Those of us of a certain age will be amused to see EXACTLY the same arguments used to oppose Royal Mail privatisation as were used to oppose BT privatisation - one of the most incontrovertible spectacular successes of any policy of the last half-century.
Time for the Government to turn salesman again, turn this Royal Mail sale into another positive sign of our economic recovery in the run up to the next GE. And the Labour party will again have to decide which side of the argument it wants to come down on the side of and support.
Support for the Royal Mail remaining within the public sector is a symptom of infectious nostalgia, a particularly British disease. It is similar to the plague which has infected supporters of the NHS and its angels of death.
It is nanny state comfort, red pillar boxes with cast-iron crown insignia, jolly bicycling postmen chased by barking dogs all straight out of Ealing Street Studios. It is island deliveries and penny postage.
It is kindly matrons in village sub post offices delivering Christmas parcels to Hovis boys in shorts. It is Hornby train sets capturing plastic mail bags.
It is pure Danny Boyle Olympics Opening Ceremony sentiment.
There is no place in a progressive 21st Century Britain for such nonsense.
Bravo sir. Common sense amongst the Daily Mailesque panic at upsetting the housewives that we see from the lefties.
Tories like Thatcher opposed it. I assume to keep on subsidising rural Tory voters.
But you're arguing that a private company should be set up with a remit to subsidise rural voters instead. Where's the free market logic in that?
Privatising the Royal Mail is all about supply side reform, tim.
Forget about interim price regulation and cross-subsidy. It will pass as a competitive market develops.
meaningless piffle, the problems when they arise, like the banks will land back in the hands of the UK taxpayer.
You are very grumpy today, Mr. Brooke.
I fear some Warwickshire wag must have painted all the county's postboxes in a fetching shade of London 2012 magenta.
Round here we paint them 2012 gold Mr Pole.
As for grumpy, what do you expect ? Just when you think HMG might have come to its senses you get episode 26 of The Madness of Twerp George.
Perhaps you could send him up here dressed as a grouse, about the 12th of August should be about right.
Not for the first time, UKIP voters are closer to Labour voters on an economic issue, than they are to Conservative voters. According to a the recent survey on Conservative Party members, those Conservative members who are contemplating voting UKIP are economically to the left of Conservative members who have no intention of voting UKIP. But socially, they are to the right of them.
Time for the Government to turn salesman again, turn this Royal Mail sale into another positive sign of our economic recovery in the run up to the next GE. And the Labour party will again have to decide which side of the argument it wants to come down on the side of and support.
Labour will of course, as usual, pretend to oppose it with a load of hypocritical cant (conveniently forgetting that Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and the rest of the top leadership were members of the cabinet when Labour tried to do the same), be evasive on what they would do instead, and finally admit through gritted teeth that they wouldn't reverse it.
Since the key issue is the pension fund deficit it would make more sense to run it to fill the hole.
But it's a £9.5billion or so hole. You'd never fill that on profit in any realistic scenario.
The privatisation proceeds are estimated at £2.5 billion. RM profits are £324m, what value of annuities would you have to buy to generate that cash sum ? The profits won't cover all the deficit but they will make the taxpayer liability much smaller.
If a former Glasgow Labour councillor thinks privatising the Royal Mail is a good idea, then we do truly live in interesting times.
Well, a former Trotskyist who was Trade and Industry Secretary when Labour commissioned the first Hooper report in 2006, and was later Chancellor when they had another go, thought it a good idea, so maybe it's not so strange.
Not for the first time, UKIP voters are closer to Labour voters on an economic issue, than they are to Conservative voters. According to a the recent survey on Conservative Party members, those Conservative members who are contemplating voting UKIP are economically to the left of Conservative members who have no intention of voting UKIP. But socially, they are to the right of them.
UKIP do badly in places like London where most Tory voters are socially liberal but right-wing on economics, probably because they've got plenty of money. It's no surprise that UKIP does well in places where the reverse is true like Lincolnshire.
Re G4S, for those who have dealt with G4S and those in the Probation and Prison Service, I can say, we are truly shocked, shocked I tell you by these allegations.
I would venture that if it was Labour proposing the privatisation the Lab/Con support/oppose figures would be reversed. I don't know a single person that supports the privatisation, Lab or Tory. It's going to be a vote loser.
I'm all in favour of privatising the Royal Mail. Why exactly does the Government need to be in the postal business in 2013?
Best to get the government out of the mess that is the Royal Mail.
The universal service is worth keeping, but I cannot see how it can be maintained in the long term. Successive governments have allowed the private sector in - initially for large parcels, and now for smaller ones. The RM's monopoly is long gone. They are being squeezed by competition in a market (for letters) that, junk mail aside, is reducing. Competition on profitable parcels service is fierce.
It is hardly a sustainable business model for the long-term. They need to be freed up so they can truly invest and compete, or be kept in-house with the knowledge that losses to the taxpayer will mount.
Bang on the money with that assessment Josias, well past time the Royal Mail was privatised as its a costly luxury we the taxpayer can no longer afford in the current economic climate.
A "costly luxury"? err, doesn't it usually show a return for the govt?
But if you're happy to see rural areas pay three or four times more for their services who am I to stop you. Although I doubt you are, i assume you want the market rigged?
The only reason the RM is showing a profit is that they're continually putting the price of stamps up.
In such bulk numbers, a penny increase can make the difference between millions in loss or profit. There will be a price that the junk mailers are not willing to pay, and the volumes will plummet.
Try as I might, I cannot see a way that the universal service can survive in the future. Which is a shame, as I want it to survive.
If a former Glasgow Labour councillor thinks privatising the Royal Mail is a good idea, then we do truly live in interesting times.
Well, a former Trotskyist who was Trade and Industry Secretary when Labour commissioned the first Hooper report in 2006, and was later Chancellor when they had another go, thought it a good idea, so maybe it's not so strange.
Trots 4 Privatisation.
I did read years ago, that it was the former communists in Eastern European that eventually became the biggest supporters of privitisation.
@TheScreamingEagles - I don't see the problem. After all, the real test should be the reoffending rate, and a dead man who is electronically tagged is not going to reoffend, is he?
With the royal birth imminent, speculation is growing: what will the baby be called? Make your predictions with the Telegraph's sweepstake kit. Simply print it off and play
Since the key issue is the pension fund deficit it would make more sense to run it to fill the hole.
But it's a £9.5billion or so hole. You'd never fill that on profit in any realistic scenario.
The privatisation proceeds are estimated at £2.5 billion. RM profits are £324m, what value of annuities would you have to buy to generate that cash sum ? The profits won't cover all the deficit but they will make the taxpayer liability much smaller.
Deficit of £9.5bn will also be calculated off depressed yields so will be lower at normal rates. (Know the guy advising the government on the pension liabilities)
@TheScreamingEagles - I don't see the problem. After all, the real test should be the reoffending rate, and a dead man who is electronically tagged is not going to reoffend, is he?
Since the key issue is the pension fund deficit it would make more sense to run it to fill the hole.
But it's a £9.5billion or so hole. You'd never fill that on profit in any realistic scenario.
The privatisation proceeds are estimated at £2.5 billion. RM profits are £324m, what value of annuities would you have to buy to generate that cash sum ? The profits won't cover all the deficit but they will make the taxpayer liability much smaller.
But it's not a cash sum that is guaranteed year on year. The government isn't in a position to invest in Royal Mail and it's going to need access to external funding to remain competitive. I don't really see how it does that whilst remaining in government hands.
Support for the Royal Mail remaining within the public sector is a symptom of infectious nostalgia, a particularly British disease. It is similar to the plague which has infected supporters of the NHS and its angels of death.
It is nanny state comfort, red pillar boxes with cast-iron crown insignia, jolly bicycling postmen chased by barking dogs all straight out of Ealing Street Studios. It is island deliveries and penny postage.
It is kindly matrons in village sub post offices delivering Christmas parcels to Hovis boys in shorts. It is Hornby train sets capturing plastic mail bags.
It is pure Danny Boyle Olympics Opening Ceremony sentiment.
There is no place in a progressive 21st Century Britain for such nonsense.
Bravo sir. Common sense amongst the Daily Mailesque panic at upsetting the housewives that we see from the lefties.
Tories like Thatcher opposed it. I assume to keep on subsidising rural Tory voters.
But you're arguing that a private company should be set up with a remit to subsidise rural voters instead. Where's the free market logic in that?
Privatising the Royal Mail is all about supply side reform, tim.
Forget about interim price regulation and cross-subsidy. It will pass as a competitive market develops.
meaningless piffle, the problems when they arise, like the banks will land back in the hands of the UK taxpayer.
You are very grumpy today, Mr. Brooke.
I fear some Warwickshire wag must have painted all the county's postboxes in a fetching shade of London 2012 magenta.
Round here we paint them 2012 gold Mr Pole.
As for grumpy, what do you expect ? Just when you think HMG might have come to its senses you get episode 26 of The Madness of Twerp George.
Perhaps you could send him up here dressed as a grouse, about the 12th of August should be about right.
Since the key issue is the pension fund deficit it would make more sense to run it to fill the hole.
But it's a £9.5billion or so hole. You'd never fill that on profit in any realistic scenario.
The privatisation proceeds are estimated at £2.5 billion. RM profits are £324m, what value of annuities would you have to buy to generate that cash sum ? The profits won't cover all the deficit but they will make the taxpayer liability much smaller.
Deficit of £9.5bn will also be calculated off depressed yields so will be lower at normal rates. (Know the guy advising the government on the pension liabilities)
Which is true Charles so the hole will get smaller, but it won't get to £2.5bn which is the estimated proceeds to clear the debt and at the moment the cash yield on RM profits is better for the taxpayer. So why does HMG want to force another loss on the taxpayer ? Bad economics, bad politics.
O/T - Someone is upset at a law firm in Manchester
The spate of law firm dirty protests seems to have spread to Manchester, with Irwin Mitchell the latest victim.
Staff came in on a Monday morning to find a neatly curled log next to the filing cabinets on the office's sixth floor. As that is where the firm's debt recovery subsidiary Ascent is located, staff initially suspected a disgruntled member of staff or possibly an irate wonga.com customer who had been deprived of his 52" flat screen TV.
"Australians were warned today that the British are about to become unbearable - thanks to a series of recent and upcoming events that will have everyone beating their proud chests for weeks to come.
An Australian newspaper has given notice to its readers that the imminent birth of a royal baby, Andy Murray's win at Wimbledon, The Lions victory over the Wallabies, the Tour de France and, by the looks of things The Ashes, Britain has much to shout about - and will keep on shouting.
'Pity the poor 100,000 Australians living there, but hazards abound here at home - rugby tourists still lurk in Australian hotels, lolling about in self-satisfaction after their test victory,' says Sydney's Daily Telegraph.
But in an attempt to boost the spirits of everyone Down Under in the face of an unstoppable swelling of British pride, the paper has listed 10 points that it says are worth reminding Britons about.
For a start, there is the weather, with cricket officials at Trent Bridge, where the first of the Ashes is being played, looking at the skies and wondering just when rain will stop play.
Then there is the English beer, bitter and lager, the bitter being bitter and warm, the lager tasting like gnat's p**s."
Support for the Royal Mail remaining within the public sector is a symptom of infectious nostalgia, a particularly British disease. It is similar to the plague which has infected supporters of the NHS and its angels of death.
It is nanny state comfort, red pillar boxes with cast-iron crown insignia, jolly bicycling postmen chased by barking dogs all straight out of Ealing Street Studios. It is island deliveries and penny postage.
It is kindly matrons in village sub post offices delivering Christmas parcels to Hovis boys in shorts. It is Hornby train sets capturing plastic mail bags.
It is pure Danny Boyle Olympics Opening Ceremony sentiment.
There is no place in a progressive 21st Century Britain for such nonsense.
Bravo sir. Common sense amongst the Daily Mailesque panic at upsetting the housewives that we see from the lefties.
Tories like Thatcher opposed it. I assume to keep on subsidising rural Tory voters.
But you're arguing that a private company should be set up with a remit to subsidise rural voters instead. Where's the free market logic in that?
Privatising the Royal Mail is all about supply side reform, tim.
Forget about interim price regulation and cross-subsidy. It will pass as a competitive market develops.
meaningless piffle, the problems when they arise, like the banks will land back in the hands of the UK taxpayer.
You are very grumpy today, Mr. Brooke.
I fear some Warwickshire wag must have painted all the county's postboxes in a fetching shade of London 2012 magenta.
Round here we paint them 2012 gold Mr Pole.
As for grumpy, what do you expect ? Just when you think HMG might have come to its senses you get episode 26 of The Madness of Twerp George.
Perhaps you could send him up here dressed as a grouse, about the 12th of August should be about right.
What I object to is the pretence that a 1st class stamp still means next-day delivery. All it really means is it may arrive within a weekbut at least it won't take as long as for a 2nd class stamp.
I'd like to know what they do with the 2nd-class stuff to delay it even longer than the 1st class. Seems to me it needs extra effort to delay something even longer than the natural process delays it, so really we ought to pay more if we want it delayed more than necessary..
Since the key issue is the pension fund deficit it would make more sense to run it to fill the hole.
But it's a £9.5billion or so hole. You'd never fill that on profit in any realistic scenario.
The privatisation proceeds are estimated at £2.5 billion. RM profits are £324m, what value of annuities would you have to buy to generate that cash sum ? The profits won't cover all the deficit but they will make the taxpayer liability much smaller.
Deficit of £9.5bn will also be calculated off depressed yields so will be lower at normal rates. (Know the guy advising the government on the pension liabilities)
Which is true Charles so the hole will get smaller, but it won't get to £2.5bn which is the estimated proceeds to clear the debt and at the moment the cash yield on RM profits is better for the taxpayer. So why does HMG want to force another loss on the taxpayer ? Bad economics, bad politics.
The reality is the taxpayer already has the liability.
So the choice is then either to take income of £350m p.a. and pour that into the general Treasury funds, but see that income stream decline over time as the business is competed into the ground (assuming under investment in state hands).
Or you argue that £350m is as good as it will get, and you sell it at 8x to capitalise the income stream and allow someone else to invest to turn the business around.
If you are worried about not getting value then the state could keep a stake (say 20%) so it can participate the future upside.
The key question is who is best placed to make the Royal Mail an efficient and sustainable business. I'm not convinced that it is the government / civil servants.
When you go on the tram from Manchester Piccadilly to Piccadilly Gardens, about half way along the journey you often see people standing around outside a building with wigs on. I assume that's something to do with the crown court.
When you go on the tram from Manchester Piccadilly to Piccadilly Gardens, about half way along the journey you often see people standing around outside a building with wigs on. I assume that's something to do with the crown court.
It may be the Mancunian branch of the PB executive.
Since the key issue is the pension fund deficit it would make more sense to run it to fill the hole.
But it's a £9.5billion or so hole. You'd never fill that on profit in any realistic scenario.
The privatisation proceeds are estimated at £2.5 billion. RM profits are £324m, what value of annuities would you have to buy to generate that cash sum ? The profits won't cover all the deficit but they will make the taxpayer liability much smaller.
But it's not a cash sum that is guaranteed year on year. The government isn't in a position to invest in Royal Mail and it's going to need access to external funding to remain competitive. I don't really see how it does that whilst remaining in government hands.
Of course it's not a cash sum that's guaranteed, it could go up even further.
As for HMG can't invest, that's just nonsense on so many levels. What it means is HMG doesn't want to spend the cash since it has something it needs to waste it on.
When you go on the tram from Manchester Piccadilly to Piccadilly Gardens, about half way along the journey you often see people standing around outside a building with wigs on. I assume that's something to do with the crown court.
Not watched the cricket but that's sad if the No.11 on his debut was out for 98. I always enjoyed watching the England tail bat in the old days. Certainly Malcolm and Tufnell were always good for a laugh.
When you go on the tram from Manchester Piccadilly to Piccadilly Gardens, about half way along the journey you often see people standing around outside a building with wigs on. I assume that's something to do with the crown court.
There's a court on Minshull street. Piccadilly Gardens is the place to go.
Oxford Road is better, but full of students.
Edit: You use the tram to go for Manc Picc to Piccadilly Gardens? That's a two min walk!
Since the key issue is the pension fund deficit it would make more sense to run it to fill the hole.
But it's a £9.5billion or so hole. You'd never fill that on profit in any realistic scenario.
The privatisation proceeds are estimated at £2.5 billion. RM profits are £324m, what value of annuities would you have to buy to generate that cash sum ? The profits won't cover all the deficit but they will make the taxpayer liability much smaller.
Deficit of £9.5bn will also be calculated off depressed yields so will be lower at normal rates. (Know the guy advising the government on the pension liabilities)
Which is true Charles so the hole will get smaller, but it won't get to £2.5bn which is the estimated proceeds to clear the debt and at the moment the cash yield on RM profits is better for the taxpayer. So why does HMG want to force another loss on the taxpayer ? Bad economics, bad politics.
The reality is the taxpayer already has the liability.
So the choice is then either to take income of £350m p.a. and pour that into the general Treasury funds, but see that income stream decline over time as the business is competed into the ground (assuming under investment in state hands).
Or you argue that £350m is as good as it will get, and you sell it at 8x to capitalise the income stream and allow someone else to invest to turn the business around.
If you are worried about not getting value then the state could keep a stake (say 20%) so it can participate the future upside.
The key question is who is best placed to make the Royal Mail an efficient and sustainable business. I'm not convinced that it is the government / civil servants.
Well there are lots of things one could say to that Charles, where is the evidence the there can be no investment, the issue is more we choose not to invest.
Personally I'd have ringfenced the whole thing and made it a a mutual with a pension problem attached. The sale route will just end up with a problem being passed back to the taxpayer or if it should go well all the taxes being paid in Luxemburg and HMG out of pocket. The solution proposed is the lazy way out and stupid politics.
"Forty-two years after it was released, classic family film The Railway Children has prompted its first complaint to the British Board of Film Classification.
"The correspondent was concerned that children may be encouraged to play on railway tracks as a result of seeing the film," the BBFC's annual report reveals":
Predictable. Absolutely predictable. Unfortunately. Our batting is appalling.
If Pietersen and Cook do not build a partnership here it's game over.
KP will struggle against a ball that hasn't been used enough yet, still another couple of difficult overs to get through first I think. Hopefully he doesn't come in all guns a blazing because Starc will get him through the gate.
Predictable. Absolutely predictable. Unfortunately. Our batting is appalling.
If Pietersen and Cook do not build a partnership here it's game over.
KP will struggle against a ball that hasn't been used enough yet, still another couple of difficult overs to get through first I think. Hopefully he doesn't come in all guns a blazing because Starc will get him through the gate.
Pietersen will give chances at the start. We just have to hope they are not taken and that Cook knuckles under. The thought of Bell and Bairstow walking in when the score is under 100 is not a comforting one. We need to get to a 250 lead minimum and even then we'll have a job defending it on a pitch which looks far from unplayable. The dream would be to get to day 4 and still be in, but with our batsmen that is even more unlikely than a test number 11 scoring 98!
Those of us of a certain age will be amused to see EXACTLY the same arguments used to oppose Royal Mail privatisation as were used to oppose BT privatisation - one of the most incontrovertible spectacular successes of any policy of the last half-century.
Opening up the telecoms market was a long overdue reform and a major success. Whether the BT privatisation was the runaway success you say I'd question. The company was sold below value ( tax payer loss) nearly went bust 15 years later and isn't global player in anything.
Since the package and postal market have already had a high degree of monopoly reform, there will be no similar gain with RM, we're dealing with the hard to handle bits now.
Exactly. I wonder if we would have had mobile phones in the UK if telecoms hadn't been privatised. Most likely we would have had, but probably not in widespread use like they are now.
Since the key issue is the pension fund deficit it would make more sense to run it to fill the hole.
But it's a £9.5billion or so hole. You'd never fill that on profit in any realistic scenario.
The privatisation proceeds are estimated at £2.5 billion. RM profits are £324m, what value of annuities would you have to buy to generate that cash sum ? The profits won't cover all the deficit but they will make the taxpayer liability much smaller.
Deficit of £9.5bn will also be calculated off depressed yields so will be lower at normal rates. (Know the guy advising the government on the pension liabilities)
Which is true Charles so the hole will get smaller, but it won't get to £2.5bn which is the estimated proceeds to clear the debt and at the moment the cash yield on RM profits is better for the taxpayer. So why does HMG want to force another loss on the taxpayer ? Bad economics, bad politics.
The reality is the taxpayer already has the liability.
So the choice is then either to take income of £350m p.a. and pour that into the general Treasury funds, but see that income stream decline over time as the business is competed into the ground (assuming under investment in state hands).
Or you argue that £350m is as good as it will get, and you sell it at 8x to capitalise the income stream and allow someone else to invest to turn the business around.
If you are worried about not getting value then the state could keep a stake (say 20%) so it can participate the future upside.
The key question is who is best placed to make the Royal Mail an efficient and sustainable business. I'm not convinced that it is the government / civil servants.
Well there are lots of things one could say to that Charles, where is the evidence the there can be no investment, the issue is more we choose not to invest.
Personally I'd have ringfenced the whole thing and made it a a mutual with a pension problem attached. The sale route will just end up with a problem being passed back to the taxpayer or if it should go well all the taxes being paid in Luxemburg and HMG out of pocket. The solution proposed is the lazy way out and stupid politics.
Sure, we choose not to invest. I'm just not convinced that the government are the best people to make investment decisions.
In terms of ringfencing that doesn't work. If the pension liabilities were included with the business then the directors would be in danger of trading while insolvent. Even giving a generous 20 years to close the deficit that would more than absorb all of the operating profits of the business.
Mutuals are, to my mind, the fashionable but lazy way out. They are okay, in specific situations, but these are rare and hard to create. With a good management team and a good culture the corporate structure is largely irrelevant.
Southam - Has a number 11 ever been the highest scorer in a test match before? This is a very strange game. Since you're mentioning where people are from, I thought I'd point out that Cooky is half-welsh.
'Labour will of course, as usual, pretend to oppose it with a load of hypocritical cant (conveniently forgetting that Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and the rest of the top leadership were members of the cabinet when Labour tried to do the same),'
Surely we have to believe Peter Mandelson that the only reason Labour didn't go ahead with privatization was due to market conditions in mid 2009,as he had confirmed the go ahead only 6 months earlier?
Since the key issue is the pension fund deficit it would make more sense to run it to fill the hole.
But it's a £9.5billion or so hole. You'd never fill that on profit in any realistic scenario.
The privatisation proceeds are estimated at £2.5 billion. RM profits are £324m, what value of annuities would you have to buy to generate that cash sum ? The profits won't cover all the deficit but they will make the taxpayer liability much smaller.
Deficit of £9.5bn will also be calculated off depressed yields so will be lower at normal rates. (Know the guy advising the government on the pension liabilities)
Which is true Charles so the hole will get smaller, but it won't get to £2.5bn which is the estimated proceeds to clear the debt and at the moment the cash yield on RM profits is better for the taxpayer. So why does HMG want to force another loss on the taxpayer ? Bad economics, bad politics.
The reality is the taxpayer already has the liability.
So the choice is then either to take income of £350m p.a. and pour that into the general Treasury funds, but see that income stream decline over time as the business is competed into the ground (assuming under investment in state hands).
Or you argue that £350m is as good as it will get, and you sell it at 8x to capitalise the income stream and allow someone else to invest to turn the business around.
If you are worried about not getting value then the state could keep a stake (say 20%) so it can participate the future upside.
The key question is who is best placed to make the Royal Mail an efficient and sustainable business. I'm not convinced that it is the government / civil servants.
Well there are lots of things one could say to that Charles, where is the evidence the there can be no investment, the issue is more we choose not to invest.
Personally I'd have ringfenced the whole thing and made it a a mutual with a pension problem attached. The sale route will just end up with a problem being passed back to the taxpayer or if it should go well all the taxes being paid in Luxemburg and HMG out of pocket. The solution proposed is the lazy way out and stupid politics.
Sure, we choose not to invest. I'm just not convinced that the government are the best people to make investment decisions.
In terms of ringfencing that doesn't work. If the pension liabilities were included with the business then the directors would be in danger of trading while insolvent. Even giving a generous 20 years to close the deficit that would more than absorb all of the operating profits of the business.
Mutuals are, to my mind, the fashionable but lazy way out. They are okay, in specific situations, but these are rare and hard to create. With a good management team and a good culture the corporate structure is largely irrelevant.
I'd certainly agree with you on the last point on a good management team. Re insolvency, it sort of depends what you do, if HMG still has guarantor status they can trade happily and have the business set bonuses set on reducing the taxpayer liability.
I'm amused at your comment on investment since presumably the corollary must hold true too ie they shouldn't make divestment decisions either or worse you just shouldn't trust HMG with money !
“Having thoroughly reviewed the evidence gathered by the police, I have decided there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to bring a criminal charge against Denis MacShane. This charge relates to fraudulent claims with a total value of £12,900.
“The charge is of false accounting, contrary to the Theft Act 1968. It is alleged that Denis Macshane claimed expenses for research and translation services carried out by a company that did not carry out that work.”
Since the key issue is the pension fund deficit it would make more sense to run it to fill the hole.
But it's a £9.5billion or so hole. You'd never fill that on profit in any realistic scenario.
The privatisation proceeds are estimated at £2.5 billion. RM profits are £324m, what value of annuities would you have to buy to generate that cash sum ? The profits won't cover all the deficit but they will make the taxpayer liability much smaller.
Deficit of £9.5bn will also be calculated off depressed yields so will be lower at normal rates. (Know the guy advising the government on the pension liabilities)
Which is true Charles so the hole will get smaller, but it won't get to £2.5bn which is the estimated proceeds to clear the debt and at the moment the cash yield on RM profits is better for the taxpayer. So why does HMG want to force another loss on the taxpayer ? Bad economics, bad politics.
The reality is the taxpayer already has the liability.
So the choice is then either to take income of £350m p.a. and pour that into the general Treasury funds, but see that income stream decline over time as the business is competed into the ground (assuming under investment in state hands).
Or you argue that £350m is as good as it will get, and you sell it at 8x to capitalise the income stream and allow someone else to invest to turn the business around.
If you are worried about not getting value then the state could keep a stake (say 20%) so it can participate the future upside.
The key question is who is best placed to make the Royal Mail an efficient and sustainable business. I'm not convinced that it is the government / civil servants.
Well there are lots of things one could say to that Charles, where is the evidence the there can be no investment, the issue is more we choose not to invest.
Personally I'd have ringfenced the whole thing and made it a a mutual with a pension problem attached. The sale route will just end up with a problem being passed back to the taxpayer or if it should go well all the taxes being paid in Luxemburg and HMG out of pocket. The solution proposed is the lazy way out and stupid politics.
Sure, we choose not to invest. I'm just not convinced that the government are the best people to make investment decisions.
In terms of ringfencing that doesn't work. If the pension liabilities were included with the business then the directors would be in danger of trading while insolvent. Even giving a generous 20 years to close the deficit that would more than absorb all of the operating profits of the business.
Mutuals are, to my mind, the fashionable but lazy way out. They are okay, in specific situations, but these are rare and hard to create. With a good management team and a good culture the corporate structure is largely irrelevant.
I'd certainly agree with you on the last point on a good management team. Re insolvency, it sort of depends what you do, if HMG still has guarantor status they can trade happily and have the business set bonuses set on reducing the taxpayer liability.
I'm amused at your comment on investment since presumably the corollary must hold true too ie they shouldn't make divestment decisions either or worse you just shouldn't trust HMG with money !
Politically it's tough to set bonuses as you suggest. Best way to reduce the liability would be to close the pension scheme / worsen the terms / sack the staff. Bosses get bonuses as staff suffer.
I was using investment in the operational sense. Let's say Royal Mail wanted to spend £500m on a new piece of kit that would speed up deliveries. And George Osborne wanted to invest £500m in, for example, tax breaks for married couples. Which do you think would win in a discussion? The inability for management to plan and invest on a rational basis restricts the long-term potential of the business to grow and build value.
Trott shouldn't have been given out first ball it seems:
"England have been told there was a technical problem with HotSpot, meaning vital replay which may have saved Trott was not available #Ashes Sam Sheringham 8 minutes ago"
"The Trott HotSpot plot thickens. (Trott HotSpot plot, like it?) Apparently, the side-on view wasn't available because the replay of the Joe Root dismissal, from the previous ball, was being readied. The system cannot record and play at the same time, a bit like an old VHS I suppose. Meanwhile, front on replays and the Snickometer show that Trott probably did not get an inside edge."
Since the key issue is the pension fund deficit it would make more sense to run it to fill the hole.
But it's a £9.5billion or so hole. You'd never fill that on profit in any realistic scenario.
The privatisation proceeds are estimated at £2.5 billion. RM profits are £324m, what value of annuities would you have to buy to generate that cash sum ? The profits won't cover all the deficit but they will make the taxpayer liability much smaller.
Deficit of £9.5bn will also be calculated off depressed yields so will be lower at normal rates. (Know the guy advising the government on the pension liabilities)
Which is true Charles so the hole will get smaller, but it won't get to £2.5bn which is the estimated proceeds to clear the debt and at the moment the cash yield on RM profits is better for the taxpayer. So why does HMG want to force another loss on the taxpayer ? Bad economics, bad politics.
The reality is the taxpayer already has the liability.
So the choice is then either to take income of £350m p.a. and pour that into the general Treasury funds, but see that income stream decline over time as the business is competed into the ground (assuming under investment in state hands).
Or you argue that £350m is as good as it will get, and you sell it at 8x to capitalise the income stream and allow someone else to invest to turn the business around.
If you are worried about not getting value then the state could keep a stake (say 20%) so it can participate the future upside.
The key question is who is best placed to make the Royal Mail an efficient and sustainable business. I'm not convinced that it is the government / civil servants.
Well there are lots of things one could say to that Charles, where is the evidence the there can be no investment, the issue is more we choose not to invest.
Personally I'd have ringfenced the whole thing and made it a a mutual with a pension problem attached. The sale route will just end up with a problem being passed back to the taxpayer or if it should go well all the taxes being paid in Luxemburg and HMG out of pocket. The solution proposed is the lazy way out and stupid politics.
Sure, we choose not to invest. I'm just not convinced that the government are the best people to make investment decisions.
In terms of ringfencing that doesn't work. If the pension liabilities were included with the business then the directors would be in danger of trading while insolvent. Even giving a generous 20 years to close the deficit that would more than absorb all of the operating profits of the business.
Mutuals are, to my mind, the fashionable but lazy way out. They are okay, in specific situations, but these are rare and hard to create. With a good management team and a good culture the corporate structure is largely irrelevant.
I'd certainly agree with you on the last point on a good management team. Re insolvency, it sort of depends what you do, if HMG still has guarantor status they can trade happily and have the business set bonuses set on reducing the taxpayer liability.
I'm amused at your comment on investment since presumably the corollary must hold true too ie they shouldn't make divestment decisions either or worse you just shouldn't trust HMG with money !
Politically it's tough to set bonuses as you suggest. Best way to reduce the liability would be to close the pension scheme / worsen the terms / sack the staff. Bosses get bonuses as staff suffer.
I was using investment in the operational sense. Let's say Royal Mail wanted to spend £500m on a new piece of kit that would speed up deliveries. And George Osborne wanted to invest £500m in, for example, tax breaks for married couples. Which do you think would win in a discussion? The inability for management to plan and invest on a rational basis restricts the long-term potential of the business to grow and build value.
My guess would be tax breaks would win and Osborne would shove taxes up ( stamp prices ) to cover the investment. You're simply telling me we have politicians who are generous with other people's money.
I know we are supposed to have an economy as ropey as the technique of an England batsman but some rather odd developments chez moi over the last month. Firstly, my elder daughter finished her college course and got a weekend job within a week. Secondly, my younger daughter (16) picked up a call centre job at a party (not the last time that is going to happen, let me tell you).
Today, however, took the biscuit. My elder daughter had an interview with the Health Board for an audio typist. She has no training and was surprised to learn she was to use a foot pedal. She really could not work out what the doctor was saying, let alone spell the medical terms. The position is a permanent one and she is going to University in September. She was phoned and offered the job within an hour. I love her dearly but did no one else turn up? What about all those people who have been attending audio typing classes?
Both my daughters are bright, lively and personable (don't take after their father at all really) but really, how hard is it to get a job in depressed Dundee? Seems a bit strange to me.
If Osborne needs £500m to "send out a signal" about marriage surely he can get it from people who are caring for disabled relatives and partners who need a spare room to do so, thus " sending out a signal" to them that if they care for a relative rather than leaving the state to do it this govt will screw them over financially because it needs the money for a tax break to married couples.
