Canadian here - sorry if I don’t know exactly how it works on your side of the pond… but isn’t your national post serving an important competitive function, keeping other (fully private) mailing and courrier services in the pricing ballpark?
If it reduces the quality of service, it won’t suddenly reduce the need to receive stuff by mail (particularly in this new Amazon world), and private companies would fill the void - at the consumer’s expense, no?
but isn’t your national post serving an important competitive function, keeping other (fully private) mailing and courrier services in the pricing ballpark?
private companies would fill the void - at the consumer’s expense, no?
Royal Mail is fully private; no part of it is nationally owned.
It was sold off on the cheap a decade ago (while it was still profitable) with a major “caveat emptor” stipulation that the universal service obligation would remain as it was.
The private owners have since hived off the profitable parcel delivery arm (GLS) into a legally distinct entity, and have started whinging that the now isolated letter delivery business is unprofitable without degrading the service obligation.
It’s a cynical move.
I hate to be a bore, and regurgitate the same “leftie” discourse that gets repeated a lot online, but:
Royal Mail would become “financially and operationally unsustainable in the long term”
This is because Royal Mail has become private and is now required to become profitable / increase it’s value over time. Which is nonsense. It should be a public service funded by a mix of direct payment (e.g. stamps) and taxation.
If continuing to run six days per week, as the are currently obliged to, has become unsustainable then perhaps it is time it returns to public ownership.
