We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Royal Mail to be privatised or sold, government says
Comments
-
Loanranger wrote: »
The government inherited the biggest budget deficit in living memory and yesterday announced cuts to welfare budget of £4billion.
Where exactly does Mr Hayes think the money to fund his members' pension shortfall will come from?
Why, it's the big money tree that grows in the secret garden at No. 11 Downing St....0 -
As for private companies not doing it competitive prices, on the contrary. The private company we use is much more competitive than RM, both on price and service.
Do they deliver the letters, or does RM? If it's RM then the true cost is being subsidised by the tax-payer through Downstream Access.0 -
ultrawomble wrote: »Do they deliver the letters, or does RM? If it's RM then the true cost is being subsidised by the tax-payer through Downstream Access.
No idea. Don't care really. At the end of the day we're a business and we want the right service at the best cost.
If the RM is subidising a private service, that implies there is something seriously wrong with the RM management and taking on work at a lower rate than it could get if it went direct.
Ergo, another very good reason to privatise it totally.0 -
No idea. Don't care really. At the end of the day we're a business and we want the right service at the best cost.
If the RM is subidising a private service, that implies there is something seriously wrong with the RM management and taking on work at a lower rate than it could get if it went direct.
Ergo, another very good reason to privatise it totally.
No, RM is not subsidising private delivery services.
RM holds a monopoly on the final mile delivery so it's no surprise that they are inefficient. There is no pressure to be otherwise.
RM have a long way to go before they accept fully the concept of modernisation.
For parcel delivery, the private delivery services such as TNT and others built their business reputations on efficiency by commissioning the most up to date technology. That is why they are successful and the reason that RM are not successful.0 -
Loanranger wrote: »No, RM is not subsidising private delivery services.
RM holds a monopoly on the final mile delivery so it's no surprise that they are inefficient.
Given that 60% of the RMs costs are located in this “final mile”, it's no surprise that private companies don't want to deliver mail as a universal service.
This is an interesting quote:
"As the business mail market becomes more and more competitive, so the cross subsidy by Royal Mail into the universal service becomes more and more difficult to maintain."
From this document http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file46075.pdf0 -
interesting people see their private companies as cheaper and more efficient?
have you not looked into how the downstream access system works?
how many of these private companies have the burden of the universal service obligation on them?0 -
interesting people see their private companies as cheaper and more efficient?
have you not looked into how the downstream access system works?
how many of these private companies have the burden of the universal service obligation on them?
This deserves being put into 10 foot high letters.
The answer is PFI or getting the private sector to do it my a r s e!
If a private sector is carrying out a public duty for a public body, they will only be doing so at a profit.
What does that mean? It means they are taking taxpayers money out of the system.
Why more people do not think this is wrong I do not understand!It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »This deserves being put into 10 foot high letters.
The answer is PFI or getting the private sector to do it my a r s e!
If a private sector is carrying out a public duty for a public body, they will only be doing so at a profit.
What does that mean? It means they are taking taxpayers money out of the system.
Why more people do not think this is wrong I do not understand!
That's because the rail and tube network became more efficient when they were in private hands didn't it?
Shame that Railtrack and Metronet just happened to go bust and be bailed out of the taxpayer..............I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
The whole thing is inefficient and unnecessary in its current form. We don't need a daily postal delivery, but as a nation we are paying for posties to plough up and down garden paths to deliver junk mail on the cheap. Fewer people are posting things and as a result the service is costing more per item being delivered and at the same time local post offices are going out of business due to lack of business.
I'd suggest a wholesale shakeup. Scrap the daily delivery, and make local sub post offices into local mail hubs. Mail for the surrounding area gets delivered there each day, and twice a week (Mon to Sat - so 3 rounds running) mail gets collected from there and delivered. If people want their mail daily then they can pay for a mail box in the post office from where they can collect it. First and second class distinction scrapped to make one standard class. Anything more urgent goes via a special delivery service which is van delivered like parcels are now where one van can cover a vast area. Scrap unaddressed junk mail to make room for mail only in the posties round bags.
You could then lose 60% of posties, give sub post offices a role and a source of income that would help them stay alive, and in the process cut costs to a point where it remains economic to run a postal system with a stamp price people are prepared to pay.
The current system is so labour intensive that with volumes of proper letters declining, the stamp price will have to rise excessively to cover wage costs. With it heavily unionised the chances of keeping wage costs under control are slim so at some point the current system will implode under its own inefficiency.Adventure before Dementia!0 -
Weston Dave stop presuming
1. That everyone received junk mail every day and doesn't receive normal mail.
2. That eveyone lives in a town or city - there are lots of villages without a post office
3. That everyone has the same working pattern as you - somehow I don't see someone working 13 hour night shifts with going to queue up in a long queue to collect their post or open their post box in the post office when they are tired and not safe to drive.
4. That people don't have mobility problemsI'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards