Jump to content

Recommended Posts

...and Buckingham Palace is going to have to step in.


Only question is if she calls a general election or simply appoints a new PM to get on with Brexit.


She cannot leave an emasculated Cameron in place until the party conference, his successor (who will run Brexit) to be chosen by the whim of the Tory party.


And she cannot leave her government without a rudder until the Autumn, when civil unrest is only one bad turn away.

well, could we not do some scenario planning?


one possible course (all possibles currently being a little difficult to get a grip on) is this:


Tories in limbo next couple of months.


Corbyn gets vote of no confidence this week. EU leaders demand article 50 is invoked, UK refuses.


Corbyn is re-elected by rank and file party members, but does not have the support of more than a rump of MPs (about 50 I think).


Labour splits. Corbyn keeps labour party but ceases to be leader of HM opposition.


New centre left party, Umunna as leader if can be persuaded, otherwise Cooper. New party almost certainly becomes official opposition (no elections necessary, MPs can and do just shift party) and forms new shadow cabinet. Parliament still has years to run.


Tory leadership election: MPs give Teresa May big majority over Boris. But final two candidates must go to members: Tory members give Boris overwhelming majority over May.


Remain Tories refuse to serve under Boris. New centre-right party formed under May.


New government under Boris is refused supply by parliament (or Queen cannot appoint him in first place knowing no supply).


EU begin to cancel opt-out privileges negotiated by UK over past couple of decades. Very large number of EU workers begin to arrive in UK before we split. Signs of recession in real GDP become apparent. Instability on financial markets. First sign of significant inflation after collapse of sterling: yet Bank of England feels forced to print money wholesale to try to prevent recession and preserve integrity of banking system. Financial collapse threatens.



New govt of national unity formed by centre-parties (Umunna, May) on condition of electoral reform (otherwise centre parties, with majority in parliament, would be swept away at next general election). Actually of course, tory party doesn't have to formally split here - the new government can be non-party based, so Boris would just be leader of a party and not himself in government. New government says they will consider invoking article 50 when the conditions seem right.... but deteriorating economy makes it clear that that time is not now. General Election (possibly only in 2020).


IF then General Election under new voting rules. New coalition government announce they have no immediate plans to invoke article 50 and begin renegotiating the taken-away privileges. Economy swiftly recovers if EU not itself in crisis by then (significant elections there are in 2018).


ELSE General Election under current rules. Huge gains for far right in election. Centre MPs squeezed out by first past the post. Capital flight, inflation, chaos.


I fear the worst. The big problem is that the rest of the EU may start disintegrating. Then it is Ruritania here we come.

citylover Wrote:

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

> No crisis, wd voted out and it's all good.



If you think there aren't problems on the horizon then you're either on medication or in total denial.


I'm not sure I agree it's a crisis...yet...but the government needs to step up and give people some clear indicators of what will happen, and quickly.


This is far from over.

Agreed. Anyone who thinks there is nothing to worry about is deluded. But right now we need strong government with a plan. With every day that passes, it becomes increasingly clear how we've been led to the abyss by a small group of privileged boys who have decided to play Russian roulette with all of our livelihoods for the end game of an Eton power struggle.

But for HM the Queen scenario planning won't do (and anyhow she's not allowed to do it). She can't have no effective PM (or one who can only mow the lawn) for the next 4 months of crisis.


And it is crisis. Constitutional crisis. It is way bigger than the collapse of two political parties. Sturgeon is threatening to veto, (Queenie may have to have a quiet word and say she hasn't that power). And MPs are likely to start debating how to respond to the referendum itself - ie whether to ratify.


None of that can happen with a lame duck ex PM in waiting, a vapourised chancellor and no alternative government about to be formed.


She can't tell the government what to do but she is going to have to identify who the government currently is.




jaywalker Wrote:

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

> well, could we not do some scenario planning?

>

> one possible course (all possibles currently being

> a little difficult to get a grip on) is this:

>

> Tories in limbo next couple of months.

>

> Corbyn gets vote of no confidence this week. EU

> leaders demand article 50 is invoked, UK refuses.

