Mandelson quizzed by MPs

[POSTMAN]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog ... on-economy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


10.09am: They're moving on to the Royal Mail now. Mandelson opens with a long spiel about his plans, stressing that the Royal Mail will remain in public ownership. But Lindsay Hoyle, the Labour MP, asking the questions, is not impressed. He suggests that under Mandelson's plan, which would involve a foreign company buying a minority stake in the company, would result in "a taxpayer subsidy for every letter that is giving money to foreign shareholders".

Mandelson says that he thinks there is "greater common ground" between himself and Hoyle than Hoyle recognises. In the international postal market firms needs international alliances. That's why the Royal Mail needs a foreign partner to buy a minority stake.

"We will not get that stronger, more efficient Royal Mail without the investment, the introduction of technology, the reform of working practices that everyone, including the CWU [the postal union] accepts. They are not dyed-in-the-wool people who want to keep the Royal Mail as it is."

10.11am: Hoyle says that he and Mandelson believe in modernisation, they believe in a strong future for the Royal Mail and they believe in it making a profit for the taxpayer. But he does not agree with the way Mandelson wants to achieve these things.

Mandelson says that Hoyle's proposal, which would involve changes to the way postal services are subsidised, is not as straightforward as it sounds. If it was, the government would have done it already.

10.26am: Kirkbride asks Mandelson why he thinks the Labour party is so "neuralgic" about Royal Mail privatisation. In the past Mandelson has been keen to pick a fight with the Labour left, but today he is trying his best to establish common ground with his critics in the party.

"I think it's a pragmatic view taken by the Labour party," he says. "I don't think the Royal Mail and its customers would benefit from privatisation, which is why I'm opposed to it.

"There may be concern, as it has been expressed to me by some Labour MPs, that you take one step, introducing a minority stakeholder, and it's not then such a big leap to seeing ownership of the Royal Mail going into the private sector so that public sector ownership is lost. I refute that.

"I do not believe that we are looking at incremental steps, let alone a slippery slope to privatisation. I completely reject that, unless, of course, by some misfortune to this country this government were to be replaced by an alternative after the election."

Mandelson is playing to the gallery now. "What a misfortune that would be," he goes on. But such a prospect is "not likely".

Kirkbride then asks if Mandelson is happy to be breaking the "spirit" of the party's manifesto at the last election, which promised that the Royal Mail would remain in public ownership. This prompts an even more overblown put-down.

"No, no, no, no, no," he says. "Absolutely not. There's no question of us breaking the letter or spirit of our recent manifesto." The government is committed to keeping the Royal Mail in the public sector.

[Yahoorsur]

"No, no, no, no, no," he says. "Absolutely not. There's no question of us breaking the letter or spirit of our recent manifesto." The government is committed to keeping the Royal Mail in the public sector.


:mfo :mfo

[norbert]

"No, no, no, no, no," he says. "Absolutely not. There's no question of us breaking the letter or spirit of our recent manifesto." The government is committed to keeping the Royal Mail in the public sector.


:mfo :mfo

very disingenuous / economical with the truth - there's been bad blood between New Liebour & the CWU since the mid 90's - B- Liar's Chancellor McBean sent up a stakeholder's executive years ago to increase the value of publicly / part owned state companies - why increase the value ? - the 22 million dollar question

:lfo was brought in for his Walmart union - avoidance experience as the CWU would be an obstacle in splitting up / selling off RM group by Stephen Byers

[dvbuk55]

Yes the bad blood must really be bad - how many millions have we given New Labour?

[norbert]

Yes the bad blood must really be bad - how many millions have we given New Labour?

that's the problem with New Labour , it falls on it's own contradictions with this third way thing - the ironic thing was that New Labour needed Prescott to keep both the two parts of the party together and Blair and Brown apart .

The problem Brown has , is that he is too dictated to by his Ministers and the unofficial Deputy Prime Minister Mandy - the original idea was to neutralize the Tory party but that's backfired as people will just say that they might as well vote for a proper Tory party ! - the only thing that's Liberal about New Labour , is borrowing to reflate the economy ( most of that is all spin like 2% off VAT ) and only selling off 33% of RM !

It's not a Labour Party - kindest thing you can say is that it's like the Democrats in the States .

The Warwick agreement was purely to fend off any Union trouble just before the last election in 2005 - Mandy is just trying to move the goalposts

Mandy's game is the Tory bogey - man threat and sod everybody - we'll do what we like - what a choice ! - personally I just think New Labour's Postal Services Act 2000 has been an unmitigated disaster and they jumped in too quick with the EEC directive and the Hooper report recommendations are a fudged way of saving face on all the New Labour cock-ups .