Royal Mail should return to public hands, members decided comfortably, and the debate was less a clash of ideologues than an argument among people who dislike the status quo and disagree about the cure.
The most-respected Yes case was a point of principle: “A universal obligation is inherently incompatible with having a privatised business.” Either it belongs to the public or it doesn't. A former postman put the workplace version tersely: “We were overworked for profit.” Another Yes voter called the service “not a cash cow for foreign billionaires”.
The No side had two most-respected arguments, and neither defended the current owners. One said the problems lie in “regulation and enforcement” rather than private ownership, and that spending billions is no fix. The other was torn, conceding that service has fallen dramatically but doubting a shrinking letters business could turn a profit. Elsewhere, No voters pointed to steel, water and trains: “We can't keep nationalising businesses that lose money”.
The cost point cut across the divide. One Yes voter admitted renationalisation “Might cost too much”, while a No voter was blunt about their dilemma, unwilling to see a Czech billionaire own it yet doubtful the government could run it well. The question sits inside the wider argument over public ownership of utilities and infrastructure.
The lingering note: both camps agreed the mail is failing, and split on who should be holding it.
54 Opinions
A universal obligation is inherently incompatible with having a privatised business. Either it's ours or it isn't, but this half way house is shitty for everyone.
As a former postman, yes. We were overworked for profit.
It's an essential service, like water, transport, not meant to be sold. Some parts of the services have improved, others have not, our "post office" looks like a very small outside version of the indoor post offices they have in the US, and it's not in the high street. Yes, it needs re-nationalizing. Might cost too much, could we set up a nationalized alternative in the UK instead?
This is a tough one. My heart says yes. My head says no. With declining numbers of items sent through the mail, I'm not sure renationalisation and bringing it up to previous standards could be profitable, however much I'd like to see that. It should cease to be called Royal Mail. Standards, certainly where I am, have fallen dramatically. Post regularly through wrong doors. Late mail. Non delivery. With potentially serious consequences.
The problems with Royal Mail lie in regulation and enforcement rather than it being private. Spending Billions on renationalising is not a cost effective resolution
Nationalising anything should have a VERY high bar, as state is generally not an effective operator of anything. Postal services doesn't pass this bar for me.
UK is skint and the lib Dem Ed Davy should be ashamed ,he killed off the P0 and 1000s of jobs.
Narrowly no. It's a loss making business. The RM management needs an overhaul, & they need to increase costs to those sending junk mail, parcels, and irrelevant letters. Yet, my yes instincts are it's a cornerstone of UK life. We can't keep nationalising businesses that lose money, tho. Steel, water, trains, now post? We, the tax payer, would have to compensate the owners. Unless we get it for a nominal sum, if it's a company in the red. You see my quandary?
Yes, it's been the Royal mail for the past 800yrs. I don't know how they dared to sell it off. Absolute disgrace if I'm honest. It has become a terribly poor service these days. I don't blame my postie though! I blame the shareholders for being greedy so and sos...
It was an industrial relations nightmare when it was & it has not really improved. The issue is that it’s a declining industry because of email & it never looked to the future due to the Unions so how appropriate that some think we should spend £Billions on something that’s not working properly. No amount of State interference will help. A total of money.