« | Home | »

Natural Monopoly

Tags: |

It appears that the Royal Mail is to be sold off. According to the Daily Mail, it will be transformed into a ‘John Lewis-style trust’ by the autumn. John Lewis is a chain of department stores whose employees are also partners. The employees own shares, but these are held in trust, so cannot be sold off when the employee leaves the company. John Lewis employees earn a dividend in addition to their wages and are allowed some say in the running of the company.

The idea is that a similar scheme will give postal workers an incentive to help improve the Royal Mail’s performance. Except that the government has said that its intention is to ensure the Royal Mail ‘benefits from private sector capital and disciplines’. The private sector will only inject capital on the expectation of returns. So it won’t be a ‘John Lewis-style partnership’. Part of it will be part-owned by postal workers, but staff will be subject to ‘private sector discipline’, meaning attempts to cut costs in order to maximise profit.

The Dutch postal company TNT and the private equity firm CVC Capital Partners, which owns a Belgian postal company, are already sniffing about in anticipation of the hoped-for returns. TNT is currently involved in drastic staff reductions and cost-cutting exercises in its domestic market.

The usual excuse that is reeled out every time anyone brings up the idea of privatisation is the huge £10 billion pension deficit which the company has run up in the last 20 years or so. But no private sector company will take this on. So in order to create an incentive to the private sector, the government will have to agree to fund it. Whether the Royal Mail is in the public sector or the private sector, the pensions deficit will remain a public liability.

Doesn’t anyone ever get the feeling that we are being ever so slightly conned here? The government brings in private sector bosses, such as Allan Leighton and Adam Crozier, to run the Royal Mail. They run it down while alienating staff and ignoring the needs of the public. The state then turns to the private sector for a solution. The government starves an industry of funds while it is in the public sector, but then quietly promises to reinstate a public sector subsidy once it is privatised.

That the ConDem coalition government is promising a 100 per cent sell-off, while the previous Labour administration only proposed a partial privatisation, shouldn’t blind us to the fact that privatisation has always been the agenda. Previous governments just didn’t have the nerve. The company was always too popular with the public. This was entirely down to its workforce who would often go out of their way to help their customers. It has taken years of careful preparation and a sustained attack on the workforce to make it ripe for the selling.

But there’s a reason the Post Office has been publicly owned since its creation in 1660. It’s what’s known as  a ‘natural monopoly’: you can’t have two sets of postal workers trudging the same streets, or two post boxes on the same street corner. It just wouldn’t work. Not only would it be absurd, but no private company would take it on. The monopoly also allows profitable parts of the business to subsidise the much more costly deliveries to rural and outlying communities. The universal service is dependent on this. Privatising the Royal Mail will not change its monopoly status. It will just change it from a public to a private monopoly, unaccountable to the public but subsidised by public money.

Comments on “Natural Monopoly”

  1. A.J.P. Crown says:

    John Lewis is a chain of department stores whose employees are also partners.

    Someone once told me that John Lewis has different staff toilets for “Partners” and “Directors”.

  2. Joe Morison says:

    It’s very sad. Until she was moved, our postie had delivered her route for 18 years; she knew us, misaddressed mail was correctly delivered and she kept a lookout for the vulnerable. She told me ‘I used to love this job, now it makes me miserable.’

    The Royal Mail is one of those great institutions whose value is far more than is revealed in profit and loss accounts. They take a long long time to build up but can be knocked down in moments. We are losing a hugely important part of our social fabric so someone somewhere can become even more obscenely rich.

    • lighteninglad says:

      yes joe,
      it is sad I hav been a postman for 31 years and remember when it was a service not a business, we used to help customers, and take time for them
      it is no longer the case as we are pushed all the time

  3. Doomlord says:

    Not sure the Post Office is a natural monopoly. I get parcels from UPS and other rivals all the time. And I see no reason why we couldn’t have, say, blue post boxes on street corners.

    But, of course, this being mooted by the ideological shambles known as the Tories, there are no plans to institute competition – merely a sham of it so that yet more public moneys can be trousered by the private sector.

    Thank the Lord I live in London, where most post originates, and where costs can accordingly be kept somewhere approaching reasonable. Pity those who live out in the sticks: the price of their stamps is about to rocket…

    • pinhut says:

      Natural monopoly or not, there is an inexorable logic to permitting everybody to be served, regardless of the remoteness of their location (and not that many places in the UK are that remote), by the postal service and charging a flat rate. Unfortunately, the ‘profit potential’ of the postal service is formed, in large part, by simply chopping away all the expensive out-of-the-way places and/or placing massive premiums against them. The same happened with bus services.

      Now, to finish the point. There are reasons why people live in remote areas, or, for that matter, in rural areas where it costs more to send a bus. They doubtless work as hard as the rest of their fellow citizens, and, what’s more, we need them. It’s not worth building a lighthouse in the centre of Nottingham, it’s not a good idea to have a dairy farm in the basement of a tower block.

      If we have a notion that we as a people form ‘a society’ then it can be seen that it is a part of that society to carry the extra costs as a group, of providing the small number of loss-making services to our fellow citizens. Who knows, we might even want to send them a letter some fine day.

      If we reject this logic, we end up with the wholly atomised model, you know, the model that is always talking up ‘personal responsibility’ and would give treatment to somebody who broke their leg while working, but deny it to somebody who broke their leg while snowboarding (we know this type of person). And don’t mention treating diseases linked to smoking, etc. These people are basically Nazis who want to externalise all the costs of providing services, without acknowledging that the formulation of such a system would itself vastly inflate prices for goods and services thus rendered (see US healthcare).

      To turn it around then, this destruction of the Royal Mail, and the ‘efficiencies’ that it pursues, are, to me, just another means of releasing the profit for a small group of mercenaries from that thing they simply don’t believe in – society. I can understand them. What I find harder to fathom are the Little Men who cling to their coat-tails and rejoice in each ritual slaying of some aspect of the social fabric. It would be best to force such people into the completely privatised existence that they pine for FIRST, while the rest of us continued on our merry way. They’d soon be back.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement