Doesn't Bob Crow already have a left-wing anti-Eu party, the TUSC?
On topic, I was one of the rebels on Mandelson's plan to privatise 49% and got called in for a personal appeal. We talked through the politics of it, which were awful - the party was solidly opposed, and the other parties were just itching to go 100%. I wasn't impressed. Then he said, "And there's also the point that it's right, though. That should still count for something, don't you think? The Mail does need new technology and energy, and the 49-51% split is a reasonable compromise."
I'd so bought into the image of Mandy as a brilliant schemer and nothing but that it impressed me that, 12 years into the government, he was still searching for new policies that would make things better rather than just maneuvering. (I still didn't buy it, mainly because I was sure the Tories and Libdems would then top it up to 100%, which IMO is against the public interest.)
The main snag as far as popular opinion goes is that the Bill doesn't guarantee the Post Office link for long. People probably don't care that much who delivers the post, but they like their POs, especially in the smaller townms and villages.
But the reason the RM needed "new technology and energy" was that the 1997-2010 government used it as a cash cow, and didn't allow it to re-invest its profits.
I know we are only three years into it but could someone please inform tim, the Cheshire Farmer one, that we have had a Coalition Government for the past three years.. not a Tory one..Duh
If the Royal Mails competitors don't have to subsidise rural Tory voters its a rigged market
The government doesn't actually have any choice on universal service even it it wanted to change it:
The universal postal service must comply with certain minimum legal requirements as set out in EU law. The Postal Services Directive 1997 obliges all EU Member States to ensure that a universal postal service encompassing a minimum range of specified services is provided.
The main snag as far as popular opinion goes is that the Bill doesn't guarantee the Post Office link for long. People probably don't care that much who delivers the post, but they like their POs, especially in the smaller townms and villages.
This does come across as a very metropolitan make-more-money-for rich-City-types idea.
Not a good idea politically (irrespective of the arguments for and against on economic and operational grounds) for Cameron and Osborne to try.
After all is anyone suggesting that the answer to Britain's problems involves post office privatisation?
I assume the Tories are going to write in a rigged market to subsidise rural voters, despite all their free market rhetoric?
It's not a rigged market. Royal Mail will be free to compete as it sees fit, subject to a requirement to maintain a single universal price. This obligation will likely reduce the value of the asset to be sold.
That's a legitimate political choice. Not one I agree with, as it happens, but it's not a rigged market.
So they have to provide the expensive single universal price, the others have a free hand to cherry pick, you have a strange idea of a fair market. Bit like making one bank pay 5% interest on savings and the rest do as they wish , very fair indeed. Do you realise how stupid that makes you sound
I didn't say it was a fair market, I said it wasn't a rigged market. There's a difference.
The important thing is that purchasers should take into account the weaknesses of the business into their valuation (in the way that BT's lack of a significant UK mobile presence impacts its valution).
Do you realise how stupid your trite rants make you sound?
"In my industry, at least, without QA/QC you don't have a product."
You musn't mistake produce a quality product with producing a QAed product.
In my experience most of the time spent following QA procedures in accordance with the latest British Standard or government regulation is pointless, even counterproductive.
I'll accept my industry has specific regulations and requirements.
But if you don't meet QA standards then the regulators will shut the manufacturing plant. Inspections are at least every 3 years plus on an ad hoc basis in between. And it's an absolute bugger to get them up and running again once they are shut.
QA is the business equivalent of the box ticking social worker.
"I know that the child died / product was crap but all the procedures were adhered to."
If the child dies, then the regulators will consider whether the product should be withdrawn from the market (all serious adverse events are reported).
Manufacturing quality is a sine qua non of the industry I work in. If you are careless you rapidly run into serious and expensive problems
Doesn't Bob Crow already have a left-wing anti-Eu party, the TUSC?
On topic, I was one of the rebels on Mandelson's plan to privatise 49% and got called in for a personal appeal. We talked through the politics of it, which were awful - the party was solidly opposed, and the other parties were just itching to go 100%. I wasn't impressed. Then he said, "And there's also the point that it's right, though. That should still count for something, don't you think? The Mail does need new technology and energy, and the 49-51% split is a reasonable compromise."
I'd so bought into the image of Mandy as a brilliant schemer and nothing but that it impressed me that, 12 years into the government, he was still searching for new policies that would make things better rather than just maneuvering. (I still didn't buy it, mainly because I was sure the Tories and Libdems would then top it up to 100%, which IMO is against the public interest.)
The main snag as far as popular opinion goes is that the Bill doesn't guarantee the Post Office link for long. People probably don't care that much who delivers the post, but they like their POs, especially in the smaller townms and villages.
The Labour Party has never understood the need for "profits" or "privatisation". To most party supporters the words are spat out of their mouths with the same pejorative intent with which they articulate the word "Tory".
Mandelson was more urbane and progressive than the rest of his party. Even so, his attraction to profit and privatisation was partial and stopped after the second letter. This may explain his proposal to limit the sale of the Royal Mail to a minority stake.
The main snag as far as popular opinion goes is that the Bill doesn't guarantee the Post Office link for long. People probably don't care that much who delivers the post, but they like their POs, especially in the smaller townms and villages.
This does come across as a very metropolitan make-more-money-for rich-City-types idea.
Not a good idea politically (irrespective of the arguments for and against on economic and operational grounds) for Cameron and Osborne to try.
After all is anyone suggesting that the answer to Britain's problems involves post office privatisation?
Of course not.
But if you do know the magic bullet that is the answer to Britain's problems then I am sure you will be very successful in TSE's election for Dictator for Life
"In my industry, at least, without QA/QC you don't have a product."
You musn't mistake produce a quality product with producing a QAed product.
In my experience most of the time spent following QA procedures in accordance with the latest British Standard or government regulation is pointless, even counterproductive.
I'll accept my industry has specific regulations and requirements.
But if you don't meet QA standards then the regulators will shut the manufacturing plant. Inspections are at least every 3 years plus on an ad hoc basis in between. And it's an absolute bugger to get them up and running again once they are shut.
QA is the business equivalent of the box ticking social worker.
"I know that the child died / product was crap but all the procedures were adhered to."
If the child dies, then the regulators will consider whether the product should be withdrawn from the market (all serious adverse events are reported).
Manufacturing quality is a sine qua non of the industry I work in. If you are careless you rapidly run into serious and expensive problems
I had a lifetime in pharmacy. Charles is absolutely right. Nowadays, anyway. Once upon a time things were different, but now "all the procedures were adhered to" would be completely unacceptable.
Mr Abbott's mob sounds like a pretty Good Egg party too:
They do. I'm excited for Australian politics today. They are going in the right direction - especially with a libertarian party around to keep Abbott's people on their toes.
I've emailed the Gun-Loving Liberal Democrats ( http://ldp.org.au ) to ask them if they do overseas membership. They sound fantastic.
I assume the Tories are going to write in a rigged market to subsidise rural voters, despite all their free market rhetoric?
It's not a rigged market. Royal Mail will be free to compete as it sees fit, subject to a requirement to maintain a single universal price. This obligation will likely reduce the value of the asset to be sold.
That's a legitimate political choice. Not one I agree with, as it happens, but it's not a rigged market.
So they have to provide the expensive single universal price, the others have a free hand to cherry pick, you have a strange idea of a fair market. Bit like making one bank pay 5% interest on savings and the rest do as they wish , very fair indeed. Do you realise how stupid that makes you sound
Partitionist Eck Salmond wants to keep the Royal Mail ,
Doesn't Bob Crow already have a left-wing anti-Eu party, the TUSC?
On topic, I was one of the rebels on Mandelson's plan to privatise 49% and got called in for a personal appeal. We talked through the politics of it, which were awful - the party was solidly opposed, and the other parties were just itching to go 100%. I wasn't impressed. Then he said, "And there's also the point that it's right, though. That should still count for something, don't you think? The Mail does need new technology and energy, and the 49-51% split is a reasonable compromise."
I'd so bought into the image of Mandy as a brilliant schemer and nothing but that it impressed me that, 12 years into the government, he was still searching for new policies that would make things better rather than just maneuvering. (I still didn't buy it, mainly because I was sure the Tories and Libdems would then top it up to 100%, which IMO is against the public interest.)
The main snag as far as popular opinion goes is that the Bill doesn't guarantee the Post Office link for long. People probably don't care that much who delivers the post, but they like their POs, especially in the smaller townms and villages.
But the reason the RM needed "new technology and energy" was that the 1997-2010 government used it as a cash cow, and didn't allow it to re-invest its profits.
Much the same way as Warren Buffet runs his Berkshire Hathaway investments.
Only the Sage of Omaha has a record of developing stronger businesses and obtaining better returns than governments.
What you should have said was "becoming complacent is a worry and one which we must continually guard against".
RBS etc would have said "There's no complacency, believe me" in 2007 and prior.
Likewise the support that the City has shown for all things EU was itself complacent as it didn't allow for the possibility that the EU would act in an anti-City manner.
