagine would be best for you shouldn't suggest any bias or element of a closed mind. I get it and I now see it's pointless to argue otherwise. We shall all see in time.

And you can't see this attitude in yourself? You come on here and have tunnel vision, deride anybody else's opinion that contradicts yours. The fact that what RM and yourself have been saying is the polar opposite to my own view doesn't mean it's wrong, nor did I say I was 100% right, but you give the impression that you are. But that's Ok. It isn't about what's best for ME either. It is about what I believe will be best for me, AND my colleagues across the country, including MANAGERS. I genuinely believe that staying in public hands will be best for us all. I also believe that staying publically owned would be best for the public too, they would be assured of a better service at a decent price in my view. And I do not have a closed mind, if I did, I'd just swallow all the crap from RM/Cable/Fallon and Moya. My mind is open, and I can see what they're up to, and it isn't going to be good, not for me, not for my fellow posties, not for managers either, and not for the general public.

To be honest I'm not taking too much notice of what you "think" will happen in that respect or your veiled threat about cheaper ways to reduce headcount. In any case there is no scenario that would cause me undue concern.

Well, we agree on that, because I'm not taking ANY notice of what you think (which is clearly something you don't do) will happen. How can what I say be a veiled threat? It wasn't a threat, I genuinely believe it will happen in that fashion, so it can't be veiled, or a threat, can it?
And if this privatisation does not present anything, at all, to cause you undue concern, then you really are short sighted. Or due to retire soon.