Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Alex K Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "I am a lover of freedom of destiny".

>

> Well, Louisa, how does one manage that -- with

> destiny being a you-can't-change-it

> you-can't-evade-it fate?

>

> "Freedom of destiny". Even for the EDF, that is

> extraordinary piffle.


That is exactly my point! Why should we be stuck in a managed structure, because it's safe? Because it's 'secure'? It's a bizarre philosophy. A 'leap in the dark' would mean we would have a completely different and refreshed perspective on survival as a sovereign state.


Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Public services at breaking point, cuts all over

> the shop, and Cameron justifies ?9mil of public

> funds on a propaganda campaign to encourage the

> status quo with Europe. Disgraceful.

>

> Louisa.


I agree it's pretty poor that taxpayers money is being used to promote one side of a political debate in this way.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have heard so many Brexiters with completely

> different (and contradictory) visions of what

> 'out' would mean for the UK. This for me is a big

> problem.


It's part of the attraction for some.


I remember some 'Yes' voters in the Scots referendum rejecting the scare stories and the 'fear of the unknown' because they had, in their minds, little or nothing to lose regardless of what changes occurred. They had no comfortable well-paid jobs, were not on the property ladder and saw no prospect of things improving but were surrounded by others who were happy with the status quo telling them not to rock the boat.


The real problem with the 'out' campaign is that it lacks a charismatic and credible leader (if it did have then the assorted fringe nutters and closet fascists clinging to the campaign wouldn't count so much). It doesn't matter that the 'in' campaign doesn't have one either as they are only advocating 'do nowt' so will probably swing the argument.


When in doubt. Do nowt.

The Government is not neutral in this, they have a position and the reasons why should be communicated to the public.There are 60 million of us, so 9 million quid seems a bargain and less than the cost of a first class stamp.


The Brexit campaign have ample opportunity to make their case, or cases, there seem to be a melange.

I am happy to put my leaflet in the bin and I didn't see any point in having a referendum in the first place. I am surprised that Dave felt that we needed the leaflet.


The Brexit camp including Lousisa and the NUFC person all come across as rabid.


The Panama papers are just a silly distraction and aren't anything to do with the argument.


I watched a bit of the repeat of questiontime last night http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b076zn7t and there was a brilliant view from Chris Bryant MP where through gritted teeth he supported the PM, saying that the Brexit campaign focused on process rather than substance and got a cheer from the audience. Thank ffign God for a bit or reality at last without political posturing.


Embrace the bigger picture. Don't resort to cheap under the belt and totally inaccurate comments about other Europeans. And please make an effort to speak their lingo when abroad. I am so embarassed by too many of my fellow countrypeople (as one who is not a great linguist, but tries).


In it and proud.

You're all crazy. Anyone who thinks we should remain comes up with the same old story. Rather than criticise the other side, why don't you try to convince us sceptics of the pro's of remaining? Not heard ONE convincing argument for us remaining. Not one, and I'm being serious here.


As for Chris Bryant, he got a cheer from a predominantly urban, guardianista audience - shock of the century. The polls are far more interesting, with all regions apart from London and Scotland being marginally in favour of brexit, but who cares what they think? As long as a handful of Notting Hill/Islington elitists get what they want?


Louisa.

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I watched a bit of the repeat of questiontime last night http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b076zn7t and

> there was a brilliant view from Chris Bryant MP where through gritted teeth he supported the PM,

> saying that the Brexit campaign focused on process rather than substance and got a cheer from the

> audience. Thank ffign God for a bit or reality at last without political posturing.


I'm glad someone from Labour has stood up. I think the biggest danger at the moment to the Remain campaign is the seemingly-paralysed state of Labour. Given the Tories are split and bickering on the matter, Labour should be shoring up their support, but we're hearing nary a peep from them.


On the subject of QT, that had to be the worst panel on the programme for a long time. Dreadful.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You're all crazy. Anyone who thinks we should remain comes up with the same old story. Rather

> than criticise the other side, why don't you try to convince us sceptics of the pro's of remaining?

> Not heard ONE convincing argument for us remaining. Not one, and I'm being serious here.


OK. Here's five.


1) Money. We won't actually save any money - in fact, leaving would probably cost us MORE money. The UK's net contribution is about ?8.5bn a year. But we will need to replace the functions of the EU. Even a small government department like the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills had a budget of over 16bn last year.


2) Repercussions. A lot of the arguments to leave assume the EU will want to stay on friendly terms and renegotiating stuff will be easy. But the EU will see Brexit as a massive danger to the European project and will almost certainly want to give us a very hard time to discourage other potential exiteers. Which leads us to...


3) Trade. The EU is a single market in which no tariffs are imposed on imports and exports between member states. If we leave we might be able to negotiate something similar, but there are zero guarantees on this (especially of the EU want to make an example of us). This includes services, which is a huge part of our exports and not covered by many other trade agreements.


4) Financial Sector. London's position as the premier European financial centre would be in serous danger if it not part of Europe. Frankfurt is already preparing plans to attract London's financial institutions should Brexit arise. Finance is over 20% of our GDP. The knock on effect on jobs, trade and GDP could be immense.


5) Confusion. Leaving would leave us in a state of limbo for a number of years. The best estimates for disentangling UK from the EU say about two to three years. It will be longer. In that time we won't be in, but we won't be out either, leaving us in a position of complete uncertainty.

Just because it's more convenient in the short term doesn't mean we should stay in what is not much less than a bloody lefty gravy-train dictatorship...

I voted NO to the EEC... it was the first time I was allowed to vote...there was a promise that all of Europe would be driving around in British made cars (ha ha ha)...2 years ago the Ford transit van plant was closed in Southampton and moved to Turkey so obviously it matters not if we are in or out, business will move to where it is cheap.

As for the finance being moved to Frankfurt, they were talking about that years ago even before BREXIT was mentioned- so that's another smoke screen.

As for the dept of Business Innovation and Skills....waste of time obviously (just another layer upon layer of suits and bureaucracy creating more paper mountains in Brussels) when the UK is full of foreign businesses, innovators and skilled people- NOTHING is actually being done to improve the future and prospects of our young people- in fact it is quite the opposite...

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

"> I voted NO to the EEC... it was the first time I

> was allowed to vote...there was a promise that all

> of Europe would be driving around in British made

> cars (ha ha ha)...2 years ago the Ford transit van

> plant was closed in Southampton and moved to

> Turkey so obviously it matters not if we are in or

> out, business will move to where it is cheap."



UK Car Manufacturing Hits a Ten Year High


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35368047

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> It has already been suggested that the people who want change 'Brexit' are more likely to cast their vote.


That's entirely possible. On the other hand, the large number of 'undecided' are usually more likely to stick with the status quo.

I have a question


With the official announcement of the in and out campaigns yesterday and the agreement on what they can spend (up to ?7million) does the governments ?9million mailshot count towards that or has the Britain stronger in Europe campaigne got an unfair advantage in that it has the mailshot plus the ability to spend up to another ?7 million ?


Very confused

Lot's of people have given Louisa plenty of reasons to remain but she chooses to ignore them, but then what do you expect from someone who thinks only 200,000 jobs rely on exports to the EU. Louisa, like most Brexit supporters, isn't speaking from a place of much, if any, accurate understanding or knowledge of the EU.


I also don't accept that Brexiters are more likely to be motivated to vote either. I know plenty of in voters who are voting to make sure the Brexiters don't win.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...