If Osborne needs £500m to "send out a signal" about marriage surely he can get it from people who are caring for disabled relatives and partners who need a spare room to do so, thus " sending out a signal" to them that if they care for a relative rather than leaving the state to do it this govt will screw them over financially because it needs the money for a tax break to married couples.
shout away tim, but will Ed reverse it ?
Pointless Labour.
When the final bill comes in I'd expect it to save very little or even cost money, the way rent arrears are racking up. Won't take too many carers to give up trying to look after relatives in the face of Camerons policy to cost social services more than it's saving.
But Dave likes "sending out signals". On carers for disabled relatives his signal is" f*ck you"
If Osborne needs £500m to "send out a signal" about marriage surely he can get it from people who are caring for disabled relatives and partners who need a spare room to do so, thus " sending out a signal" to them that if they care for a relative rather than leaving the state to do it this govt will screw them over financially because it needs the money for a tax break to married couples.
shout away tim, but will Ed reverse it ?
Pointless Labour.
When the final bill comes in I'd expect it to save very little or even cost money, the way rent arrears are racking up. Won't take too many carers to give up trying to look after relatives in the face of Camerons policy to cost social services more than it's saving.
But Dave likes "sending out signals". On carers for disabled relatives his signal is" f*ck you"
so that's Ed won't overturn it then ?
Ed's next move is to change his name to Gideon by deed poll.
My point was simply that a bunch of politicians are going to be driven by motivations other than the optimal level of investment in a company
Tell you what Charles, why don't we SELL the tax consultancy to Pakistan ( since people never value what they get for free ) and give £50m to RM ? Win win I say :-)
If Osborne needs £500m to "send out a signal" about marriage surely he can get it from people who are caring for disabled relatives and partners who need a spare room to do so, thus " sending out a signal" to them that if they care for a relative rather than leaving the state to do it this govt will screw them over financially because it needs the money for a tax break to married couples.
shout away tim, but will Ed reverse it ?
Pointless Labour.
When the final bill comes in I'd expect it to save very little or even cost money, the way rent arrears are racking up. Won't take too many carers to give up trying to look after relatives in the face of Camerons policy to cost social services more than it's saving.
But Dave likes "sending out signals". On carers for disabled relatives his signal is" f*ck you"
so that's Ed won't overturn it then ?
Ed's next move is to change his name to Gideon by deed poll.
UNITE permitting of course.
I think that's after an FU2 to carers by the look of things.
If Osborne needs £500m to "send out a signal" about marriage surely he can get it from people who are caring for disabled relatives and partners who need a spare room to do so, thus " sending out a signal" to them that if they care for a relative rather than leaving the state to do it this govt will screw them over financially because it needs the money for a tax break to married couples.
shout away tim, but will Ed reverse it ?
Pointless Labour.
When the final bill comes in I'd expect it to save very little or even cost money, the way rent arrears are racking up. Won't take too many carers to give up trying to look after relatives in the face of Camerons policy to cost social services more than it's saving.
But Dave likes "sending out signals". On carers for disabled relatives his signal is" f*ck you"
so that's Ed won't overturn it then ?
Ed's next move is to change his name to Gideon by deed poll.
UNITE permitting of course.
GO could change rEds name for him - and the Labour manifesto still wouldn't promise to reverse it.
Luxembourg's long-running Prime Minister (PM) Jean-Claude Juncker said he will step down following a security service scandal in the country.
The former Eurogroup President and Luxembourg's PM since 1995 is expected to meet with Parliament in order to propose early elections and to resign following pressure from the governing coalition party.
Juncker has lost support after being accused of letting the country's security agency illegally spy on politicians, use agency property privately, and take payments and favors.
Luxembourg's long-running Prime Minister (PM) Jean-Claude Juncker said he will step down following a security service scandal in the country.
The former Eurogroup President and Luxembourg's PM since 1995 is expected to meet with Parliament in order to propose early elections and to resign following pressure from the governing coalition party.
Juncker has lost support after being accused of letting the country's security agency illegally spy on politicians, use agency property privately, and take payments and favors.
My point was simply that a bunch of politicians are going to be driven by motivations other than the optimal level of investment in a company
Tell you what Charles, why don't we SELL the tax consultancy to Pakistan ( since people never value what they get for free ) and give £50m to RM ? Win win I say :-)
Luxembourg's long-running Prime Minister (PM) Jean-Claude Juncker said he will step down following a security service scandal in the country.
The former Eurogroup President and Luxembourg's PM since 1995 is expected to meet with Parliament in order to propose early elections and to resign following pressure from the governing coalition party.
Juncker has lost support after being accused of letting the country's security agency illegally spy on politicians, use agency property privately, and take payments and favors.
Luxembourg's long-running Prime Minister (PM) Jean-Claude Juncker said he will step down following a security service scandal in the country.
The former Eurogroup President and Luxembourg's PM since 1995 is expected to meet with Parliament in order to propose early elections and to resign following pressure from the governing coalition party.
Juncker has lost support after being accused of letting the country's security agency illegally spy on politicians, use agency property privately, and take payments and favors.
Corruption ? In Luxemburg ? Next you'll be telling me there's smuggling in South Armagh.
My point was simply that a bunch of politicians are going to be driven by motivations other than the optimal level of investment in a company
Tell you what Charles, why don't we SELL the tax consultancy to Pakistan ( since people never value what they get for free ) and give £50m to RM ? Win win I say :-)
My point was simply that a bunch of politicians are going to be driven by motivations other than the optimal level of investment in a company
Tell you what Charles, why don't we SELL the tax consultancy to Pakistan ( since people never value what they get for free ) and give £50m to RM ? Win win I say :-)
Because governments aren't in business?
Tell that to speed camera partnerships.
You're grumpy today, aren't you. Why don't you go down the pub and have a nice drink given it's such a lovely afternoon?
My point was simply that a bunch of politicians are going to be driven by motivations other than the optimal level of investment in a company
Tell you what Charles, why don't we SELL the tax consultancy to Pakistan ( since people never value what they get for free ) and give £50m to RM ? Win win I say :-)
Because governments aren't in business?
Tell that to speed camera partnerships.
You're grumpy today, aren't you. Why don't you go down the pub and have a nice drink given it's such a lovely afternoon?
I told Avery I was when he started on the RM. And I've cut the lawn in between posts so that doesn't help.
I know what you mean re political interference, but as ever it's just the usual UK solution to hot potatoes - run away and hide, just anything other than sort out the problem. Why can't we get more Germans to emigrate here, at least their not afraid of taking on a hard task.
@politicshome Francis Maude tells #PM some "utterly deplorable" cases do not mean whole process of private sector contracting is flawed.
It's amazing that the conservative party, the so called party of and for business, has no idea how to conduct business contracts and negotiations. And why is this? Because the modern Tories have had no job outside the Westminster Bubble. The way Maude answered Eddie Mair was pathetic. You could almost hear him crying, enough!