I spend my life worrying about regulation and competition.
Believe me there is no complacency - of course we guard against it developing.
I just didn't feel the need to point out the flaming obvious.
Oh dear Charles, you're proving even more that you're vulnerable to complacency.
What you should have said was "That's a good point Richard, perhaps I'm slipping into complacent thinking without being aware I'm doing so. This is clearly a major potential problem that must be guarded against."
Now if you'd like to get my email address from OGH we can arrange suitable fee payment for my anti-complacency consultancy.
Because if you don't that will prove you're being complacent.
I bet a lot of the problem is in the name. Royal Mail does not *sound* like something that should be privatised.
You Thatcherite you
Margaret Thatcher first considered privatising Royal Mail during the original programme of asset sales during the 1980s - supposedly balking at the idea of selling something with "Royal" in the name
I assume the Tories are going to write in a rigged market to subsidise rural voters, despite all their free market rhetoric?
It's not a rigged market. Royal Mail will be free to compete as it sees fit, subject to a requirement to maintain a single universal price. This obligation will likely reduce the value of the asset to be sold.
That's a legitimate political choice. Not one I agree with, as it happens, but it's not a rigged market.
So they have to provide the expensive single universal price, the others have a free hand to cherry pick, you have a strange idea of a fair market. Bit like making one bank pay 5% interest on savings and the rest do as they wish , very fair indeed. Do you realise how stupid that makes you sound
Partitionist Eck Salmond wants to keep the Royal Mail ,
What you should have said was "becoming complacent is a worry and one which we must continually guard against".
RBS etc would have said "There's no complacency, believe me" in 2007 and prior.
Likewise the support that the City has shown for all things EU was itself complacent as it didn't allow for the possibility that the EU would act in an anti-City manner.
I spend my life worrying about regulation and competition.
Believe me there is no complacency - of course we guard against it developing.
I just didn't feel the need to point out the flaming obvious.
Oh dear Charles, you're proving even more that you're vulnerable to complacency.
What you should have said was "That's a good point Richard, perhaps I'm slipping into complacent thinking without being aware I'm doing so. This is clearly a major potential problem that must be guarded against."
Now if you'd like to get my email address from OGH we can arrange suitable fee payment for my anti-complacency consultancy.
Because if you don't that will prove you're being complacent.
Now you are just arguing in a circle.
I learnt not to be complacent when, at the age of about 18, the major competitor to my family business took a wrong turn and rapidly lost traction in its core market. I expressed the thought to my father that this was a good thing - and he clearly explained to me how dangerous it was not to have any serious competiton.
You're just going to have to trust me on this one.
The main snag as far as popular opinion goes is that the Bill doesn't guarantee the Post Office link for long. People probably don't care that much who delivers the post, but they like their POs, especially in the smaller townms and villages.
This does come across as a very metropolitan make-more-money-for rich-City-types idea.
Not a good idea politically (irrespective of the arguments for and against on economic and operational grounds) for Cameron and Osborne to try.
After all is anyone suggesting that the answer to Britain's problems involves post office privatisation?
Of course not.
But if you do know the magic bullet that is the answer to Britain's problems then I am sure you will be very successful in TSE's election for Dictator for Life
There is no magic bullet we're fcked.
But what Royal Mail privatisation will look like is the chumocracy flogging off national assets to help their rich City mates while the ship sinks and just before said rich City mates head towards the lifeboats in which they have guaranteed places.
Of course similar things were said about the privatisations of the 1980s but the differences between then and now is that then 'ordinary people', the so called sid, was able to also make money from privatisation and privatisation then could also be claimed (and with justification) to be a way to improve British Aerospace/Airways/Steel/Telecom etc.
The main snag as far as popular opinion goes is that the Bill doesn't guarantee the Post Office link for long. People probably don't care that much who delivers the post, but they like their POs, especially in the smaller townms and villages.
This does come across as a very metropolitan make-more-money-for rich-City-types idea.
Not a good idea politically (irrespective of the arguments for and against on economic and operational grounds) for Cameron and Osborne to try.
After all is anyone suggesting that the answer to Britain's problems involves post office privatisation?
Of course not.
But if you do know the magic bullet that is the answer to Britain's problems then I am sure you will be very successful in TSE's election for Dictator for Life
There is no magic bullet we're fcked.
But what Royal Mail privatisation will look like is the chumocracy flogging off national assets to help their rich City mates while the ship sinks and just before said rich City mates head towards the lifeboats in which they have guaranteed places.
Of course similar things were said about the privatisations of the 1980s but the differences between then and now is that then 'ordinary people', the so called sid, was able to also make money from privatisation and privatisation then could also be claimed (and with justification) to be a way to improve British Aerospace/Airways/Steel/Telecom etc.
I would rather that there was a bigger retail element, but the City argues against it because it is expensive.
Privatisation will likely create an opportunity to improve the management of the Royal Mail and to restructure / invest additional capital in such a way as to improve performance.
The way the business is run at the moment is decidedly sub-optimal.
The Royal Mail's in great shape to be sold off, having made £403m last year. There are already well developed plans/pilots for thousands of postmen and postwomen from private companies.
What you should have said was "becoming complacent is a worry and one which we must continually guard against".
RBS etc would have said "There's no complacency, believe me" in 2007 and prior.
Likewise the support that the City has shown for all things EU was itself complacent as it didn't allow for the possibility that the EU would act in an anti-City manner.
I spend my life worrying about regulation and competition.
Believe me there is no complacency - of course we guard against it developing.
I just didn't feel the need to point out the flaming obvious.
Oh dear Charles, you're proving even more that you're vulnerable to complacency.
What you should have said was "That's a good point Richard, perhaps I'm slipping into complacent thinking without being aware I'm doing so. This is clearly a major potential problem that must be guarded against."
Now if you'd like to get my email address from OGH we can arrange suitable fee payment for my anti-complacency consultancy.
Because if you don't that will prove you're being complacent.
Now you are just arguing in a circle.
I learnt not to be complacent when, at the age of about 18, the major competitor to my family business took a wrong turn and rapidly lost traction in its core market. I expressed the thought to my father that this was a good thing - and he clearly explained to me how dangerous it was not to have any serious competiton.
You're just going to have to trust me on this one.
'Trust me' is the most complacent phrase there is.
This is increasingly worrying Charles.
Unless proper anti-complacency consultation is accepted I fear you will end up as a recovering complacent at Complacents Anonymous.
"My name is Charles and I'm a complacent".
Please let me help you Charles, my fees are very reasonable.
1st Class jumped in price in the last year from 46p to 60p if you didn't notice!
Does anyone know how much it really costs send a letter? Is it possible to strip out the cross-subsidies and internal accounting to actually arrive at a figure in a meaningful way?
1st Class jumped in price in the last year from 46p to 60p if you didn't notice!
Does anyone know how much it really costs send a letter? Is it possible to strip out the cross-subsidies and internal accounting to actually arrive at a figure in a meaningful way?
I doubt there is a meaningful way to calculate the cost.
Most of the costs are fixed (network of depots, vehicles, etc) that need to be kept operational regardless of volume.
Over the last few years they have increased profitability by reducing service (e.g. phasing out the second post, the 'can't be bothered to deliver on Monday' syndrome). They've cut this, though, so that people are beginning to notice.
Hence they need to invest more capital to reduce the number of staff that they have in the system - but they struggle to do this while in government ownership. Partly because the Treasury won't let them have the money, and partly because the unions are emboldened by the fact that they are a publicly owned business.
I would rather that there was a bigger retail element, but the City argues against it because it is expensive.
Privatisation will likely create an opportunity to improve the management of the Royal Mail and to restructure / invest additional capital in such a way as to improve performance.
The way the business is run at the moment is decidedly sub-optimal.
You're discussing operational and economic reasons regarding Royal Mail privatisation.
I don't know if they are right or wrong and to be honest don't care in any case.
But I think the political effect wont look good for the Conervatives.
Especially as its difficult to see an upside to customers either in service or cost - its very easy though to see either higher cost and/or poorer service.
Now perhaps those are inevitable in any case, but they would be blamed on privatisation and through that on the Conservative party.
It's hardly surprising that the British Public are so opposed to the privatisation of Royal Mail following the disgraceful near 40% increases in letter postal rates last year, cynically introduced to fatten the company's profits precisely in preparation for such a flotation.
Doubtless more huge inflation-busting increases will be introduced just as soon as the fat cat directors, all on on massive salaries, feel they can get away with them.
1st Class jumped in price in the last year from 46p to 60p if you didn't notice!
Does anyone know how much it really costs send a letter? Is it possible to strip out the cross-subsidies and internal accounting to actually arrive at a figure in a meaningful way?
I doubt there is a meaningful way to calculate the cost.
Most of the costs are fixed (network of depots, vehicles, etc) that need to be kept operational regardless of volume.
Over the last few years they have increased profitability by reducing service (e.g. phasing out the second post, the 'can't be bothered to deliver on Monday' syndrome). They've cut this, though, so that people are beginning to notice.
