I'm none the wiser; of course I understand the concept of wellbeing and happiness being about more than money - although that does beg the question why a small % of people hoard so much of it at everyone else's cost - but what on earth does that have to do with my original point?

Yes

I never receive letters, my family, friends etc etc use e-mail. I do however receive lots of junk mail and stuff that could be sent online. Eg seed catalogues, I view this online but for some reason they still send me these through the post.One of the reasons why I am genuinely puzzled as to why labour would want to own a business that may be in decline. Certainly on the parcels side of the business it would appear to be highly competitive.

Royal Mail has the universal service obligation, which means it is required to provide affordable postal services to all UK addresses, at the same price across the UK.

Other providers don't have this legal requirement.

So if you live somewhere out in the sticks, other providers are free to say they don't deliver there or charge you much more for the service.

Now you could remove this universal service obligation and say its tough poop if you live out in the sticks, you should suck it up and pay more as it costs more to deliver it to you. But that would have political costs in those areas.

But while you have an unbalanced regulatory environment - where one firm has an obligation to provide single price/deliver anywhere in the UK terms, and its rivals don't, Royal Mail will always be at a competitive disadvantage to its rivals and less attractive to private investors, hence the argument that if government wants to provide that service it should own it.

You can say that again. Never answers any questions either I notice. Ignoring it from now on as it adds nothing.