• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.

PJV3

Member
Wrt to the pension debts, they are already on the government books, so are the assets, they were taken on last financial year. Amazingly the £55bn liability sits off the balance sheet and the £28bn asset sits on the balance sheets. Government accounting, how does it work!?!

However, the sale of Royal Mail is actually because of an EU competition directive. Labour got the sale on the road by allowing the buyer to abandon the universal service mandate, but then the coalition put that back in and very suddenly all of the European based buyers backed out. The Lib Dems (and Tories) have also blocked the sale of Parcel Force alone (it is a highly profitable global business), they want an all or nothing deal with the buyer committing to the universal service mandate. Unsurprisingly there are few takers.

The EU competition directive was about opening the market to other operators, the UK implemented it before most other countries in stages by reducing the value of the monopoly.

Selling Royal Mail is not(or it wasn't when I worked for them) anything to do with it.

And competition has been a disaster, siphoning off the profitable processing of mail and leaving the expensive final mile to RM.
 
The EU competition directive was about opening the market to other operators, the UK implemented it before most other countries in stages.

Selling Royal Mail is not(or it wasn't when I worked for them) anything to do with it.

And competition has been a disaster, siphoning off the profitable processing of mail and leave the expensive final mile to RM.

No, this is the final part of it because the ECJ sees it as an unfair subsidy which enables Royal Mail to outcompete other single market operators.

I agree that competition has been a disaster, competitors should only have been let onto the market if they agreed to abide by the same universal service mandate as Royal Mail. The market is fixed in favour of non-RM companies.
 

PJV3

Member
No, this is the final part of it because the ECJ sees it as an unfair subsidy which enables Royal Mail to outcompete other single market operators.

I agree that competition has been a disaster, competitors should only have been let onto the market if they agreed to abide by the same universal service mandate as Royal Mail. The market is fixed in favour of non-RM companies.

Ah ok.

It must be a later, separate ruling then, we had to sit through a lot of meetings when they started opening the market. And selling it off wasn't part of that, though Labour wanted to do it anyway.
 
The EU competition directive was about opening the market to other operators, the UK implemented it before most other countries in stages by reducing the value of the monopoly.

Selling Royal Mail is not(or it wasn't when I worked for them) anything to do with it.

And competition has been a disaster, siphoning off the profitable processing of mail and leaving the expensive final mile to RM.

Sounds similar to what happened when the rail service was privatised. Private businesses nicked the lucrative parts and left the expensive parts (e.g. track renewal and maintenance).
 
Ah ok.

It must be a later, separate ruling then, we had to sit through a lot of meetings when they started opening the market. And selling it off wasn't part of that, Labour wanted to do it anyway.

Yes, it is a relatively recent ruling I believe. The Labour government spun Royal Mail into it's own company which they thought would be enough, but then a few years later the court said it wasn't so then they tried to sell it, the only way they could do so was to sell it without the universal service mandate.
 

PJV3

Member
Sounds similar to what happened when the rail service was privatised. Private businesses nicked the lucrative parts and left the expensive parts (e.g. track renewal and maintenance).

Royal mail was even blocked from submitting lower bids for work, the regulator was a fucking twat. The company survives on delivering pizza leaflets and small parcels.
 
Royal mail was blocked from submitting lower bids for work, the regulator was a fucking twat.

I think that was actually part of abiding by the unfair subsidy due to public ownership part of the ruling.

Essentially the ECJ manipulated our postal market into letting EU based operators in. It would be nice if it worked both ways but I'll leave it up to you to judge what would happen if a British company tried to enter the French energy market.
 
Sounds similar to what happened when the rail service was privatised. Private businesses nicked the lucrative parts and left the expensive parts (e.g. track renewal and maintenance).

It's EU regulation to split up track/infrastructure and passenger services into different companies, IIRC. Nothing about having to privatise them. Rail privatisation was a fucking total disaster, and while the state did own too much in the 1970s, selling off the railways was an idiotic idea.
 
Am I really listening to Vince Cable on Radio 4 making the case for privatising the Royal Mail? I wouldn't have thought that'd be something the Lib Dems would be in favour of.

Edit: Cyclops, on a Monday night??

It's the creative industries, darhling.

WRT Royal Mail, I think we should have a discussion about whether the majority of people should be subsidising the rest. I mean, that's what'll happen, whether the unprofitable bits are publicly run or whether they are forced onto a private sector company, it'll still be the rest of us subsidising it. The only difference is that in the case of the former, it's all tax payers, and in the case of the latter it'll be those that live in areas that are profitable that the companies can effectively gouge to make up the shortfall.

Should this be the case? Could it not just become a part of where you live, in much the same way spotty 3G affects rural areas and graffiti and alley-way rape affect inner city areas? I don't think it'll really be a problem for much longer at any rate. I think the last letter I got in the post that wasn't just a bank statement or junk (or the TV licensing people being wankers) was some of my self employment Tax stuff, and there's no reason why that couldn't be online too.

I'd be happier with the government putting the money they'd normally spend on the Royal Mail into broadband infrastructure, given it's going to have a much longer term benefit and offer much of the same service.
 
Liberals aren't labour, and liberal economics includes belief and support for the free market. Whilst they aren't as madly dogmatic about it as the Tories, the liberals will privatise stuff if they believe it makes sense.

This ain't Clegg or Laws or Danny though, this is Cable - he used to be a Labour member and just generally enjoys being a thorn in the coalitions side that this is sufficiently unusual. He is, however, also a massive EU bum-basher so I guess that cancels it out.
 

PJV3

Member
I think that was actually part of abiding by the unfair subsidy due to public ownership part of the ruling.

The regulator set RM prices, so when the profitable processing was taken by deutsch post etc, Royal mail and the union asked permission to cut prices.

You know more about recent stuff than I do, but at the time that was purely down to an intransigent regulator.
 
The regulator set RM prices, so when the profitable processing was taken by deutsch post etc, Royal mail and the union asked permission to cut prices.

You know more about recent stuff than I do, but at the time that was purely down to an intransigent regulator.

Fair enough. Sounds shit all around tbh. I know the current malaise is to abide by state subsidy rules though. I just wish that those rules applied to all industries in all nations. It really does feel like one rule for us and another for them sometimes.
 

PJV3

Member
Fair enough. Sounds shit all around tbh. I know the current malaise is to abide by state subsidy rules though. I just wish that those rules applied to all industries in all nations. It really does feel like one rule for us and another for them sometimes.

I'm not sure if it's just a cliché, but they always say the British go crazy with implementation compared to the continent.

I know the French dragged out postal reform as long as possible, we did it ahead of schedule for some reason.
 
I'm not sure if it's just a cliché, but they always say the British go crazy with implementation compared to the continent.

I know the French dragged out postal reform as long as possible, we did it ahead of schedule for some reason.

Yes, even Eurocrats have said that they feel the British go too far with directive implementation. I really don't understand why, I think it's something to do with the civil service having little else to do and our "target" based culture which demands "results".
 

PJV3

Member
Yes, even Eurocrats have said that they feel the British go too far with directive implementation. I really don't understand why, I think it's something to do with the civil service having little else to do and our "target" based culture which demands "results".

They always said it was lucky the British didn't run the Holocaust, because they would have killed a lot more people in a shorter amount of time.

Tasteless but probably true. Then again the Home office sort of contradicts that idea.
 

Walshicus

Member
I think that's something we consistently do wrong in this state - we interpret certain EU regulations or directives to the point of absurdity, where other states have more sensible implementations.
 

PJV3

Member
I think that's something we consistently do wrong in this state - we interpret certain EU regulations or directives to the point of absurdity, where other states have more sensible implementations.

The upside to it is there is less chance of corruption, being faced by an unmoving jobsworth is part of being British.

We don't do haggling or bending rules.
 
The upside to it is there is less chance of corruption, being faced by an unmoving jobsworth is part of being British.

I guess it depends what you mean by corruption, though! It's true, you don't get the same corruption here as on the continent, but the civil service is also very conservative (not in a partisan sense, but in the sense that it's very difficult to reform and moves very slowly - conservative sort of how the military is, but without the excuse that they're risking their lives). This negatively affects anyone trying to drastically reform any area of public life - I remember Adonis talking about how difficult getting the Academy implementation through the civil service was. In fact, they never really succeeded to a large extent. Sir Humphries is, from what I hear, only a mild exaggeration. That such road blocks are put in front of our elected officials is not corruption per se, but its certainly a corruption of the process.
 

