Royal Mail to be Privatised....

[yorksrob]

I dont work in the public sector, I have a real job!

Since Railtrack was illegally bankrupted by the Labour government, its role has been taken by the bottomless pit of cash that is known as Network Rail, who have spent fortunes on a plush estate for its boss, and payoffs for sexually harrassed ex-employees. Not so much on railway services and infrastructure...

Well, the Tories are back in power now, so they have a golden opportunity to dust off honest John's masterplan and show us exactly how the balkanised railway network that they created will, contrary to economic reality, make a profit and cost less to the taxpayer and farepayer than the nasty old state owned railway.

I look forward to seeing how that one pans out.

 

[mrcheek]

Pray do tell how did the Labour Goverment make Railtrack 'Illegally bankrupt'?
Wasnt Railtrack broke long before the Labour Government got its dirty little hands on it? Didnt railtrack managers make money for its Managers and shareholders and then offer contracts to its friends in government who more or less never maintained britains railways therefore directly causing the Potters Bar train crash (JARVIS! that had a leading tory and former government minister as its non executive director who then then blamed it on sabotage). So Network rail came in and exactly as railtarck did in the past. NOTHING the only exception is that there was no shareholders to pay out to.

Its a very lenghthy story, and its difficult to summarise accurately, filtering out all the lies told by the government at the time. But basically, Railtrack was supposed to operate with a certain level of funding provided by the government. The government simply decided not to hand over the money, leaving Railtrack insolvent, so the government could say they had carried out their manifesto pledge to renationalise the company, at little immediate expense. The expense came later, as Coucher used Network Rail to enrich himself, and the HR department used a bottomless pit of government money to pay off scores of women complaining of sexual harrassment.

Network Rail, because of the way they were set up by the Labour government, are effectively answerable to nobody. At least Railtrack had shareholders to answer to.

Potters Bar happened because someone didnt do their job. Pretty much the same reason all rail crashes happened, pre and post privatisation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, the Tories are back in power now, so they have a golden opportunity to dust off honest John's masterplan and show us exactly how the balkanised railway network that they created will, contrary to economic reality, make a profit and cost less to the taxpayer and farepayer than the nasty old state owned railway.

I look forward to seeing how that one pans out.

Well sadly all the Tories good work was sabotaged by Labour. And now the country is in a financial crisis (I wonder which governing party it was that caused that?), its not going to be easy to sort out the mess!

BTW, look up the history of the Balkan countries before using their name in vain. The problems in the Balkans were caused by people trying to force them all together as a single country! Now that they are split, things are better! Or at least they will be once it all settles down....

 

[jimrbrobinson]

I dont work in the public sector, I have a real job!

And would you be so kind as to define what a real job is? I take it you mean that firefighter isn't a real job? Or a surgeon, or a nurse, or a teacher, or a paramedic, or a police officer, or a librarian, or a school crossing patrol attendant???

(To give just a few random examples of public sector workers who apparently don't have a "real" job!)

 

[yorksrob]

Well sadly all the Tories good work was sabotaged by Labour. And now the country is in a financial crisis (I wonder which governing party it was that caused that?), its not going to be easy to sort out the mess!

Well, they have the railway now, and whatever the state of the country, people are still paying to travel on and use it. So now's their chance.

BTW, look up the history of the Balkan countries before using their name in vain. The problems in the Balkans were caused by people trying to force them all together as a single country! Now that they are split, things are better! Or at least they will be once it all settles down....

Well, I think various factors added to the balkan crisis. Waves of imperialist expansion over many centuries from several powers were probably the initial cause. The areas that were formed in to Yugoslavia had previously been forced into Austria-Hungary and Turkey, and Yugoslavia itself was a response to the power-vacuum left after these empires declined after WW1.

One could also argue that the end of the Cold War and the freedom of other Eastern European nations led different factions in the Balkans to have unrealistic expectations of self-government. It's too simplistic to say that the Balkan crisis is just down to people being forced together. Lets hope that things do calm down......

 

[jimrbrobinson]

Well sadly all the Tories good work was sabotaged by Labour. And now the country is in a financial crisis (I wonder which governing party it was that caused that?), its not going to be easy to sort out the mess!

Tracing back to the source of the global financial crisis then the party responsible was the Republican party of the United States of America, as it was the collapse of American banks which started the collapse of the whole house of cards that the global banking system had become. Since this happened under the Republican administration of George W. Bush, then the financial crisis is arguably his fault. Banks in all of the G8 countries and many other countries too had been playing fast and loose with investment capital for too long, with not enough assets to back up when the system went tits up. Banks collapsed, other banks lost money, several British banks were bailed out by the Labour government. Now everyone - except the bankers who still get their high salaries and bonuses - are paying the price.

