Royal Mail returned to private ownership

[Bedford Roughyed]

You may of missed the bit when the Royal Mail was ever in private hands, but George Osborne returned it there last night.

 

[Griff9of13]

Re-writing history. Again.

 

600 years old next year, founded by Henry VIII and always state controlled. 

[JohnM]

Here's something else  that is 600 years old.  Do you want that back too?

 

[Griff9of13]

Nothing to do with wanting to go back 600, just not too keen on being lied to by our elected representatives.

I also see this latest sale was another furtive, back door jobbie; unannounced to their friends in the finance industry when the price was over 50p underpriced. There's nothing like honest, open government. And this is absolutely nothing like honest, open government.

[Saintslass]

Re-writing history. Again.

 

600 years old next year, founded by Henry VIII and always state controlled. 

Apparently it was only nationalised in 1969:

 

1969 Under the Post Office Act of 1969, the General Post Office changed from a government department to a nationalised industry.

 

(And a mere two years later it was suspended for two months due to a strike!  Oh, for the days of nationalisation ...)

 

A brief history of the postal service in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-mail/7814591/The-Royal-Mail-a-history-of-the-British-postal-service.html

 

I don't think Osborne was rewriting history.  I think he was simply talking in a context most people understand. The postal service was nationalised in 1969. Therefore, prior to that, it was a privately run service (or services, since at one stage there were multiple postal services throughout the country) although complicated by the fact that it was overseen by a government department, just as so many pre nationalised industries would have been I should imagine (for example the multiple rail companies).

[Padge]

Apparently it was only nationalised in 1969:

 

1969 Under the Post Office Act of 1969, the General Post Office changed from a government department to a nationalised industry.

 

(And a mere two years later it was suspended for two months due to a strike!  Oh, for the days of nationalisation ...)

 

A brief history of the postal service in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-mail/7814591/The-Royal-Mail-a-history-of-the-British-postal-service.html

 

I don't think Osborne was rewriting history.  I think he was simply talking in a context most people understand. The postal service was nationalised in 1969. Therefore, prior to that, it was a privately run service (or services, since at one stage there were multiple postal services throughout the country) although complicated by the fact that it was overseen by a government department, just as so many pre nationalised industries would have been I should imagine (for example the multiple rail companies).

 

Who were the shareholders of this private industry?

[Saintslass]

Who were the shareholders of this private industry?

Not all private companies have shareholders.

 

If you Google the history of Royal Mail you will find out that there were lots of little postal services to start with, each run as separate entities, all over the country.

[Padge]

Not all private companies have shareholders.

 

If you Google the history of Royal Mail you will find out that there were lots of little postal services to start with, each run as separate entities, all over the country.

 

Lets try again, in 1969, who was the shareholder(s)/owner(s) of this private company that was nationalised.

[Saintslass]

Lets try again, in 1969, who was the shareholder(s)/owner(s) of this private company that was nationalised.

I have no idea why you are so obsessed with shareholders.  The private sector is full of companies/organisations that do not have shareholders.  Did the private rail companies have shareholders before they were nationalised?

[WearyRhino]

Did the private rail companies have shareholders before they were nationalised?

Err... a loud and emphatic YES.

 

[Saintslass]

Err... a loud and emphatic YES.

 

Ok.

 

But you do know that private enterprises exist which don't have shareholders don't you?  I assume you do anyway.  So it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that prior to the mail service being nationalised, it was made up of multiple private enterprises under the auspices of a government department.  Just because things are set out as they are today doesn't mean they were set out like that 400 years ago.

[WearyRhino]

Ok.

 

But you do know that private enterprises exist which don't have shareholders don't you?  I assume you do anyway.  So it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that prior to the mail service being nationalised, it was made up of multiple private enterprises under the auspices of a government department.  Just because things are set out as they are today doesn't mean they were set out like that 400 years ago.

 

No. ALL businesses have 'shareholders'. They don't all issue share certificates on an open stock market but they ALL have shareholders - a one man business has one shareholder, a nationalised business has a nation of shareholders.

 

Of course, mail used to be in the hands of, to use your phrase, "multiple private enterprises" 400 years ago, but that was a time before capitalism and before anything that we would recognise as government and state, even existed. The clue is in the name, The Royal Mail, the delivery of mail under the auspices of a royal warrant and the protection that that implies. 400 year ago, it was a network of horsemen and carriages. HMG have not 'returned' anything a network of horsemen and carriage owners, they have given a profitable business to a set of faceless capitalist speculators whose only interest is in making money and NOT providing a service. The result will be asset stripping and a destruction of the mail service as we know it. They will ditch the non-profitable bits as soon as they can. I quite like having mail delivered to my front door, by the security of someone who has signed the Official Secrets Act, but we are all going to have to get rid of that notion because we are probably going to have to pick up our mail at local delivery points fairly soon.

 

Typical Tories, they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

[Methven Hornet]

Prior to the Post Office Act 1969, what is now Royal Mail was a government department.

[Padge]

Prior to the Post Office Act 1969, what is now Royal Mail was a government department.

 

So the major (only shareholder) was the government, so the government nationalised a bit of itself, but since it was a government department previously it wasn't a nationalised industry. Once nationalised it became an industry owned by the government that was controlled by a government department.

[Saintslass]

No. ALL businesses have 'shareholders'. They don't all issue share certificates on an open stock market but they ALL have shareholders - a one man business has one shareholder, a nationalised business has a nation of shareholders.

