Are there any alternatives to Royal Mail after the price changes from 30 April 2012?

dragonfruit

stevew8975 wrote: »

Possibly because they were heavily subsidised, and still running at an operational loss.

Remember it is not specifically the government that has increased prices, but RM themselves have now been given more control over their pricing structure to ensure that they can operate without a loss, and without being subsidised by the tax-payer.

Contrary to popular belief and what a certain chancellor believed, the Uk does not have a bottomless pit of money to dip into. It has taken a change of government to make this point, but still people are expecting financial miracles.

So why have the goverment collecting such high taxes, if they are not able even to provide a low cost postal service - it is still after all called the Royal Mail? We, customers, pay taxes and in return want low price postal service. If that cannot be provided (subsidised) from the taxes we pay, then the taxes should be lowered with opening the market, but that did not happen (quite the opposite).

RFW

dragonfruit wrote: »

So someone made a mess, but why we have to pay for that someone's mistakes? Why these mistakes were not predicted and prevented?

If it had just been one person or one action then it wouldn't be so bad. Successive governments and successive managements have tinkered too much, that coupled with a completely different business, ie a massive decrease in letters and increase in parcels has left us where we are.

I'm not too clued up on the history of it but I'd say the major problems stem from when Parcelforce was founded.

As for monopolies, the reason private companies were asking for the monopoly to be removed is precisely because RM prices were too low and government subsidised, it was never a question of them being too high.

RFW

dragonfruit wrote: »

So why have the goverment collecting such high taxes, if they are not able even to provide a low cost postal service

It depends on your belief of low price, go to Norfolk and ask for a letter to an address in Belfast to be sent to arrive in 2-3 days and see if you can find anyone to do it for under £1, that's your subsidised service. I doubt you'd find a private company that would be willing to deliver standard letters and postcards for the price.

dragonfruit

RFW wrote: »

As for monopolies, the reason private companies were asking for the monopoly to be removed is precisely because RM prices were too low and government subsidised, it was never a question of them being too high.

"Great", so the government listened to several dozens of private companies, and ignored several dozens of millions of personal customers (the voters). I do not grasp the logic of this.

StaffsSW

dragonfruit wrote: »

So why have the goverment collecting such high taxes, if they are not able even to provide a low cost postal service - it is still after all called the Royal Mail? We, customers, pay taxes and in return want low price postal service. If that cannot be provided (subsidised) from the taxes we pay, then the taxes should be lowered with opening the market, but that did not happen (quite the opposite).

Have you heard of the phrase "who wins a race to the bottom of the market"?

RM lost a big share of their volume, but still had huge overheads to cover. They had less revenue coming in, but still had the same costs to meet, and guess what... ?The bottomless pit of money turned out not be bottomless.

Most of the money thrown at the public sector services over the last decade was borrowed, and a nation (or business) built entirely on debt is not sustainable.

If ever you take the time to research the fundamentals of economics and politics, it is real eye-opener to just how bad the state of the nations finances really are at the moment. No political party wants to make the tough decision to make cuts as it tends to costs votes, but every now and again a government has to make unpopular decisions for the long term sustainability of the nation. Some governments have historically been greater borrowers and spenders, others have been great at cutting costs and balancing the nations books. And that is regardless of whether they wear a red, blue or yellow rosette on voting day.

Unfortunately after Gordon Brown went a bit loopy spending money we as a nation didn't have, the current coalition are left with an immense, and very unpopular task.

dragonfruit

stevew8975 wrote: »

RM lost a big share of their volume, but still had huge overheads to cover. They had less revenue coming in, but still had the same costs to meet, and guess what... ?The bottomless pit of money turned out not be bottomless.

So it turns out that it would have been better if the monopoly of the RM was not touched, then they would have not lost the volume and had enough revenue to keep the prices low.

stevew8975 wrote: »

Most of the money thrown at the public sector services over the last decade was borrowed, and a nation (or business) built entirely on debt is not sustainable.

That's obvious for everyone that you cannot live on debt forever, why it was not obvious for governments, banks, businesses?
Why have they all been so irresponsible?

RFW

Agree with stevew, although we'd have been here whatever would have happened with the economy, that probably just speeded it along and is a good excuse.

macfly

No - there's no alternative.

StaffsSW

dragonfruit wrote: »

So it turns out that it would have been better if the monopoly of the RM was not touched, then they would have not lost the volume and had enough revenue to keep the prices low.

No, the prices were artificially low due to the subsidies. The RM were/are still hampered in improving efficiency and reducing costs due to pressure and intervention from the unions.

That's obvious for everyone that you cannot live on debt forever, why it was not obvious for governments, banks, businesses?
Why have they all been so irresponsible?

Perhaps they were all following the example set by a certain Chancellor and his bottomless pit of money... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQVF9s01NYI

dragonfruit

stevew8975 wrote: »

No, the prices were artificially low due to the subsidies. The RM were/are still hampered in improving efficiency and reducing costs due to pressure and intervention from the unions.

Is USA subsidising USPS?