Keep your eyes on the recently announced (fire) sale of Royal Mail for asset stripping in action. In sale expected to generate £2.5bn it has been estimated that three of RM's London sites alone could generate £1.5bn, these sites have already been earmarked as 'surplus'. Then factor in all the other town and city centre sorting offices that will be closed and sold off - all prime commercial/residential real estate.

I saw similar at first hand when the National Freight Consortium was sold off. Included in the sales was National Carriers. NC was what used to be British Rail Parcels and all depots were adjacent to railway stations, including Kins Cross. Now look around and try to find a NFC company operating in the Uk: Lynx, Exel Logistics and Tankfreight have all been taken over. I'm a member of what was the NFC Pension Fund, now DHL and my pension entitlement is a fraction of what it once was.

That's privatisation in action

I feel your pain - but not enough feel it isn't in the interest of the country - there is competition and most consumers are happy with shopping at a supermarket.

I terms of growth inflation will take care of that - if your margin is 5% on 1 billion sales so costs are 952m profit is 47.6m if your costs rise by 5% to 1bn and you maintain the same margin your sales grow to 1.050bn profits grow from 47.6m to 50m for maintaining the status quo. Food is a global market supermarkets are affected by macro-economics.

Agree re sustainability - we are many centuries away from the populus not having sufficient food to survive - developments like GM crops will help in this - we waste so much food that it is embarassing.

Your last point is interesting and valid in a free market the market is there for all participants no one is forced down any particular route. You can get all your shopping needs without using a supermarket.

Maybe we should close all the borders to imported goods and be self sufficient - do we really need trifola d'Alba?

Good for Sainsbury's.
Remember we are talking about the old view about how, in that wonderful tomorrow, we would all have an easier life due to automation and looking at why that hasn't happened.
Do any workers sacked by automation gain?
Do the workers remaining at the company gain by automation?
I've already suggested that the gain goes to shareholders rather than those employed, you are saying that the gain goes in expanding the company, who gains from that? The shareholders.


We dealt with this earlier and no, I don't.
As long as share value either goes up or not too far down, the fund manager will not demur.
Do I think that if, say, a massive plan that would significantly reduce share value were to be put forward they would be sanguine about it, no I don't, they be ditching shares all over the place and the short-termers (again) would be on it like a flock of vultures.
None of which changes the fact that short-termers are creaming off value, possibly not from Sainsbury's shares at the moment but from shares in companies whose performance affects their share value.
It also doesn't change the fact that short-termers' deals affect the share price or that short-termers profit without putting any benefit into the economy.


Mostly by a bigger market, in a successful economy most producers are also consumers.
But we still have 2.5m unemployed which suggests to me that, possibly, that the "haves" have too much and don't spend enough of it.

Let me ask you (genuine question) ... Given that unemployment went up and up in the 1980's and has wavered up and down since but has never come back to the early 1970's level, where do you think the benefit of automation went?

Yup, more's the pity.
There is a general view that walking around a vast hangar of a supermarket is way more convenient than visiting a row of shops but really I suspect it mainly just comes down to the fact that parking is easier.

The only supermarkets that approach the escape velocity required to exit my sphere of intolerance are Booth's.
They make a point of sourcing as much as possible from Cumbria, Lancashire and Yorkshire.
Not cheap though.

So we should expect the Tory front bench to be outraged by the land grab - the State forcibly taking land off the taxpayer and giving it to a group of investors?

Will the front bench of the Tory party be outraged by the "Stalinist land grab" (complusory purchase) from private business (farmer) by our Tory controlled local authority in order to build an unwanted academy school?

Will they Tory front bench be outraged by the proposed "Stalinist land grabs" from many private individuals and businesses to build HS2 a project, a project that has the support of not one person (and taxpayer) that I have actually met?

Mind you they are outraged by talk of "Red Ed" compulsorily purchasing builders land to build on. Is that because the electorate actually want / need more housing?

The insanity and hypocrisy of the Britain that the Daily Mail loves is truly staggering.

Love them, great staff paid a decent wage, quality produce and I wouldn't call them expensive, complete example of you get what you pay for.

Always drop in the Windemere branch when I'm up in Ambleside.

Having said that they're nowhere near as good as my local community owned co-op greengrocers/bakery and farm shop.

How many place lament the state of your Rugby League team and give you a cuddle when they've just won the league?

Given all these buildings will be surplus to operational requirements when the sale goes through does that suggest that the new owners will streamline the business, run it more efficiently/effectively? Or is the level of through put suddenly going to reduce? It would seem the latter to be unlikely which would suggest the current business is carrying unnecessary costs which for whatever reason it cannot offload.

Given the demand for housing in London, the fact that RM have closed other big depots it would seem a no brainer to dispose of these depots in London. That is if as you say they are surplus to need a win-win for everyone?

Not quite.

If it were the case that any surplus city centre properties could only be sold with the proviso (as per the Olympic Park apartment buildings) that a sizeable chunk, preferably a majority, of the properties would be sold only to first time buyers or rent capped to "affordable" levels (again as per the Olympic Park) then the disposal of public assets could be seen to be benefiting the public good, I won't be holding my breath for any such planning restrictions to be placed though especially on the London sites.

A win-win for everyone apart from the taxpayer (you know, the people who currently own Royal Mail)

You're typical of classic tory thinking: "know the price of everything and the value of nothing". It really is difficult to debate with an idiot whose only response is to cut and paste neoliberal soundbites

Who is going to do the construction on these sites - you have been crying out for Keynesian economics - building on this scale will need a lot of people surely even you would see a small plus in that. Or would you rather they stay empty and in public ownership? The problem is it will impossible for the current regime to downsize due to pressure from unions - how do you unlock the value in its current guise?

I like you find it difficult debating with someone with such entrenched ideology that you struggle to rationalise whatsoever?