Super-Twat

[ian]

We should really blame the government – this is the inevitable outcome of the sell-off.

[citoyen]

Oh yes, once again the myth that public services will function better if run as "competitive" businesses on the open market laid bare.

[TimC]

The Royal Mail made decent profits last year, on their biggest turnover since privatisation (remember, 10% of the company went to the employees, who currently number around 160,000). They most certainly should have invested more of their profits into their workforce, but to declare the company a failure as a result of privatisation is a curious interpretation of the facts.

[citoyen]

Those record profits came on the back of ever worsening working conditions for employees and a downgraded service for customers. Running the business like that was never sustainable.

[ian]

The Royal Mail made decent profits last year, on their biggest turnover since privatisation (remember, 10% of the company went to the employees, who currently number around 160,000). They most certainly should have invested more of their profits into their workforce, but to declare the company a failure as a result of privatisation is a curious interpretation of the facts.

Yes, but it's a divergent business, and the domestic side is lumbered with liabilities that its competitors don't have and the management would obviously rather be rid of it. I wouldn't argue that should have invested (I'd say that for many businesses who'd rather pay shareholder dividends or cream it off in executive pay) but they're a public company (and we made it so) and so are entitled, if their shareholders don't demur to chase the shorter term profit. I think expecting to go any other way is a bit naive. It's like expecting my friendly local, ToC to run a better service when all the incentives are for them to do the opposite.

[citoyen]

And the fundamental question remains why does a vital public service need to be run as a profit making business?

It’s never going to be the taxpayer who benefits from that philosophy.

[Beardy]

I said it at the time of the Bt privatisation and I’ll repeat it again, public services and utilities have no place in private hands.

The interconnected nature of their businesses means that there can be no realist competition without strong regulation, and the public service obligations will either go by the wayside, or will be pilled onto on firm and insufficient lay funded by the others (through more regulation).

On top of that, the long term planning and investment that is vital to service delivery security, is an anathema¹ to private enterprise and will be paid little more than lip service. See the current power issues and this summers water issues as cases in point.

1. Indeed a public limited company could argue that its legal duty to maximise shareholder value trumps its need to invest in the future. Let’s face it, an CEO who does get sacked for short termism will have already banked his bonus so is unlikely to be that bothered.

[TimC]

I think the point was that competition rules had allowed lots of other players into the market, and thus there was no point or need for the government to run the service. They put in place minimum service rules to protect rural and remote communities, but otherwise released RM to compete. The advent of electronic communications makes the contention that post is an essential public service moot, and I would certainly argue that it is not in the least comparable to utility services which are a requirement for existence. To a very large extent, the withdrawal of postal services either by strikes or commercial expediency will make no difference to most peoples' lives.

[citoyen]

I think the point was that competition rules had allowed lots of other players into the market, and thus there was no point or need for the government to run the service.

They* deregulated delivery services with the express intention of undermining Royal Mail in order to justify their goal of selling it off.

*the last Labour government, which makes it all the more galling. Doing the tories job for them. I’ve stuck up for them in other threads, but I know they made some horrendous mistakes too.

[citoyen]

Paul Dacre isn’t getting his peerage after all.

Break out the tiny violins.

[ian]

I think the point was that competition rules had allowed lots of other players into the market, and thus there was no point or need for the government to run the service. They put in place minimum service rules to protect rural and remote communities, but otherwise released RM to compete. The advent of electronic communications makes the contention that post is an essential public service moot, and I would certainly argue that it is not in the least comparable to utility services which are a requirement for existence. To a very large extent, the withdrawal of postal services either by strikes or commercial expediency will make no difference to most peoples' lives.

Certainly, good point, but I expect the same runes are being read by the Royal Mail's management team, sadly.

[ian]

Paul Dacre isn’t getting his peerage after all.

Break out the tiny violins.

You'd struggle to see mine with a transmission electron microscope.

[hatler]

Paul Dacre isn’t getting his peerage after all.

Break out the tiny violins.

A scintilla of good news in an otherwise bleak few weeks.

[Mrs Pingu]

Not yet, anyway.

[Jaded]

Not yet, anyway.

Yes, not while he is a practising journalist, I read.

[citoyen]

Not yet, anyway.

Yes, not while he is a practising journalist, I read.

Hmmm. That may be the *official* reason…

Do we seriously believe that being a practising journalist is more of a bar to becoming a member of the lords than being the newspaper-owning son of a former KGB officer?

[Tim Hall]

Jacob Rees-Mogg for his twattish and not pretentious oh no not at all resignation letter.

[Mr Larrington]

And here it is in full:



Edit: his handwriting is fucking terrible.  He should’ve got Nanny Astaroth to write it.  In blood.

Edit 2: Those wags at Metro – Jacob Reeſ-Mogg’ſ hand-written resignation letter iſ ſlathered with pretention

[Canardly]

He does write like a pisse-mire.

[drgannet]

I would like to get in a first nomination for our new PM, for putting together a government of 'integrity', and then re-appointing a minister who was sacked 6 days previously for breaking the ministerial code.

[Giraffe]

I suspect that the 'breaking' was an excuse to resign without appearing to be disloyal - a cunning ruse to leave a way back. She appeared to have honesty and integrity whilst saying 'f-you, brain-dead bimbo!'.

[Polar Bear]

A government of integrity?

Sunak, Braverman, Hunt, Jenrick, Raab, Gove, Mordaunt, Coffey, Cleverly, Shapps, Zahawi, Badenoch, Williamson, Mitchell, ...

Hmmm, maybe not. 

A clusterfuck of Super Twats?  Yes, definitely.

[TheLurker]

A government of integrity....

Oh at last.  One is completely reassured.  I will sleep peacefully tonight.

[Hot Flatus]

It's the sense of disappointment, isn't it.

New leader. Cabinet reshuffle. Chance for a change.

But he's filled it with fucking Tories.

[Polar Bear]

Thing is, the talent pool is excruciatingly small and the list of cynical, narcissistic, greedy tory MP's who have served in government since 2010 is long.  They are struggling for choice.

Thankfully my local fascist remains too dumb to serve.