Open up mail deliveries to all - who then 'poach' the very profitable town deliveries - leaving the old RM to deliver to unprofitable locations at the same price as anywhere else. And they've now discovered this can't be done.
As the saying goes, you hardly need a crystal ball...
Meanwhile, in other news, the government is sneaking towards insisting everything is done online - thus removing the excuse for the universal delivery obligation
Since when was there a monopoly on parcel deliveries, anyway?
Privatised couriers have been treading on the toes of nationalised postal services since City Link started to take some of the business from Red Star (remember them...?) in 1969, only six years after Red Star was formed in the first place.
In message , Adrian writes
That's as maybe, but I have been selected as the person to receive whatever my son orders online for his house upgrade. He's away working during the week. Yesterday it was 4 different packages from 4 different carriers, but luckily a neighbour signed for one and another was squeezed through the letterbox, so only 2 round trips to collect and no idea which supplier used which carrier, so no idea how big or heavy anything was likely to be.
If I wasn't old, I'd despair. I have nothing against privatisation, but we need nationally organised basics - national grid, national postal service, national rail system. Now they are talking about local mayors all over the place to add another layer of in- or mal-decision and confusion.
Ever since I shouted at the politician who came and rang the doorbell even though he must have seen I was up the stepladder behind the front door, no one seeking election has ever come here canvassing my views.
I was talking about mail - not parcels. I doubt the numbers involved these days were envisaged when the one cost to send a letter anywhere in the UK principle was established.
Well, Parcel Force was sort of split off from letter post ages ago anyway.
What's the differnece or rather which is which. Here where I work they have decided that in general women can only collect post not parcels, it seems it's up to the men to collect parcels.
We are an equal oppotunity employer and if I wanted to give up my lunch hour I could attend the athena swan meeting about glass cieling/cliffs which only women and minority groups are affected by.
if anyone wants to understand glass ceilings or glass cliffs
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
Of course not, and the RM management are well aware of the long-term trends in their markets. The problem they face is in trying to persuade the government to regulate the inevitable change such that RM can prosper as a commercial player in the growth markets while still maintaining the universal penny post for granny's birthday cards.
It's very telling the areas of life that the US founding fathers insisted came under federal (i.e. too important to leave to hillbillies) control, as opposed to state control (which can lead to a 52-way bunfight).
Postal services is one of them.
Very logical, that. Allow 'competition' for the profitable bits and get the taxpayer to subsidise the loss making part. Thus the taxpayer is in effect subsidising all that junk mail from Virgin.
You cannot force people to get an online system though, as we know only too well. Many visually impaired people just do not fancy the steep learning curve and possible expence of software. We use the free articles for the Blind post which is subsidised by the government in most countries. If they cannot deliver what is the point? Brian
Ah Mayors, these are very powerful people in France. rule 1 if you are going to live there, buy him something nice and make a point of talking to him, and it is predominantly a him from what i can tell. Brian
AFAICS the *only* leverage for providing a universal post system, is it means no one has an excuse when being contacted by the state. Court summons, spring to mind.
If you can move all of that to a non paper-based system, then there is no reason to mandate universal post.
I don't agree with it, but it's the way things *are* going.
Quite a few large organisations are practically impossible to contact in any other way, and one or two (misguidedly in my book) can only by contacted via FaceBook.
The sad fact is that no one in government cares about you, or your problems. The more sad fact is they are trying to instil this into everyone else.
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
Well, yes. If granny (aka the taxpayer) insists on having a universal letter delivery service, with the stamps priced at far below cost, then it is logical that the taxpayer subsidises it.
The profitable bit - parcel deliveries and bulk commercial mailings - can look after itself, given adequate regulation.
I think it's the other way round. Commercial junk mail delivered by RM helps to keep down the cost of stamps - or the level of government subsidies for letter deliveries, whichever way you want to look at it.
Assuming someone has a place a letter can be delivered to and can read, it is no cost to the recipient.
A paperless system assumes the recipient has some method of downloading and reading it - neither of which is free.
The original idea was *not* to provide a subsidised service at all - just a single price regardless of location. Of course you could argue those sending a letter a short distance subsidise those sending one afar - but truly fair differential pricing would be impossible to implement anyway. So there would always be a degree of one 'subsidising' another.
In lots of third world countries there is no posta delivery up sticks. You have a mail box in the local post office. That's what they're working towards..
Oh shit, most of the post offices have disappeared.
What a damned good idea! :-P As Bill has said: "If I wasn't old, I'd despair".
John
It occurs to me, in this age of feminism, racism, ageism, heightism, etcetcetc-ism ..... shirley it's only a matter of time before someone brings a case of "technoism"[1] against a company (or even government) for trying to force them into using IT.
I have several neighbours (some of them rather younger than me) who have never used IT, don't have any means of using it, and are extremely reluctant to do so. None of them are disabled in any way: they've avoided IT because by the late 90s (when it really took off thanks to Business recognizing the commercial possibilities of the Internet), the older ones were retired, and the younger ones had left school and had jobs which didn't involve sitting at an effing PC. And (for some incomprehensible reason) they have never wanted to discover the unbounded delights of Facebook, Twitter, online betting, or even bloody computer games!
J.
[1] I'm sure a more cleverer name will come along soon ...
But in my experience the Royal Mail cannot provide a decent service in areas where the others are picking the low hanging fruit. If the RM improved their service perhaps they would get more of the custom.
And what's more .... (the other point I was going to make, above): the price of a First Class stamp is now 62p. For as long as I can remember, "The Media" have gone and on on and ON about tpoaFCs, when it's gone up, as though "the bastard Royal Mail"[1] were stealing the bread out of our mouths.
To which my response has always been: what else can you buy in this country for 62pence which gives such incredibly good value?
Of course now that we're in the wonderful world of market forces, the price will shoot up, as well as the services plummeting. We'll always be free to choose TNT, G4S, Centrica or whoever the hell else has grabbed a fat slice of the pie: I'm sure their prices will be "competitive"[2].
John
[1] Not their words, but their crystal-clear insinuation. [2] Within the strict meaning of the word when used by cartels.HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.