Royal Mail sale to Czech billionaire - why not blocked?
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
I generally agree.
For properly strategic assets I think there need to be more checks and balances... But don't see the PO or RM as either tbh.
This basicallyFor properly strategic assets I think there need to be more checks and balances... But don't see the PO or RM as either tbh.
In terms of absolutely essential post, many documents are now switching to E-signatures and it is hard to get that worked up about the remainder, which could be sent by courier if absolutely essential.
Bills and bank statements are moving online and it is a dying industry that will be mostly gone soon.
skwdenyer said:
Hill92 said:
The pension situation is more complex than just assuming the net pension liability at the time of privatisation. Successive governments contributed to the net liability over the years: from swapping the pension assets for notional IOUs in the 1970s to 1990s tax rules that limited pension assets to 110% of pension liabilities while simultaneously using Royal Mail as a cash cow for Treasury coffers.
That last point also contributed to the failure invest in modernisation in public ownership. The Treasury set ever increasing negative External Financing Limits which required Royal Mail to hand over cash regardless of business needs or even profits to support the payments. Even as the letter business continued to decline there was still government interference in attempts to modernise the business. It's one of those businesses that really cannot afford to be managed by whatever wins/loses the most votes for a government minister.
As regards Government direction, the approach taken with POL - holding shares through an executive agency - seems the most sensible, and doubtless would have been pursued had RM remained in public ownership. In such a structure, RM could have accessed private borrowing had it been necessary.That last point also contributed to the failure invest in modernisation in public ownership. The Treasury set ever increasing negative External Financing Limits which required Royal Mail to hand over cash regardless of business needs or even profits to support the payments. Even as the letter business continued to decline there was still government interference in attempts to modernise the business. It's one of those businesses that really cannot afford to be managed by whatever wins/loses the most votes for a government minister.
They couldn't just borrow externally under public ownership because any borrowings would be treated as part of the public sector net debt. And the Treasury has always had more pressing ways to allocate its self-imposed PSND funding limits.
HM Government has never been a benevolent shareholder in Royal Mail.
Hill92 said:
skwdenyer said:
Hill92 said:
The pension situation is more complex than just assuming the net pension liability at the time of privatisation. Successive governments contributed to the net liability over the years: from swapping the pension assets for notional IOUs in the 1970s to 1990s tax rules that limited pension assets to 110% of pension liabilities while simultaneously using Royal Mail as a cash cow for Treasury coffers.
That last point also contributed to the failure invest in modernisation in public ownership. The Treasury set ever increasing negative External Financing Limits which required Royal Mail to hand over cash regardless of business needs or even profits to support the payments. Even as the letter business continued to decline there was still government interference in attempts to modernise the business. It's one of those businesses that really cannot afford to be managed by whatever wins/loses the most votes for a government minister.
As regards Government direction, the approach taken with POL - holding shares through an executive agency - seems the most sensible, and doubtless would have been pursued had RM remained in public ownership. In such a structure, RM could have accessed private borrowing had it been necessary.That last point also contributed to the failure invest in modernisation in public ownership. The Treasury set ever increasing negative External Financing Limits which required Royal Mail to hand over cash regardless of business needs or even profits to support the payments. Even as the letter business continued to decline there was still government interference in attempts to modernise the business. It's one of those businesses that really cannot afford to be managed by whatever wins/loses the most votes for a government minister.
They couldn't just borrow externally under public ownership because any borrowings would be treated as part of the public sector net debt. And the Treasury has always had more pressing ways to allocate its self-imposed PSND funding limits.
HM Government has never been a benevolent shareholder in Royal Mail.
glazbagun said:
Sell it, then start a new publiclyowned postal service called British Mail.
Whistl tried a decade ago, but RM used some anti-competitive practises to kill that off, and nothing has come along to match it since. Maybe Evri will buy the final mile service from the new owners and have a go with it themselves until they mess it up and fully finish it 🤷♂️Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff