Post Office Closures

[cashman]

Originally Posted by jaysay

I ain't going to reply to young Graham again Walkon, I'll leave him to the young Cyfr

ohh thats a great pity the dustups are cashy fodder.

[WalkOnBRFC]

Originally Posted by jaysay

I ain't going to reply to young Graham again Walkon, I'll leave him to the young Cyfr

I'm sure Graham will cope

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by WalkOnBRFC

I'm sure Graham will cope

Don't put your shirt on it walkon, why do you think I'm retiring so gracefully

[WalkOnBRFC]

Originally Posted by jaysay

Don't put your shirt on it walkon, why do you think I'm retiring so gracefully

Well I'm glad you feel like you've achieved something.. like I said I'm sure Graham will cope

[onlyme]

He may cope, but to be honest, his posts on here has changed my voting tendencies.

Probs not the way he wanted either

[garinda]

Received via pm, from Cyfr.

Sorry for quoting your message here, but I'm not carrying on the debate here and also by pm.

[Quote Cyfr/]Thatcher privatised industries that were still going to exist after privatisation, only with lower costs to the customer because of competition.

The post office isn't like that though is it, it's important to many people, perhaps most important in more rural areas.

I'm not advocating running the network at huge dramatic lost to the tax payer, but it seems sensible to at least give the sub-post offices a chance to compete. I do think we should be subsidising the rurals, because they don't have alternatives in the same way we do. The post office network was still profitable under the Tories. Labour took various aspects away from them (such as the whole pensions by DD), which is good, but they didn't look at it from a business point of view and say "Well if we're taking that away, maybe we should let them compete in other areas".

If at the end of the day we can't turn them around into profits (the urban ones), then fair enough we should look at closure, but it almost seems like they've not even looked at the other options before deciding to close them.

Another notable point is that when post offices close, surrounding businesses tend to suffer too, theres a study about it but I can't find it as it was just referenced in the debate. So the economic impact is more than just getting our money back from the post office, as we will lose tax elsewhere.[quote/]

Dramatic loss?

Four million pounds per week, to me is a dramatic loss, especially as the figure is constantly rising, and will continure to do so, as more and more people chose to shop for their services eleswhere.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

Received via pm, from Cyfr.

Sorry for quoting your message here, but I'm not carrying on the debate here and also by pm.

[Quote Cyfr/]Thatcher privatised industries that were still going to exist after privatisation, only with lower costs to the customer because of competition.

The post office isn't like that though is it, it's important to many people, perhaps most important in more rural areas.

I'm not advocating running the network at huge dramatic lost to the tax payer, but it seems sensible to at least give the sub-post offices a chance to compete. I do think we should be subsidising the rurals, because they don't have alternatives in the same way we do. The post office network was still profitable under the Tories. Labour took various aspects away from them (such as the whole pensions by DD), which is good, but they didn't look at it from a business point of view and say "Well if we're taking that away, maybe we should let them compete in other areas".

If at the end of the day we can't turn them around into profits (the urban ones), then fair enough we should look at closure, but it almost seems like they've not even looked at the other options before deciding to close them.

Another notable point is that when post offices close, surrounding businesses tend to suffer too, theres a study about it but I can't find it as it was just referenced in the debate. So the economic impact is more than just getting our money back from the post office, as we will lose tax elsewhere.[quote/]

Dramatic loss?

Four million pounds per week, to me is a dramatic loss, especially as the figure is constantly rising, and will continue to do so, as more and more people chose to shop for their services elsewhere.

So what about looking at them to see if we can make them profitable by having less restrictions? Rather than just immediately looking at closure.

As for figures, there are so many brandished around I have no idea which are correct in terms of how much money they're actually losing

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

So what about looking at them to see if we can make them profitable by having less restrictions? Rather than just immediately looking at closure.

As for figures, there are so many brandished around I have no idea which are correct in terms of how much money they're actually losing

The figure, quoted by all sides of the political specrtum, and uncontested, is four million pounds per day to keep the unprofitable Post Offices afloat.

