Royal Mail plans threaten to end six-day deliveries

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Royal ... 6657866.jp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

THE coalition government's plans to privatise Royal Mail have left a loophole under which the universal service guarantee of six-days-a-week deliveries could be downgraded or scrapped, it has been revealed.

A clause in the new Postal Services Bill going through the Westminster parliament states that the guarantee should be "financially sustainable", which critics have argued will leave it under threat if the company fails to make a profit.

Any changes to the universal service would hit Scotland hardest because of the difficulties of reaching remote rural areas.

Ministers have been accused of leaving the opportunity open for undermining the guarantee as a means of maximising the amount it can make from selling off Royal Mail.

Critics believe the "financial sustainability" clause could also be used to close under-performing post office branches in future. Currently, only 4,000 of the 11,900 branches are profitable and there are fears that without legal protection almost 8,000 could close.

The bill is currently going through the committee stage in the Commons before a final vote by all MPs.

The government has refused to introduce a legal guarantee of a minimum number of requirements for the post office network and there are concerns that, once privatised, Royal Mail could take its business elsewhere or make a commercial decision for Post Office Ltd to shut many of its branches.

Labour's Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch MP, Gregg McClymont, who has been following the bill through the committee stages, said: "What we are seeing is a strategy to maximise the amount of money the government can make by selling off Royal Mail.

"This is why the coalition has included a loophole on the universal guarantee and why it refuses to protect post office branches properly."

He added: "Of course they are calculating that both changes to the universal service guarantee and the closure of thousands of post offices will happen after the next election and they will then be able to blame the privatised Royal Mail and pretend their hands are clean."

The government's intention is to allow private capital to be injected into the Royal Mail.

[andy2007]

Sadly, I think it'll be more than just the 6 day deliveries that'll go. We'll have Zonal Pricing soon after Privatisation IMHO, if it goes ahead.

[dvbuk55]

Sadly, I think it'll be more than just the 6 day deliveries that'll go. We'll have Zonal Pricing soon after Privatisation IMHO, if it goes ahead.

That has always made sense to me, one price fits all is definitely NOT sustainable in this day and age. There are many reasons for this, one is that transport costs have increased disproportionately to the price of postage.

[andy2007]

Was there EVER a time where the transport costs weren't disproportionally high for remote areas?
Don't you think it was even worse, when we had to rely on Horse drawn Carriages?
That's what's so important about protecting the USO in it's current form. Why should someone be penalised financially, because they live in a remote area?
Farmers, and Pensioners in particular. Will be hit incredibly hard in such areas. Or are you suggesting that once a Farmer retires, he/she should move to a built up area, so they can send/recieve post at a sensible price?

I'm not against any erosion of the USO, because I'm sentimental (anyone who knows me well, knows I'm not that kind of person). It's because I know what the effect will be, if it's erroded, or worse still, abolished completely! Whatever happened to Social responsibility?
Or Community spirit?
What is happening to this Country!!!!!

[fishtank]

What is happening to this Country!!!!!

Market forces Andy...it's the new religion.
If it pays to provide a service...you get the service.
If it don't....you pay more up to the point that it does.

[andy2007]

That's precisely why the USO is more important now, than it ever was. IT MUST BE PROTECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think this all started with Thatcher, and the Yuppie generation. I can still remember a time, when neighbours rallied round, whenever someone was having a problem. People actually CARED what happened in Society (even when it didn't affect them personally). Now, it's just "what's in it for me!" all the time. It makes me sick!!!!!

[dvbuk55]

I don't want to be negative here Andy but are you suggesting that Royal Mail could run the business and make a profit on the strength of the farmers and pensioners either in rural or urban areas, or even joe public.

If you want something sent somewhere you should be prepared to pay the price it actually costs.......sure there could be discounted rates at christmas perhaps but ordinarily you pay the going rate.

[baldrick]

So should those who are disabled or have long term health problems, or just infirmity caused by age pay more for the NHS?
Or perhaps women should pay more as they are more likely to become pregnant.
And those who have children should pay more Council Tax for the schools.
And those who live in high crime areas should pay more for policing.
Market forces after all.
There is no such thing as society.