 

[142094]

Typically Tory guff - that the private sector will be there waiting to give jobs to all the people who will lose their jobs due to spending cuts on the public sector. It will be good to see in four years time the Tories losing the General Election and the Lib Dems back to the shadows where they belong. Then maybe we can get on with rebuilding the country after all the cuts made by Cameron and Osborne.

 

[Zoe]

Its a very lenghthy story, and its difficult to summarise accurately, filtering out all the lies told by the government at the time. But basically, Railtrack was supposed to operate with a certain level of funding provided by the government. The government simply decided not to hand over the money, leaving Railtrack insolvent, so the government could say they had carried out their manifesto pledge to renationalise the company, at little immediate expense.

Railtrack were given GBP 1.5 million in 2001 by the government and decided to use part of this public funding to pay a dividend to shareholders. It's not surprising that the government said "enough" and forced the company into administration. As for Railtrack's record, remember Hatfield.

 

[313103]

And would you be so kind as to define what a real job is? I take it you mean that firefighter isn't a real job? Or a surgeon, or a nurse, or a teacher, or a paramedic, or a police officer, or a librarian, or a school crossing patrol attendant???

(To give just a few random examples of public sector workers who apparently don't have a "real" job!)

Strange that Mr Cheek has not responded on this topic since this question was asked!

Raw nerve or something like that me thinks, or perhaps he has been watching the TUC 2010 on BBC Parlament and has educated himself.

 

[Greenback]

I had hoped that he was living up to his name and had his tongue firmly in his cheek!

The views that he expressed, whether in jest or not, are typical of those who do not care to acquanit themselves with the relevant facts. rather like some of the people on the ridiculous BBC NEws segments last weke, who were asked whether welfare should be cut to safegurad other public services. Some people said yes, stating that they didn't receive welfare, despite the fact they got free TV licences, winter fuel payments, tax credits et al.

 

[Aictos]

Typically Tory guff - that the private sector will be there waiting to give jobs to all the people who will lose their jobs due to spending cuts on the public sector. It will be good to see in four years time the Tories losing the General Election and the Lib Dems back to the shadows where they belong. Then maybe we can get on with rebuilding the country after all the cuts made by Cameron and Osborne.

No, I disagree as it wouldn't had matter who had won the 2010 general election as you would still have said the same thing I suspect and the same savings would still have had to be made especially after the last government promising the world to the poor electorate which just wasn't possible as you can't just keep borrowing and borrowing money all the time, so even if Labour did manage to pull off the miracle of the 21st century and return to power they still would have had no hesitation in making savings and don't think any area would have been sacred too!

No as much as I don't want to see cuts or as I prefer to call them savings to be made, it is something which is unavoidable and what needs to be done.

Sometimes drastic action is needed ie if I injured myself in a car crash and I don't have much of a chance to survive then it probably would be kinder on me just to let me die I know that is probably a unwanted example but it is how I view the current issues with the country, Labour as the governing party simply promised too much and delivered too little so that being said I hope the Liberal Democrats/Conservative coalition lasts for least 2 or maybe three terms until this mess the country is in is sorted.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Ajax - how do you re-elect a coalition though?

 

[142094]

No, I disagree as it wouldn't had matter who had won the 2010 general election as you would still have said the same thing I suspect and the same savings would still have had to be made especially after the last government promising the world to the poor electorate which just wasn't possible as you can't just keep borrowing and borrowing money all the time, so even if Labour did manage to pull off the miracle of the 21st century and return to power they still would have had no hesitation in making savings and don't think any area would have been sacred too!

I agree that Labour would have to have made cuts if they were re-elected, however I don't for one minute think they would have proposed cuts as deep as this, why would they shelve their own plans such as Building Schools for the Future and things like that? The only reason why the government had to borrow money was to pay for the effects of the banking crisis, which wasn't Labour's fault at all. Plus now we hear the Treasury will make a nice profit when they decide to sell the nationalised/part-nationalised banks back to the private sector.

As for the talk about "We're all in this together", no we're not. I don't think any Tory will be going hungry and living on less money than they should be when the biggest cuts take place - the poor will get poorer and the rich will stay rich.

 

[Wyvern]

Just acomment. I got a letter this morning

Postmark Gatwick 0847pm 13.09.10

Time it arrived 11.00am 14.09.10

Why privatise the Royal Mail? Leave well alone I say.