Hence they need to invest more capital to reduce the number of staff that they have in the system - but they struggle to do this while in government ownership. Partly because the Treasury won't let them have the money, and partly because the unions are emboldened by the fact that they are a publicly owned business.
Charles
The way forward for a privatised Royal Mail is to close all local depots and sorting stations, relocate sorting and predistribution to a single national centre new built on a brownfield site near Birmingham; put all postmen on bicycles and zero-hours contracts; and maximise returns to investors with a 90% dividend.
Either that or wait for a couple of years and sell out to Deutshe Post.
1st Class jumped in price in the last year from 46p to 60p if you didn't notice!
Does anyone know how much it really costs send a letter? Is it possible to strip out the cross-subsidies and internal accounting to actually arrive at a figure in a meaningful way?
As Charles' post stated the bulk of the costs of sending , transporting and delivering a letter are fixed , therefore if you posted one additional letter the extra cost of delivering it would be close to zero
It's hardly surprising that the British Public are so opposed to the privatisation of Royal Mail following the disgraceful near 40% increases in letter postal rates last year, cynically introduced to fatten the company's profits precisely in preparation for such a flotation.
Doubtless more huge inflation-busting increases will be introduced just as soon as the fat cat directors, all on on massive salaries, feel they can get away with them.
Are you still a Conservative supporter PfP ?
Because unless your comment was a parody you sound somewhat disgruntled.
The way forward for a privatised Royal Mail is to close all local depots and sorting stations, relocate sorting and predistribution to a single national centre new built on a brownfield site near Birmingham; put all postmen on bicycles and zero-hours contracts; and maximise returns to investors with a 90% dividend
Could we not route all of our mail to an NSA warehouse in █████ where they could read it, █████ it, send a copy to ██████ and then send the scanned copy to our email address? We won't even need to tell them what our email address is!
There we are. War Against Terror meets Privatisation. Trebles all round!
Could we not route all of our mail to an NSA warehouse in █████ where they could read it, █████ it, send a copy to ██████ and then send the scanned copy to our email address? We won't even need to tell them what our email address is!
There we are. War Against Terror meets Privatisation. Trebles all round!
Doesn't Bob Crow already have a left-wing anti-Eu party, the TUSC?
At the last GE, if I'd been in a safe seat where they were standing, I'd have voted Green or maybe TUSC. Which makes me a little surprised that both Edmund and NP have described me as a creature of the right lately!
I'd be uncomfortable about several economically insane points on the Green platform, and deeply disliked SWP's involvement in TUSC (small, but they are a noxious organisational parasite in any cause they touch). At the end of the day it would been a symbolic vote, an act of political self-expression, and if they were never likely to get into office I'm prepared to be more forgiving. Only to a point though: I wouldn't touch Respect with a barge pole unless I was allowed to slap them with it.
In a Con/Lab marginal I'd have tactically voted Labour, as I did in 2001, but without much heart in it. In a LD/Lab marginal I'd have opted Lib Dem (as I did in 2005) more cheerfully. In 2010 I voted for a strong independent candidate - a different political complexion to me, but that gave them better electoral prospects and I respected them personally. They were also the best tactical anti-Con choice.
Doesn't Bob Crow already have a left-wing anti-Eu party, the TUSC?
On topic, I was one of the rebels on Mandelson's plan to privatise 49% and got called in for a personal appeal. We talked through the politics of it, which were awful - the party was solidly opposed, and the other parties were just itching to go 100%. I wasn't impressed. Then he said, "And there's also the point that it's right, though. That should still count for something, don't you think? The Mail does need new technology and energy, and the 49-51% split is a reasonable compromise."
I'd so bought into the image of Mandy as a brilliant schemer and nothing but that it impressed me that, 12 years into the government, he was still searching for new policies that would make things better rather than just maneuvering. (I still didn't buy it, mainly because I was sure the Tories and Libdems would then top it up to 100%, which IMO is against the public interest.)
The main snag as far as popular opinion goes is that the Bill doesn't guarantee the Post Office link for long. People probably don't care that much who delivers the post, but they like their POs, especially in the smaller townms and villages.
But the reason the RM needed "new technology and energy" was that the 1997-2010 government used it as a cash cow, and didn't allow it to re-invest its profits.
The investment problem is one that supporters of renationalising the railways need to answer. BR was terribly let down until the mid-1980s by governments of all stripes centrally controlling it, and not allowing enough investment.
When it comes to a choice between investing in a nationalised railway and the NHS or education, any sane government looking at electoral prospects would concentrate on the latter two items.
Renationalisation may be a sane way forwards for the railways, but the point needs answering.
1st Class jumped in price in the last year from 46p to 60p if you didn't notice!
Does anyone know how much it really costs send a letter? Is it possible to strip out the cross-subsidies and internal accounting to actually arrive at a figure in a meaningful way?
As Charles' post stated the bulk of the costs of sending , transporting and delivering a letter are fixed , therefore if you posted one additional letter the extra cost of delivering it would be close to zero
Mark Senior
Marginal costing has its uses but it can be very dangerous to rely on it in businesses which have a high fixed cost base, especially if the fixed costs are distributed through the delivery chain.
Many such businesses have sunk following the principle of "lose a little bit on each transaction and make it up in volume".
Of course, if the Royal Mail avoids privatisation, this problem can be simply solved by putting a Lib Dem councillor on every regional board who can then join up the thinking of those who believe in fairness as a dividend.
Mr. Eagles, did England crush an opposing team with twice as many players (Cannae)? Did they launch a surprise attack that slaughtered the enemy (Trasimene)? Did they murder one another (Caesar)?
I am indeed a Tory supporter but last year's increases by Royal Mail were absolutely outrageous - for example the 2nd Class letter rate went up from 36p to 50p, an increase of 38.9%. No major business other than a State Monopoly would have been allowed to impose such increases. Ahead of the introduction of such increases, I purchased around £400 worth of 1st and 2nd class stamps, thereby hopefully avoiding their impact (and any further increases) for many years to come. Having made this investment, I for one will certainly not be applying for any shares when Royal Mail is privatised
Doesn't Bob Crow already have a left-wing anti-Eu party, the TUSC?
At the last GE, if I'd been in a safe seat where they were standing, I'd have voted Green or maybe TUSC. Which makes me a little surprised that both Edmund and NP have described me as a creature of the right lately!
I'd be uncomfortable about several economically insane points on the Green platform, and deeply disliked SWP's involvement in TUSC (small, but they are a noxious organisational parasite in any cause they touch). At the end of the day it would been a symbolic vote, an act of political self-expression, and if they were never likely to get into office I'm prepared to be more forgiving. Only to a point though: I wouldn't touch Respect with a barge pole unless I was allowed to slap them with it.
In a Con/Lab marginal I'd have tactically voted Labour, as I did in 2001, but without much heart in it. In a LD/Lab marginal I'd have opted Lib Dem (as I did in 2005) more cheerfully. In 2010 I voted for a strong independent candidate - a different political complexion to me, but that gave them better electoral prospects and I respected them personally. They were also the best tactical anti-Con choice.
I bought my train tickets for the summer trip from the DBhan website. They arrived two days later in suburban Leicester, a combination of Deutsche post and Royal mail works for me.
I note that all our power companies are foreign owned apart from SSE. No fools these foreign johnnies!
Though I may be less sympathetic when the power cuts start. I see we are getting a miniseries on Channel four on the subject.
Until we start to run a positive balance of trade we are going to have to keep flogging the family silver abroad. Chickens are coming home to roost.
1st Class jumped in price in the last year from 46p to 60p if you didn't notice!
Does anyone know how much it really costs send a letter? Is it possible to strip out the cross-subsidies and internal accounting to actually arrive at a figure in a meaningful way?
I doubt there is a meaningful way to calculate the cost.
Most of the costs are fixed (network of depots, vehicles, etc) that need to be kept operational regardless of volume.
Over the last few years they have increased profitability by reducing service (e.g. phasing out the second post, the 'can't be bothered to deliver on Monday' syndrome). They've cut this, though, so that people are beginning to notice.
Hence they need to invest more capital to reduce the number of staff that they have in the system - but they struggle to do this while in government ownership. Partly because the Treasury won't let them have the money, and partly because the unions are emboldened by the fact that they are a publicly owned business.
Charles
The way forward for a privatised Royal Mail is to close all local depots and sorting stations, relocate sorting and predistribution to a single national centre new built on a brownfield site near Birmingham; put all postmen on bicycles and zero-hours contracts; and maximise returns to investors with a 90% dividend.
Either that or wait for a couple of years and sell out to Deutshe Post.
Mr. Eagles, did England crush an opposing team with twice as many players (Cannae)? Did they launch a surprise attack that slaughtered the enemy (Trasimene)? Did they murder one another (Caesar)?
