Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:43 am  

cod'ead wrote: Flogging off Royal Mail could be chickenfeed when compared to the proposal to: Hawk off the student loan book If that goes through there's going to be some seriously pissed off students knocking around LOL - thats not just a timebomb, its a nuclear weapon of mass destruction for the Conservatives and especially for the LibDems if they ever put their name to any such legislation - what 20-something year-old is ever going to vote for either of them for the rest of their life when they find that they've been royally shafted and their student loans aren't ever going to be paid off, for the rest of their lives - its like a constant reminder at every annual statement that you were sold down the river by two political party's who are now knocking on your door and asking you to vote for them again

cod'ead wrote: Flogging off Royal Mail could be chickenfeed when compared to the proposal to: Hawk off the student loan book If that goes through there's going to be some seriously pissed off students knocking around LOL - thats not just a timebomb, its a nuclear weapon of mass destruction for the Conservatives and especially for the LibDems if they ever put their name to any such legislation - what 20-something year-old is ever going to vote for either of them for the rest of their life when they find that they've been royally shafted and their student loans aren't ever going to be paid off, for the rest of their lives - its like a constant reminder at every annual statement that you were sold down the river by two political party's who are now knocking on your door and asking you to vote for them again

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:12 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

LOL - thats not just a timebomb, its a nuclear weapon of mass destruction for the Conservatives and especially for the LibDems if they ever put their name to any such legislation - what 20-something year-old is ever going to vote for either of them for the rest of their life when they find that they've been royally shafted and their student loans aren't ever going to be paid off, for the rest of their lives - its like a constant reminder at every annual statement that you were sold down the river by two political party's who are now knocking on your door and asking you to vote for them again

The problem is that Osbourne, Cameron & Clegg will be thinking 'whats another £25 a month, a half bottle of decent red'

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:37 pm  

Derwent wrote:

There's nothing new about that. If they apply the same approach to what happened when the Labour Govt privatised the nuclear industry (BNFL) then the employees' pensions will be frozen in the current scheme and the government will have the liability for that, and the new owner will be required to implement a new pension scheme into which all future pension contributions will be paid. The employees will be given the option of freezing their current pension (and keeping the index-linking) and making future contributions into the new scheme, or transferring their whole pension fund into the new scheme (unlikely). In summary, the government will only be liable for pensions accrued up to the point of sale.

Surprisingly this seems to have been conveniently ignored by the loony left on here eh Mr Fish!!

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:38 pm  

rover49 wrote:

The problem is that Osbourne, Cameron & Clegg will be thinking 'whats another £25 a month, a half bottle of decent red'

You wouldn't get a decent half bottle of red for that

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:15 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote: Surprisingly this seems to have been conveniently ignored by the loony left on here eh Mr Fish!! Ey up, the real world must've broken up for the weekend. I seriously doubt that the BNFL pension scheme was comparable to Royal Mail's scheme. They certainly had nowhere close to the number of members, RM's pension scheme has more members than even the NHS. I also doubt BNFL's pension deficit was nywhere close to RM's £9bn More here Looks like Osborne wants to get his grubby mits on the £28bn of assets and then spread the £37bn of liabilities over the coming years. Another brilliant deal for the taxpayers

Sal Paradise wrote: Surprisingly this seems to have been conveniently ignored by the loony left on here eh Mr Fish!! Ey up, the real world must've broken up for the weekend. I seriously doubt that the BNFL pension scheme was comparable to Royal Mail's scheme. They certainly had nowhere close to the number of members, RM's pension scheme has more members than even the NHS. I also doubt BNFL's pension deficit was nywhere close to RM's £9bn More here Looks like Osborne wants to get his grubby mits on the £28bn of assets and then spread the £37bn of liabilities over the coming years. Another brilliant deal for the taxpayers