[andy2007]

At the moment, it's a requirement of the license, to provide a "one price goes anywhere" service. If RM don't provide that, they loose their license. If that requirement stays intact, then they'll have no choice, but to continue to provide it. If that can't be done if it's Privatised. Then it shouldn't be Privatised. If it CAN be done, with a Privatised RM, then fine. But can anyone really see that happening?

So in answer to your question: No. If RM is Privatised, I can't see them making a profit with the USO intact. However: we've made big profits before, whilst providing the USO. Because we didn't have to provide dividends for Shareholders.

So how do we compete with the leeches (erm competition)?
Simple: Just impose the USO on EVERYONE who wants a license to collect, sort, and (the most unlikley) deliver mail. Then we have a level playing field. They won't like it, and will most likley go to another Country. But remember: far more jobs were lost, than created, through opening up the market. If we have to take up the slack, if/when they quit. We'll need to recruit a lot more staff anyway. So where's the harm?
You never know: One or two of them might even stick it out.

I can't see my suggestion of imposing the USO on our so-called competitors happening. But the facts are:
1) We've made a profit more years than we've made losses.
2) We're the only ones CAPABLE of delivering to everyone.
3) If we were allowed to charge what it actually COSTS to deliver the mail for the leeches (even if it was literally cost price, with no profit), we'd still make a profit long term. And would probably gain far more of the market than we currently have.

[fishtank]

So should those who are disabled or have long term health problems, or just infirmity caused by age pay more for the NHS?
Or perhaps women should pay more as they are more likely to become pregnant.
And those who have children should pay more Council Tax for the schools.
And those who live in high crime areas should pay more for policing.
Market forces after all.
There is no such thing as society.

Give it a few more years of Tory Government and your wish list will probably come true.
There has already been rumblings about making smokers,the obese and drug addicts pay for their treatment and private security firms already operate in the more affluent areas,having a separate "education tax" doesn't sound that wild nowadays...i can see the singles lapping that up...pregnancy...that might be a tough one but i could see the day when private insurance is compulsory so would you have a higher premium for women...possibly.

None of it is to my taste baldrick but people are generally muppets nowadays and will except anything as long as it doesn't shake them out of their comfort zone.

[andy2007]

So does that mean that we should just accept it?
Or do as many of us do: Fight as hard as we can, to wake people up to the consequences of these actions. And to try to protect those who'll be severely penalised, for the sake of the greedy ones?

Besides: Don't forget, many of the richest people, are moving to Rural areas these days. And won't want to pay more, once they find out that, that's one of the consequences of erroding the USO. Not because it would affect them noticably (although it will hit ordinary people very hard in those areas), but because they're too greedy to want to pay more than those in the Cities. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they moved back to built up areas, to avoid the higher costs. Which would have a catastrophic affect on the Rural economies.

[fishtank]

So does that mean that we should just accept it?
Or do as many of us do: Fight as hard as we can, to wake people up to the consequences of these actions.

You can only wake people up if the want to be woken...and they don't.
I don't actually blame the Tories...they are doing what Tories do...looking after the money men.
I blame the Labour Party of the last 13years and the largely ineffective TUC and it's member Unions...they were too timid,crippled by a fear of the majority right wing press in this country.
Labour had a real opportunity to reverse the me,me,me mentality of the eighties and early nineties and they blew it big style...more than that...they added to it by making it "cool" to be greedy again.
Just look at Blair now ...selling himself like a cheap hooker....

[andy2007]

Yes, I agree. But it was one particular speech by Thatcher, which seemed to set everything off. Where she declared that there was no such thing as Society. It seemed (to me at least) to be seen by many, as a green light, for selfish greedy behaviour. And the Yuppie was born!

Still. That's just my take on the situation.

[dvbuk55]

Labour were elected on a middle of the road manifesto and I supported them at that time, fully expecting them to actually support the working class and repeal the anti union laws.........how wrong can you be? What we ended up with was a watered down Tory Party, is it any wonder that the election was so close, despite the worst recession in memory. People just couldn't seperate one from t'other..................sadly the Tories won't be holding back when it comes to the cosh.

[adrianjames]

GOOD BOLLOX TO THE 6 DAY WEEK,DONE IT FOR 25 YEARS THERE WILL BE ENOUGH STAFF WISHING TOO GET OUR,THE UNION SHOULD TAKE ON BOARD THE MEMBERS FEELINGS ON THIS,TRY A SURVEY AND SEE WHAT COME BACK