@politicshome Francis Maude tells #PM some "utterly deplorable" cases do not mean whole process of private sector contracting is flawed.
It's amazing that the conservative party, the so called party of and for business, has no idea how to conduct business contracts and negotiations. And why is this? Because the modern Tories have had no job outside the Westminster Bubble. The way Maude answered Eddie Mair was pathetic. You could almost hear him crying, enough!
@politicshome Francis Maude tells #PM some "utterly deplorable" cases do not mean whole process of private sector contracting is flawed.
It's amazing that the conservative party, the so called party of and for business, has no idea how to conduct business contracts and negotiations. And why is this? Because the modern Tories have had no job outside the Westminster Bubble. The way Maude answered Eddie Mair was pathetic. You could almost hear him crying, enough!
"The coalition could be heading into stormy weather over the Royal Mail privatisation"
Or to be slightly more accurate Clegg is heading for trouble as quite a few lib dems were none too happy about this yesterday to say the least. Clegg's 'masochism strategy' needs a bit more work as this was presented in such a patronising 'nothing to worry your pretty little heads about' way by his loyal spinners.
Cammie can probably deal with any tory disquiet on this as the polling is manageable and his swivel-eyed loons will always care far more about Europe and immigration.
Cammie's amusingly inept spinners will just rant on about BT and that will be enough for gullible tories.
@politicshome Francis Maude tells #PM some "utterly deplorable" cases do not mean whole process of private sector contracting is flawed.
It's amazing that the conservative party, the so called party of and for business, has no idea how to conduct business contracts and negotiations. And why is this? Because the modern Tories have had no job outside the Westminster Bubble. The way Maude answered Eddie Mair was pathetic. You could almost hear him crying, enough!
"If a shark stops moving it dies. In the Prime Minister and deputy Prime Minister’s office, they believe that the same applies to the coalition. Their view is that if it is going to make it to 2015, it needs to be doing things right up until parliament is dissolved and the election called.
To this end, as I reveal in the column this week, they’ve commissioned Oliver Letwin, David Laws and Jo Johnson to sit down and see what else the coalition can do between now and 2015. One of those involved in the talks says ‘we’re pretty confident we can still do deals on various things.’"
We've already heard about the West Lothian Question, and today confirmation of Marriage tax breaks.....what else would keep both sides (reasonably) happy?
The Tories at least, should have started checking contracts as soon as the government was formed. Epic fail!
Err, they did exactly that, and have been doing some truly excellent work. This is one of the coalition's epic successes. The bit I know most about is the IT procurement contracts which they have been going through in detail. Some astonishing examples of waste and incompetence have been uncovered, and basically they are going back to the suppliers and strong-arming them into accepting more commercial terms.
@politicshome Francis Maude tells #PM some "utterly deplorable" cases do not mean whole process of private sector contracting is flawed.
It's amazing that the conservative party, the so called party of and for business, has no idea how to conduct business contracts and negotiations. And why is this? Because the modern Tories have had no job outside the Westminster Bubble. The way Maude answered Eddie Mair was pathetic. You could almost hear him crying, enough!
The Tories at least, should have started checking contracts as soon as the government was formed. Epic fail!
The evidence to date is not that the contract was flawed, but that one contractor may have behaved fraudulently - something the last government may not have responded to with sufficient alacrity....I suspect you will find more rewarding avenues for your Tory bashing than this......
Comments
Serves him right. Impudent upstart.
All public-sector pensions are unfunded*. Even Sven's true socialist one....
* I do believe - and TD may correct me - that MoD (Service personnel) are funded via the budget and are fully contributory.
And a Labour leader dealing with troublesome left wing of his party
It's just like being in the 80s.
See chart at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17522500
In such bulk numbers, a penny increase can make the difference between millions in loss or profit. There will be a price that the junk mailers are not willing to pay, and the volumes will plummet.
Try as I might, I cannot see a way that the universal service can survive in the future. Which is a shame, as I want it to survive.
I did read years ago, that it was the former communists in Eastern European that eventually became the biggest supporters of privitisation.
With the royal birth imminent, speculation is growing: what will the baby be called? Make your predictions with the Telegraph's sweepstake kit. Simply print it off and play
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/10173337/Royal-baby-name-print-off-your-own-sweepstake.html
Had MPs' votes been treated in the same way as party members', Ed Miliband would have won a landslide victory.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/how-labour-leadership-result-changes-under-one-member-one-vote-system
But this is from 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/6485213.stm
George is in the former. The subs (unfortunately) are in the latter.
The spate of law firm dirty protests seems to have spread to Manchester, with Irwin Mitchell the latest victim.
Staff came in on a Monday morning to find a neatly curled log next to the filing cabinets on the office's sixth floor. As that is where the firm's debt recovery subsidiary Ascent is located, staff initially suspected a disgruntled member of staff or possibly an irate wonga.com customer who had been deprived of his 52" flat screen TV.
http://www.rollonfriday.com/TheNews/EuropeNews/tabid/58/Id/2782/fromTab/36/currentIndex/3/Default.aspx
Daily Mail - Jealous Australians issue warning to its countrymen... about how unbearable the Brits are about to be thanks to Wimbledon victory, a new Royal baby and rugby victory for The Lions
"Australians were warned today that the British are about to become unbearable - thanks to a series of recent and upcoming events that will have everyone beating their proud chests for weeks to come.
An Australian newspaper has given notice to its readers that the imminent birth of a royal baby, Andy Murray's win at Wimbledon, The Lions victory over the Wallabies, the Tour de France and, by the looks of things The Ashes, Britain has much to shout about - and will keep on shouting.
'Pity the poor 100,000 Australians living there, but hazards abound here at home - rugby tourists still lurk in Australian hotels, lolling about in self-satisfaction after their test victory,' says Sydney's Daily Telegraph.
But in an attempt to boost the spirits of everyone Down Under in the face of an unstoppable swelling of British pride, the paper has listed 10 points that it says are worth reminding Britons about.
For a start, there is the weather, with cricket officials at Trent Bridge, where the first of the Ashes is being played, looking at the skies and wondering just when rain will stop play.
Then there is the English beer, bitter and lager, the bitter being bitter and warm, the lager tasting like gnat's p**s."
I'd like to know what they do with the 2nd-class stuff to delay it even longer than the 1st class. Seems to me it needs extra effort to delay something even longer than the natural process delays it, so really we ought to pay more if we want it delayed more than necessary..
So the choice is then either to take income of £350m p.a. and pour that into the general Treasury funds, but see that income stream decline over time as the business is competed into the ground (assuming under investment in state hands).