No, they decided to turn up without much training, against a vastly superior opponent, and used pisspoor tactics of bowling first with only three frontline bowlers, this was Zama
The way forward for a privatised Royal Mail is to close all local depots and sorting stations, relocate sorting and predistribution to a single national centre new built on a brownfield site near Birmingham; put all postmen on bicycles and zero-hours contracts; and maximise returns to investors with a 90% dividend
Could we not route all of our mail to an NSA warehouse in █████ where they could read it, █████ it, send a copy to ██████ and then send the scanned copy to our email address? We won't even need to tell them what our email address is!
There we are. War Against Terror meets Privatisation. Trebles all round!
Only two privatisations seem to get mentioned these days: energy companies and the railways, with honourable mentions for the renationalised Railtrack and water companies when it comes to floods. The fact is many people have changed what they think it is possible for a private provider to run.
I also don't accept that stamp rises to allow the Royal Mail to make a decent profit is a bad thing. It needs to invest in its own future, and you don't have to be cassandra to realise that there are going to be some changes to the nature of the postal service in the coming decades. Either every taxpayer pays for changes in an ineffective way, or people who post letters do.
Mr. Eagles, I shudder with sympathy for the trials your poor teachers must have gone through trying to educate you.
"No, they decided to turn up without much training, against a vastly superior opponent, and used pisspoor tactics of bowling first with only three frontline bowlers, this was Zama"
Hannibal didn't have the whole winter to train his men, unlike Scipio. They were new recruits, unlike Scipio's veterans. Scipio also acknowledged that Hannibal's battle plan was superior to his own. Better plans don't necessarily yield victory if the troops are too poor (cf the Jugurthine War).
Mr. Eagles, I shudder with sympathy for the trials your poor teachers must have gone through trying to educate you.
"No, they decided to turn up without much training, against a vastly superior opponent, and used pisspoor tactics of bowling first with only three frontline bowlers, this was Zama"
Hannibal didn't have the whole winter to train his men, unlike Scipio. They were new recruits, unlike Scipio's veterans. Scipio also acknowledged that Hannibal's battle plan was superior to his own. Better plans don't necessarily yield victory if the troops are too poor (cf the Jugurthine War).
England was full of new recruits.
My teachers were fantastic, I have an A Level in History.
Marginal costing has its uses but it can be very dangerous to rely on it in businesses which have a high fixed cost base, especially if the fixed costs are distributed through the delivery chain.
Many such businesses have sunk following the principle of "lose a little bit on each transaction and make it up in volume".
That's only a problem if (a) you are selling at a negative gross margin or (b) capacity is meaningfully limited.
I don't believe (a) could ever be the case in Royal Mail (what does a stamp cost?) and although (b) could in theory be an issue, in an environment of falling volumes I doubt it is in practice
Funnily enough, the last time I voted was the May locals, where I cast for the Conservatives! Tactically, again - the ward had heavy UKIP activity and they surged into a very strong second place at the count, while pipping the Tories in neighbouring wards. The Labour candidate was a conspiracy theorist loon, albeit still a uni student so not fully mature yet - most likely why he'd got an unwinnable seat! Had there been a creditable Lib Dem candidate among the no-hopers they'd have got my sympathy vote, but none stood. There was a Green I'd voted for the previous election (boosted by my ballot, I think they came a distant second to the Conservatives), but this year I saw the momentum had shifted so I went tactically Tory instead. Head over heart I'm afraid Avery.
As my most recent ballot was blue, do I qualify as a proper rightie? Perhaps it's a trend - at the Euros I'm likely to vote UKIP to voice my displeasure with the EU's democratic deficit and the way UK politicians have been pretty lame about addressing voters' concerns. Admittedly, not concerns we rate consistently high in importance, but from a constitutional point of view I consider they merit more serious treatment. Freed from thinking tactically about FPTP, I've usually used the Euros to vote Lib Dem, but I don't want to give their EU policy encouragement at a European election. No2EU tempt me in principle, except (1) their last campaign was a non-event, (2) it's Bob Crow again.
The UKIP vote at the Euros is safely interpreted as a smack in the face for British politicians generally but the EU institutions in particular, and I'd be comfortable adding the palm of my hand to that. The Locals campaign, however, was uncomfortably Little Englander in character (where I live anyway, I wouldn't wish to generalise) and I was wary of their candidate (clearly the "fruitcake" propaganda worked wonders on my subconscious, but if they'd been organised enough to doorstep me it might have been a different story). The Sean Fear Party I would happily have voted for at both local and European level.
I am indeed a Tory supporter but last year's increases by Royal Mail were absolutely outrageous - for example the 2nd Class letter rate went up from 36p to 50p, an increase of 38.9%. No major business other than a State Monopoly would have been allowed to impose such increases. Ahead of the introduction of such increases, I purchased around £400 worth of 1st and 2nd class stamps, thereby hopefully avoiding their impact (and any further increases) for many years to come. Having made this investment, I for one will certainly not be applying for any shares when Royal Mail is privatised
And what is your cost of capital?
(I just reacted by stopping using first class - because it is basically the same anyway these days - unless I care what the recipient thinks about the stamp on the envelope)
The main snag as far as popular opinion goes is that the Bill doesn't guarantee the Post Office link for long. People probably don't care that much who delivers the post, but they like their POs, especially in the smaller townms and villages.
I'm sure you'll be assiduous in pointing out to anyone who asks that there isn't the faintest connection between Royal Mail privatisation and the future of post offices.
Why would I do that? Read the Committee stage of the Bill, where it was extensively discussed. Because of the concern about it, the Government has given a short-term gurantee that the link will be preserved but in the medium term Murdoch Mail or whatever it's called has been freed to switch to working with other outlets or to centralise services.
I bought my train tickets for the summer trip from the DBhan website. They arrived two days later in suburban Leicester, a combination of Deutsche post and Royal mail works for me.
I note that all our power companies are foreign owned apart from SSE. No fools these foreign johnnies!
Though I may be less sympathetic when the power cuts start. I see we are getting a miniseries on Channel four on the subject.
Until we start to run a positive balance of trade we are going to have to keep flogging the family silver abroad. Chickens are coming home to roost.
1st Class jumped in price in the last year from 46p to 60p if you didn't notice!
Does anyone know how much it really costs send a letter? Is it possible to strip out the cross-subsidies and internal accounting to actually arrive at a figure in a meaningful way?
I doubt there is a meaningful way to calculate the cost.
Most of the costs are fixed (network of depots, vehicles, etc) that need to be kept operational regardless of volume.
Over the last few years they have increased profitability by reducing service (e.g. phasing out the second post, the 'can't be bothered to deliver on Monday' syndrome). They've cut this, though, so that people are beginning to notice.
Hence they need to invest more capital to reduce the number of staff that they have in the system - but they struggle to do this while in government ownership. Partly because the Treasury won't let them have the money, and partly because the unions are emboldened by the fact that they are a publicly owned business.
Charles
The way forward for a privatised Royal Mail is to close all local depots and sorting stations, relocate sorting and predistribution to a single national centre new built on a brownfield site near Birmingham; put all postmen on bicycles and zero-hours contracts; and maximise returns to investors with a 90% dividend.
Either that or wait for a couple of years and sell out to Deutshe Post.
Have you already been to Budapest and I assume Berlin, Krakow and Prague if going by train?
We need your review. Not enough good travel writers on PB.
Telling how UKIP's figures look like the LDs and Labour instead of the Tories. Their support-base is more nostalgic about the past than it is supportive of the free market.
Replacing public monopolies with private monopolies and cartels has got nothing to do with free markets.
True, although a public-sector organisation operating in a free market is likely to be hamstrung by all sorts of factors, from ministerial meddling to a lack of investment to overly powerful unions. They can get away with it to start with if they are by far the dominant player but even then, others will chip away at that position and they'll erode in time.
But yes, the important thing is a regulated and competitive market, rather than who owns the participants.
Yes. I come form a socialist background and it grates but at the end of the day it's obvious you need competition. Privately owned cartels don't provide competition.
@suttonnick: Monday's Independent - "Boost for Miliband as union members back his reforms" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/CMFhQtqHDs
16% more likely to vote Labour when he implements the funding reforms 4% less likely
he has to get there yet, Unison have pulled £250k of funding.
and whether people do what they say they will, well good luck.
Let's see the detailed poll results. Is suspect they will show the PB Tories are wrong as usual.
I would tend to take support % as what people are disposed to do, however the number of people who subsequently go on to do what they say they will is normally lower than the headline figure.
The main snag as far as popular opinion goes is that the Bill doesn't guarantee the Post Office link for long. People probably don't care that much who delivers the post, but they like their POs, especially in the smaller townms and villages.
This does come across as a very metropolitan make-more-money-for rich-City-types idea.
Not a good idea politically (irrespective of the arguments for and against on economic and operational grounds) for Cameron and Osborne to try.
After all is anyone suggesting that the answer to Britain's problems involves post office privatisation?
Of course not.
But if you do know the magic bullet that is the answer to Britain's problems then I am sure you will be very successful in TSE's election for Dictator for Life
There is no magic bullet we're fcked.
