Osborne's best man's hedge fund made £36 million profit on Royal Mail

George Osborne’s best man heads up a hedge fund which has secured profits of £36m from the privatisation of Royal Mail in under six months — £210,000 for each day since the sale in October last year.

The chancellor’s university friend Peter Davies sits on the management committee of Lansdowne Partners, which snapped up shares at the offer price of just 330p. They are now trading at 564p — a whopping 70% higher.

The government has been slammed today by the National Audit Office for an under-priced sale which saw City firms walk off with two-thirds of the public asset while 40,000 ordinary individual investors were excluded:

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/04/osborne-best-mans-hedge-fund-made-36m-profit-on-royal-mail/?utm_source=politicalscrapbook.net&utm_medium=psbook_featt&utm_campaign=psbook_featt1

What a disgusting shower this lot in government are. So much for Ossborne telling us that we are all in this together.

Nothing more than a bunch of chancers and professional robbers who don't even have the decency to wear masks.

Get them out.

Why are we taking this? They are profiteers, conmen, it's beyond me why we are not having a revolution.

Sassy wrote:Why are we taking this?   They are profiteers, conmen, it's beyond me why we are not having a revolution.

They do have their cheerleaders who worship at their altar trying to convince people that it's all good and the benefits of all this will trickle down to those who question what is going on. There's even a few on here.

The profiteers, the corrupt bankers and this disgusting government must love them whilst laughing all the way to their bank accounts.

Without people like them the country would have justice for once.

Sassy wrote:Without people like them the country would have justice for once.

Without scrounger like your mate we wouldn't have excessive taxation.

The sale of Royal Mail and its initial price may in hindsight have been too low but conversely had it been set too high would not have happened. The threat of strikes by the union made it a risk and that risk has not yet passed.

What I can say Irn Bru is that Gordon did sell our gold reserves at rock bottom prices when he didn't need the money. Since you support that why not this. Isn't this wasteful enough for you?

The sale has been planned by labour for years.


And if they were in office they would have done exactly the same.


I for one was against the sale.

We have already had a letter detailing 'changes' to services and deliveries

Tommy Monk wrote:The sale has been planned by labour for years.


And if they were in office they would have done exactly the same.


I for one was against the sale.

I think you are wrong Tommy.

Read this....

Cameron falsely claims Labour pledged to privatise Royal Mail in manifesto

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/02/cameron-falsely-claims-labour-pledged-privatise-royal-mail

See, you just made the same mistake that Cameron made but that's what you get when you listen to someone who just lies over and over again.

Cameron has lied so many times people believe it. What is supposed to be the penalty for deliberately lying to Parliament?

Sassy wrote:Cameron has lied so many times people believe it.   What is supposed to be the penalty for deliberately lying to Parliament?

There have been calls for him to return to the House to correct the record but as usual he'll just give it two fingers.

He has no respect for the HOC, as far as he is concerned it is the personal playground of the Bully Club.

Sassy wrote:He has no respect for the HOC, as far as he is concerned it is the personal playground of the Bully Club.

Still fawning after Bru Sassy. Does he like them big?

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The sale has been planned by labour for years.
And if they were in office they would have done exactly the same.
I for one was against the sale.

I think you are wrong Tommy.
Read this....
Cameron falsely claims Labour pledged to privatise Royal Mail in manifesto
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/02/cameron-falsely-claims-labour-pledged-privatise-royal-mail
See, you just made the same mistake that Cameron made but that's what you get when you listen to someone who just lies over and over again.

Come off it!

What selective memories you lefties have!


Do you really think a guardian link is proof of anything?

The sell off by labour was planned as far back as 2000 when they brought in the postal services act 2000, created 50,000 or So shares and changed the name to Consignia, this was all done to facilitate the sale!



"...The recommendations in the Hooper Review led Business Secretary Lord Mandelson to seek to part privatise the company by selling a minority stake to a commercial partner. However despite legislation for the sale passing the House of Lords, it was abandoned in the House of Commons after strong opposition from backbench Labour MPs. The government later cited the difficult economic conditions for the reason behind the retreat..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail


And....

"...The year 2001 was an annus horribilis for the UK’s postal service. In January, the business became a laughing stock when it announced a change of name from the Post Office, which had served it well since 1635, to Consignia. To consign, it said, meant “to entrust to the care of”. The name was pilloried.
The business was heading into a financial crisis that threatened to consume it. When results for the year to March 2002 were published, they showed losses before tax had soared to £1.1bn. At the same time, the Department for Trade and Industry hit upon the idea of trying to sell the company to the Dutch postal service, TPG. Talks went on secretly for months, during which time Patricia Hewitt succeeded Stephen Byers as trade and industry secretary in Tony Blair’s Labour government.
Allan Leighton, who had joined the board in April (later to become chairman), said the talks were “shambolic because none of the numbers were right . . . So I said there’s no way this transaction would ever happen”. The government finally came to the same conclusion.
Lord Mandelson
Labour’s most serious effort to part-privatise Royal Mail occurred under Peter Mandelson, who had joined Gordon Brown’s government as business secretary. He tried to legislate to sell a 30 per cent stake, based on an independent review by Richard Hooper, which recommended that an outside investor, preferably with postal expertise, be brought in.
Lord Mandelson was forced to shelve the effort in July 2009. He blamed adverse market conditions, but he also faced a mass revolt by Labour backbenchers in the Commons, influenced by the Communication Workers Union, which was deeply opposed to privatisation.
An auction of potential bidders was conducted at the same time, but in the end only CVC Capital Partners, a London-based private equity group, was in the frame, with a bid that fell short of what ministers were seeking. TNT, the Dutch postal business, lost interest as it focused on its own restructuring, and Germany’s Deutsche Post withdrew..."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4af1e6d8-1bb8-11e3-b678-00144feab7de.html



Know your history!

Looks like iron hoof has run away.....!

"...that's what you get when you listen to someone who just lies over and over again."

Tommy Monk wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The sale has been planned by labour for years.
And if they were in office they would have done exactly the same.
I for one was against the sale.

I think you are wrong Tommy.
Read this....
Cameron falsely claims Labour pledged to privatise Royal Mail in manifesto
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/02/cameron-falsely-claims-labour-pledged-privatise-royal-mail
See, you just made the same mistake that Cameron made but that's what you get when you listen to someone who just lies over and over again.

Come off it!

What selective memories you lefties have!


Do you really think a guardian link is proof of anything?

The sell off by labour was planned as far back as 2000 when they brought in the postal services act 2000, created 50,000 or So shares and changed the name to Consignia, this was all done to facilitate the sale!



"...The recommendations in the Hooper Review led Business Secretary Lord Mandelson to seek to part privatise the company by selling a minority stake to a commercial partner. However despite legislation for the sale passing the House of Lords, it was abandoned in the House of Commons after strong opposition from backbench Labour MPs. The government later cited the difficult economic conditions for the reason behind the retreat..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail


And....

"...The year 2001 was an annus horribilis for the UK’s postal service. In January, the business became a laughing stock when it announced a change of name from the Post Office, which had served it well since 1635, to Consignia. To consign, it said, meant “to entrust to the care of”. The name was pilloried.
The business was heading into a financial crisis that threatened to consume it. When results for the year to March 2002 were published, they showed losses before tax had soared to £1.1bn. At the same time, the Department for Trade and Industry hit upon the idea of trying to sell the company to the Dutch postal service, TPG. Talks went on secretly for months, during which time Patricia Hewitt succeeded Stephen Byers as trade and industry secretary in Tony Blair’s Labour government.
Allan Leighton, who had joined the board in April (later to become chairman), said the talks were “shambolic because none of the numbers were right . . . So I said there’s no way this transaction would ever happen”. The government finally came to the same conclusion.
Lord Mandelson
Labour’s most serious effort to part-privatise Royal Mail occurred under Peter Mandelson, who had joined Gordon Brown’s government as business secretary. He tried to legislate to sell a 30 per cent stake, based on an independent review by Richard Hooper, which recommended that an outside investor, preferably with postal expertise, be brought in.
Lord Mandelson was forced to shelve the effort in July 2009. He blamed adverse market conditions, but he also faced a mass revolt by Labour backbenchers in the Commons, influenced by the Communication Workers Union, which was deeply opposed to privatisation.
An auction of potential bidders was conducted at the same time, but in the end only CVC Capital Partners, a London-based private equity group, was in the frame, with a bid that fell short of what ministers were seeking. TNT, the Dutch postal business, lost interest as it focused on its own restructuring, and Germany’s Deutsche Post withdrew..."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4af1e6d8-1bb8-11e3-b678-00144feab7de.html



Know your history!

