Royal Mail results 'proof' privatisation was not needed

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-11- ... ot-needed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?

Royal Mail's results are further proof the company should not have been privatised, the general secretary of the CWU has said.

The company announced a significant profit-increase in its first results since it was controversially floated on the London Stock Exchange.


Billy Hayes, General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union, pictured during a recent strike Credit: PA Wire
Billy Hayes, general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, said: "These results are based on performance when Royal Mail was still in public ownership. The rise in profits is further proof that there was no need to privatise this successful company.

"A profitable, successful and well-loved institution was flogged on the cheap when these latest figures show it was healthy and in good hands. The Government's arguments continue to crumble. These profits should be public money, not paid out to hedge funds and City institutions in dividends."

[knackeredneedadayoff]

Well why leave it too late to do anything about it numpty

[Brain Fury]

The business became profitable as result of being given more freedom to raise prices, a renegotiation of DSA rates and being relieved of the pension debt. None of those things would have happened without privatisation.

In any case, right or wrong, too cheap or not it's happened. Hasn't Billy got anything else to do?

[Brainache]

The business became profitable as result of being given more freedom to raise prices, a renegotiation of DSA rates and being relieved of the pension debt. None of those things would have happened without privatisation.

In any case, right or wrong, too cheap or not it's happened. Hasn't Billy got anything else to do?

All those those things happened BEFORE privatisation.

[freelunch]

Royal Mail results 'proof' bullying and harassment by managers pays dividends.
Expect more of the same in 2014

[fishtank]

The business became profitable as result of being given more freedom to raise prices, a renegotiation of DSA rates and being relieved of the pension debt. None of those things would have happened without privatisation.

So you're saying that the Government had the formula for a profitable Royal Mail but would only have used it to promote the privatisation of the company? What you are basically saying is the Government deliberately and artificially deflated Royal Mail's profits while in the public sector and would have continued to do so if the business had continued in the public sector....

Those are serious allegations BF and you might be right but you have to admit that an ideological plan like that only strengthens the argument that in the right hands Royal Mail would have thrived in the public sector.In the wrong hands private or public it could have been or could still be in danger.

[Brain Fury]

The business became profitable as result of being given more freedom to raise prices, a renegotiation of DSA rates and being relieved of the pension debt. None of those things would have happened without privatisation.

In any case, right or wrong, too cheap or not it's happened. Hasn't Billy got anything else to do?

All those those things happened BEFORE privatisation. Numpty.

Yes but they were conditional upon the plan to privatise. Moron.

[Brain Fury]

The business became profitable as result of being given more freedom to raise prices, a renegotiation of DSA rates and being relieved of the pension debt. None of those things would have happened without privatisation.

So you're saying that the Government had the formula for a profitable Royal Mail but would only have used it to promote the privatisation of the company? What you are basically saying is the Government deliberately and artificially deflated Royal Mail's profits while in the public sector and would have continued to do so if the business had continued in the public sector....

Those are serious allegations BF and you might be right but you have to admit that an ideological plan like that only strengthens the argument that in the right hands Royal Mail would have thrived in the public sector.In the wrong hands private or public it could have been or could still be in danger.

The EU certainly wouldn't have allowed the Government to take over the pension fund unless it was in order to support privatisation. IMO the commercial freedoms negotiated with the regulator were also a quid pro quo for privatisation because they accepted that the previous restrictions designed to force competition would be unfair to a private company.

Of course privatisation was an ideological plan but it was one started by the Blair Government. In any case isn't an insistence on keeping RM in the public sector also an ideological plan?

[borders]

yes it is , but lets have a think about that one , a public company run for the benefit of everyone and any profits returned to the public purse or a private firm run for the benefit of erm , well I don't need to go on .

[ruralrosetta]

The business became profitable as result of being given more freedom to raise prices, a renegotiation of DSA rates and being relieved of the pension debt. None of those things would have happened without privatisation.

In any case, right or wrong, too cheap or not it's happened. Hasn't Billy got anything else to do?

All those those things happened BEFORE privatisation. Numpty.

Yes but they were conditional upon the plan to privatise. Moron.

Renegotiating the DSA, for instance, was such an obvious business move that was needed to rectify Crozier/Leighton incompetance.
Nothing to do with privatisation.

[fishtank]

The EU certainly wouldn't have allowed the Government to take over the pension fund unless it was in order to support privatisation.

There was no mention in the application for or subsequent granting of state aid of privatisation.The EU doesn't have an agenda to privatise publicly owned postal services,only to ensure what it considers "fair" competition.
The main caveat was that the modernisation and restructuring continue at pace.

IMO the commercial freedoms negotiated with the regulator were also a quid pro quo for privatisation

Ofcom is a puppet of the Government paid for mainly out of Royal Mail's own pocket,they can be made to say and do anything given the right encouragement.

Of course privatisation was an ideological plan but it was one started by the Blair Government. In any case isn't an insistence on keeping RM in the public sector also an ideological plan?

If a Government owns a profitable business and holds the key to making it very profitable it isn't ideological to want to hold on to the golden goose,it's prudent financial planning which any idiot can see.

[Brain Fury]

Of course it's ideological, the core question is whether Government should be in the business of owning companies especially companies that are in competition with the private sector. The fact that the company might be profitable doesn't override that ideology. Naturally Tories don't believe they should. So all the arguments about how RM could have remained in the public sector if only the Government had tried a bit harder was always a complete red herring. They didn't want to. We'll assume that both the Lib Dems and Labour parties supported the introduction of private capital because they bought into the recommendations by Richard Hooper and thought it was in RM's interest.

It's always been my opinion that all of them wanted rid of RM simply because they were sick and tired of being embroiled in .arguments by the CWU whose first tactic in any dispute was to appeal to Government over the heads of RM Management. As I say, that's just my opinion but it's alway seemed ironic to me that the CWU probably unwittingly contributed to the privatisation of RM.