But what Royal Mail privatisation will look like is the chumocracy flogging off national assets to help their rich City mates while the ship sinks and just before said rich City mates head towards the lifeboats in which they have guaranteed places.
Of course similar things were said about the privatisations of the 1980s but the differences between then and now is that then 'ordinary people', the so called sid, was able to also make money from privatisation and privatisation then could also be claimed (and with justification) to be a way to improve British Aerospace/Airways/Steel/Telecom etc.
"There is no magic bullet we're fcked."
Although that's currently true i disagree there's no way to fix it. If you look at history over the last 3000 years there's a very obvious pattern. Those countries which were in the top 10 in technology and industry were the most prosperous.
Marginal costing has its uses but it can be very dangerous to rely on it in businesses which have a high fixed cost base, especially if the fixed costs are distributed through the delivery chain.
Many such businesses have sunk following the principle of "lose a little bit on each transaction and make it up in volume".
That's only a problem if (a) you are selling at a negative gross margin or (b) capacity is meaningfully limited.
I don't believe (a) could ever be the case in Royal Mail (what does a stamp cost?) and although (b) could in theory be an issue, in an environment of falling volumes I doubt it is in practice
Marginal costing is dangerous (but not necessary wrong if it is being used as an additional tool) when the fixed cost is not being recovered. What I guess you mean by "selling at a negative gross margin" on a fully recovered cost basis.
Fixed, or inflexible, capacity is a determinant. But more often the problems come with the fixed and marginal costs of acquiring new volume.
I would expect David Cameron and the Government to have more than a position on the FBU going on strike, in fact they will have contingency plans drawn up to deal with such strike action.
What is Ed Miliband's position on the FBU going on strike, or will I just add that one to the every growing pending pile of decisions yet to be made by the Labour Leader?
The FBU going on strike , I imagine will be blamed on Ed as well.
Does David Cameron have a position?
Personally I don't think that the PM and LotO need to have a position on everything.
The government don't really have a contingency plan, and they definitely won't be using the armed forces. Its up to local Fire Authorities to supply fire cover. I'm hopeful that we won't actually strike, as talks are ongoing.
Funnily enough, the last time I voted was the May locals, where I cast for the Conservatives! Tactically, again - the ward had heavy UKIP activity and they surged into a very strong second place at the count, while pipping the Tories in neighbouring wards. The Labour candidate was a conspiracy theorist loon, albeit still a uni student so not fully mature yet - most likely why he'd got an unwinnable seat! Had there been a creditable Lib Dem candidate among the no-hopers they'd have got my sympathy vote, but none stood. There was a Green I'd voted for the previous election (boosted by my ballot, I think they came a distant second to the Conservatives), but this year I saw the momentum had shifted so I went tactically Tory instead. Head over heart I'm afraid Avery.
As my most recent ballot was blue, do I qualify as a proper rightie? Perhaps it's a trend - at the Euros I'm likely to vote UKIP to voice my displeasure with the EU's democratic deficit and the way UK politicians have been pretty lame about addressing voters' concerns. Admittedly, not concerns we rate consistently high in importance, but from a constitutional point of view I consider they merit more serious treatment. Freed from thinking tactically about FPTP, I've usually used the Euros to vote Lib Dem, but I don't want to give their EU policy encouragement at a European election. No2EU tempt me in principle, except (1) their last campaign was a non-event, (2) it's Bob Crow again.
The UKIP vote at the Euros is safely interpreted as a smack in the face for British politicians generally but the EU institutions in particular, and I'd be comfortable adding the palm of my hand to that. The Locals campaign, however, was uncomfortably Little Englander in character (where I live anyway, I wouldn't wish to generalise) and I was wary of their candidate (clearly the "fruitcake" propaganda worked wonders on my subconscious, but if they'd been organised enough to doorstep me it might have been a different story). The Sean Fear Party I would happily have voted for at both local and European level.
MBE
With that list of favoured parties, anyone would think you are wooing Plato.
The party for you in next May's Euros has to be Alan Sked's new creation. A party with its apostrophe in the right place.
And just think how much it would annoy the kippers!
The 23/10 on a Grand Coalition looks the value bet. It's still extremely tight and the latest poll shows left and right level with the FDP back on the 5% cliff-edge: http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm . The anti-Euro AfD has slipped back again and looks pretty certain to fall short. I think Merkel and the FDP will probably squeak home, but PP's odds for them are too short. Some of the other odds are mad - e.g. the SPD-Green-Linke one should be at least 50-1, not 12-1.
I would expect David Cameron and the Government to have more than a position on the FBU going on strike, in fact they will have contingency plans drawn up to deal with such strike action.
What is Ed Miliband's position on the FBU going on strike, or will I just add that one to the every growing pending pile of decisions yet to be made by the Labour Leader?
The FBU going on strike , I imagine will be blamed on Ed as well.
Does David Cameron have a position?
Personally I don't think that the PM and LotO need to have a position on everything.
The government don't really have a contingency plan, and they definitely won't be using the armed forces. Its up to local Fire Authorities to supply fire cover. I'm hopeful that we won't actually strike, as talks are ongoing.
Marginal costing has its uses but it can be very dangerous to rely on it in businesses which have a high fixed cost base, especially if the fixed costs are distributed through the delivery chain.
Many such businesses have sunk following the principle of "lose a little bit on each transaction and make it up in volume".
That's only a problem if (a) you are selling at a negative gross margin or (b) capacity is meaningfully limited.
I don't believe (a) could ever be the case in Royal Mail (what does a stamp cost?) and although (b) could in theory be an issue, in an environment of falling volumes I doubt it is in practice
Marginal costing is dangerous (but not necessary wrong if it is being used as an additional tool) when the fixed cost is not being recovered. What I guess you mean by "selling at a negative gross margin" on a fully recovered cost basis.
Fixed, or inflexible, capacity is a determinant. But more often the problems come with the fixed and marginal costs of acquiring new volume.
Charles
Too late to edit
Marginal costing is dangerous (but not necessary wrong if it is being used as an additional tool) when the fixed cost is not being recovered and is assumed wrongly to be totally fixed.
Pre-globalization Region A has 90% of the production 90% of the consumption
Region B has 10% of the production 10% of the the consumption
globalization occurs (aka bankstas transferring industrial capital from A to
Post-globalization Region A has 10% of the production 90% of the consumption
Region B has 90% of the production 10% of the consumption
That's not a stable system. It can't continue in this state long-term. It could only work for the 30-odd years it took to transfer the industrial capital from A to B and then for the credit rating of region A (based on the industrial capacity that had been off-shored) to run out.
For those 30-odd years this process made the globalizers very rich as they paid 3rd world wages and sold at 1st world prices while paying their taxes in Monaco but it's not stable and it's not stable in both directions. The idea that the Chinese can merrily carry on selling stuff to people who no longer have any means of paying for it is nonsense.
I would expect David Cameron and the Government to have more than a position on the FBU going on strike, in fact they will have contingency plans drawn up to deal with such strike action.
What is Ed Miliband's position on the FBU going on strike, or will I just add that one to the every growing pending pile of decisions yet to be made by the Labour Leader?
The FBU going on strike , I imagine will be blamed on Ed as well.
Does David Cameron have a position?
Personally I don't think that the PM and LotO need to have a position on everything.
The government don't really have a contingency plan, and they definitely won't be using the armed forces. Its up to local Fire Authorities to supply fire cover. I'm hopeful that we won't actually strike, as talks are ongoing.
The Norwegian election looks like being the expected win for the right despite a steady recovery recovery in the Social Democrat share, now the largest party again by a fair margin. The only problem is that the potential Conservative+Progress (UKIP-lite) majority will probably now fall short, forcing reliance on centre parties who dislike Progress. There will be a tricky choice between an uneasy broad coalition or a minority centre-right coalition with Progress providing confidence and supply and nagging from outside. For those who want to try their Norwegian on the charts:
There is one well known travel writer on PB. Whether he is any good, I do not know, I have only read his "Millions of women..." and Telegraph blogs
My travels were lower budget, I quite like an element of of discomfort, and to not be insulated by 5 star hotels and armies of flunkies. Interpreting ticket machines on the Budapest Metro is all part of the immersion that makes travel interesting. Limos are no fun at all.
I was impressed by Poland and Prague, and Budapest looks as if it will catch up with them in time. Berlin though was entrancing, A city once again taking its rightful place at the centre of Europe, and with much building going on. A surprisingly green, good humoured and relaxed place. I could enjoy living there.
All along the journey we could see the ghosts of Europes missing culture, the East European Jews whose culture was so much a part of pre war life. It brings home that it was not just people who were lost, but an entire culture.
I am planning to work my way through the remaining accession countries, My new Transylvanian colleague has convinced me that Romania is worth a visit, and the Baltic states appeal also.
but not till next year...
The pleasure of independent travel is threefold, the enjoyment of planning and anticipation, the enjoyment of the actual travel, and the enjoyment of reminiscing about it and reflecting upon it. It is important to not squander the triple pleasure by repeating it too soon, that way lies the boredom, hyper-stimulation and ennui of so many travellers.
Have you already been to Budapest and I assume Berlin, Krakow and Prague if going by train?
We need your review. Not enough good travel writers on PB.
The first NFL game of the San Francisco 49ers season is under way at their home stadium of Candlestick Park. This is the farewell season for Candlestick Park, which is so old it was the site of the Beatles last live concert in 1966.
With that list of favoured parties, anyone would think you are wooing Plato.
The party for you in next May's Euros has to be Alan Sked's new creation. A party with its apostrophe in the right place.
And just think how much it would annoy the kippers!
I've often voted for two parties in a single day. I recall TimT once told me that he completed a "full house" - Labour, Liberal and Conservative - in one bingo-like trip to the ballot box, when various local and national elections were held simultaneously.
Not being tribal by nature, I focus on making my vote matter in some manner. If I perceive an opportunity to have a real input into the result, I'm quite happy to vote tactically, and tend to focus on the quality and qualities of the candidate than the fine ideological details. In a safe seat or at the Euros one is free to be more expressive, broader ideology matters a little more, and I try to send a signal of some sort. When I've gone Green, for instance, it does let the parties know that there is a pool of voters out there who are willing to be swayed on ecological issues. I'd (morally) slap anyone who does this in a seat where the scum are in with a half-chance, but if someone votes BNP to let the parties know they're not comfortable with mass immigration, they are probably expressing their opinion effectively.
Based on my most recent voting history I suppose I'm now a Tory voter swaying UKIP, so maybe Edmund and NP are right about right after all. I'd prefer "swing voter", "tactical voter", "non-partisan" or "pluralist" if I'm not allowed to claim "centrist" anymore.
I would expect David Cameron and the Government to have more than a position on the FBU going on strike, in fact they will have contingency plans drawn up to deal with such strike action.
What is Ed Miliband's position on the FBU going on strike, or will I just add that one to the every growing pending pile of decisions yet to be made by the Labour Leader?
The FBU going on strike , I imagine will be blamed on Ed as well.
Does David Cameron have a position?
Personally I don't think that the PM and LotO need to have a position on everything.
The government don't really have a contingency plan, and they definitely won't be using the armed forces. Its up to local Fire Authorities to supply fire cover. I'm hopeful that we won't actually strike, as talks are ongoing.
Why have firefighters voted for strike action ?
Pensions and retirement age, mostly
Thanks firestopper ,
I have not been able to read much about the dispute.
"Dopey Prime Minister David Cameron leaves official red box alone on train - to nip to buffet car 8 Sep 2013 21:30 Mr Cameron, who once left his daughter Nancy down the pub, strolled off down the aisle without the crucial briefcase."
Can't imagine there was much left in the buffet car after Hungry Dave had filled up. Googling Dave's red box will probably set off the As A Father filter soon.
Did you reach the end of the article, tim?
Last night a No10 spokesman said: ‘The box was not left unattended.
“The Prime Minister’s security detail was there at all times.”
Pre-globalization Region A has 90% of the production 90% of the consumption
Region B has 10% of the production 10% of the the consumption
globalization occurs (aka bankstas transferring industrial capital from A to
Post-globalization Region A has 10% of the production 90% of the consumption
Region B has 90% of the production 10% of the consumption
That's not a stable system. It can't continue in this state long-term. It could only work for the 30-odd years it took to transfer the industrial capital from A to B and then for the credit rating of region A (based on the industrial capacity that had been off-shored) to run out.
For those 30-odd years this process made the globalizers very rich as they paid 3rd world wages and sold at 1st world prices while paying their taxes in Monaco but it's not stable and it's not stable in both directions. The idea that the Chinese can merrily carry on selling stuff to people who no longer have any means of paying for it is nonsense.
The long-term trend is for China and similar economies to see steady currency appreciation, so that their incomes level up towards ours (Chinese gross income per capita is now over $6000/year, not that different from bits of Europe). As their goods then become more expensive, at some point you get an uneasy equilibirum. But at the same time, our real incomes have gone down, as the cheap Chinese stuff isn't so cheap any more. It's not a zero-sum game for the usual free trade reasons, though it's not comfortable either.
But there isn't a good alternative. Simply putting up tariff barrirers and hoping they'll fail to develop is inhumane but it's also dumb, like trying to prevent Manchester from regenerating in the hope that it helps Birmingham. What's needed is more global policy-making to match the global markets - that's what the G20 should be focusing on, rather than Syria.
"The fiscal stimulus crowd will not lie down quietly. Lord Skidelsky, Keynes’s biographer, will no doubt continue to argue what he sees as his master’s case.
But as long as this stronger growth persists, the stimulus crowd will dwindle, leaving just a few like those Japanese soldiers encountered on Pacific islands in the years after 1945, still fighting the last war."
My guess is that the last man out of the jungle will be Mr Blanchflower but there are some other candidates. Come in Danny, the war is over!
My travels were lower budget, I quite like an element of of discomfort, and to not be insulated by 5 star hotels and armies of flunkies. Interpreting ticket machines on the Budapest Metro is all part of the immersion that makes travel interesting. Limos are no fun at all.
I was impressed by Poland and Prague, and Budapest looks as if it will catch up with them in time. Berlin though was entrancing, A city once again taking its rightful place at the centre of Europe, and with much building going on. A surprisingly green, good humoured and relaxed place. I could enjoy living there.
All along the journey we could see the ghosts of Europes missing culture, the East European Jews whose culture was so much a part of pre war life. It brings home that it was not just people who were lost, but an entire culture.
I am planning to work my way through the remaining accession countries, My new Transylvanian colleague has convinced me that Romania is worth a visit, and the Baltic states appeal also.
but not till next year...
Thanks for the evocative post. I went to Warsaw with some prejudices (reactionary government at the time, and my Russian mother disliked pre-war Warsaw for all the usual tribal reasons) and was charmed by it. Budapest was more mixed but fun. My favourite surreal experience was going to the station information office and approaching the counter. The woman behind the counter pointed to a ticket machine to generate a number to take my place in a queue. The machine whirred and eventually spat out a ticket saying in three languages: "The information office is closed". Kafka lives.
The 23/10 on a Grand Coalition looks the value bet. It's still extremely tight and the latest poll shows left and right level with the FDP back on the 5% cliff-edge: http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm . The anti-Euro AfD has slipped back again and looks pretty certain to fall short. I think Merkel and the FDP will probably squeak home, but PP's odds for them are too short. Some of the other odds are mad - e.g. the SPD-Green-Linke one should be at least 50-1, not 12-1.
I had almost exactly the same thoughts as NP, but being less informed in European politics (and a far worse judge of value) than him I was too tentative to post it. It's incredibly difficult to imagine Linke going into government. There is some polling on preferred coalitions among German voters and they are basically centrist-leaning, which makes a Grand Coalition more likely especially if the FDP slip up.
I seem to recall a phenomenon whereby a small but key group of right-leaning German electors have been prepared to prop up the FDP in the past, even if they substantially prefer the CDU/CSU, in state or federal elections where the FDP look like missing the 5% threshold. NP will be able to judge this better than me, but I think that the FDP hovering on a knife-edge may be more likely to survive than they look at first sight. If they hit 2% then they may be abandoned by tactical voters as a lost cause, and there may be dangerous territory just the "right" side of 5% if voters assume the FDP will make it, and take the risk of switching away from them! But their vote share looks pretty resiliently on the edge, which means the tactical voting effect is potentially important. Would be interested in the thoughts of those more informed than myself.
The long-term trend is for China and similar economies to see steady currency appreciation, so that their incomes level up towards ours (Chinese gross income per capita is now over $6000/year, not that different from bits of Europe). As their goods then become more expensive, at some point you get an uneasy equilibirum. But at the same time, our real incomes have gone down, as the cheap Chinese stuff isn't so cheap any more. It's not a zero-sum game for the usual free trade reasons, though it's not comfortable either.
But there isn't a good alternative. Simply putting up tariff barrirers and hoping they'll fail to develop is inhumane but it's also dumb, like trying to prevent Manchester from regenerating in the hope that it helps Birmingham. What's needed is more global policy-making to match the global markets - that's what the G20 should be focusing on, rather than Syria.
There *was* a good alternative when this started imo. Allow them to develop in a step-wise manner i.e. allow them 10% production then no more until after they allowed 5% consumption, then allow 15% in exchange for 10% then 20% for 15% etc.
The end result of that process would have been 50%/50% of a doubled total market size and everyone better off but the globalizers were too greedy. The end result now as you say might be a gradual averaging or it might be economic chaos. I'm expecting the latter.
I think you are right, but also agreeing with Mr Jones.
Globalisation will have a levelling effect, but also increase inequality within countries. Already the Rich in China or Russia, or Nairobi have more in common with each other, and with our rich, than they do with their own poor. This will make our current assymetry of welfare provision unsustainable, as the burden of it will cripple our comparative competitivness.