Tommy, that's not even a half decent attempt to divert away from Cameron's lies and you falling into the same trap.

And Mandelson's attempts to sell off 30% of Royal Mail were scrapped because of lack of support from within Labour itself and because they wouldn't sell it off 30% anyway unless the price was right. It was widely reported at the time but if you have just discovered it then it really just shows that your attempts to try and bring this up as some sort of an exclusive have come a few years too late.

Back to the drawing board for you chum

The claim by Cameron is wrong just as you were.

Tommy Monk wrote:Looks like iron hoof has run away.....!

I'm here now Tommy and I see you couldn't even get my user name right.

Oh dear.

Tommy Monk wrote:"...that's what you get when you listen to someone who just lies over and over again."

That's right Tommy. Just stop listening to Cameron and you'll be just fine. Trust me.

My claim was completely correct!
Here it is again....
Tommy Monk wrote:
The sale had been planned by labour for years.
And if they were in office they would have done exactly the same.
I for one was against the sale.
And proved by my links!
You said I got it wrong.
Turns out you got it wrong and I was 100% correct!
Know your history!

Tommy Monk wrote:"...that's what you get when you listen to someone who just lies over and over again."

If this happened in France the roads and ports would be shut down.   

If that is what you call getting it right Tommy, lord knows what you are like when you admit to getting it wrong.   Flat Earth?

Mandelson suggested a part sale.   The Labour Party TURNED THE SUGGESTION DOWN.   Get it?

Tommy Monk wrote:My claim was completely correct!
Here it is again....
Tommy Monk wrote:
The sale had been planned by labour for years.
And if they were in office they would have done exactly the same.
I for one was against the sale.
And proved by my links!
You said I got it wrong.
Turns out you got it wrong and I was 100% correct!
Know your history!

The proof is in the pudding Tommy. Did they sell 30% of Royal Mail? Was it in the manifesto as Cameron claimed and you swallowed hook line and sinker?

Don't be the pudding Tommy and just man up and admit that Cameron was wrong and so were you.

30% or not was still a planned sell off.
And You wouldn't make a company a plc and create 50,000 shares unless there was a plan to sell some off. This happened back in 2000!!!
And as shown in my FT link was seriously discussed soon after that, so you can bet that the plan went back a bit further still!
Thus my post was completely correct!
I have not llistened to Cameron over this, it is well known facts!

Tommy Monk wrote:30% or not was still a planned sell off.
And You wouldn't make a company a plc and create 50,000 shares unless there was a plan to sell some off. This happened back in 2000!!!
And as shown in my FT link was disbursed soon after that, so you can bet that the plan went back a bit further still!
Thus my post was completely correct!
I have not llistened to Cameron over this, it is well known facts!

It did go back further indeed it went back to Heseltine and the Tories. Labour scrapped the plan to sell 30% of Royal Mail because of lack of support within the party itself. It's not breaking news you know.

They didn't sell it did they and it was not in the manifesto as Cameron claimed and you took in so what is it about that that you don't get?

It's not breaking news but you denied it ever happened!


And what percentage was planned to be sold back in 2002 to the Dutch postal service, TPG.?



I am fully aware that the plan to sell went back further to the Tory govt, but that is not what I claimed and that you said was wrong.


And I said nothing about what Cameron may or may not have said because I was unaware of what he had said.



Now are you going to man up and admit I was right all along?

Nope, he denied the Labour PARTY was ever going to do it, and they weren't. And it WASN'T planned, it was suggested and turned down. Suggestions are made all the time, until they have been discussed and accepted they are NOT policy.

It was very planned.

You don't change the company structure to plc and create 50,000 shares unless you are planning to sell some of it.


Labour did this back in 2000-2001.


They tried to sell it twice!



Read the links!

Tommy Monk wrote:It's not breaking news but you denied it ever happened!


And what percentage was planned to be sold back in 2002 to the Dutch postal service, TPG.?



