[DaveO]

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:43 pm  

rover49 wrote:

Next big one is RBS, according to reports today Osbourne has insisted that it be flogged by end of 2014 (war chest for an election, maybe) but experts reckon it needs to be delayed to be of a value to get the taxpayers money back and it's likely to be a fire sale just to raise 'bribe' money.

Which is why Hesters gone apparently.

The loopy idea being put forward is the taxpayers take out a loan to buy RBS off the government. Then when we sell the shares we keep any profit and then pay the government back the loan.

Now I thought the taxpayers already owned the bank because it was bailed out with taxpayers money so at the very least they should simply give us the shares if they want the taxpayers to own the bank.

Osborne can't do that though because that wouldn't raise any cash and he can't sell it on the open market because it isn't worth enough and it will leave him open to accusations of selling the taxpayer short which is what he would be doing.

So the touted solution is we have a government loan to buy the shares at a price no doubt large enough to let him have his war chest.

All this is therefore is the government borrowing money to loan to us which we give it back for an asset no doubt not worth the investment cost at this point in time to fight an election presumably with a tax cut.

It is quite frankly so transparent everyone on the Jeremy Vine show who rang in this lunchtime had it in for Osborne. I don't think they could find anyone except the nutter from the policy exchange who proposed the idea to support it.

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:43 pm  

rover49 wrote:

Next big one is RBS, according to reports today Osbourne has insisted that it be flogged by end of 2014 (war chest for an election, maybe) but experts reckon it needs to be delayed to be of a value to get the taxpayers money back and it's likely to be a fire sale just to raise 'bribe' money.

Osborne has staked everything on deficit reduction and debt reduction but is doing so poorly that he'll be desperate for large amounts of cash to make some kind of dent in the debt before the 2015 election and maybe get a temporary GDP boost from it too.
He'll be tempted to offer shares at a knock-down price a la Thatcher privatisations, which will mean a nice tidy profit for those who can afford to buy the shares (which will be a far smaller group than those who actually paid for it).

[DaveO]

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:12 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

He'll be tempted to offer shares at a knock-down price a la Thatcher privatisations, which will mean a nice tidy profit for those who can afford to buy the shares (which will be a far smaller group than those who actually paid for it).

It will be worse than that if what I detailed in my previous post is the chosen mechanism. Mansion house speech due soon apparently and the sell off details expected to be announced then.

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:37 pm  

This lot will be having a fire-sale of any and every state asset that could turn a few bob, just to get some money in the exchequer. And bugger whoever follows afterwards.

If Labour have got any goolies at all, they should announce that any asset that was privatised at a knock-down price, will be taken back into public ownership by them, with zero compensation.

Let's see how Osborne's car boot performs then

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:49 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

If Labour have got any goolies at all...

Labour and their goolies parted company a long time ago.

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:52 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

Labour and their goolies parted company a long time ago.

Yep. The latest lack of backbone being Labours decision to abstain on an EU in-out referendum vote, thereby letting it in.

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:16 pm  

DaveO wrote:

It will be worse than that if what I detailed in my previous post is the chosen mechanism. Mansion house speech due soon apparently and the sell off details expected to be announced then.

Yup, you're right.
I didn't spot your post, we both posted at the same time.

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:51 pm  

After painting a pillar box gold to mark the success of paralympian Ellie Simmonds in 2012, the Royal Mail have withdrawn it from service.

It is to be hoped it'sjust a temporary measure.

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:22 am  

Flogging off Royal Mail could be chickenfeed when compared to the proposal to: Hawk off the student loan book If that goes through there's going to be some seriously pissed off students knocking around

Flogging off Royal Mail could be chickenfeed when compared to the proposal to: Hawk off the student loan book If that goes through there's going to be some seriously pissed off students knocking around

[DaveO]

Re: Selling-off Royal Mail : Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:58 am  

cod'ead wrote: Flogging off Royal Mail could be chickenfeed when compared to the proposal to: Hawk off the student loan book If that goes through there's going to be some seriously pissed off students knocking around There was another idea put forward recently by certain Universities who are seeking to protect their researchbudget. There is a link on the same page as the article you quoted but here it is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/may/06/student-loans-repayment-level-lowered?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 The level of cynicism in both of these proposals is astonishing. In the one you linked to the sales pitch is for pre-2012 students the terms will still be better than those post-2012. Well if that isn't an admission of post-2012 students being shafted with an interest rate od 3%+RPI I don't know what is. Then in the one I linked to above we have the idea put forward the terms can be varied easily enough because parents and students don't really understand the implications!!!! The problem stems from the fact Willets points out that "...words to the effect that governments reserve the right to change the terms of the loans". And now we have two proposals to do just that. "Money Saving Expert" Martin Lewis has been at the forefront of government propaganda in selling the new students loans to students. He acknowledges the terms can be varied but often says it's never happened before so we may as well assume it won't happen in the future or words to that effect. Really? I am sure he'd never tell anyone to take out a loan on that basis from a commercial lender as it would an obvious financial trap.

cod'ead wrote: Flogging off Royal Mail could be chickenfeed when compared to the proposal to: Hawk off the student loan book If that goes through there's going to be some seriously pissed off students knocking around There was another idea put forward recently by certain Universities who are seeking to protect their researchbudget. There is a link on the same page as the article you quoted but here it is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/may/06/student-loans-repayment-level-lowered?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 The level of cynicism in both of these proposals is astonishing. In the one you linked to the sales pitch is for pre-2012 students the terms will still be better than those post-2012. Well if that isn't an admission of post-2012 students being shafted with an interest rate od 3%+RPI I don't know what is. Then in the one I linked to above we have the idea put forward the terms can be varied easily enough because parents and students don't really understand the implications!!!! The problem stems from the fact Willets points out that "...words to the effect that governments reserve the right to change the terms of the loans". And now we have two proposals to do just that. "Money Saving Expert" Martin Lewis has been at the forefront of government propaganda in selling the new students loans to students. He acknowledges the terms can be varied but often says it's never happened before so we may as well assume it won't happen in the future or words to that effect. Really? I am sure he'd never tell anyone to take out a loan on that basis from a commercial lender as it would an obvious financial trap.