PJV3

Member
I guess it depends what you mean by corruption, though! It's true, you don't get the same corruption here as on the continent, but the civil service is also very conservative (not in a partisan sense, but in the sense that it's very difficult to reform and moves very slowly - conservative sort of how the military is, but without the excuse that they're risking their lives). This negatively affects anyone trying to drastically reform any area of public life - I remember Adonis talking about how difficult getting the Academy implementation through the civil service was. In fact, they never really succeeded to a large extent. Sir Humphries is, from what I hear, only a mild exaggeration. That such road blocks are put in front of our elected officials is not corruption per se, but its certainly a corruption of the process.

Sadly they are the only brake in the system, the idea of Blair or Cameron having things even easier makes me anxious.

It's the worst way of doing it, I agree.
 
Sadly they are the only brake in the system, the idea of Blair or Cameron having things even easier makes me anxious.

It's the worst way of doing it, I agree.

And an odd curiosity is that it's routinely been the House of Lords that have the primary protectors of liberties throughout the UK for the last 15 or so years.

Maybe we've got this democracy thing all wrong, and the Eurocrats were right! Let's get Mario Monti in here.
 

PJV3

Member
And an odd curiosity is that it's routinely been the House of Lords that have the primary protectors of liberties throughout the UK for the last 15 or so years.

Maybe we've got this democracy thing all wrong, and the Eurocrats were right! Let's get Mario Monti in here.

The Lords is a crazy way of doing stuff, if labour win the next election they're gonna need an extension to house the appointees.

We will all be Lords at the present rate.
 
In other news HPI ticked up to 2.7%

Dat irresponsible housing boom policy.

Seriously government policy on housing subsidies are going to lead to a brand new housing bubble which will burst just after the election, fucking over the inevitable Lab/Lib coalition. Easily the most political move made by our overtly political chancellor.
 

Acorn

Member
And an odd curiosity is that it's routinely been the House of Lords that have the primary protectors of liberties throughout the UK for the last 15 or so years.

Maybe we've got this democracy thing all wrong, and the Eurocrats were right! Let's get Mario Monti in here.

Yep, the last 20 years have made me a firm believer in the lords. Often they are only voice of reason/empathy around Westminster.
 

PJV3

Member
The IMF is the ultimate jobs for the boys scam. What is the point of that conference?

I thought we all knew this stuff(IMF position) anyway.

Also, I don't see Ed getting any donations from Google in the future.
 

Acorn

Member
The IMF is the ultimate jobs for the boys scam. What is the point of that conference?

I thought we all knew this stuff(IMF position) anyway.
A few days away from your countries shitty domestic problems and to look vaguely important.
 
In other news HPI ticked up to 2.7%

Dat irresponsible housing boom policy.

Seriously government policy on housing subsidies are going to lead to a brand new housing bubble which will burst just after the election, fucking over the inevitable Lab/Lib coalition. Easily the most political move made by our overtly political chancellor.

Economic policy is always going to be dictated by the need to be re-elected, it's an inevitable part of the democratic process. Example: The Trident replacement decision magically being post-poned until 2015.
 

Acorn

Member
Economic policy is always going to be dictated by the need to be re-elected, it's an inevitable part of the democratic process. Example: The Trident replacement decision magically being post-poned until 2015.
I loved the repeated trident u turns by everyone. IF WE DON'T DO IT YESTERDAY WE ARE FUCKED! JK We've eeked out the last wee bit of nuke we are cool for another few years.
 

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
If anyone has a People's Assembly event near them they should go. Real fun and interesting.

D1V9upl.jpg
 
Rising nationalistic sentiment. Certain factions are going to lap this up.
You really think there is? If it's not Ukip it's the BNP, and UKIP are a totally different sort of nationalism to the BNP or Nf. I don't think there's a time when nationalism doesn't worry the people who find themselves worried by Nationalism in England.
 
Top Bottom