Skip to main content

Sub Post Offices - the management accounting error

There is a considerable amount of debate about sub-post offices again with many Labour MPs saying one thing in constituencies and doing another in the House of Commons.

The irony of this issue is that it relates to a misunderstanding and false management accounting in the "Counter Revolutions" report from the Cabinet office early this decade.

The "problem" for the post office network relates to the marginal contribution to overheads from each office for Post Office Ltd. It does not relate to the viability of individual sub-post offices (or at least it doesn't for 95% of the closures).

Postmasters are offered 28 months revenue to close when sale of the franchise would only get 24 months. That buys their silence.

Larger offices cost according to Post Office limited much the same as smaller offices for them to manage. The real rub is in the allocation of fixed central costs (this can be estimated from the report). These should be allocated by turnover, but are in fact allocated on a per office basis. This is wrong in an accounting sense and results in a decision making process that each time drives down the size of the network.

What should happen is a new model of sub-post office which operates on a more efficient basis from the centre. I do make this point in The House from time to time, but the Ministers just look confused.


Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…