I am fully aware that the plan to sell went back further to the Tory govt, but that is not what I claimed and that you said was wrong.


And I said nothing about what Cameron may or may not have said because I was unaware of what he had said.



Now are you going to man up and admit I was right all along?

But if they didn't sell Royal Mail then it never happened, did it?

And now you are claiming that you didn't know what Cameron said which is strange that it took you so long to come up with that one. However, now that you know that he said selling Royal Mail was in the Labour manifesto you are now in a position to agree that he was lying - which is the subject of the debate.

Labour scrapped any plans they had to sell 30% of Royal Mail for the reasons already provided so you are in a position to admit that as well. Would you like to do that now or are you just going to struggle along with you're futile argument?

Think he will probably struggle along with the futile argument   

I said that labour had planned the sale years ago and that they would have probably sold it if they got back in govt.
You denied it and started going on about Cameron.
I knew nothing about what Cameron did or didn't say on the matter, and it was nothing to do with what I was saying so irrelevant.
I proved that labour planned the sale as far back as 2000 when they changed the company structure to plc and created shares. This would only be done to facilitate a planned sell off.
They then tried to see it off twice during their remaining time in office!
You can wriggle about all you want but the evidence is clear!
Or are you going to start trying to tell me what I mean again??
Man up and know your history!

Tommy Monk wrote:I said that labour had planned the sale years ago and that they would have probably sold it if they got back in govt.
You denied it and started going on about Cameron.
I knew nothing about what Cameron did or didn't say on the matter, and it was nothing to do with what I was saying so irrelevant.
I proved that labour planned the sale as far back as 2000 when they changed the company structure to plc and created shares. This would only be done to facilitate a planned sell off.
They then tried to see it off twice during their remaining time in office!
You can wriggle about all you want but the evidence is clear!
Or are you going to start trying to tell me what I mean again??
Man up and know your history!

Tommy, tell me when Labour sold off Royal Mail or if they didn't tell me why they didn't. And whilst you're at it please also tell me if it was in the last Labour manifesto that they were going sell Royal Mail.

So now that you know it wasn't are you going to get around to agreeing that Cameron lied when he said it was - the subject of the debate.

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I said that labour had planned the sale years ago and that they would have probably sold it if they got back in govt.
You denied it and started going on about Cameron.
I knew nothing about what Cameron did or didn't say on the matter, and it was nothing to do with what I was saying so irrelevant.
I proved that labour planned the sale as far back as 2000 when they changed the company structure to plc and created shares. This would only be done to facilitate a planned sell off.
They then tried to see it off twice during their remaining time in office!
You can wriggle about all you want but the evidence is clear!
Or are you going to start trying to tell me what I mean again??
Man up and know your history!

Tommy, tell me when Labour sold off Royal Mail or if they didn't tell me why they didn't. And whilst you're at it please also tell me if it was in the last Labour manifesto that they were going sell Royal Mail.
So now that you know it wasn't are you going to get around to agreeing that Cameron lied when he said it was - the subject of the debate.

Labour wanted to sell it off going back years, as I said, and as I've proved against your denial, which was subject of debate.
And although it was 'officially' dropped after their second attempt at it, I'm sure the plan was still active and they would have probably tried again if they made it into govt this time round too!


I did not read the labour manifesto comic edition, and I have no idea what was in it or not. I also had no idea of Camerons comments, or should I be held to explain them.



This was something you brought up, and completely superfluous to any of my post.

Ok, so they discussed it and threw it out, but according to you they were still going to do it, even though it was never in any manifesto and even though it was never discussed again. Cameron lied to HOC twice, twice saying that it was in a Labour manifesto.

You think you win an argument by saying 'I'm sure the plan was still active' when they had thrown it out as a bad idea? No wonder Conservatives think they win arguments by telling lies if you are an example.

PS, Irn's just gone to bed, so you will have to wait for his reply until tomorrow.

Was it ever in any labour manifesto.....?


Although they changed the company structure to facilitate the sale and that they tried to sell it twice.....?



Why do you keep going on about Cameron?

Whatever he may or not have said was nothing to do with my post.

Tommy Monk wrote:Was it ever in any labour manifesto.....?


Although they changed the company structure to facilitate the sale and that they tried to sell it twice.....?



Why do you keep going on about Cameron?

