Future of Royal Mail and the Hooper Review

Post by **dvbuk55** » 16 Dec 2008, 16:31

k979aaa wrote:Lindsay hoyle mp for chorley has just said that the DSA companies should pay their way and packets have massively increased!.

Well there's a bloke who obviously knows what he's talking about, he has probably spent more time than most MPs, many of whom are sponsored by the CWU in researching the problems we face. It will be interesting to see what the CWUs response will be in continuing to support a Labour Government which has clearly reneged on the agreements made by NOT privatising but "sharing partnership with investment". I wonder how long it took to come up with that particular phraseology. Hooper himself said "they had deliberately not used the word privatisation" in an interview on Sky, well if it isn't then why deliberately avoid it.

chromium05 · Post by **chromium05** » 16 Dec 2008, 16:32

dvbuk55 wrote:
k979aaa wrote:Hooper himself said "they had deliberately not used the word privatisation" in an interview on Sky, well if it isn't then why deliberately avoid it.

Good point!!

BELIAL · Post by **BELIAL** » 16 Dec 2008, 16:39

Not too good at backing winners our lot. "we've got the promised review"; "we've secured agreement with Warwick 2"; "funding labour boosts our influence".
Lets hope the well prepared back up plan kicks into gear straight away, cos surely this comes as a surprise to no one

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 16 Dec 2008, 16:42

The best bit in the commons was when one of the Conservatives said to McFadden that he would like to welcome the New Labour Party to the Thatcherite wing of the Conservative Party.

Post by **fmrPOSTIE** » 16 Dec 2008, 16:44

Adam Crozier on SKY News in 3 minutes

(i see in the Hooper Report that it says privatisation should be considered with Parcelforce & GLS).

Post by **fmrPOSTIE** » 16 Dec 2008, 16:52

Crozier refused to accept it was privatisation even though Kay Burley repeatedly put to him that it was a part-privatisation of sorts. Is this guy a cock or something, does he not know that if you go from 100% owned Government business to selling a stake IT IS PRIVATISATION?

Crozier did say that it is not privatisation because the Govt will be a "majority shareholder"....either that or AC doesn't actually know what the plans are. I think they have underestimated the feeling against this!

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 16 Dec 2008, 16:57

Time for :cfo and :lfo to go

Can't manage change, have destroyed IR and are responsible for the decline of RM. Of course we're going to end up with some failed bankers (anyone want to hire a Ponzi

).

Post by **fmrPOSTIE** » 16 Dec 2008, 17:11

disgruntledpostie1 wrote:Time for :cfo and :lfo to go Can't manage change, have destroyed IR and are responsible for the decline of RM. Of course we're going to end up with some failed bankers (anyone want to hire a Ponzi ).

The thing that really sticks in my throat is the revelation by Lord Mandelson that Royal Mail management failed to take up all of the financial support offered by the government, RM should have pulled out all the stops and brought in the machinary quicker...

Peter Mandelson keeps saying on the news channels that their are no plans to privatise the company, and Billy Hayes seemed relaxed on BBC News too, i suspect any partner brought in will not be buying a stake in RMG, but what will they get in return, how will they make their money?

Post by **fmrPOSTIE** » 16 Dec 2008, 17:22

TNT announces interest to explore strategic partnership with Royal Mail

16 December 2008 at 16:20 CET - Amsterdam, TNT has today expressed its interest to explore a strategic partnership with Royal Mail. The publication of the Hooper Commission report today, which sets out a number of critical requirements for a sustainable future for Royal Mail, forms the background of TNT’s renewed expression of interest.

Peter Bakker, CEO of TNT, said: ‘’Royal Mail and TNT have explored partnership opportunities in the past. The views of the Hooper Commission provide a clear framework for the UK postal sector going forward. Assuming the UK government implements these recommendations, I think that exploring a strategic partnership with Royal Mail makes a lot of sense for both our companies.’’

Since the Secretary of State for Business announced a comprehensive review of the developments in the UK postal services market last year, TNT has been invited to actively share its views, just like other stakeholders. The emerging views of the Hooper Commission - that focus mainly on the sustainability of the USO and Royal Mail - form a clear frame of reference for the development of the postal sector in the UK. The Hooper Commission indicates the need for a strong strategic partnership for Royal Mail, the resolution of pension liabilities and development of a predictable and stable regulatory environment.

The objective of the partnership would be to help develop Royal Mail into a modern, best-in-class postal operator that combines excellent mail service with solid and sustainable financial performance as part of a broader global network. The scope of a potential partnership would exclude Post Office retail outlets given its public service network function.

TNT’s proposal

TNT’s proposal to Her Majesty’s Government is to enter into discussions on a strategic partnership with Royal Mail with the objective to reach agreement on key terms and conditions for a substantial minority shareholding. TNT’s proposal assumes the implementation of the key recommendations of the Hooper Commission that are instrumental to a sustainable future for Royal Mail.

Post by **dvbuk55** » 16 Dec 2008, 17:29

Trinitrotoluene, commonly known as TNT, is a constituent of many explosives - whoa I wasn't expecting a big bang.

chromium05 · Post by **chromium05** » 16 Dec 2008, 17:32

fmrPOSTIE wrote:
TNT’s proposal to Her Majesty’s Government is to enter into discussions on a strategic partnership with Royal Mail with the objective to reach agreement on key terms and conditions for a substantial minority shareholding

Is it me or does that phrase mean absolutely nothing? They either have a substantial share or a minority share - it can't be both..... unless this is a prime example of Orwellian "Double-Speak"

Post by **fmrPOSTIE** » 16 Dec 2008, 17:34

management speak for less than 50% - 33% perhaps...?

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 16 Dec 2008, 17:36

fmrPOSTIE wrote:management speak for less than 50% - 33% perhaps...?

49.9% would be my guess - privatisation in name to everyone except the Labour Government

Stormproof · Post by **Stormproof** » 16 Dec 2008, 17:38

chromium05 wrote:
fmrPOSTIE wrote:
TNT’s proposal to Her Majesty’s Government is to enter into discussions on a strategic partnership with Royal Mail with the objective to reach agreement on key terms and conditions for a substantial minority shareholding

Is it me or does that phrase mean absolutely nothing? They either have a substantial share or a minority share - it can't be both..... unless this is a prime example of Orwellian "Double-Speak"

I thought the same, that sentence does'nt make any sense

Post by **fmrPOSTIE** » 16 Dec 2008, 17:42

hmmmmmm 49% seems to high and would be in flagrant breach of the manifesto comittment, in my opinon. If anything i reckon it will fall between 10 and 33%, if thats what the BERR are proposing, there seems to be a play with words on what their intentions actually are, as most of us saw, the reaction from the Labour side was one of angry and dissapointed at this proposal. The Minister just kept batting back the privatisation questions with the generic response that the govt will keep its manifesto comittmen of a publicly owned Royal Mail.

My question is anything other than 100% is not publicly owned!