Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

If you keep the PO you keep the massive pension problem...

I thought the government took on the pension problem anyway (thus freeing the company up to be sold off)?

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 If you keep the PO you keep the massive pension problem,.

IIRC, the pension deficit and problem remians the taxpayers, once again they privatised the profits and nationalised the liabilities and losses

[Risso]

no, there is no taped phonecall of Osbourne thinking up a scam, there is no grainy photo of a brown envelope

 

there is a clear desire within this government to get the people with money richer whilst turning the screw on the poor

 

it stinks

 

its true to form

 

there will be no prosecution for theft, they aren't that thick, they are clever people feathering the nests of people like themselves

 

It's complete bollocks, is what it is.  Please show clearly how "people with money" have got richer.  Who are these people, and how much money have they made?  Because Peter Davies sure as hell hasn't made £36m out of it.  These hedge funds aren't investing their own money, Lansdowne Partners has several billions of pounds of assets under management, so even if the Royal Mail increase was a big one, as a percentage of their total funds under management, it's absolutely tiny.  Interestingly, another fund that did well out of the Royal Mail sale was The Children’s Investment Fund Management UK, but then what is essentially a charity doing well doesn't make such good reading when know-nothing numpties are spouting left wing rubbish on their idiot blogs.

[Kingfisher]

Know nothing lefty numpties? It's been reported in The Mail too...

Of course, Lansdowne are raking in huge profits from this, don't be fooled by this rubbish. It's money that should have gone to the treasury not the pockets of Lansdowne partners or their hedge fund investors.

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Revised-Thinkpiece-Postal-Workers.pdf

[colhint]

or people with pensions?

[Eames]

Know nothing lefty numpties? It's been reported in The Mail too...

Of course, Lansdowne are raking in huge profits from this, don't be fooled by this rubbish. It's money that should have gone to the treasury not the pockets of Lansdowne partners or their hedge fund investors.

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Revised-Thinkpiece-Postal-Workers.pdf

How much? Give us a number?

[Kingfisher]

or people with pensions?

Hedge fund pensions were one of the reasons behind the financial crash. Pensions at what price? Doesn't seem like a very big plus point if any at all.

[colhint]

Ahh, OK. As long as the public sector get them, that's alright.

[Risso]

Know nothing lefty numpties? It's been reported in The Mail too...

Of course, Lansdowne are raking in huge profits from this, don't be fooled by this rubbish. It's money that should have gone to the treasury not the pockets of Lansdowne partners or their hedge fund investors.

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Revised-Thinkpiece-Postal-Workers.pdf

 

First paragraph of that report:

 

"The privatisation of Royal Mail has beenexcruciating to watch. The sell-off of a perfectly successful company, in public hands for hundreds of years and returning regular profits to the Treasury, is an act of vandalism not even Margaret Thatcher contemplated."

 

First paragraph of the "scathing" NAO report:

 

 

"The government took over Royal Mail’s historic pension liabilities, which was valued as a deficit of £8.6 billion. 

 

 

2There were wide ranging regulatory reforms including the removal of most of the price controls. The combination of these factors contributed to a turnaround in the company’s cash flow. It generated £334 million cash in 2012-13, reversing negative cash flow of £493 million in 2008-09. Hooper recommended that the government should go further to allow Royal Mail access to private capital and commercial disciplines (paragraphs 1.7, 2.2, 2.6 to 2.11 and Figures 3, 4 and 5). "

 

And while Thatcher didn't privatise the Royal Mail, Peter Mandelson certainly wanted to

: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/jan/14/peter-mandelson-post

Edited April 2, 2014 by Risso

[Kingfisher]

Know nothing lefty numpties? It's been reported in The Mail too...

Of course, Lansdowne are raking in huge profits from this, don't be fooled by this rubbish. It's money that should have gone to the treasury not the pockets of Lansdowne partners or their hedge fund investors.

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Revised-Thinkpiece-Postal-Workers.pdf

How much? Give us a number?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2552113/Hargreaves-Lansdown-welcomes-77-000-new-clients-doors.html

[colhint]

that's an interesting link. Didn't you post earlier that it was sold so a few rich people got a whole lot richer. Now you post a link showing that Lansdowne got and extra 27,000 customers on the back of the royal mail sale. When you said a few rich people, did you mean 27,000. 

[chrisp65]

 

no, there is no taped phonecall of Osbourne thinking up a scam, there is no grainy photo of a brown envelope

 

there is a clear desire within this government to get the people with money richer whilst turning the screw on the poor

 

it stinks

 

its true to form

 

there will be no prosecution for theft, they aren't that thick, they are clever people feathering the nests of people like themselves

 

It's complete bollocks, is what it is.  Please show clearly how "people with money" have got richer.  Who are these people, and how much money have they made?  Because Peter Davies sure as hell hasn't made £36m out of it.  These hedge funds aren't investing their own money, Lansdowne Partners has several billions of pounds of assets under management, so even if the Royal Mail increase was a big one, as a percentage of their total funds under management, it's absolutely tiny.  Interestingly, another fund that did well out of the Royal Mail sale was The Children’s Investment Fund Management UK, but then what is essentially a charity doing well doesn't make such good reading when know-nothing numpties are spouting left wing rubbish on their idiot blogs.

 

 

could you possibly spell out for me which bit is bollocks?

 

no brown envelope? you think this is b and there was a brown envelope?

the govt doesn't want the rich to get richer? is that b? do they not want them to get richer?

that the screw has been turned on the poor? this is b? the poor are better off now with a better standard of living than they were before the tories got in?

that I used the word stinky? this got you all of a flutter and wound up?

that the tories are currently administering the country in a true to form style you'd expect of tories? is that the b? they are acting out of character presently?

that there won't be any prosecution? is this my b? you believe there will be prosecutions?

that they are clever people and they help people like themselves? B here? they aren't clever? or they haven't helped people like themselves?

 

try to be a little less aggressive in your next answer if at all possible, thanks

 

we're all here to learn

[Risso]

 

 

Know nothing lefty numpties? It's been reported in The Mail too...

Of course, Lansdowne are raking in huge profits from this, don't be fooled by this rubbish. It's money that should have gone to the treasury not the pockets of Lansdowne partners or their hedge fund investors.

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Revised-Thinkpiece-Postal-Workers.pdf

How much? Give us a number?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2552113/Hargreaves-Lansdown-welcomes-77-000-new-clients-doors.html

 

 

That's a link about Hargreaves Lansdown.  I thought we were talking about Lansdowne Partners, where "Osborne's mate"  works.

[Risso]

 

 

no, there is no taped phonecall of Osbourne thinking up a scam, there is no grainy photo of a brown envelope

 

there is a clear desire within this government to get the people with money richer whilst turning the screw on the poor

 

it stinks

 

its true to form

 

there will be no prosecution for theft, they aren't that thick, they are clever people feathering the nests of people like themselves

 

It's complete bollocks, is what it is.  Please show clearly how "people with money" have got richer.  Who are these people, and how much money have they made?  Because Peter Davies sure as hell hasn't made £36m out of it.  These hedge funds aren't investing their own money, Lansdowne Partners has several billions of pounds of assets under management, so even if the Royal Mail increase was a big one, as a percentage of their total funds under management, it's absolutely tiny.  Interestingly, another fund that did well out of the Royal Mail sale was The Children’s Investment Fund Management UK, but then what is essentially a charity doing well doesn't make such good reading when know-nothing numpties are spouting left wing rubbish on their idiot blogs.

 

 

could you possibly spell out for me which bit is bollocks?

 

no brown envelope? you think this is b and there was a brown envelope?

the govt doesn't want the rich to get richer? is that b? do they not want them to get richer?

that the screw has been turned on the poor? this is b? the poor are better off now with a better standard of living than they were before the tories got in?

that I used the word stinky? this got you all of a flutter and wound up?

that the tories are currently administering the country in a true to form style you'd expect of tories? is that the b? they are acting out of character presently?

that there won't be any prosecution? is this my b? you believe there will be prosecutions?

that they are clever people and they help people like themselves? B here? they aren't clever? or they haven't helped people like themselves?