I'd also be against public money being used to bolster other unprofitabe businesses, such as pubs, which many people also see as being at the heart of their communities.

It's a shame when they close, but market forces, and the numbers of people actually using them, decide what is, and what isn't, a viable business proposition.

[cashman]

i think greg pope, jack straw n the other labour MPs who didn't mind having photos taken to keep post offices open, then voted with the government to close em, should hang their heads in shame,from my standpoint it was totally spineless, and the main reason i washed my hands of the labour party,

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

The figure, quoted by all sides of the political specrtum, and uncontested, is four million pounds per day to keep the unprofitable Post Offices afloat.

I'd also be against public money being used to bolster other unprofitabe businesses, such as pubs, which many people also see as being at the heart of their communities.

It's a shame when they close, but market forces, and the numbers of people actually using them, decide what is, and what isn't, a viable business proposition.

Are you selectively reading Rindi?

Why can't we let the market work and actually allow them to compete? There are so many restrictions on the sub-post offices they can't compete. Allow them to deal with private carriers, sell more products and services. If they're still losing loads of money after that then fair enough, but at least give it a chance.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

Are you selectively reading Rindi?

Why can't we let the market work and actually allow them to compete? There are so many restrictions on the sub-post offices they can't compete. Allow them to deal with private carriers, sell more products and services. If they're still losing loads of money after that then fair enough, but at least give it a chance.

No, I read all, and not selectively.

How long do you suggest we continue pouring tax payer's money down the bottomless pit, before something is done to stop it?

Do you advocate state intervention, and funding, for any other small businesses?

[cashman]

know what yer saying rindy,but the pit may not just have to be bottomless if other factors like competition came into play.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

No, I read all, and not selectively.

How long do you suggest we continue pouring tax payer's money down the bottomless pit, before something is done to stop it?

Do you advocate state intervention, and funding, for any other small businesses?

I suggest we give the proposals a fair chance. If the network of sub-post offices doesn't look like its turning around its losses within a year of implementation then it's not a good sign and we should look at closures.

I'm trying to get the state out of the post office, give the postmasters a chance to be able to compete, trying to turn profits around so we don't need to fund.

Of course I agree with state regulation, which is intervention, a completely free market doesn't work. Numerous other businesses are subsidised, such as the bus and rail services.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

I suggest we give the proposals a fair chance. If the network of sub-post offices doesn't look like its turning around its losses within a year of implementation then it's not a good sign and we should look at closures.

I'm trying to get the state out of the post office, give the postmasters a chance to be able to compete, trying to turn profits around so we don't need to fund.

Of course I agree with state regulation, which is intervention, a completely free market doesn't work. Numerous other businesses are subsidised, such as the bus and rail services.

Eventually, you've told me how long you think we, the tax payer, should shoulder these losses.

Why a year?

Are you hoping by then that the Conservatives will be in power, and will then be able to say, well at least we tried (for a year,) and the inevitable closures will go ahead regardless, because people of this country have chosen to take their business elsewhere?

It's so much easier being in opposition, and not having to think about the reality of a problem, and it's long term solution.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

Eventually, you've told me how long you think we, the tax payer, should shoulder these losses.

Why a year?

Are you hoping by then that the Conservatives will be in power, and will then be able to say, well at least we tried (for a year,) and the inevitable closures will go ahead regardless, because people of this country have chosen to take their business elsewhere?

It's so much easier being in opposition, and not having to think about the reality of a problem, and it's long term solution.

No I doubt they will be in within a year. A year because profits are released yearly, they need to know what its like all year round so that the results are not skewed by seasonal events.

I'm proposing this because I believe we should be at least making an effort. I know you think I'm doing it to gain one up on Labour, and that's the stick I'll have to take for being a member of a political party, but I simply don't see the point in dumping it, writing the other options off without trying them.