Whatever he may or not have said was nothing to do with my post.

We keep going on about Cameron because this thread is about him and his buddy Osborne and his lying to the House of Commons at PMQs. So now that you know he lied here's your chance to admit that he did.
And it was not in Labour's manifesto for 2010 and it wasn't in their manifesto for 2005 either. You can easily check that can't you or do I have to guide you through how to do it?

Keep digging

No, this thread is about Osborne and the sell off.


There was no mention of what Cameron did or didn't say until you brought it up as a diversion after you denied labour tried to sell it off and that their plan to do so went back years (to at least 2000 to be precise).



Now, was it in any labour manifesto that they intended to sell it off although they changed the company structure back in 2000/2001 to facilitate this sale, and they tried to sell it off twice during their time in office?


No it wasnt!

So the fact it was not in their 2010 manifesto means absolutely nothing, as they would have probably tried to sell it off again! As I also stated!


Gay marriage was not in any manifesto either but look what happened there!

Tory brought it forward and it only got through with the backing of labour in parliament!



So I don't know what shallow victory you are trying to achieve here with your irrelevant waffle about Cameron and labour manifesto, but it had nothing to do with my post at all!



I have proved my post to be true, against your waffle denial, so just man up, admit I was right all along, and stop wriggling and digging and making yourself look more of a lying twat than you do already!

You are nuts. Make something up, pretend it's true, have no proof, in fact the proof shows the opposite, and somehow you think you are right. What a good little Conservative you are.

What have I made up then Sassy?


I said labour had planned to sell it off years ago.



This was denied by IBS, and I have provided proof that it was true.



I also said that labour would have probably tried to sell it off again too, which they probably would have given their previous track record.

Ok, it might not have been in their manifesto 2010, but it wasn't in any of their previous ones either and that didn't stop them trying, so irrelevant.



You're clearly suffering from an acute form of denial here!


I think you need help if you truly believe what you just posted!

No, you have provided proof that it was discussed, then it was discarded and they didn't adopt it. It has never been party policy. 'Probably' doesn't cut the mustard, that's just your opinion, not fact and not backed up by policy documents. You are the one in denial, in fact, not denial, making up stuff as you go along.

Tommy Monk wrote:No, this thread is about Osborne and the sell off.


There was no mention of what Cameron did or didn't say until you brought it up as a diversion after you denied labour tried to sell it off and that their plan to do so went back years (to at least 2000 to be precise).



Now, was it in any labour manifesto that they intended to sell it off although they changed the company structure back in 2000/2001 to facilitate this sale, and they tried to sell it off twice during their time in office?


No it wasnt!

So the fact it was not in their 2010 manifesto means absolutely nothing, as they would have probably tried to sell it off again! As I also stated!


Gay marriage was not in any manifesto either but look what happened there!

Tory brought it forward and it only got through with the backing of labour in parliament!



So I don't know what shallow victory you are trying to achieve here with your irrelevant waffle about Cameron and labour manifesto, but it had nothing to do with my post at all!



I have proved my post to be true, against your waffle denial, so just man up, admit I was right all along, and stop wriggling and digging and making yourself look more of a lying twat than you do already!

Indeed it is Tommy but you brought up that Labour were going to sell Royal Mail a claim that Cameron made in the House of Commons which was a lie. You just got sucked in believing that to be true when it wasn't.

So now that you know that Cameron lied and it wasn't in any Labour's manifesto you now have the chance here and now to agree that he was lying.

See, your wrong. There was no sell off, no price for the shares was ever set. In fact nothing happened that even remotely got anywhere near selling off Royal Mail so just have the good grace to agree that that is true.

Don't be a twat Sassy!
It wasn't just 'discussed'!!!!
It was actively pursued!!!!!
TWICE!!!!!!
Although never in any manifesto, so what's your point on policy?
Do you know anything about company structure?
What other reason is there for changing the company structure back in 2000 to a plc and creating 50,000 shares, unless there was intent to sell some of them?
????????
Answer : the only reason this would be done was so some could be sold!
My post stands.