 

[Aictos]

I agree that Labour would have to have made cuts if they were re-elected, however I don't for one minute think they would have proposed cuts as deep as this, why would they shelve their own plans such as Building Schools for the Future and things like that? The only reason why the government had to borrow money was to pay for the effects of the banking crisis, which wasn't Labour's fault at all. Plus now we hear the Treasury will make a nice profit when they decide to sell the nationalised/part-nationalised banks back to the private sector.

As for the talk about "We're all in this together", no we're not. I don't think any Tory will be going hungry and living on less money than they should be when the biggest cuts take place - the poor will get poorer and the rich will stay rich.

I disagree that the banking crisis wasn't Labour's fault at all as they had plenty of warning from experts that a crisis was going to happen and if Labour actually did something about it before it hit then maybe they might have looked a better alternative to the other parties but as it was, they did nothing until it happened which is like sending a ship into the path of a iceberg then do your upmost to make good the damage and hope it doesn't sink!

As to your claim that any Tory won't go hungry and living on less money then they should be when the biggest cuts take place, yes that might be the case at managing director level but it would be same regardless of whom their political ties are to but not at where frontline staff are concerned, I decided to go for Cameron as I firmly believe that he was the best man for the job of running the country and that savings did need to be made, yes Adonis was a good transport secretary BUT I think he just promised far too much which is a pity, if he came in earlier then just maybe he would have more time to put into effect the drive that the transport industry needs.

 

[mrcheek]

Strange that Mr Cheek has not responded on this topic since this question was asked!

Raw nerve or something like that me thinks, or perhaps he has been watching the TUC 2010 on BBC Parlament and has educated himself.

A real job is one that is paid for out of revenue that comes from people willingly paying for a service.

 

[jimrbrobinson]

Just acomment. I got a letter this morning

Postmark Gatwick 0847pm 13.09.10

Time it arrived 11.00am 14.09.10

Why privatise the Royal Mail? Leave well alone I say.

Totally agree. When it comes to letter post, there Royal Mail are generally amazing. Yes, there are occasional delays and losses - but considering the staggering volume processed daily that's understandable. Personally I still think first and second class post are a bargain for the service provided.

 

[ainsworth74]

the poor will get poorer and the rich will stay rich.

The last lot didn't do anything to improve that particular situation, the gap has been widening for quite some considerable time, if I remember correctly it was under the previous government the gap between the richest and the poorest became the largest since the 1970s. So it's not as if they were doing much to close it!

As for Royal Mail I'm torn, if someone could prove to me that the service would be more efficient and cheaper then I would support privatisation otherwise why touch something that's not broken?

 

[Railsigns]

A real job is one that is paid for out of revenue that comes from people willingly paying for a service.

What an unbelievably stupid thing to say. It's both a slur on thousands of public sector workers who provide a useful service and illustrates the crass and heartless capitalist ideology that thinks market forces are the best solution to everything.

 

[313103]

A real job is one that is paid for out of revenue that comes from people willingly paying for a service.

A lot of passengers on a train pay there fare so at least that means i do a real job even if it is a public service in the private sector!

However i don't directly pay for my fire service or my police service, i dont even pay directly for the NHS. Yet i have used all of them at some stage so perhaps in future i had better not:roll: As i don't pay for there services.

What i would like to know is when cash fares on buses in London are finally withdrawn does it mean that all the buses should be withdrawn? As no one will know who has directly paid for the service.

 

[Lampshade]

A real job is one that is paid for out of revenue that comes from people willingly paying for a service.

Sorry but you're talking bollocks.

 

[mrcheek]

Sorry but you're talking bollocks.

which puts me in pretty good company on this thread, from the guy who thinks supermarkets are run by the government, to the people who think its the Tories fault that Labour screwed up the economy!

If a service is valuable, people will pay for it. If not, then its not a productive use of the nations resources.

Be aware that at no point did I ever say that the entire public sector was worthless. Just large bits of it. Since the railways are privatised, I wouldnt class railway employees as public sector anymore. And the Royal Mail will happily make the transition.

But, if the forecast is for 250,000 public sector jobs to be lost (not my figures, these were quoted by a user above), then if these jobs are all really essential, then the nation will collapse entirely into anarchy, and we will all be walking the streets, little more than animals. If these jobs are lost, and this scenario does not occur, then I am right.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What i would like to know is when cash fares on buses in London are finally withdrawn does it mean that all the buses should be withdrawn? As no one will know who has directly paid for the service.

They have this system that sort of counts the number of people on each service, and ties it in to total revenue, and divides it that way. Some of these people are clever enough to be able to work things out like that! Maths doesnt end at two plus two you know!

 

[313103]

which puts me in pretty good company on this thread, from the guy who thinks supermarkets are run by the government, to the people who think its the Tories fault that Labour screwed up the economy!

If a service is valuable, people will pay for it. If not, then its not a productive use of the nations resources.

Be aware that at no point did I ever say that the entire public sector was worthless. Just large bits of it. Since the railways are privatised, I wouldnt class railway employees as public sector anymore. And the Royal Mail will happily make the transition.

But, if the forecast is for 250,000 public sector jobs to be lost (not my figures, these were quoted by a user above), then if these jobs are all really essential, then the nation will collapse entirely into anarchy, and we will all be walking the streets, little more than animals. If these jobs are lost, and this scenario does not occur, then I am right.....

Actually i dont remember saying that supermarkets were in the public sector, my wife who earns a pittance for her penance in a chain that has just recorded record profits none of which wil be passed on to the employees (in real terms).
The figures i was quoting (250,000) was 50,000 more then that bastion of right wing politics (The Daily Mail) so yes i was wrong on their estimations, so on that point i was talking BOLLOCKS.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bs-lost-massive-Government-spending-cuts.html

I did try to looking on the Conservatives website to see what their estimations are and could only find there pre election promises and manifesto, so no real answer from them. so not even the government of the day can tell us how many jobs will be lost.

As an aside not all private enterprise is good just look at how many companies have gone bust taking with them the employees of those industries, I suppose it was Labours fault that Woolworths went bust!

 

[mrcheek]

As an aside not all private enterprise is good just look at how many companies have gone bust taking with them the employees of those industries, I suppose it was Labours fault that Woolworths went bust!

People working for private companies have always known that if the market conditions change, their jobs will be at risk. In every recession, private companies go bust, or cut staff. Woolworths went bust because their business model was outdated. So we cant blame Labour for that. But we can blame them for the thousands of small business that went to the wall because of the ridiculous costs imposed on them by the Labour government's excessive zeal for excessive regulation.

For once, this time, the public sector will face the same kind of job losses that the private sector has to regard as normal. Welcome to the real world.

 

[ainsworth74]

Actually i dont remember saying that supermarkets were in the public sector

But you did say:

you dont work for any retail outlet in any capacity, because that is not a real job.

In response to the claim that public sector jobs aren't real jobs, which the way I read it means that you are saying that retail outlets (supermarkets for instance) are in the public sector. Please correct me if I've read that wrong.

 

[jimrbrobinson]

A real job is one that is paid for out of revenue that comes from people willingly paying for a service.

So, same question then, does this mean that firefighters, police officer, doctors, nurses, paramedics, teachers, social workers, librarians, etc. are not real jobs?

In order for all of the above to be able to get on and do their jobs, a certain amount of administration is required, so someone has to be employed to do that too. No one can deny that the public sector has in the past been heavily overstaffed, and this has been recognised with a lot of back-office staff being gradually withdrawn. 'Efficiency savings' have been happening for five years now, at a much lower and less newsworthy level. However, the fact is that now the new demands for fiscal savings brought in by the coalition government are beyond the scope of simple efficiency, and can not be achieved without detriment to front-line services.

The coalition govenment are going for the short-term quick-fix solution to the deficit, but in the long term it will be tax-payer who suffers because the services you are already paying for will not be there anymore. And of course, they're not going to reduce taxes to compensate for those lost services. It's a lose-lose situation for every taxpayer and citizen of this country.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But you did say:



In response to the claim that public sector jobs aren't real jobs, which the way I read it means that retail outlets (supermarkets for instance) are in the public sector. Please correct me if I've read that wrong.

Public sector is referring to services and organisation funded by taxation, or provided be local or national government agencies: i.e. the DVLA, HM Revenue and Customs, the armed forces, HM Coastguard (Maritime and Coastguard Agency), the NHS, local council staff, teachers, social workers, firefighters, police, etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For once, this time, the public sector will face the same kind of job losses that the private sector has to regard as normal. Welcome to the real world.

It's true, the public sector has usually been insulated from such things, mainly because the public sector provides services that otherwise would not be provided. If a supermarket shuts, some people lose their jobs, but the whole of society surrounding said supermarket is not threatened. However, in the situation we're facing now, there's going to be less police about to tackle crime (already a problem where they are breaking under the strain), NHS waiting lists will increase again and people will die in the queue, people will die in fires because there's not enough appliances to go around, etc. That's the real jobs in the public sector. That's without such luxuries as libraries, which many people rely on simply because they can't afford to keep buying books, cds, dvds, etc. All of the above are currently under threat, and lots more.