 

Of course, mail used to be in the hands of, to use your phrase, "multiple private enterprises" 400 years ago, but that was a time before capitalism and before anything that we would recognise as government and state, even existed. The clue is in the name, The Royal Mail, the delivery of mail under the auspices of a royal warrant and the protection that that implies. 400 year ago, it was a network of horsemen and carriages. HMG have not 'returned' anything a network of horsemen and carriage owners, they have given a profitable business to a set of faceless capitalist speculators whose only interest is in making money and NOT providing a service.

So, let's get this straight then.  A postage enterprise started by a King - hence the name 'Royal Mail' - started out in a time before capitalism, government and state and yet it was overseen by a government department for much of its life, was not a unified organisation for much of its life and it became nationalised only in 1969.  So what then: was the Royal Mail in some kind of parallel universe between its inception and its nationalisation? 

 

Capitalism has existed for hundreds of years in one form or another: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa49

 

So has the British government, in one form or another: http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/

[Methven Hornet]

So the major (only shareholder) was the government, so the government nationalised a bit of itself, but since it was a government department previously it wasn't a nationalised industry. Once nationalised it became an industry owned by the government that was controlled by a government department.

Basically, yes. It's like the Foreign Office is owned by the state but it's not a nationalised industry. As cynics at the time said it did allow the government to claim that they had slashed the number of civil servants

[tim2]

Whatever the status of the Royal Mail pre-1969, it certainly wasn't in "Private Ownership" or the "Private Sector"

[PCarter]

No. ALL businesses have 'shareholders'. They don't all issue share certificates on an open stock market but they ALL have shareholders - a one man business has one shareholder, a nationalised business has a nation of shareholders.

 

Of course, mail used to be in the hands of, to use your phrase, "multiple private enterprises" 400 years ago, but that was a time before capitalism and before anything that we would recognise as government and state, even existed. The clue is in the name, The Royal Mail, the delivery of mail under the auspices of a royal warrant and the protection that that implies. 400 year ago, it was a network of horsemen and carriages. HMG have not 'returned' anything a network of horsemen and carriage owners, they have given a profitable business to a set of faceless capitalist speculators whose only interest is in making money and NOT providing a service. The result will be asset stripping and a destruction of the mail service as we know it. They will ditch the non-profitable bits as soon as they can. I quite like having mail delivered to my front door, by the security of someone who has signed the Official Secrets Act, but we are all going to have to get rid of that notion because we are probably going to have to pick up our mail at local delivery points fairly soon.

 

Typical Tories, they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

 

I think you need to learn the fundamental difference between shareholders and stakeholders.

[PCarter]

So the major (only shareholder) was the government, so the government nationalised a bit of itself, but since it was a government department previously it wasn't a nationalised industry. Once nationalised it became an industry owned by the government that was controlled by a government department.

 

The Royal Mail was not state owned prior to nationalisation.  It was subject to state regulation.

[Griff9of13]

The Royal Mail was not state owned prior to nationalisation.  It was subject to state regulation.

 

Really? Who owned it then (clue: all it's employees were classed as civil servants)?

[WearyRhino]

I think you need to learn the fundamental difference between shareholders and stakeholders.

 

No, I understand the difference. As a citizen of the United Kingdom I had a 1/64,000,000 'share' of Royal Mail and a 'stake' in maintaining a door to door delivery service as I don't much like the idea of having to collect my mail from a 'local delivery point'.

[PCarter]

No, I understand the difference. As a citizen of the United Kingdom I had a 1/64,000,000 'share' of Royal Mail and a 'stake' in maintaining a door to door delivery service as I don't much like the idea of having to collect my mail from a 'local delivery point'.

 

As a citizen of the United Kingdom, you are a stakeholder in state owned assets.  You do not have a shareholding in them.

 

Basic capitalism, though this may well prove to be beyond your sphere of understanding.

 

Door to door service will always be provided to those who want to pay for it.

[Griff9of13]

As a citizen of the United Kingdom, you are a stakeholder in state owned assets.  You do not have a shareholding in them.

 

Basic capitalism, though this may well prove to be beyond your sphere of understanding.

 

Door to door service will always be provided to those who want to pay for it.

 

 

Don't you mean "those who can afford it" rather than those who want it.

 

Therefore, for the majority, the service will reduce. Or become more expensive. Or both. Yeah for privatisation.

[WearyRhino]

As a citizen of the United Kingdom, you are a stakeholder in state owned assets.  You do not have a shareholding in them.

 

Basic capitalism, though this may well prove to be beyond your sphere of understanding.

 

Door to door service will always be provided to those who want to pay for it.

 

No, I have a 1/64,000,000 share of all nationally owned assets. So do you. As a Marxist, I have a fantastic understanding of Capitalism. You do realise that things have value beyond what people are willing to pay? We each also own 1/64,000,000 of the armed forces too. Do you propose to sell that off? Then perhaps an armed force will be provided for those who want to pay for it. Perhaps we could all join the likes of Duke of Atholl and have our own private army?

[Saintslass]

Whatever the status of the Royal Mail pre-1969, it certainly wasn't in "Private Ownership" or the "Private Sector"

I'm sure a few hundred years back when there were numerous privately run enterprises offering the royal mail service the phrase 'private sector' didn't actually exist.