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:No, this thread is about Osborne and the sell off.
There was no mention of what Cameron did or didn't say until you brought it up as a diversion after you denied labour tried to sell it off and that their plan to do so went back years (to at least 2000 to be precise).
Now, was it in any labour manifesto that they intended to sell it off although they changed the company structure back in 2000/2001 to facilitate this sale, and they tried to sell it off twice during their time in office?
No it wasnt!
So the fact it was not in their 2010 manifesto means absolutely nothing, as they would have probably tried to sell it off again! As I also stated!
Gay marriage was not in any manifesto either but look what happened there!
Tory brought it forward and it only got through with the backing of labour in parliament!
So I don't know what shallow victory you are trying to achieve here with your irrelevant waffle about Cameron and labour manifesto, but it had nothing to do with my post at all!
I have proved my post to be true, against your waffle denial, so just man up, admit I was right all along, and stop wriggling and digging and making yourself look more of a lying twat than you do already!

Indeed it is Tommy but you brought up that Labour were going to sell Royal Mail a claim that Cameron made in the House of Commons which was a lie. You just got sucked in believing that to be true when it wasn't.
So now that you know that Cameron lied and it wasn't in any Labour's manifesto you now have the chance here and now to agree that he was lying.
See, your wrong. There was no sell off, no price for the shares was ever set. In fact nothing happened that even remotely got anywhere near selling off Royal Mail so just have the good grace to agree that that is true.

It is my own personal opinion that I believe that labour would have tried to sell it again if they could, nothing to do with Cameron or what he may or may not have said!


So just an irrelevant diversion by you.


My original post stands.


Labour tried to sell it off twice, as proved, although never in any manifesto, and I believe would have tried again if still in office.



Now stop digging and making yourself look more of a lying and slippery twat, and just admit I was right..... again!

Tommy Monk wrote:Don't be a twat Sassy!
It wasn't just 'discussed'!!!!
It was actively pursued!!!!!
TWICE!!!!!!
Although never in any manifesto, so what's your point on policy?
Do you know anything about company structure?
What other reason is there for changing the company structure back in 2000 to a plc and creating 50,000 shares, unless there was intent to sell some of them?
????????
Answer : the only reason this would be done was so some could be sold!
My post stands.

If it was actively pursued then how come it wasn't sold?

And tell me what happened to the 50000 shares and who bought them?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:No, this thread is about Osborne and the sell off.
There was no mention of what Cameron did or didn't say until you brought it up as a diversion after you denied labour tried to sell it off and that their plan to do so went back years (to at least 2000 to be precise).
Now, was it in any labour manifesto that they intended to sell it off although they changed the company structure back in 2000/2001 to facilitate this sale, and they tried to sell it off twice during their time in office?
No it wasnt!
So the fact it was not in their 2010 manifesto means absolutely nothing, as they would have probably tried to sell it off again! As I also stated!
Gay marriage was not in any manifesto either but look what happened there!
Tory brought it forward and it only got through with the backing of labour in parliament!
So I don't know what shallow victory you are trying to achieve here with your irrelevant waffle about Cameron and labour manifesto, but it had nothing to do with my post at all!
I have proved my post to be true, against your waffle denial, so just man up, admit I was right all along, and stop wriggling and digging and making yourself look more of a lying twat than you do already!

Indeed it is Tommy but you brought up that Labour were going to sell Royal Mail a claim that Cameron made in the House of Commons which was a lie. You just got sucked in believing that to be true when it wasn't.
So now that you know that Cameron lied and it wasn't in any Labour's manifesto you now have the chance here and now to agree that he was lying.
See, your wrong. There was no sell off, no price for the shares was ever set. In fact nothing happened that even remotely got anywhere near selling off Royal Mail so just have the good grace to agree that that is true.

It is my own personal opinion that I believe that labour would have tried to sell it again if they could, nothing to do with Cameron or what he may or may not have said!


So just an irrelevant diversion by you.


My original post stands.


Labour tried to sell it off twice, as proved, although never in any manifesto, and I believe would have tried again if still in office.



Now stop digging and making yourself look more of a lying and slippery twat, and just admit I was right..... again!

Oh, hold the phone here - it isn't a fact now and it's just your personal opinion so in that case it hasn't been proved. Well if you had said that earlier you could have avoided getting into the mess you are and you wouldn't have had to keep digging away to try and get out of it.

