Royal Mail. A Paltry 3.3 Billion?

technodup":xqdhm8de said:

Neil":xqdhm8de said:

Sure - but hey - you just spout utter bolllocks just to provoke a response and sound edgy.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were Frankie Boyle. Only problem is, he's actually funny.

Click to expand...

I clearly get on your tits.

Click to expand...

But you don't - and I'll have you know they're perfectly formed pecs, doncha know.

In a rather platonic, there-has-to-be-somebody-to-say-that I quite like your contributions. Doesn't mean I take them seriously or there's much sense to them - but they are a prescribed response, and also tend to produce a prescribed response.

I'm aiming high in the - perhaps futile - hope that you really realise that it's more about agent provocateur than actually buying into a lot of the things you say.

technodup":xqdhm8de said:

Job done.

Click to expand...

Like the best in the private sector, do nowt, charge money for it, and sit back all self-satisfied. That's how the public have been shafted with privatisation.

How's the market and privatisation providing a better deal for the consumer with water utility companies? Who the fvck are they competing with? They're just skimming off a load of profit, investing nowt, then doing the Oliver-Twist thing when people point out the degrading infrastructure and how they'll need to get funds to provide investment for improvement.

technodup":38fnzcr4 said:

Neil":38fnzcr4 said:

The market knows best and competition will provide the best and competitive value for the consumer

Click to expand...

FTFY

Click to expand...

How does that work for rail lines then?

If I want to go from lea green to Liverpool lime street, I've got the choice between Northern... Or Northern.

This is the first of three showstoppers. Rail lines are a natural monopoly, you can't say you're bringing "competition" to the market, because it's not possible. Do we expect arriva trains to lay down their own train tracks, and build their own train station right next door to the one that does Northern?

Just how is that meant to work?

The fact is there are services we are happy to pay for, and they are not all suitable for the capitalist model.

After all, we are a mix of capitalism and socialism. That is how we like it, and tugging us too far one way is never going to satisfy the majority.

Some things are more important than profitability.

Neil":1cmic7bl said:

In a rather platonic, there-has-to-be-somebody-to-say-that I quite like your contributions. Doesn't mean I take them seriously or there's much sense to them - but they are a prescribed response, and also tend to produce a prescribed response.

Click to expand...

It's the internet. I don't take anything seriously, I say what I like if people like it fine, if they don't fine. Ask me about direct marketing and you would likely get a considered and balanced opinion based on knowledge and experience. On anything else? On the net? **** it.

Bats":1cmic7bl said:

If I want to go from lea green to Liverpool lime street, I've got the choice between Northern... Or Northern.

Click to expand...

Because Northern won the franchise. (Presumably) in competition with other operators. A quick Google suggests the contract is up next year so you might get someone else next time. Don't let it mess with your head, it'll still go to the same place.

technodup":66ltf8gg said:

Because Northern won the franchise. (Presumably) in competition with other operators. A quick Google suggests the contract is up next year so you might get someone else next time. Don't let it mess with your head, it'll still go to the same place.

Click to expand...

You see that is a problem. It means the competition was just for the contract, and the "consumer" in this scenario is the Government.

Ignoring how dishonest applying the free market white goods metaphor to subsidized, "too big to fail" mass transit is, what does that make the people riding the bloody things?

technodup":vzrotk8p said:

Neil":vzrotk8p said:

In a rather platonic, there-has-to-be-somebody-to-say-that I quite like your contributions. Doesn't mean I take them seriously or there's much sense to them - but they are a prescribed response, and also tend to produce a prescribed response.

Click to expand...

It's the internet. I don't take anything seriously, I say what I like if people like it fine, if they don't fine. Ask me about direct marketing and you would likely get a considered and balanced opinion based on knowledge and experience. On anything else? On the net? f**k it.

Click to expand...

Quite - isn't that what I said? You kinda play a bit fast and loose and perhaps a bit up to 11, but you don't buy all the crackpot nonsense you write - quite right too - nobody else does, either.

technodup":vzrotk8p said:

Bats":vzrotk8p said:

If I want to go from lea green to Liverpool lime street, I've got the choice between Northern... Or Northern.

Click to expand...

Because Northern won the franchise. (Presumably) in competition with other operators. A quick Google suggests the contract is up next year so you might get someone else next time. Don't let it mess with your head, it'll still go to the same place.

Click to expand...

And be a worse deal for the consumer, as well as not having to actively compete, they can also take a bit off the top to keep investors happy, whilst not improving anything with that money, then think they can smoke it past the wrong guy by smoothly segue-ing into demanding more money off the customers in terms of overheads and service improvements. At the end of the day, the consumer gets the shitty end of the stick, whilst a few select people get to make some money.

Now fair enough, if they actually created the infrastructure in the first place - but they didn't - it was public and sold off, and always at bargain basement prices.

In most of the examples of privatisation, it hasn't been for the good of the consumer - that's just the lie that won't die - it's been for the benefit of a select few, whilst us mugs that are the GP get to pay for it.

Neil":2ry4ogu5 said:

Quite - isn't that what I said? You kinda play a bit fast and loose and perhaps a bit up to 11, but you don't buy all the crackpot nonsense you write - quite right too - nobody else does, either.

Click to expand...

They call themselves tories

Neil":1jkpapha said:

Now fair enough, if they actually created the infrastructure in the first place - but they didn't - it was public and sold off, and always at bargain basement prices.

Click to expand...

Railways were private enterprises first so that's not strictly true.

Neil":1jkpapha said:

In most of the examples of privatisation, it hasn't been for the good of the consumer - that's just the lie that won't die

Click to expand...

Vote for Milliband then, he wants to take us back to the 70s.

When you could have a phone, but it had to be black and you might get it fitted in a month or two. When you could get a cooker but you had to get it from the gas board(!). When you could fly Glasgow to London but it was BA or the highway. Easy to slag off the era, but if only we could fast forward and see what the UK would be like if none of these privatisations happened. It wouldn't be anything like today, for sure.

For most major enterprises government has a role in the conception, e.g. funding research or development of a technology. But as for getting a decent product to the consumer at the right price? That's a competitive game all day long. Would we be having this debate here and now, on mobile phones, on broadband, reliably for next to nothing if the government ran these services?

I'd be happy if the government said we'll sell off everything we have except one thing, (inevitably the NHS), and we'll make it the best service in the world. Not just claim it but actually improve outcomes all over it. I can't remember who said it, (Cameron?) but one PM said they would do less, better. If only someone would.

I know absolutely nothing about the sociopolitical ramifications of privatisation, I'm just a dumbass end-user, but surely if there are already well-established private companies that can deliver packages cheaper than RM, there's not much of an issue? (Yes, I know there are lots of cowboys as well, but I'd still prefer to spend a few minutes checking up on a company if I can save a few pounds as a result).

On the subject of privatisation in general, I once read a quote from someone along the lines that if British Leyland were still going strong, they'd still be trying to sell brand-new face-lifted Morris Itals. Made me LOL quite a lot, just as a mental image.

technodup":1nd5rrf0 said:

Neil":1nd5rrf0 said:

Now fair enough, if they actually created the infrastructure in the first place - but they didn't - it was public and sold off, and always at bargain basement prices.

Click to expand...

Railways were private enterprises first so that's not strictly true.

Click to expand...

So? They were nationalised. They were a public asset - and if there was some private investment at first, no doubt they were paid for their efforts.

technodup":1nd5rrf0 said:

Neil":1nd5rrf0 said:

In most of the examples of privatisation, it hasn't been for the good of the consumer - that's just the lie that won't die

Click to expand...

Vote for Milliband then, he wants to take us back to the 70s.

When you could have a phone, but it had to be black and you might get it fitted in a month or two. When you could get a cooker but you had to get it from the gas board(!). When you could fly Glasgow to London but it was BA or the highway. Easy to slag off the era, but if only we could fast forward and see what the UK would be like if none of these privatisations happened. It wouldn't be anything like today, for sure.

For most major enterprises government has a role in the conception, e.g. funding research or development of a technology. But as for getting a decent product to the consumer at the right price? That's a competitive game all day long. Would we be having this debate here and now, on mobile phones, on broadband, reliably for next to nothing if the government ran these services?

Click to expand...

Strawman - I'm not suggesting that nothing is fair game for privatisation, or that all privatisation has been for the wrong reasons. I think it's been shit-ily implemented, though, the public have been given the shaft, and successive governments have been making hay whilst selling England by the pound.

Products - true products - then no issue, really. The phone situation - albeit leeching off much of the infrastructure that was publicly funded - but all the same, I see the sense.

Water, rail - I think has been a con predicated on political dogma.

Gas and electric - well if I'm honest, I think the public has had a crappy deal out of it all, and whilst I'm not hugely objecting, I'm not getting the benefits, given there's always got to be some regulation anyways.

Health, police, fire - I think much of it is at jeopardy from politico fvckwits that believe that they know better, and that the market and capitalism always knows best. a) for services, it doesn't (not that there can't be lessons learnt, or bits leveraged 2) they don't ever truly do it for the publics' benefit anyways.

technodup":1nd5rrf0 said:

I'd be happy if the government said we'll sell off everything we have except one thing, (inevitably the NHS), and we'll make it the best service in the world. Not just claim it but actually improve outcomes all over it. I can't remember who said it, (Cameron?) but one PM said they would do less, better. If only someone would.

Click to expand...

Any of the politicians in recent times convinced you they have the savvy to make that call?

I'm calling it as bollocks - profiteering bollocks. It's all been done for economy stimulus reasons, than any true benefit, either in service, or cost, to the public.

And I'll repeat, that's not to say there's no merit in any of it - eg phones / BT - that side of things, whilst I have reservations about the way in which it has been done, I do think the public has realised benefit from some aspects of privatisation.