Royal Mail and letter size

I think the system was partly an effort to take a slice of ebay pie (to bolster RMs rapidly dwindling profits they claim they need to 'modernise'). RM claim that many people would end up paying less overall because some size brackets were cheaper for increased weight... but who sends a letter weighing more than 250 g unless it's written on sheet metal?! RM noticed a surge over recent years in people posting larger items due to ebay and online shopping. The new pricing structure was intended to cover the added cost plus bolster profits. RM blocked competitors by denying (and later by using sneaky tactics to restrict) access to the 'last mile' of delivery. They were investigated and fined by the Office of Fair Trading and ordered to open access to competitors. Since they did this, a lot of online stores (Amazon is one notable example) have switched to more efficient, cheaper companies such as TNT and Business Post. So the irony is, the extra profit has been dented by the lost profit due to loss of big business contracts. And small traders who don't dispatch the 250 items a day required to secure a TNT/ Business contract are suffering the burden of the extra costs. And people using the system to post personal mail are, as you point out, left bewildered. I can recommend buying a plywood template cheaply from ebay if you send a lot of mail. The only winners are large companies who have left Royal Mail. It wasn't so much a scheme dreamt up by meddlesome bureaucrats who have never run so much as a whelk stall but by people who thought that their 'monopoly' and privileged position in the market meant they could charge what they liked and everyone would have to pay. Then the Office of Fair trading pissed on their bonfire. Eventually, I think TNT and co may open up their doors to the smaller business and personal customer by having small 'post it yourself' weighing and labelling machines at their City depots. Bring it on I say! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Royal Mail's line, I think, is that it costs more deliver big packages that don't weigh very much than it costs to deliver small packages that don't deliver very much. I personally strongly supported and support the reintroduction of Royal Mail's monopoly. It was a decent compromise that helped to sustained the Post Office's awkward but useful position as a cross between a business and a social service. Royal Mail got to make money off profitable stuff, where it now has to compete in the marketplace, while providing other services which the market would not provide. Try and get TNT to take your Christmas card to your auntie in the Shetland Islands for 34p. It's a move away from a broadly fair, collectivised service to a service that prioritises the needs of big business and people who live in big cities.

The problem with this kind of monopoly is when there is no competition, an organisation can get away with providing the dreadful service that RM provide. Yes, it is good they will deliver a letter for 34p anywhere in the UK but to the small business who can't opt out it's a RoyalPainintheArse. The small businessman has no choice but to stand in a queue for 20 mins (because of all the social service provisions you mention) ... even if you buy the postage online, you still have to queue to get a certificate of posting. The 0.01 % of lost mail cited my Royal Mail has in my own experience been closer to 0.2 % (because their stats don't include those who can't prove their lost mail was posted)...okay they compensate you but its no good for a reputation. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Well, a small business person does have a choice about standing in the queue. They can buy some scales and a ruler and print labels off the internet. But I'm not generally defending the service that Royal Mail provides now. It's completely crap. My argument is the reason why it's completely crap is that we've moved from a semi-socialized system of mail delivery to a marketized one. Royal Mail is not a viable business now that it can't cross-subsidize less profitable activities with more profitable ones and it's difficult to see any logical way it can improve much in the conditions that its now forced to operate in (primarily by the EU). The ultimate end point will be that the bits of Royal Mail that are vaguely profitable will be sold off and the taxpayer will be left propping up a safety net state funded agency doing the stuff that's not profitable. That will ultimately be a much worse situation than the largely self-sufficient monopoly model we started with.

Even if you label up at home, you still have to queue to get a certificate of posting which is essential given the chance of your item being lost, damaged or stolen. I understand your PoV in the past but today, less profitable activities can often be moved online (such as MOT renewal or drivers licence application forms) and to libraries and town halls/council offices for the ever dwindling number of people without Internet Access. Pensions and other welfare can be paid directly into Bank Accounts, bill payments can be made online/ in banks (for a small fee) or cheque by post etc. Admittedly, I sometimes pay my council rent and tax at the post office because I wouldn't trust Southwark Council with a blunt knife never mind my bank details but only because I'm queuing to post things every day anyway. There are three Council cash offices in the Borough where I could also pay if the post office were not able to process my payment. Opening up the market will, I hope, see a better choice and quality in UK postal services. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

fuck! Can it get any more exciting? Oh dear! I think I ruptured my pomposity.