 

Cameron lied to the HoC - FACT

It was never in any labour manifesto that they were going to sell it but they changed the company structure to enable such a sale back in 2000/2001 and They tried to sell it twice as I showed.

If you know anything about company structure, you will know that there was no other reason for changing it other than to facilitate a sale.


They would have probably tried again.


My post stands, nothing to do with what Cameron did or didn't say.

Tommy Monk wrote:

It was never in any labour manifesto that they were going to sell it but they changed the company structure to enable such a sale back in 2000/2001 and They tried to sell it twice as I showed.

If you know anything about company structure, you will know that there was no other reason for changing it other than to facilitate a sale.


They would have probably tried again.


My post stands, nothing to do with what Cameron did or didn't say.

So at least you have now got it into your head that it was never in a Labour manifesto to sell Royal Mail then we now know that you at least agree that Cameron lied to the HoC at PMQs.

And your claims that Labour tried to sell it twice need to backed up with some facts like what was the share price set at and on what date was the proposed sale expected to take place. Have you got those details?

I also asked you to tell me what happened to the 50,000 shares that were created and who has them. Have you got that as well?

And your claim that they would have tried to sell Royal Mail if they got back in again have now been watered down to a 'probably'.

Behave yourself Tommy and stop digging yourself into an even deeper hole than you are in already.

They tried to sell it twice, already provided proof, although it was never in any of their manifestos.



Are you trying to deny this again?


After your girlfriend Sassy has already admitted this to be true?

Tommy Monk wrote:They tried to sell it twice, already provided proof, although it was never in any of their manifestos.



Are you trying to deny this again?


After your girlfriend Sassy has already admitted this to be true?

No I didn't, I said it was an idea that was put forward by Peter Mandleson, discussed and disgarded. Girlfriend? Irn and I certainly see eye to eye politically, however, he is very happily married and I am very happily attached and getting married later this year.

Tommy Monk wrote:
Come off it!
What selective memories you lefties have!
Do you really think a guardian link is proof of anything?
The sell off by labour was planned as far back as 2000 when they brought in the postal services act 2000, created 50,000 or So shares and changed the name to Consignia, this was all done to facilitate the sale!
"...The recommendations in the Hooper Review led Business Secretary Lord Mandelson to seek to part privatise the company by selling a minority stake to a commercial partner. However despite legislation for the sale passing the House of Lords, it was abandoned in the House of Commons after strong opposition from backbench Labour MPs. The government later cited the difficult economic conditions for the reason behind the retreat..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail
And....
"...The year 2001 was an annus horribilis for the UK’s postal service. In January, the business became a laughing stock when it announced a change of name from the Post Office, which had served it well since 1635, to Consignia. To consign, it said, meant “to entrust to the care of”. The name was pilloried.
The business was heading into a financial crisis that threatened to consume it. When results for the year to March 2002 were published, they showed losses before tax had soared to £1.1bn. At the same time, the Department for Trade and Industry hit upon the idea of trying to sell the company to the Dutch postal service, TPG. Talks went on secretly for months, during which time Patricia Hewitt succeeded Stephen Byers as trade and industry secretary in Tony Blair’s Labour government.
Allan Leighton, who had joined the board in April (later to become chairman), said the talks were “shambolic because none of the numbers were right . . . So I said there’s no way this transaction would ever happen”. The government finally came to the same conclusion.
Lord Mandelson
Labour’s most serious effort to part-privatise Royal Mail occurred under Peter Mandelson, who had joined Gordon Brown’s government as business secretary. He tried to legislate to sell a 30 per cent stake, based on an independent review by Richard Hooper, which recommended that an outside investor, preferably with postal expertise, be brought in.
Lord Mandelson was forced to shelve the effort in July 2009. He blamed adverse market conditions, but he also faced a mass revolt by Labour backbenchers in the Commons, influenced by the Communication Workers Union, which was deeply opposed to privatisation.
An auction of potential bidders was conducted at the same time, but in the end only CVC Capital Partners, a London-based private equity group, was in the frame, with a bid that fell short of what ministers were seeking. TNT, the Dutch postal business, lost interest as it focused on its own restructuring, and Germany’s Deutsche Post withdrew..."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4af1e6d8-1bb8-11e3-b678-00144feab7de.html
Know your history!

Just for clarity.