Policy Blog

Labeled as "nonsense", a "whitewash to justify privatisation" and "electorally unpopular, politically unwise and damaging to the concept of universal service provision", the Postal Services Bill has its opponents.

Business secretary Lord Mandelson, however, is keen to push through with the Bill. He views reform of the Royal Mail as essential because it is increasingly under threat from digital technologies and market competitors. He says that the Bill would "keep the Royal Mail in the public sector, while equipping it for modernisation".

The Royal Mail's pension deficit currently stands at around £6bn. And, due to a substantial shift towards new technologies such as email, it is estimated that there will be a drop in last year's profits of £500m.

The Royal Mail is considered by some to be ill-equipped to adapt to the changes in how people communicate and has been criticised as inefficient.

The most controversial issue in the Bill is the government's plan to sell a 30 per cent stake in Royal Mail to a private firm. The government believes this will help the business compete with other private sector rivals.

But around 133 Labour MPs are rebelling against the proposal. Even though Lord Mandelson has said that the law will ensure the network of post office branches remains totally in the public sector, some Labour rebels believe that reforms can work with the Royal Mail remaining as a fully state-owned company.

ePolitix.com is inviting you to comment on the Postal Services Bill. What do you think the implications are of this Bill? Do you agree with the 30 per sent sale of the Royal Mail?

Clauses 63 and 65 reveal the government's centralising desires at their worst. They are most certainly not in the spirit of the SNR.

What's wrong with them?

The entire new regional structure will not work. The regional strategies are flawed, and the economic assessment duty is an insult to local government.

Read more »

The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill has acquired some shorter – and blunter – pseudonyms among those of us spending many hours on its committee stage in the Lords. It moves from a duty on local authorities to promote democracy (not democracy as I would define it), through a duty to have a petition scheme (what local authority ignores petitions? or what councillor? Indeed many instigate them), and the requirement to designate a scrutiny officer, to some heavy economic-focused provisions.

A priority for me is to work out which parts of the Bill are unnecessary but benign (and what's good - some technical parts), and which are malign – and that includes unnecessary cost.

Read more »

Link: https://epolitix.com/stakeholder-websites/stakeholder-website-page/sites/campaign-to-protect-rural-england/

The government states that the aim of the Local Democracy (etc) Bill is to 'create greater opportunities for community and individual involvement in local decision-making'. While this is laudable, rather than increasing involvement, some parts of the Bill run the risk of further disempowering local communities by making an already confusing planning system even more complicated, and more difficult to engage with.

Read more »

The Metropolitan Police Federation shares the concerns of press and other professional photographers that poorly-drafted anti-terrorist legislation could be used to justify unwarranted interference in their lawful activities.

Read more »