Blimey, I am predicting the same future crisis of capitalism as that well known German philosopher, though am not convinced by his conclusions.
The long-term trend is for China and similar economies to see steady currency appreciation, so that their incomes level up towards ours (Chinese gross income per capita is now over $6000/year, not that different from bits of Europe). As their goods then become more expensive, at some point you get an uneasy equilibirum. But at the same time, our real incomes have gone down, as the cheap Chinese stuff isn't so cheap any more. It's not a zero-sum game for the usual free trade reasons, though it's not comfortable either.
But there isn't a good alternative. Simply putting up tariff barrirers and hoping they'll fail to develop is inhumane but it's also dumb, like trying to prevent Manchester from regenerating in the hope that it helps Birmingham. What's needed is more global policy-making to match the global markets - that's what the G20 should be focusing on, rather than Syria.
I am planning to work my way through the remaining accession countries, My new Transylvanian colleague has convinced me that Romania is worth a visit, and the Baltic states appeal also.
but not till next year...
The pleasure of independent travel is threefold, the enjoyment of planning and anticipation, the enjoyment of the actual travel, and the enjoyment of reminiscing about it and reflecting upon it. It is important to not squander the triple pleasure by repeating it too soon, that way lies the boredom, hyper-stimulation and ennui of so many travellers.
It is over ten years now since I regularly stomped through the capitals of Eastern Europe. Interesting that you found Budapest less advanced than Prague and Poland (I assume Krakow). It had a strong lead in the decade following the lifting of the Soviet yoke, possibly because it had catered to many tourists from Vienna before.
One trip you could consider would be driving or going by train from Gdansk to St Petersburg, taking in Kaliningrad (Königsberg), Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn and even Helsinki on the way. You would have to have St. P. at the end otherwise you would have your expectations confined by an interminable arc of small countries. Imagine visiting the UK for the first time and seeing only Scotland.
I am not so keen on the Balkans, though I liked Bucharest, but then my visits were almost always to the capitals rather the countryside, which is where I am told the joys of travel are to be had.
Comments
The universal postal service must comply with certain minimum legal requirements as set out in EU law. The Postal Services Directive 1997 obliges all EU Member States to ensure that a universal postal service encompassing a minimum range of specified services is provided.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06668.pdf
Not a good idea politically (irrespective of the arguments for and against on economic and operational grounds) for Cameron and Osborne to try.
After all is anyone suggesting that the answer to Britain's problems involves post office privatisation?
The important thing is that purchasers should take into account the weaknesses of the business into their valuation (in the way that BT's lack of a significant UK mobile presence impacts its valution).
Do you realise how stupid your trite rants make you sound?
@TelePolitics
Labour cash woes deepen as Unison pulls £250k in donations http://tgr.ph/182hgL4
Manufacturing quality is a sine qua non of the industry I work in. If you are careless you rapidly run into serious and expensive problems
Or am I misunderstanding?
Sainsburys probably wouldn't be very good at building the HS2 link. That doesn't make it a rigged market.
Mandelson was more urbane and progressive than the rest of his party. Even so, his attraction to profit and privatisation was partial and stopped after the second letter. This may explain his proposal to limit the sale of the Royal Mail to a minority stake.
But if you do know the magic bullet that is the answer to Britain's problems then I am sure you will be very successful in TSE's election for Dictator for Life
http://tinyurl.com/k9xo7n5
I've emailed the Gun-Loving Liberal Democrats ( http://ldp.org.au ) to ask them if they do overseas membership. They sound fantastic.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10125896/Separate-Scottish-taxpayers-face-spiralling-post-costs.html
Only the Sage of Omaha has a record of developing stronger businesses and obtaining better returns than governments.
What you should have said was "That's a good point Richard, perhaps I'm slipping into complacent thinking without being aware I'm doing so. This is clearly a major potential problem that must be guarded against."
Now if you'd like to get my email address from OGH we can arrange suitable fee payment for my anti-complacency consultancy.
Because if you don't that will prove you're being complacent.
Margaret Thatcher first considered privatising Royal Mail during the original programme of asset sales during the 1980s - supposedly balking at the idea of selling something with "Royal" in the name
http://www.iii.co.uk/articles/106053/royal-mail-privatisation-investment-pros-and-cons
I learnt not to be complacent when, at the age of about 18, the major competitor to my family business took a wrong turn and rapidly lost traction in its core market. I expressed the thought to my father that this was a good thing - and he clearly explained to me how dangerous it was not to have any serious competiton.
You're just going to have to trust me on this one.
But what Royal Mail privatisation will look like is the chumocracy flogging off national assets to help their rich City mates while the ship sinks and just before said rich City mates head towards the lifeboats in which they have guaranteed places.
Of course similar things were said about the privatisations of the 1980s but the differences between then and now is that then 'ordinary people', the so called sid, was able to also make money from privatisation and privatisation then could also be claimed (and with justification) to be a way to improve British Aerospace/Airways/Steel/Telecom etc.
Privatisation will likely create an opportunity to improve the management of the Royal Mail and to restructure / invest additional capital in such a way as to improve performance.
The way the business is run at the moment is decidedly sub-optimal.
This is increasingly worrying Charles.
Unless proper anti-complacency consultation is accepted I fear you will end up as a recovering complacent at Complacents Anonymous.
"My name is Charles and I'm a complacent".
Please let me help you Charles, my fees are very reasonable.
Most of the costs are fixed (network of depots, vehicles, etc) that need to be kept operational regardless of volume.
Over the last few years they have increased profitability by reducing service (e.g. phasing out the second post, the 'can't be bothered to deliver on Monday' syndrome). They've cut this, though, so that people are beginning to notice.
Hence they need to invest more capital to reduce the number of staff that they have in the system - but they struggle to do this while in government ownership. Partly because the Treasury won't let them have the money, and partly because the unions are emboldened by the fact that they are a publicly owned business.
I don't know if they are right or wrong and to be honest don't care in any case.
But I think the political effect wont look good for the Conervatives.
Especially as its difficult to see an upside to customers either in service or cost - its very easy though to see either higher cost and/or poorer service.
Now perhaps those are inevitable in any case, but they would be blamed on privatisation and through that on the Conservative party.
Doubtless more huge inflation-busting increases will be introduced just as soon as the fat cat directors, all on on massive salaries, feel they can get away with them.
Don't forget to check my post-race analysis: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/italy-post-race-analysis.html
The way forward for a privatised Royal Mail is to close all local depots and sorting stations, relocate sorting and predistribution to a single national centre new built on a brownfield site near Birmingham; put all postmen on bicycles and zero-hours contracts; and maximise returns to investors with a 90% dividend.
Either that or wait for a couple of years and sell out to Deutshe Post.
Because unless your comment was a parody you sound somewhat disgruntled.
In addition, Button has twice the points of his team mate.
There we are. War Against Terror meets Privatisation. Trebles all round!
I'd be uncomfortable about several economically insane points on the Green platform, and deeply disliked SWP's involvement in TUSC (small, but they are a noxious organisational parasite in any cause they touch). At the end of the day it would been a symbolic vote, an act of political self-expression, and if they were never likely to get into office I'm prepared to be more forgiving. Only to a point though: I wouldn't touch Respect with a barge pole unless I was allowed to slap them with it.
In a Con/Lab marginal I'd have tactically voted Labour, as I did in 2001, but without much heart in it. In a LD/Lab marginal I'd have opted Lib Dem (as I did in 2005) more cheerfully. In 2010 I voted for a strong independent candidate - a different political complexion to me, but that gave them better electoral prospects and I respected them personally. They were also the best tactical anti-Con choice.
I was not impressed by their selection today, their strategy and tacticians imply Carthaginian blood.
Typical, the one time I want it to rain at Old Trafford and it didn't.
When it comes to a choice between investing in a nationalised railway and the NHS or education, any sane government looking at electoral prospects would concentrate on the latter two items.
Renationalisation may be a sane way forwards for the railways, but the point needs answering.
Marginal costing has its uses but it can be very dangerous to rely on it in businesses which have a high fixed cost base, especially if the fixed costs are distributed through the delivery chain.
Many such businesses have sunk following the principle of "lose a little bit on each transaction and make it up in volume".
Of course, if the Royal Mail avoids privatisation, this problem can be simply solved by putting a Lib Dem councillor on every regional board who can then join up the thinking of those who believe in fairness as a dividend.
Ahead of the introduction of such increases, I purchased around £400 worth of 1st and 2nd class stamps, thereby hopefully avoiding their impact (and any further increases) for many years to come.
Having made this investment, I for one will certainly not be applying for any shares when Royal Mail is privatised
No need to be ashamed.
I note that all our power companies are foreign owned apart from SSE. No fools these foreign johnnies!
Though I may be less sympathetic when the power cuts start. I see we are getting a miniseries on Channel four on the subject.
Until we start to run a positive balance of trade we are going to have to keep flogging the family silver abroad. Chickens are coming home to roost.