 

try to be a little less aggressive in your next answer if at all possible, thanks

 

we're all here to learn

 

 

All I've tried to do is inject a bit of realism into the debate, rather than taking the word of frothing-at the-mouth blogs as gospel.  It's almost certainly the case that the Royal Mail was sold off too cheaply, but even with that being the case, you have to consider these facts:

 

The report that suggested injecting private capital into Royal Mail was written under the last Labour government.

Peter Mandelson was a massive advocate of selling Royal Mail.

A hedge fund's holding of shares increasing in value does not mean that that firm has gained that amount of money.  The money invested belongs to other people, eg pension companies.

One director of that hedge fund certainly isn't benefitting to the tune of £36m

One of the biggest holders of shares in Royal Mail is a fund that exists to benefit kids in developing countries

Hedge funds typically take a small percentage of their funds under management as a charge.  The hedge fund in question has BILLIONS of pounds of assets under management.  To think they'd do anything shady for something as relatively paltry as £50m is absurd.

[villaajax]

This whiter than white Tory government wouldn't dream of doing something underhanded to make their rich friends in the city richer, would they?

 

[chrisp65]

 

All I've tried to do is inject a bit of realism into the debate, rather than taking the word of frothing-at the-mouth blogs as gospel.  It's almost certainly the case that the Royal Mail was sold off too cheaply, but even with that being the case, you have to consider these facts:

 

The report that suggested injecting private capital into Royal Mail was written under the last Labour government.

Peter Mandelson was a massive advocate of selling Royal Mail.

A hedge fund's holding of shares increasing in value does not mean that that firm has gained that amount of money.  The money invested belongs to other people, eg pension companies.

One director of that hedge fund certainly isn't benefitting to the tune of £36m

One of the biggest holders of shares in Royal Mail is a fund that exists to benefit kids in developing countries

Hedge funds typically take a small percentage of their funds under management as a charge.  The hedge fund in question has BILLIONS of pounds of assets under management.  To think they'd do anything shady for something as relatively paltry as £50m is absurd.

 

 

I won't drag this out all evening, but again, where have I spouted bollocks or believed frothing at the mouth blogs as gospel?

You appear just as guilty of answering a question that wasn't asked or correcting a statement that was never made as these looney lefties  

 

no need to answer, consider it rhetorical, I've got chops to grill and spuds to mash

Edited April 2, 2014 by chrisp65

[Risso]

 

This whiter than white Tory government wouldn't dream of doing something underhanded to make their rich friends in the city richer, would they?

 

 

Edited April 2, 2014 by Risso

[blandy]

All I've tried to do is inject a bit of realism into the debate, rather than taking the word of frothing-at the-mouth blogs as gospel.  It's almost certainly the case that the Royal Mail was sold off too cheaply, but even with that being the case, you have to consider these facts:

 

The report that suggested injecting private capital into Royal Mail was written under the last Labour government.

Peter Mandelson was a massive advocate of selling Royal Mail.

A hedge fund's holding of shares increasing in value does not mean that that firm has gained that amount of money.  The money invested belongs to other people, eg pension companies.

One director of that hedge fund certainly isn't benefitting to the tune of £36m

One of the biggest holders of shares in Royal Mail is a fund that exists to benefit kids in developing countries

Hedge funds typically take a small percentage of their funds under management as a charge.  The hedge fund in question has BILLIONS of pounds of assets under management.  To think they'd do anything shady for something as relatively paltry as £50m is absurd.

 

It's good to read comments from someone sort of in a related industry.

 

It seems to me that it's inarguable that it was sold off too cheaply, as you say.