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:52 am  

cod'ead wrote: Ey up, the real world must've broken up for the weekend. I seriously doubt that the BNFL pension scheme was comparable to Royal Mail's scheme. They certainly had nowhere close to the number of members, RM's pension scheme has more members than even the NHS. I also doubt BNFL's pension deficit was nywhere close to RM's £9bn More here Looks like Osborne wants to get his grubby mits on the £28bn of assets and then spread the £37bn of liabilities over the coming years. Another brilliant deal for the taxpayers It isn't about the numbers is it - it is about the principle - you do actually agree the same protocol has been applied? Why would any private company want to accept a pension fund deficit of this size on such a marginal business? The business itself is technically insolvent i.e. it has a negative balance sheet. On that basis it is worth nothing. So if you want to sell it then what options do you have. This is a marginal business at best and a deep financial pit at worst. It doesn't appear the public sector can run it with even a small surplus at operating level so surely it would be better to let somebody else have a go?

cod'ead wrote: Ey up, the real world must've broken up for the weekend. I seriously doubt that the BNFL pension scheme was comparable to Royal Mail's scheme. They certainly had nowhere close to the number of members, RM's pension scheme has more members than even the NHS. I also doubt BNFL's pension deficit was nywhere close to RM's £9bn More here Looks like Osborne wants to get his grubby mits on the £28bn of assets and then spread the £37bn of liabilities over the coming years. Another brilliant deal for the taxpayers It isn't about the numbers is it - it is about the principle - you do actually agree the same protocol has been applied? Why would any private company want to accept a pension fund deficit of this size on such a marginal business? The business itself is technically insolvent i.e. it has a negative balance sheet. On that basis it is worth nothing. So if you want to sell it then what options do you have. This is a marginal business at best and a deep financial pit at worst. It doesn't appear the public sector can run it with even a small surplus at operating level so surely it would be better to let somebody else have a go?

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:37 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

It isn't about the numbers is it - it is about the principle - you do actually agree the same protocol has been applied?

Why would any private company want to accept a pension fund deficit of this size on such a marginal business? The business itself is technically insolvent i.e. it has a negative balance sheet. On that basis it is worth nothing. So if you want to sell it then what options do you have. This is a marginal business at best and a deep financial pit at worst. It doesn't appear the public sector can run it with even a small surplus at operating level so surely it would be better to let somebody else have a go?

So that's how business is conducted in the real world? Privatise the profits and socialise any losses and liabilities?

Some free market that is

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:07 am  

cod'ead wrote:

So that's how business is conducted in the real world? Privatise the profits and socialise any losses and liabilities?

Some free market that is

If this was a private company the pension losses would never have got that big, the arrangements would have been changed to minimise the exposure. If this were a private company the pension deficit would have taken it under years ago. This is the cost of public ownership - something you need to reflect on when espousing public ownership as the true way!!

No wonder the government want rid of it.

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:08 am  

cod'ead wrote:

So that's how business is conducted in the real world? Privatise the profits and socialise any losses and liabilities?

Some free market that is

Increase profits by paying staff too little to live and socialising (in effect) this so that taxpayers pick up the difference through in-work benefits, including, but not limited to, housing benefit (which itself also sees the taxpayer increasing the profits of private businesses/individuals).

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:24 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Why would any private company want to accept a pension fund deficit of this size on such a marginal business? The business itself is technically insolvent i.e. it has a negative balance sheet. On that basis it is worth nothing. So if you want to sell it then what options do you have. This is a marginal business at best and a deep financial pit at worst. It doesn't appear the public sector can run it with even a small surplus at operating level so surely it would be better to let somebody else have a go?

It's not really insolvent as it can meet its obligations, the majority of its liabilities being long term. Also just because a company has zero net worth does not necessarily mean it is worth nothing.
Since it seems so difficult to run at a profit then I think most people would question the wisdom of placing it into a situation where it has to make a profit or die. It would seem, to me at least, an ideal organisation to be run and partly subsidised by the public sector.

Sal Paradise wrote:

cod'ead wrote:

So that's how business is conducted in the real world? Privatise the profits and socialise any losses and liabilities?

Some free market that is

If this was a private company the pension losses would never have got that big, the arrangements would have been changed to minimise the exposure. If this were a private company the pension deficit would have taken it under years ago. This is the cost of public ownership - something you need to reflect on when espousing public ownership as the true way!!

No wonder the government want rid of it.

The Royal Mail introduced a new DC pension scheme 5 years ago.
11 FTSE 100 companies have pension deficits greater than their EMV. 3 huge British corporations are committed to paying out pensions worth double their market value.