 

[ainsworth74]

Public sector is referring to services and organisation funded by taxation, or provided be local or national government agencies: i.e. the DVLA, HM Revenue and Customs, the armed forces, HM Coastguard (Maritime and Coastguard Agency), the NHS, local council staff, teachers, social workers, firefighters, police, etc.

I'm well aware of what the Public sector is

My point was unless I've missed something retail outlets (such as supermarkets) are not in the public sector. Really it is just me being pedantic and wandering off topic

 

[142094]

I disagree that the banking crisis wasn't Labour's fault at all as they had plenty of warning from experts that a crisis was going to happen and if Labour actually did something about it before it hit then maybe they might have looked a better alternative to the other parties but as it was, they did nothing until it happened which is like sending a ship into the path of a iceberg then do your upmost to make good the damage and hope it doesn't sink!

What experts were these? As far as I'm aware hardly anyone saw it coming, and governments from the US to Germany and France didn't exactly do much before it hit either.

As to your claim that any Tory won't go hungry and living on less money then they should be when the biggest cuts take place, yes that might be the case at managing director level but it would be same regardless of whom their political ties are to but not at where frontline staff are concerned, I decided to go for Cameron as I firmly believe that he was the best man for the job of running the country and that savings did need to be made, yes Adonis was a good transport secretary BUT I think he just promised far too much which is a pity, if he came in earlier then just maybe he would have more time to put into effect the drive that the transport industry needs.

I agree that cuts needed to be made, however I think it is very risky to start cutting when we are just on the road to recovery. There has been a lot of talking about a double-dip recession, and looking at things such as house prices and inflation it looks more and more like it is going to happen anyway.

The problem is where the cuts are - there was a report last week that showed areas such as the North West, North East and Yorkshire will be less resilient to the cuts than others - mainly due to the fact that these areas are more dependent on the public sector. Why are they so dependent on the public sector? Because when Thatcher was in power she destroyed the traditional industries and sold off the rest - and what replaced them? Public sector jobs - not much private investment around. Even when Nissan decided to locate at Washington it was only because they got tax breaks and free rent for a certain amount of time to sweeten the deal. Plus now of course the RDAs are getting scrapped, even though One North East has done a hell of a job getting more private investment into the region, but still gets erased.

What you'll find is that when these public sector jobs go, you'll have thousands on the dole and there will be no jobs for them at all, so we'll be paying people to sit on their arses when they could have been doing something useful, and paying taxes as well. I hardly see the likes of Tesco and Asda and the like creating as many jobs such as that - plus most jobs created go to foreign workers anyway as they are cheaper to employ.

 

[jimrbrobinson]

Oops, my bad. Sorry about that. Think I've cross-threaded there, sure I read somewhere along the way someone saying retail was public sector... d'oh!

I dread to think the alternative if didn't have some public sector services. Imagine having to pay for healthcare, fire service, etc. at time of need? You've got enough to think about at times when you need those services, without a bleedin' great bill at the end of it!

 

[ainsworth74]

Oops, my bad. Sorry about that. Think I've cross-threaded there, sure I read somewhere along the way someone saying retail was public sector...

No problem, I've just gone back and re-read my original post and my meaning wasn't all that clear if I'm honest!

 

[boing_uk]

I would also argue that alot of jobs in the public sector are required by law, such as the Transport Act 2000 requiring the drawing up of Local Transport Plans and the requirement for School Travel Plan Co-ordinators and Cycling and Walking officers as an example.

School Travel Plans take up an enormous amount of time for both schools and local authorities, which is time that could be better spent, especially in schools. Yet they are a statutory requirement.

If the government really require local authorities to cut expenditure and make real efficiency savings, then they have to give local authorities the legislation (either by new legislation or removal of old ones) to allow them to do it.

Another large bill that local authorities are lumbered with is winter maintenance, covered in the Transport and Road Safety Act, which requires them to spend inordinate sums of money keep all roads clear as far as reasonably practicable of ice and snow. This has led to a public expectation that ALL roads will be ice free and as can be seen from many news stories and reader comments last winter, this extends almost down to every residential street.

This law meant that councils overspent their gritting budgets last winter in some cases by 150%, when the technicalities of winter maintenance means that a) road salt is ineffective on snow; b) doesnt work well when road surface temperature falls below -6 C; c) doesnt work AT ALL when road surface temperature falls below -10 C d) doesnt work on lightly trafficked routes as it requires (in simplified terms) traffic to keep the brine mixture active.

Legislation given in the last ten to fifteen years has seen so-called non-jobs in the public sector rocket, through legislation brought in with all good intentions, but there has to come a point where the public at large (and that includes elected representatives) have to accept that the service cannot do EVERYTHING, unless they want to pay for it.