It also seems to me that while there's no evidence of anyone doing anything illegal, there's a suspiscion that the Gov't people were somewhat hoodwinked by the financiers. It's clear from the Gov't NAO report that various institutions did not keep their word (selling off shares they were supposed to be keeping, and thus making big bucks from that) It also seems clear that there's more than a hint of the chinese walls that were supposed to seperate their advice to Gov't aspects from their normal roles as working for themselves and their other clients.

It's difficult because Gov't doesn't have the expertise to set the price and should take advice from places that ought to have that expertise.

 

It seems like something stronger needs to be done to seperate advisors from acting with two interests. That should not be permitted.

 

I read the report from the Tory man, and it seems sensible up to the point where he starts talking about selling the Royal Mail. It was profitable, efficient, effective and so on in commercial terms. The comment he made about the RM needing to access private money, rather than compete with hospitals etc for Gov't money has 2 angles - the first is totally political - relating to private or public sector, and the second is kind of "why couldn't a public utility also go to the markets for money - a kind of arms length, but still public owned company?

 

To me it looks like the RM had been sorted out in recent years, was perfectly OK as it was, more than OK, and the selling off of it, for a low price was not done well and was not necessary. The way that institutions were favoured over ordinary investors was inadvertently or deliberately typical of the way the Gov't has been favouring their mates and donors over normal folk.

 

I'm not fussed whether Mandleson was for or against it. Labour manifesto said keep it public (again, presumably on political grounds).

 

Ultimately it's another case of this Gov't messing up everything they touch. Too cheap, the wrong split between the general public and big finance, inadequate safeguards to stop institutions taking advantage.

 

And that's before the political thing of selling it in the first place, which on balance I think was also wrong.

[mockingbird_franklin]

It's good to read comments from someone sort of in a related industry.

 

It seems to me that it's inarguable that it was sold off too cheaply, as you say.

It also seems to me that while there's no evidence of anyone doing anything illegal, there's a suspiscion that the Gov't people were somewhat hoodwinked by the financiers. It's clear from the Gov't NAO report that various institutions did not keep their word (selling off shares they were supposed to be keeping, and thus making big bucks from that) It also seems clear that there's more than a hint of the chinese walls that were supposed to seperate their advice to Gov't aspects from their normal roles as working for themselves and their other clients.

It's difficult because Gov't doesn't have the expertise to set the price and should take advice from places that ought to have that expertise.

 

It seems like something stronger needs to be done to seperate advisors from acting with two interests. That should not be permitted.

 

I read the report from the Tory man, and it seems sensible up to the point where he starts talking about selling the Royal Mail. It was profitable, efficient, effective and so on in commercial terms. The comment he made about the RM needing to access private money, rather than compete with hospitals etc for Gov't money has 2 angles - the first is totally political - relating to private or public sector, and the second is kind of "why couldn't a public utility also go to the markets for money - a kind of arms length, but still public owned company?

 

To me it looks like the RM had been sorted out in recent years, was perfectly OK as it was, more than OK, and the selling off of it, for a low price was not done well and was not necessary. The way that institutions were favoured over ordinary investors was inadvertently or deliberately typical of the way the Gov't has been favouring their mates and donors over normal folk.

 

I'm not fussed whether Mandleson was for or against it. Labour manifesto said keep it public (again, presumably on political grounds).

 

Ultimately it's another case of this Gov't messing up everything they touch. Too cheap, the wrong split between the general public and big finance, inadequate safeguards to stop institutions taking advantage.

 

And that's before the political thing of selling it in the first place, which on balance I think was also wrong.

 

Trust you to come out with typical frothing lefty blog influenced bollocks

[blandy]

 

Just another point on the trusting institutions thing - The gov't looks like it just kind of took the word of these financiers, there was seemingly no checks,nothing written down contractually prohibiting them taking advantage, it was just sort of accepted that either they'd be honest, or that perhaps it was understood tacitly, that of course they'd make a sharp 10s of millions for no work in no time.

 

That kind of contrasts with how people claiming a paltry sum in benefits are treated - subjected to (appalingly conducted) disability checks, compulsory interviews, that kind of thing.

 

Funny that.