How to destroy a postal service - BLOG

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://robph.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/h ... l-service/

Richard Hooper published his report on the Royal Mail last week. His conclusion was that the government owned company is in serious trouble and the only way to save it was through a ’strategic partnership’ – privatisation in other words.

There is no doubt that the Royal Mail is in big trouble. The Post Office closure programme is a symbol of this and searching the BBC website using the term ‘Royal Mail’ brings up pages of stories about strikes. This cannot go on – and so far I’ll agree with Hooper. But privatisation? Privatisation is seen as a panacea by government and their highly paid consultants. Its the cure to all the ills and inefficiencies of the public sector. By now there is not even any need to explain how privatisation would actually make any difference and challenging the prevailing dogma is seen as a kind of heresy

With banks now relying on the taxpayer to fund them and complaining that the government didn’t stop them from doing stupid things with their customers’ money, and other companies queuing up for taxpayer bailouts because of their green and foolishness the time has come to ask the question – are private sector managers and free market principles any better than those of the public sector?

But what has caused the Royal Mail to get into such trouble? In part, it’s because we’re sending less letters and because so many services which used to be provided through Post Offices are now available elsewhere. There are also archaic practices. Something can be done about some of these – for others we have to accept that the world has changed

But the main reason for the Royal Mail’s troubles is the unreasonable and unfair conditions placed on the company by government in the name of ‘competition’. Yet another example of right wing dogma trouncing common sense – clearly seen in the words of the director of Postcomm in December 2005

“the move will increase reliability, lead to a wider range of services and “ultimately improve the state of the nation’s postal service”.

He didn’t think for a second that allowing private companies to cherry pick profitable bits of Royal Mail’s business, while at the same time insisting that Royal Mail maintain 6 day a week deliveries to all UK address, maintain a comprehensive distribution network and putting controls on postal prices would cause any problems. So, to make the market a bit ‘fairer’ to the new companies, he decided that he wouldn’t expect them to establish and maintain expensive local delivery networks, distribution offices and so on and would avoid them having to deliver the ‘last mile’ – the most expensive part of the process. They could dump their letters on Royal Mail and have them delivered to homes and businesses at less than cost!

Most people don’t realise that this has happened but if you look at the letters that the postie puts though your door a large percentage will have the markings of UK Mail or TNT on them.

And on top of this all the government has been prising more services such as pensions and benefits away from the Post Office.

It’s no wonder that Royal Mail is struggling. No company could be expected to thrive under these kinds of conditions. You have to ask whether failure of the Royal Mail, giving the excuse to privatise, really has been government policy all along. Answers on the back of a stamp please.

gch12924.jpg