>

> Corbyn is re-elected by rank and file party

> members, but does not have the support of more

> than a rump of MPs (about 50 I think).

>

> Labour splits. Corbyn keeps labour party but

> ceases to be leader of HM opposition.

>

> New centre left party, Umunna as leader if can be

> persuaded, otherwise Cooper. New party almost

> certainly becomes official opposition (no

> elections necessary, MPs can and do just shift

> party) and forms new shadow cabinet. Parliament

> still has years to run.

>

> Tory leadership election: MPs give Teresa May big

> majority over Boris. But final two candidates must

> go to members: Tory members give Boris

> overwhelming majority over May.

>

> Remain Tories refuse to serve under Boris. New

> centre-right party formed under May.

>

> New government under Boris is refused supply by

> parliament (or Queen cannot appoint him in first

> place knowing no supply).

>

> EU begin to cancel opt-out privileges negotiated

> by UK over past couple of decades. Very large

> number of EU workers begin to arrive in UK before

> we split. Signs of recession in real GDP become

> apparent. Instability on financial markets. First

> sign of significant inflation after collapse of

> sterling: yet Bank of England feels forced to

> print money wholesale to try to prevent recession

> and preserve integrity of banking system.

> Financial collapse threatens.

>

>

> New govt of national unity formed by

> centre-parties (Umunna, May) on condition of

> electoral reform (otherwise centre parties, with

> majority in parliament, would be swept away at

> next general election). Actually of course, tory

> party doesn't have to formally split here - the

> new government can be non-party based, so Boris

> would just be leader of a party and not himself in

> government. New government says they will consider

> invoking article 50 when the conditions seem

> right.... but deteriorating economy makes it clear

> that that time is not now. General Election

> (possibly only in 2020).

>

> IF then General Election under new voting rules.

> New coalition government announce they have no

> immediate plans to invoke article 50 and begin

> renegotiating the taken-away privileges. Economy

> swiftly recovers if EU not itself in crisis by

> then (significant elections there are in 2018).

>

> ELSE General Election under current rules. Huge

> gains for far right in election. Centre MPs

> squeezed out by first past the post. Capital

> flight, inflation, chaos.

>

> I fear the worst. The big problem is that the rest

> of the EU may start disintegrating. Then it is

> Ruritania here we come.

Of course there is Panic and comfusion..


It't the first time in 40+ years that any P.M. has had to make any decision for themselves..

Brussels has done that for them...


Now we just need to listen what the U.S tells us..


Having The US and Brussels was like having 2 Anti-Viruses on your P.C. Conflict.


Foxy.

Ok, Foxy. If you think that, you just demonstrated in a single post why the referendum should never have been held.


No prime minister has done anything for 40+ years without EU say so????


Bollocks. You have no idea what either your government or the EU do.


DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Of course there is Panic and comfusion..

>

> It't the first time in 40+ years that any P.M.

> has had to make any decision for themselves..

> Brussels has done that for them...

>

> Now we just need to listen what the U.S tells

> us..

>

> Having The US and Brussels was like having 2

> Anti-Viruses on your P.C. Conflict.

>

> Foxy.

Toffee Wrote:

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

> Love your posts Foxy. Am with you one hundred

> percent. There are too many people who arent old

> enough to know what Britain was like before we

> joined the EU.


Ah, the sarcasm and condescension of the older generation rears its head. More than he racists and xenophobia, more than the protest votes that didn't really think Leave would win, it is you lot who have dragged the UK into this mess.


By yearning for a Britain that is totally unfeasible on the modern world and that was probably not that great anyway, you've told the younger generation they must live by your rules, despite the fact that the world they are inheriting is totally different.


In your selfish desire to 'take back control' - even though you don't even know what control that will be, as the Leave campaign is starting to admit, you've told everyone younger than you that they can clean up your mess.


Yes, more of them should've turned out to vote. Yes, the Remain campaign should've done much better. But you forgot, or didn't care, that they will have to live with the consequences of your dewy-eyed remembrance of the Britain of your youth.