Or you argue that £350m is as good as it will get, and you sell it at 8x to capitalise the income stream and allow someone else to invest to turn the business around.
If you are worried about not getting value then the state could keep a stake (say 20%) so it can participate the future upside.
The key question is who is best placed to make the Royal Mail an efficient and sustainable business. I'm not convinced that it is the government / civil servants.
As for HMG can't invest, that's just nonsense on so many levels. What it means is HMG doesn't want to spend the cash since it has something it needs to waste it on.
Oxford Road is better, but full of students.
Edit: You use the tram to go for Manc Picc to Piccadilly Gardens? That's a two min walk!
Personally I'd have ringfenced the whole thing and made it a a mutual with a pension problem attached. The sale route will just end up with a problem being passed back to the taxpayer or if it should go well all the taxes being paid in Luxemburg and HMG out of pocket. The solution proposed is the lazy way out and stupid politics.
"The correspondent was concerned that children may be encouraged to play on railway tracks as a result of seeing the film," the BBFC's annual report reveals":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23270980
http://playpolitical.typepad.com/uk_conservative/2013/07/watch-osborne-deficit-reduction-can-be-achieved-without-further-tax-rises.html
If Pietersen and Cook do not build a partnership here it's game over.
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/116077.html
I'll bite. I reckon Bell and that Yorkshireman out-score Cook and da' Saffah.* Name your stake....
* Declarations excluded.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BO5sXlfCMAIny4H.jpg:large
In terms of ringfencing that doesn't work. If the pension liabilities were included with the business then the directors would be in danger of trading while insolvent. Even giving a generous 20 years to close the deficit that would more than absorb all of the operating profits of the business.
Mutuals are, to my mind, the fashionable but lazy way out. They are okay, in specific situations, but these are rare and hard to create. With a good management team and a good culture the corporate structure is largely irrelevant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23274394
'Labour will of course, as usual, pretend to oppose it with a load of hypocritical cant (conveniently forgetting that Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and the rest of the top leadership were members of the cabinet when Labour tried to do the same),'
Surely we have to believe Peter Mandelson that the only reason Labour didn't go ahead with privatization was due to market conditions in mid 2009,as he had confirmed the go ahead only 6 months earlier?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/lifestyle/royal-baby-name/index.html?Post+generic=?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
Doubt 'Matthew Samuel Sebastian' Windsor will make it.....
http://www.sundaytimes.lk/120520/Sports/spt13.html
I'm amused at your comment on investment since presumably the corollary must hold true too ie they shouldn't make divestment decisions either or worse you just shouldn't trust HMG with money !
“Having thoroughly reviewed the evidence gathered by the police, I have decided there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to bring a criminal charge against Denis MacShane. This charge relates to fraudulent claims with a total value of £12,900.
“The charge is of false accounting, contrary to the Theft Act 1968. It is alleged that Denis Macshane claimed expenses for research and translation services carried out by a company that did not carry out that work.”
On Mandelson and Royal Mail privatisation, is it not possible that the Dark Lord will do one of his famous reversals like he did over HS2?
I was using investment in the operational sense. Let's say Royal Mail wanted to spend £500m on a new piece of kit that would speed up deliveries. And George Osborne wanted to invest £500m in, for example, tax breaks for married couples. Which do you think would win in a discussion? The inability for management to plan and invest on a rational basis restricts the long-term potential of the business to grow and build value.
to cover the investment. You're simply telling me we have politicians who are generous with other people's money.
Today, however, took the biscuit. My elder daughter had an interview with the Health Board for an audio typist. She has no training and was surprised to learn she was to use a foot pedal. She really could not work out what the doctor was saying, let alone spell the medical terms. The position is a permanent one and she is going to University in September. She was phoned and offered the job within an hour. I love her dearly but did no one else turn up? What about all those people who have been attending audio typing classes?
Both my daughters are bright, lively and personable (don't take after their father at all really) but really, how hard is it to get a job in depressed Dundee? Seems a bit strange to me.
Pointless Labour.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-supports-pakistan-to-grow-tax-base
Where do I vote no ?
My point was simply that a bunch of politicians are going to be driven by motivations other than the optimal level of investment in a company
UNITE permitting of course.
Luxembourg's long-running Prime Minister (PM) Jean-Claude Juncker said he will step down following a security service scandal in the country.
The former Eurogroup President and Luxembourg's PM since 1995 is expected to meet with Parliament in order to propose early elections and to resign following pressure from the governing coalition party.
Juncker has lost support after being accused of letting the country's security agency illegally spy on politicians, use agency property privately, and take payments and favors.
Luxembourg's long-running Prime Minister (PM) Jean-Claude Juncker said he will step down following a security service scandal in the country.
The former Eurogroup President and Luxembourg's PM since 1995 is expected to meet with Parliament in order to propose early elections and to resign following pressure from the governing coalition party.
Juncker has lost support after being accused of letting the country's security agency illegally spy on politicians, use agency property privately, and take payments and favors.
Better this than the cavalier batting of the first innings.
I know what you mean re political interference, but as ever it's just the usual UK solution to hot potatoes - run away and hide, just anything other than sort out the problem. Why can't we get more Germans to emigrate here, at least their not afraid of taking on a hard task.
@politicshome
Francis Maude tells #PM some "utterly deplorable" cases do not mean whole process of private sector contracting is flawed.
It's amazing that the conservative party, the so called party of and for business, has no idea how to conduct business contracts and negotiations. And why is this? Because the modern Tories have had no job outside the Westminster Bubble. The way Maude answered Eddie Mair was pathetic. You could almost hear him crying, enough!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23272708
Or to be slightly more accurate Clegg is heading for trouble as quite a few lib dems were none too happy about this yesterday to say the least. Clegg's 'masochism strategy' needs a bit more work as this was presented in such a patronising 'nothing to worry your pretty little heads about' way by his loyal spinners.
Cammie can probably deal with any tory disquiet on this as the polling is manageable and his swivel-eyed loons will always care far more about Europe and immigration.
Cammie's amusingly inept spinners will just rant on about BT and that will be enough for gullible tories.
"If a shark stops moving it dies. In the Prime Minister and deputy Prime Minister’s office, they believe that the same applies to the coalition. Their view is that if it is going to make it to 2015, it needs to be doing things right up until parliament is dissolved and the election called.
To this end, as I reveal in the column this week, they’ve commissioned Oliver Letwin, David Laws and Jo Johnson to sit down and see what else the coalition can do between now and 2015. One of those involved in the talks says ‘we’re pretty confident we can still do deals on various things.’"
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/david-cameron-and-nick-clegg-moving-like-sharks-to-keep-the-coalition-going/
We've already heard about the West Lothian Question, and today confirmation of Marriage tax breaks.....what else would keep both sides (reasonably) happy?