Apart from the net worth of 1% of the population.

Status quo maintained. Job done.

Do we want evolution or revolution - change for changes sake is pointless. I fail to see how nationalising RM adds any value - what is the issue with the service they provide? RLB has become obsessed with green issues - until changes are made in China/India etc nothing will improve - so we make ourselves less competitive - Heathrow runway 3 an example - for what - self gratification!!

Depends of how you measure well being - it isn't all about more money - but that is a bit beyond your comprehension.

What do you mean?

Slightly off thread, why would anybody want to bring Royal Mail under government control. What’s so special about a company that delivers mail and parcels. As sub contractors more or less in the construction industry we are virtually paper free. Everything is done online , however we get parcels from various companies including Royal Mail . So Royal Mail aren’t particularly unique.

If the RM was such a bad business why would anyone want to buy it just to lose money.

Ever heard of E-commerce???

OK in simplistic terms just for you - if your wages stay at a similar level but the council build a new trunk road that reduced your journey or clinicians improve a technique that increases your life expectancy - would you say your well being has improved even though your wages have remained static? A new trunk road isn't only available to the fortunate few its available to everyone. Quality of life isn't just about money

Who delivers your letters?

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.