Forty years ago the world was a very different place.

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Of course there is Panic and comfusion..

>

> It't the first time in 40+ years that any P.M.

> has had to make any decision for themselves..

> Brussels has done that for them...

>

> Now we just need to listen what the U.S tells

> us..

>

> Having The US and Brussels was like having 2

> Anti-Viruses on your P.C. Conflict.

>

> Foxy.


Total rubbish. Remember Thatcher? Remember Blair?


The Leave campaign didn't have a plan for what to do when they won, because they didn't think they would. Now Cameron has dropped the whole steaming mess on their laps and sodded off, they better figure it out fast.

WorkingMummy Wrote:

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


It't the first time in 40+ years that any P.M. has had to make any decision for themselves..

Brussels has done that for them...


and


No prime minister has done anything for 40+ years without EU say so????


are not the same thing..


Under the E.U. the rules were laid down and the any UK P.M had there hands tied.

Now they have to think for themselves. Makes it more difficult . So Cameron resigns.



Foxy.

Well said Joe. Those older generations have a clouded view of their own past. Decline had set in long before we joined the common market, but of course they hark back to the brief golden period they were born into. That 20 year post war boom that delivered everything they could have ever wished for was paid for with post war debt. The near full employment and decent wages was the rusult of the post war reconstruction that needed to happen. Well the world is now different. Technology has replaced billions of jobs. And the percentage of people of working age to those over 65 is shrinking. Many older people though also understand this, but not enough of them.

Toffee Wrote:

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

> Thank you. Always blame the older generation for

> everything. After all, we are all ignorant,

> pathetic wastes of space that should be put to

> death asap. Its our fault for everything. Have

> some respect.


Am I blaming you for everything? No. No I'm not. I didn't call you ignorant, pathetic or a waste of space, so don't put words in my mouth. I called you selfish, and I stand by that.


I have two young children and a black wife who was born outside the UK. You've just told my kids that they can't have opportunities you took full advantage of, and my wife that she isn't welcome, despite holding British citizenship since she was 4 years old. You've just told us that things were better 40 years ago. Really? My wife doubts it. I doubt it.


Have some respect? Respect for you is not automatic just because you're older. I learnt a long time ago in the Army that respect is earned. Don't think by demanding it while taking away my children's future that you will get it.

Actually, my xomment was not about anyones race, gender or status. I truly hope and pray that leaving the EU will improve your childrens chances for their future. I am not racist by any meansand im sure my comments have not come across as such. I wish us all the very best for the future.

I have respect for people's opinion, but on this I can no longer justify the decision that has been made. Not only have we, the brexit supporters been lied to in a big way. We have also overseen the potential collapse of our political system as well as upsetting the international community, many of them close friends and allies. We have also allowed a vacuum to develop in which some rather distasteful opinions have emerged which are making some people who are guests and great contributors to our country feel unwelcome and deeply troubled.


Foxy and toffee, you have both been lied to on this and that really isn't any exaggeration. We need to respect the fact that some people have been hit quite hard by this decision we have made and it seems to me that we should now have a period of calm reflection, in which some of us hold our hands up, admit we have been wrong- and somehow help to fix the mess we have unknowingly unleashed on the population.


Louisa.

Very well put Louisa. I have great respect for your thoughts. However, my vote to leave the EU was not an intentional vote to upset or hurt anyone. I feel I must stand by my belief that we are better off without the dictatorship of Brussels. I have respect for many of the posts regarding this on the forum. As I said, I wish no individual, race, gender any harm or disrespect by voting out, it was my vote and I used it as such.

Toffee Wrote:

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

> Actually, my xomment was not about anyones race,

> gender or status. I truly hope and pray that

> leaving the EU will improve your childrens chances

> for their future. I am not racist by any meansand

> im sure my comments have not come across as such.

> I wish us all the very best for the future.


All right, I take you at your word. But we're in it now, and I hope for all our sakes we can pull through, because if not you will feel it just as much as me, my wife and my little girls.

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...