Jump to content

Recommended Posts

er, right. quids, is this just cognitive dissonance on your part?


the Times today reports decisions already-taken to move financial HQs to Dublin (of course!)


Google announced that their decision was conditional on free-movement of appropriately qualified labour (oh the irony of the recent May failed trade talks given that their CEO is Indian)


The inflation figure was unchanged (unless you think the CPI a good measure of the cost of living - if you do then you are in cloud-cuckoo land) with all commentators agreeing there is significant pressure in the pipeline (what do you expect with the sterling depreciation, no cost effects ??).


And, strangely not mentioned by you, the headline in the FT today. Er, a hole in the public finances so big it will scupper all May's plans completely unless there is a huge rise in interest rates to ensure a market for the gilts they will have to sell (and that in an economy with record indebtedness).


Dr Pangloss had nothing on you quids.

???? Wrote:

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

> This week:

> UBS - keeping head office in London 'no plans on

> moving'

> Google - confirm new European HQ in Kings Cross

>

> Yesterday - inflation below expectation

>

> Today - retail sales at their highest growth in 14

> years, way above expectation


Google confirmed that their EMEA head office is in Dublin with over 500.000 Ft Sq committed, London office currently confirmed as UK headquarters mainly tasked to support US operations & is about 160,000 Ft Sq with a further 300,000 Sq Ft on hold subject to government being able to guarantee free movement throughout Europe....


A ?25billion deficit for 2017 & ?80+billion deficit up to 2020 with record public debt.....


12+% price rises on imports......


Future is looking really positive..?

???? Wrote:

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

> This week:

> UBS - keeping head office in London 'no plans on

> moving'

> Google - confirm new European HQ in Kings Cross

>

> Yesterday - inflation below expectation

>

> Today - retail sales at their highest growth in 14

> years, way above expectation


I'm just reporting fact on that UK performance post the referendum which is currently way, way above what the pessimists were predicting widely (and on here)i didn't even add an opinion! The deficit isn't on my list (and that hole from the FT is based on forecast incidentally, which may well turn out to be true, but is still nevertheless forecast so wouldn't go om my list ) - if you followed my stuff on here on the deficit you will see that I've long believed we are fooked on that anyway (and would have been without Brexit). My point - as someone who once again I stress voted remain - is that things aren't nearly as bad as most predicted YET.


The inflation figure WAS below expectation and consensus Jaywalker - so predictions once again were wrong (see also employment/growth/retail sales...I could go on)


Your and Lordship's posts feel like they reflect your personal and political views and opinions,and on Brexit and your pessimism has thus far have been proved over pessimistic! I'm not Nigel Farage for pointing this out! I have an opinion that things won't be as bad as the most pessimistic say and so far the figures support that - that's not a Dr Pangloss - although you are winning my vote for title of Eeyore of the EDF if we are going to take on great characters of literature :)

You're right of course Jeremy, although it seems less and less likely that we'll be able to remain in the single market (not sure this was ever really very likely). With the ongoing uncertainty (which is likely to last years) and our probable departure from the single market eventually - it's hard to see how in the medium term our economy isn't going to suffer. Of course the problem is, one will never be able to demonstrate the effect either way. Whether the economy does well, or it does not, who can prove that staying in would have been better or worse? People will seek out the evidence which appears to support their view and everyone will think they've been proved right.
No all true. But what you can say - with fact - is that, even since the referendum, the economic data in many areas is significantly above the forecasta from the dismal science - and that includes the adjustments they made post referendum, being well aware that 'article 50' hadn't been triggered. We are, so far, doing significantly better than the experts consensus on how we would....

Quids


What you say is true - for now.


Employment indicators are lagging indicators & we are also in a time of decision lag & uncertainty. The worst has yet to come and it will not be pretty. If it won't affect you & you are well sheltered then great but most of the population will suffer.


All that the economists are saying is that in the near future to expect a worsening of unemployment, significant increases in price inflation, a downward trend in the value of the ?, raw materials prices up over 12% already with more rises to come. All of this is on the horizon plus a lot of instability induced because of all the uncertainty due to the many months & years of wrangling within the government and with outside governments. These factors will cause everyone in the UK a plethora of problems - economic, social & personal.


No point in being an ostrich or a lemming..... need to be realistic and plan accordingly. There is little to be optimistic about.

The one I really loved this week was the news that, with record and rising employment, 19 out of 20 new jobs are going to FOREIGNERS (the word used in the headlines). So of course, all we have to do is implement immigration controls and those jobs will grow at the same rate (with the UK outside the EU ... ) with OUR PEOPLE (who in the popular press, which includes of course the unspeakable Telegraph and Times, have rather particular characteristics).


I am not sure what these press views are based upon, but my guess is that it is an adolescent mercantilist phantasy. Gather close to ourselves (those who know we are of the same essence) to stop incursion. Build fences (Calais) and walls (Mexico). Treasure our island state. Dream of perfect order. Ensure a Platonic hierarchy of everyone in their proper place (grammar schools will achieve this). Stop prisons being so 'soft' (dear god). Forget the pragmatic alliance with Europe. Stand on principle. Believe in autochthonous powers.

Just count our blessings that we are in England and not India where demonatarisation has made obsolete around 80% of the rupees in circulation, causing issues for small businesses that rely on cash for daily transactions (fruit and veg sellers on the side of the road for example) and super long slow queues to change the old notes for new ones.


Now that has given the Indian economy a bit of a blip that makes anything we are going through (positive or negative) seem tame ... Just imagine if it happened here with ?20 and ?50 notes!

"Ensure a Platonic hierarchy of everyone in their proper place"


That's not what Platonic hierarchy means


"Believe in autochthonous powers."


And this doesn't really make sense, or at least it doesn't mean what you evidently think it does.


I've said before that your posts make 'literally no sense', and to be clear I mean that they often do not have any coherent meaning if the words are understood in the conventional way, as opposed to just saying that I disagree (though I generally disagree with what you appear to be saying).


Anyway, there was quite a lot of discussion in the press/media about the reasons for the employment/jobs figures, none of which resembled even vaguely your ridiculous caricature. Regarding the actual subject of the thread, mainstream economists have largely now accepted that they were wrong about the immediate effects of Brexit, but equally warning sensibly that positive figures now just represent relief that the world didn't end, recognition that the UK economy has some fundamental strengths, and a cautious sense that there may be a minimal damage Brexit process that is achievable. Huge uncertainty remains.

I wouldn't have expressed it exactly as jaywalker did, and of course I had to look up 'autochtonous', but I do agree with the spirit of what he's saying (in my interpretation). This would be that isolationism is very economically damaging. I'd add my own two pennyworth, which is that globalisation is not new. The Celts traded, and indeed migrated, over great distances. Turning one's back on the rest of the world has never been a route to prosperity.

@DaveR


"mainstream economists have largely now accepted that they were wrong about the immediate effects of Brexit,"


Not so - acceptance that there are lagging factors, including some business decisions on the part of suppliers not to pass on increasing costs for various reasons. Also, the bouyant spending has been accompanied with a significant reduction in trading margins [Next, John Lewis] - traders sacrificing profit for survival in the short term.


"...but equally warning sensibly that positive figures now just represent relief that the world didn't end,"


The positive figures are lagging figures that will progressively change over the coming months/quarters and not likely for the better.


"... recognition that the UK economy has some fundamental strengths,"


Of course the UK has some fundamental strengths but these strengths need to be conserved & supported by sensible economic & political decisions - currently uncertain & unknown with May offering no reasonable advice or direction. The economy is treading water. The only small advantage [short term] advantage is the ?/$ rate that is sustaining exports - for now. This advantage will erode soon as new raw materials purchases will cost up to 20% more. As demand for raw materials will increase, this will impact even more so it a huge challenge for many businesses to keep going let alone make profit. Disadvantaging business by making access to the EU markets difficult/uncertain doesn't make sense by any measure.


"... and a cautious sense that there may be a minimal damage Brexit process that is achievable."


Minimal is wishful thinking. More likely that the impacts aill be significant & long term with the UK having to slog our way back to relative economic health over a long period. Every day that passes without decision/definition is further disadvantaging the UK's position and enables competitors to take advantage & consolidate their respective positions.


"Huge uncertainty remains."


This is for sure and the most/only important part of your post.

No-one is turning their backs on the rest of the world- hopefully we are turning our backs on 750 pretty useless and expensive politicians....all they have done is undermine the UK since we joined in 1973-farming, fishing, manufacturing, self-determination - destroyed by the collusion of the quasi socialists in France, Germany, Italy and Belgium in the main....

'People' were bemoaning the fact that Brexiteers had been conned by false information (and it was even said that on the strength of the 'truth' coming out about the implications that many of them wanted to change their vote)- when in fact it is now obvious that the remainers had been lied to by the doom-mongers (obviously with self-serving interests in staying in). How many remaniacs/remoaners would like to change their vote now?

Thanks for your postings uncleglen. As someone without a business/economics background always useful to hear the other side of the argument. I've been around more than half a century (from relatively humble stock) but don't recognise the Britain that you are talking about from my childhood. It was all pretty grim and black and white from memory. Well you've clearly got some strong views and I am sure that you will be reminding us of it.


But perhaps going back to my childhood there were lots of positives. We wore short trousers irrespective of the weather. We were slapped with a ruler by the teacher for being the slightest bit naughty. We were intolerent of other nationalities, sexual preferences and other beliefs. We were encouraged to throw stones at the 'queer' (odd) kids at school just because nobody knew about (or appreciated) childhood mental health issues and behavioural issues. It was your civil duty to shout 'mong' at anyone who looked slightly weird. Men knew their place in society, and women even more so. Most of us smoked (even as children) and all benefited from the more sociable office, pub and eateries environments. And we had iced buns for treats, and were allowed to spend our bus money on sweets if we walked home. None of this nonsense about health, diet and nutrition. And I still have a few teeth left, some of the front ones don't even have fillings. We had that excellent currency where you had to divide things by 12 or times by 20. Not all this silliness about multiples of ten. Thank God Napolian didn't win.


And we all bought Austin (ie British Leyland) cars as they were made very well locally. It is clearly a clearly a quasi socialist dirty foreigner plot to pretend otherwise. Those bally useless VW golfs. What rubbish.


Ah takes me back.


But there was an unsavoury side to all of this. As kids of 9 or 10, we walked home from school past a chap of around 40, building his own house. He invited us, to ...... show us his bulding work. We'd pop in most days to see how he was getting on. My parents came past one day and thanked him for being so friendly. He didn't even get his John Thomas out once. So not everything about pre-1973 Britain was great.

DaveR Wrote:

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

> "Ensure a Platonic hierarchy of everyone in their

> proper place"

>

> That's not what Platonic hierarchy means


> "Believe in autochthonous powers."

>

> And this doesn't really make sense, or at least it

> doesn't mean what you evidently think it does.


The reference to hierarchy is The Republic. The hierarchy of position Plato argues for there is quite insidious I think (the idea that we are born to express already acquired essence and should accept our pre-ordained place once this has been determined). If that is not accurately described as a Platonic hierarchy in the context of my sentence I do not know why and - as ever - you have not said why, just that it means something else (you do not say what).


Why I wonder did the word 'autochthonous' occur to me whilst I was writing that post? Did I look up a word to irritate you (or to try to impress others)? No. Did it occur to me spontaneously in the act of writing? Yes. I was writing about the sense that we are fine to go it alone on the basis of some atavistic myth that the UK population is not a collection of mongrel genes assembled contingently and through migration (how else?) so that we can 'get our country back' and its powers. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to use the word autochthonous here: looking on Google, people use this word in comparable ways: e.g. "autochthonous thought". The dictionary says: "indigenous rather than descended from migrants or colonists" (Google) and that was exactly the sense it had in my sentence, even if the phrase "autochthonous powers" fails your category of 'conventional meaning' (not sure how this is derived).


I guess it will be atavistic next ... I do wonder if, when you say my posts "do not have any coherent meaning if the words are understood in the conventional way" and the repeated use of the criticism "literally makes no sense" imply that you have a slightly rigid view of the process of signification. No word has a fixed meaning, all words are saturated with AND DESTABILISED BY the metonymic and metaphoric associations in the local contexts of their use. To suggest otherwise is simply to try to bureaucratise language to some sense on which we always-already agreed.

Lordship 516 Wrote:

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

> @DaveR

>

> "mainstream economists have largely now accepted

> that they were wrong about the immediate effects

> of Brexit,"

>

> Not so - acceptance that there are lagging factors, including some business decisions on the

> part of suppliers not to pass on increasing costs for various reasons. Also, the bouyant spending

> has been accompanied with a significant reduction in trading margins - traders sacrificing profit

> for survival in the short term.


Agreed. I work in retail now with an mostly imported set of products, some we source through importers/suppliers and some we source directly from overseas. We've managed to hold 99% of our prices to pre-Brexit levels, but we know that is going to change very soon - and big time.


Our importers/suppliers have mostly held their prices through a combination of stock holdings, forward contracts and currency hedging, but all of that will be exhausted soon. We're expecting importers to raise prices in the region of 10% and perhaps more, as everyone is expecting the pound to continue to drop (especially if May stays on course to trigger A50) and they may price to take that potential further drop into account. For goods we import directly we still have some stock that could take us into the new year, but then those prices will then move sharply up as well.


There is talk that VAT may drop in next week's statement by the Chancellor. Personally, I think he has to in order to try an mitigate the massive inflation blip we are facing over the coming months.

Very interesting and worrying post Loz. These lagged effects are so dangerous because the government has no good way of reacting to them in a timely way: as we have seen countless times in the past they end up often making things worse (Barber, Healey, Lawson, ...)


It seems to me that cutting VAT is an interesting idea. Presumably this would be reversible on the assumption that the pound has overshot downwards (as it is inclined to do). So when we reach the promised sunlit uplands of true Brexit and the pound rises again, and import prices fall, full rates of VAT could be restored. This would smooth out the inflation path. And smoothing it out is all-important given that inflation tends to be self-fulfilling via wage demands (particularly when you are restricting migrant labour and have printed so much money).


Trouble is that the OBR will point out the contribution this will make to what is already an unsustainable fiscal position. Gilt yields are already rising - I guess they have some way further to go. The BoE could find that it no longer sets interest rates (if it curtails printing cash and the gilt market gets the jitters). And we have huge household indebtedness - so the real economy is at enormous risk from the ensuing rise in interest rates.

Just to add that my grammer, spelling, and attention to detail will also improve once we leave Europe.


malumbu Wrote:

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

> Thanks for your postings uncleglen. As someone

> without a business/economics background always

> useful to hear the other side of the argument.

> I've been around more than half a century (from

> relatively humble stock) but don't recognise the

> Britain that you are talking about from my

> childhood. It was all pretty grim and black and

> white from memory. Well you've clearly got some

> strong views and I am sure that you will be

> reminding us of it.

>

> But perhaps going back to my childhood there were

> lots of positives. We wore short trousers

> irrespective of the weather. We were slapped with

> a ruler by the teacher for being the slightest bit

> naughty. We were intolerent of other

> nationalities, sexual preferences and other

> beliefs. We were encouraged to throw stones at

> the 'queer' (odd) kids at school just because

> nobody knew about (or appreciated) childhood

> mental health issues and behavioural issues. It

> was your civil duty to shout 'mong' at anyone who

> looked slightly weird. Men knew their place in

> society, and women even more so. Most of us

> smoked (even as children) and all benefited from

> the more sociable office, pub and eateries

> environments. And we had iced buns for treats,

> and were allowed to spend our bus money on sweets

> if we walked home. None of this nonsense about

> health, diet and nutrition. And I still have a few

> teeth left, some of the front ones don't even have

> fillings. We had that excellent currency where

> you had to divide things by 12 or times by 20.

> Not all this silliness about multiples of ten.

> Thank God Napolian didn't win.

>

> And we all bought Austin (ie British Leyland) cars

> as they were made very well locally. It is

> clearly a clearly a quasi socialist dirty

> foreigner plot to pretend otherwise. Those bally

> useless VW golfs. What rubbish.

>

> Ah takes me back.

>

> But there was an unsavoury side to all of this.

> As kids of 9 or 10, we walked home from school

> past a chap of around 40, building his own house.

> He invited us, to ...... show us his bulding work.

> We'd pop in most days to see how he was getting

> on. My parents came past one day and thanked him

> for being so friendly. He didn't even get his

> John Thomas out once. So not everything about

> pre-1973 Britain was great.

The effects of a VAT reduction have been studied & tracked over time.


The reduction in VAT from 20% to 17% is likely to result in consumption increasing by less than 1 per cent by the fourth

quarter following reduction. GDP is likely to be raised raised by less than half a per cent relative to what would have happened without the VAT reduction. After the temporary reduction is over both consumption and GDP are depressed as a result of the policy. This would be a political gimmick and not likely to help in any meaningful manner.


There are also Arbitrage effects & Substitution effects that disadvantage the consumer and the result of a cut in

taxes now will have to be financed by an increase in taxes in the future.

jaywalker Wrote:

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

> I agree it would be a bit of a gimmick, although

> the effect is presumably more on aggregate supply

> (if the policy is time consistent it cannot have a

> significant effect on AD as you say)- the idea in

> the original post was to smooth the inflation

> path.


The possible reduction is not likely to be sufficient to offset the effects of currency induced price inflation which is heading in the direction of 10 to 15% depending on sector so a VAT reduction will mainly result in a theoretical increase in disposable income. The other issues is that not all suppliers will pass the reduction to their buyers - as has happened in the past. The BoE reckoned that only 50% of suppliers passed the reduction to their buyers.

a vat cut to zero would offset that :-). but the increase in disposable income is not of any relevance to the post - it would be pre-announced that it would be taken away again later (so only a marginal discounting effect on the perceived time horizon). As to the suppliers, they are not passing all the price increases caused by the sterling fall (even the MNUs, as we have seen) so there is a symmetry with the price falls in the event of a vat cut.

Looking at it in context - VAT takes in roughly ?110billion, the NHS costs roughly 120billion and the NHS needs funding urgently. To indulge themselves in a gesture of VAT reduction of 2-3% would be really a gimmick whilst at the same time denying the NHS the badly needed funding. This is regardless of the theoretical effects of a VAT reduction. It failed in the past & didn't even out over the two periods - temporary reduction period & period following return to normal VAT rate.


There is also an anticipatory effect. For every 1% reduction consumption falls about 0.33% in the quarter immediately before the introduction of the reduction & increases by about 0.33% in the first quarter of the reduced VAT, & increases about 0.15% duing all the other quarters of the reduction. However it then falls considerably on the re-introduction of the higher VaT rate - about -0.5% in the first quarter & levels off at about -0.25% thereafter. This happened, not only in the Uk but also in France, Germany & Spain. You would expect an evening out effect but in fact there was an overall negative effect on consumption. This is why I say it would be a gimmick - unless, of course they drop all VAT to 0% as @jaywalker suggests :)) [& close down the NHS :((

]

I am not at all sure why ?120bn or so (or even x5 that) is of any interest in the current situation. We are rushing fast towards the cliff edge (oh dear, did May really say that?) and so borrowing an additional one tenth of our annual income to put the breaks on would seem to be quite a modest proposal (especially at negative real interest rates).

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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