I also don't accept that stamp rises to allow the Royal Mail to make a decent profit is a bad thing. It needs to invest in its own future, and you don't have to be cassandra to realise that there are going to be some changes to the nature of the postal service in the coming decades. Either every taxpayer pays for changes in an ineffective way, or people who post letters do.
Is that a leaked copy of Ed's next great speech? A Black hole? A void where the policies should be?
"No, they decided to turn up without much training, against a vastly superior opponent, and used pisspoor tactics of bowling first with only three frontline bowlers, this was Zama"
Hannibal didn't have the whole winter to train his men, unlike Scipio. They were new recruits, unlike Scipio's veterans. Scipio also acknowledged that Hannibal's battle plan was superior to his own. Better plans don't necessarily yield victory if the troops are too poor (cf the Jugurthine War).
My teachers were fantastic, I have an A Level in History.
I don't believe (a) could ever be the case in Royal Mail (what does a stamp cost?) and although (b) could in theory be an issue, in an environment of falling volumes I doubt it is in practice
and whether people do what they say they will, well good luck.
As my most recent ballot was blue, do I qualify as a proper rightie? Perhaps it's a trend - at the Euros I'm likely to vote UKIP to voice my displeasure with the EU's democratic deficit and the way UK politicians have been pretty lame about addressing voters' concerns. Admittedly, not concerns we rate consistently high in importance, but from a constitutional point of view I consider they merit more serious treatment. Freed from thinking tactically about FPTP, I've usually used the Euros to vote Lib Dem, but I don't want to give their EU policy encouragement at a European election. No2EU tempt me in principle, except (1) their last campaign was a non-event, (2) it's Bob Crow again.
The UKIP vote at the Euros is safely interpreted as a smack in the face for British politicians generally but the EU institutions in particular, and I'd be comfortable adding the palm of my hand to that. The Locals campaign, however, was uncomfortably Little Englander in character (where I live anyway, I wouldn't wish to generalise) and I was wary of their candidate (clearly the "fruitcake" propaganda worked wonders on my subconscious, but if they'd been organised enough to doorstep me it might have been a different story). The Sean Fear Party I would happily have voted for at both local and European level.
(I just reacted by stopping using first class - because it is basically the same anyway these days - unless I care what the recipient thinks about the stamp on the envelope)
We need your review. Not enough good travel writers on PB.
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/european-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1263861
This is the text of Ed's annual speech of a lifetime:
"←↑∩↓→"
Although that's currently true i disagree there's no way to fix it. If you look at history over the last 3000 years there's a very obvious pattern. Those countries which were in the top 10 in technology and industry were the most prosperous.
That's the magic bullet. Always has been.
Fixed, or inflexible, capacity is a determinant. But more often the problems come with the fixed and marginal costs of acquiring new volume.
If you only knew the power of differential front end grip!
Anyway, I'm off for the night.
With that list of favoured parties, anyone would think you are wooing Plato.
The party for you in next May's Euros has to be Alan Sked's new creation. A party with its apostrophe in the right place.
And just think how much it would annoy the kippers!
Too late to edit
Marginal costing is dangerous (but not necessary wrong if it is being used as an additional tool) when the fixed cost is not being recovered and is assumed wrongly to be totally fixed.
Pre-globalization
Region A has
90% of the production
90% of the consumption
Region B has
10% of the production
10% of the the consumption
globalization occurs (aka bankstas transferring industrial capital from A to
Post-globalization
Region A has
10% of the production
90% of the consumption
Region B has
90% of the production
10% of the consumption
That's not a stable system. It can't continue in this state long-term. It could only work for the 30-odd years it took to transfer the industrial capital from A to B and then for the credit rating of region A (based on the industrial capacity that had been off-shored) to run out.
For those 30-odd years this process made the globalizers very rich as they paid 3rd world wages and sold at 1st world prices while paying their taxes in Monaco but it's not stable and it's not stable in both directions. The idea that the Chinese can merrily carry on selling stuff to people who no longer have any means of paying for it is nonsense.
http://politisk.tv2.no/spesial/partibarometeret/
By the way, many thanks to TSE for another successful deputisation - good-humoured and interesting as always.
My travels were lower budget, I quite like an element of of discomfort, and to not be insulated by 5 star hotels and armies of flunkies. Interpreting ticket machines on the Budapest Metro is all part of the immersion that makes travel interesting. Limos are no fun at all.
I was impressed by Poland and Prague, and Budapest looks as if it will catch up with them in time. Berlin though was entrancing, A city once again taking its rightful place at the centre of Europe, and with much building going on. A surprisingly green, good humoured and relaxed place. I could enjoy living there.
All along the journey we could see the ghosts of Europes missing culture, the East European Jews whose culture was so much a part of pre war life. It brings home that it was not just people who were lost, but an entire culture.
I am planning to work my way through the remaining accession countries, My new Transylvanian colleague has convinced me that Romania is worth a visit, and the Baltic states appeal also.
but not till next year...
The pleasure of independent travel is threefold, the enjoyment of planning and anticipation, the enjoyment of the actual travel, and the enjoyment of reminiscing about it and reflecting upon it. It is important to not squander the triple pleasure by repeating it too soon, that way lies the boredom, hyper-stimulation and ennui of so many travellers.
Have you already been to Budapest and I assume Berlin, Krakow and Prague if going by train?
We need your review. Not enough good travel writers on PB.
Not being tribal by nature, I focus on making my vote matter in some manner. If I perceive an opportunity to have a real input into the result, I'm quite happy to vote tactically, and tend to focus on the quality and qualities of the candidate than the fine ideological details. In a safe seat or at the Euros one is free to be more expressive, broader ideology matters a little more, and I try to send a signal of some sort. When I've gone Green, for instance, it does let the parties know that there is a pool of voters out there who are willing to be swayed on ecological issues. I'd (morally) slap anyone who does this in a seat where the scum are in with a half-chance, but if someone votes BNP to let the parties know they're not comfortable with mass immigration, they are probably expressing their opinion effectively.
Based on my most recent voting history I suppose I'm now a Tory voter swaying UKIP, so maybe Edmund and NP are right about right after all. I'd prefer "swing voter", "tactical voter", "non-partisan" or "pluralist" if I'm not allowed to claim "centrist" anymore.
I have not been able to read much about the dispute.
As you say hope it can be resolved.
Last night a No10 spokesman said: ‘The box was not left unattended.
“The Prime Minister’s security detail was there at all times.”
But there isn't a good alternative. Simply putting up tariff barrirers and hoping they'll fail to develop is inhumane but it's also dumb, like trying to prevent Manchester from regenerating in the hope that it helps Birmingham. What's needed is more global policy-making to match the global markets - that's what the G20 should be focusing on, rather than Syria.
He says:
"The fiscal stimulus crowd will not lie down quietly. Lord Skidelsky, Keynes’s biographer, will no doubt continue to argue what he sees as his master’s case.
But as long as this stronger growth persists, the stimulus crowd will dwindle, leaving just a few like those Japanese soldiers encountered on Pacific islands in the years after 1945, still fighting the last war."
My guess is that the last man out of the jungle will be Mr Blanchflower but there are some other candidates. Come in Danny, the war is over!
I seem to recall a phenomenon whereby a small but key group of right-leaning German electors have been prepared to prop up the FDP in the past, even if they substantially prefer the CDU/CSU, in state or federal elections where the FDP look like missing the 5% threshold. NP will be able to judge this better than me, but I think that the FDP hovering on a knife-edge may be more likely to survive than they look at first sight. If they hit 2% then they may be abandoned by tactical voters as a lost cause, and there may be dangerous territory just the "right" side of 5% if voters assume the FDP will make it, and take the risk of switching away from them! But their vote share looks pretty resiliently on the edge, which means the tactical voting effect is potentially important. Would be interested in the thoughts of those more informed than myself.
The end result of that process would have been 50%/50% of a doubled total market size and everyone better off but the globalizers were too greedy. The end result now as you say might be a gradual averaging or it might be economic chaos. I'm expecting the latter.
I think you are right, but also agreeing with Mr Jones.
Globalisation will have a levelling effect, but also increase inequality within countries. Already the Rich in China or Russia, or Nairobi have more in common with each other, and with our rich, than they do with their own poor. This will make our current assymetry of welfare provision unsustainable, as the burden of it will cripple our comparative competitivness.
Blimey, I am predicting the same future crisis of capitalism as that well known German philosopher, though am not convinced by his conclusions.
PoliticsHome @politicshome 5m
Tomorrow's Daily Telegraph front page: We've saved the economy, says Osborne http://polho.me/19yaha2
One trip you could consider would be driving or going by train from Gdansk to St Petersburg, taking in Kaliningrad (Königsberg), Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn and even Helsinki on the way. You would have to have St. P. at the end otherwise you would have your expectations confined by an interminable arc of small countries. Imagine visiting the UK for the first time and seeing only Scotland.
I am not so keen on the Balkans, though I liked Bucharest, but then my visits were almost always to the capitals rather the countryside, which is where I am told the joys of travel are to be had.