How taxpayers lost billions on the sale of Royal Mail

by Irn Bru Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:30 am

BUSINESS secretary Vince Cable last night came under fire after new figures showed Royal Mail was valued at £8.6billion months before it was sold for £3.3billion.

Business minister Michael Fallon revealed the estimates of 21 different banks in answers to written Parliamentary questions.

On average they gave a price for the postal service, widely considered the UK’s greatest asset, of between £3.9billion and £4.8billion, while some said it could have been much higher.

It fuels repeated claims that ministers undervalued Royal Mail when they sold 60 per cent of the company.

Shares were sold last October at 330p each, raising £2billion for the Government, which retained a 30 per cent stake in the company. The other 10 per cent was sold to staff.

However, the share price went up by more than a third on the first day of trading, and broke through the 550p mark within a week.

Last night they were valued at 598p.

Billy Hayes, general secretary of the CWU union, branded the sell-off “disgraceful” accusing Mr Cable of “selling the public short”.

He said: “Yet again new revelations are coming to the fore about the Government’s failure to sell off Royal Mail at its real value, resulting in a huge financial loss to taxpayers.

“It is utterly disgraceful that so much money has been thrown away by Coalition ministers by selling off Royal Mail.” He said the deal had been made for “political purposes” to boost investors’ profits at the expense of the taxpayer.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/461848/How-taxpayers-lost-billions-on-the-sale-of-Royal-Mail

If this is true then hopefully this government can explain why there is such a large discrepancy and why it was sold off at the price they set.

by Fred Bloggs Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:23 am

I got some of the shares and was a taxpayer. I'm very happy thanks.

Now when Gordon sold the gold to foreigners we lost the lot. You defend that.

by Guest Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:29 am

They definitely should have got more for Royal Mail.

And Gordon should have got more too.

by Irn Bru Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:16 pm

Fred Bloggs wrote:I got some of the shares and was a taxpayer. I'm very happy thanks.

Now when Gordon sold the gold to foreigners we lost the lot. You defend that.

Of course your happy that the bulk of the shares didn't go to the ordinary taxpayers.

How much money was lost on the Gold sale? Be as accurate as you can.

by Dagenham Monologues Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:32 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote:I got some of the shares and was a taxpayer. I'm very happy thanks.

Now when Gordon sold the gold to foreigners we lost the lot. You defend that.

Of course your happy that the bulk of the shares didn't go to the ordinary taxpayers.

How much money was lost on the Gold sale? Be as accurate as you can.

Do you want the amount lost compared to its high? It was huge. Gordon didn't have to sell at its low I have no idea why he did. Royal Mail has one of the most Communist lead trade unions in situ. Gold was solid the Royal Mail less so given the unions promised industrial action. Get my point comrade.

Back to Labour central for your next press release.

by Irn Bru Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:34 pm

kevins58 wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote:I got some of the shares and was a taxpayer. I'm very happy thanks.

Now when Gordon sold the gold to foreigners we lost the lot. You defend that.

Of course your happy that the bulk of the shares didn't go to the ordinary taxpayers.

How much money was lost on the Gold sale? Be as accurate as you can.

Do you want the amount lost compared to its high? It was huge. Gordon didn't have to sell at its low I have no idea why he did. Royal Mail has one of the most Communist lead trade unions in situ. Gold was solid the Royal Mail less so given the unions promised industrial action. Get my point comrade.

Back to Labour central for your next press release.

I'll take the figures that shows a hole in the UK finances as a result of the Gold sale. That's what I'm asking for.

by Dagenham Monologues Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:43 pm

This from the supporter of a Labour party who ramped up spending so much they left the biggest deficit in history..

Not really credible.

by Guest Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:46 pm

Oh dear! The world banking financial crisis and the total fuck up the banks made, and are still making while paying themselves millions in bonuses, was the cause, even Cameron recognised that.

by Irn Bru Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:49 pm

kevins58 wrote:This from the supporter of a Labour party who ramped up spending so much they left the biggest deficit in history..

Not really credible.

Spending by Labour was no worse than that of the Tories before them. That's why in opposition that Osborne pledged to match and indeed exceed Labour's spending plans.

Didn't you know that?

by Dagenham Monologues Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:52 pm

Sassy wrote:Oh dear! The world banking financial crisis and the total fuck up the banks made, and are still making while paying themselves millions in bonuses, was the cause,

Cameron recognised that.

Because I know not think you are inadequate in the numeracy dept I'll give ground. Did the bankers employ nearly a million extra public service staff OR did Labour.

How much do you think does a million staff cost??

How much do you think the deficit was made up of public sector salaries and pensions?

Throughout Labours reign who was paying for their salaries?

Why didn't Labour look more closely at who their money was coming from and how it was made?

God you are so shallow.

by Guest Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:55 pm

God you are thick Drinky, but you know that don't you?

Public servants - that will be teachers, doctors, cleaning, care staff etc etc. And life has been very difficult for a lot of people without them. And very expensive paying for the privately run companies that make a fortune out of doing the jobs that public servants like them used to do.

by Irn Bru Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:56 pm

kevins58 wrote:
Sassy wrote:Oh dear! The world banking financial crisis and the total fuck up the banks made, and are still making while paying themselves millions in bonuses, was the cause,

Cameron recognised that.

Because I know not think you are inadequate in the numeracy dept I'll give ground. Did the bankers employ nearly a million extra public service staff OR did Labour.

How much do you think does a million staff cost??

How much do you think the deficit was made up of public sector salaries and pensions?

Throughout Labours reign who was paying for their salaries?

Why didn't Labour look more closely at who their money was coming from and how it was made?

God you are so shallow.

How did the employment of public sector staff compare between Labour and the Tory government before them?

Show me that Labour employed more public sector staff than the Tories did before them. I'm sure you must have the figures.

by Sponsored content

How taxpayers lost billions on the sale of Royal Mail

How taxpayers lost billions on the sale of Royal Mail

Re: How taxpayers lost billions on the sale of Royal Mail

Re: How taxpayers lost billions on the sale of Royal Mail

Re: How taxpayers lost billions on the sale of Royal Mail

Re: How taxpayers lost billions on the sale of Royal Mail

Re: How taxpayers lost billions on the sale of Royal Mail

Re: How taxpayers lost billions on the sale of Royal Mail

Re: How taxpayers lost billions on the sale of Royal Mail

Re: How taxpayers lost billions on the sale of Royal Mail

Re: How taxpayers lost billions on the sale of Royal Mail

Re: How taxpayers lost billions on the sale of Royal Mail

Re: How taxpayers lost billions on the sale of Royal Mail

Re: How taxpayers lost billions on the sale of Royal Mail