Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The government has shown its true colours. I guess Theresa May was already fully subscribed to this despicable Ruritanianism (Gellner, Nations and Nationalism). So now there will be a policy that firms must count their foreign workers so that they can be monitored and if not 'patriotic' because employing them (or is it employing any of them?) named and shamed. No doubt foreign-born workers will soon have to wear badges (otherwise, how could one tell they were foreign - a mistake the appalling Ms Rudd seems to have made in her own constituency, thinking they were foreign because they looked foreign to HER).


This as part of a power-grab from an unelected Prime Minister to appeal to the worst segments of the UK electorate - those who with good reason feel ressentiment (this is not a spelling mistake) but who express this as xenophobic, reactionary, petty-mindedness. Give us our country back, build walls and fences, stop all immigration now (whether or not that has anything whatsoever to do with the EU).


Small wonder the pound is tanking. We have seen nothing yet.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/126381-despicable-ruritanianism/
Share on other sites

Except there won't be a policy and it never was put forward as a policy -it was just a stupid idea by Amber Rudd that has been buried. People are just misinformed and hysterical - and the internet just spreads this kind of crap like wildfire.


Please define the worst sectors of the UK electorate too - people who don't agree with you maybe?


PS Pseuds Corner anyone

I disagree ????. I think anything that makes it into a Home Secretary's conference speech has to be taken seriously. And I, like Jaywalker, am really concerned that we've now entered a political climate where it's considered acceptable to use fear of foreigners as a means of drumming up votes. I know you're not putting the question to me - but I would define the worst sectors of the British electorate as extremists on the 'right' and 'left'.

???? Wrote:

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

> Except there won't be a policy and it never was

> put forward as a policy -it was just a stupid

> idea by Amber Rudd that has been buried.


Well, it was an announcement made by the Home Secretary in a major national televised speech and I haven't seen anywhere that it's been buried as yet.

Whether the xenophobic stuff is anymore than 'just' rhetoric remains to be seen, but the rhetoric itself is pretty shocking. How May claims to be on the centre ground is beyond me, the anti foreigner stuff sounds pretty extreme to my ears and rather alarming. I cannot remember a time when politics has been in such complete disarray.

Yeh, agree RD - Rah I thought you were about our age. All my youth it was - the NF polling really high; coming second in bi-elections; Lewisham, country in apparent terminal decline, riots, Northern Ireland imploding and bombs all over London etc etc - enjoyed my youth very much tho!


I think some people of a liberal/left persuasion, and I count myself as liberal, are seeing emerging fascism where it really isn't - just a bit of inward looking conservatism (and better than how it's manifesting itself in say France or the US), I regret this and Brexit but it's nothing compared to what's potentially being dished up at the other end of the Spectrum and it's not looking amramegeddon

Yep, that was what I was alluding to Quids, throw in the 3-day week, Winter of Discontent, power cuts, OPEC crisis, double digit inflation/interest rates, Lib/Lab pact, and the Black & White Minstrel Show, and it was a shambles of a country.

That all brought about Thatch and we're probably seeing something similar...

I'm afraid I'm quite old enough to have experienced all those things too. Remember sugar rationing?


But the point is that we have just emerged from a prolonged period when it appeared that social democracy had (for the first time) become the norm in this country. And that, to my mind, was a very good thing.


But (all of a sudden) that's not the case anymore. What we're being reminded of now is that you can't take social and economic stability for granted. Both Gordon Brown's government and the coalition did a good job of steering us out of choppy waters after the crash. But within the coalition developed the roots of our current problems. The Conservative obsession with 'balancing the books' at all costs was not sophisticated enough. It ignored the fact that when the economy is rocky you have to look to social as well as fiscal stability. They could have learnt something from Roosevelt in the US in the 30s. If only they'd woken up to the fact that they really needed some well targeted taxing and spending a little earlier than last week. The result of this failure has been the pinched public services that have fuelled people's sense of insecurity. This has stoked political extremism of all hues, and left us on the road to Brexit, which - ironically - threatens our economic stability again.


So I don't think this is like Thatcher emerging after the chaos of the 70s. Though TM would surely like to take on that mantle. Our current problems derive from a completely different source.

And to expand a bit on the point that was raised that we (who are old enough) remember an era when the National Front used to win a lot of votes.


The feelings that fuel that politics never go away. They're always there in all societies, rumbling beneath the surface, and vigilance is required to keep them in check. What's alarming is that we're seeing them start to rise up to visible levels again.


The only thing that keeps these feelings at a 'safe' level is a society managed to ensure welfare and security in a reasonably equable way. When people feel embattled they turn on 'the other' - anyone will do, even if the 'otherness' is very slight.

???? Wrote:

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


> Please define the worst sectors of the UK

> electorate too - people who don't agree with you

> maybe?

>

> PS Pseuds Corner anyone


Well, I don't agree with the people I saw (and whose actions I heard of from local EU residents, including one 80 year old lady) shouting abuse at anyone they perceived to be not British after the referendum result. People who think like this (only the rabid ones actually articulate it) form a troubling part of electorates in all occidental countries. Of course the visibility of this (and the amount of it) varies with many socio-economic factors. You can find them in most political parties (in the Lib Dems it tends to be sublimated). It takes different forms (the will to purify can be expressed as extreme nationalism, homophobia, anti-Semitism etc - these do not necessarily go together.) What Adorno called the authoritarian personality.


It has nothing to do with Brexit as such - the majority of those voting for Brexit are perfectly sensible people (and indeed they were led by old-fashioned globalising liberals Johnson and Gove who will have been dismayed by the new May agenda).


And certainly neither May nor Rudd are authoritarian in this sense (authoritarian MPs are quickly weeded out by the whips and remain on the backbenches). But I believe the language of politics matters greatly. We should expect from our leaders great care not to pander in any way however slight to such people. Counting foreign workers in firms is a proposal that does not meet that standard.


You say it is not a policy. But the Home Secretary is in a position of huge responsibility and it was presented as her view. I doubt very much that she has really thought about the matter at all in these terms - it was just populist rubbish for a conference; but as such it is deeply irresponsible.


I'm sorry if the post sounded pseudish (used to love reading that column in private eye :-) ). But this does not seem to me a matter for light-heartedness or pulling back on vocabulary or ideas (my tin ear is such that I can't really hear the pseud-ness you can hear).


Do you really think that democracy cannot be overtaken by authoritarianism democratically?

Very good posts Jenny. I'd also add that turning on immigrants in times of difficulty is nothing new either. But when there are no longer any immigrants to attack, who then?


The conservatives seem to have forgotten that almost half the electorate did NOT vote for Brexit and may well be shooting themselves in the foot with this rhetoric (and that for the most part is what it is as much of it will never get through parliament nor the lords into law). If only we had an opposition that could fill the void.

I think Rudd and May may be more authoritarian than you suggest jaywalker


Also....

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

>

> It has nothing to do with Brexit as such - the

> majority of those voting for Brexit are perfectly

> sensible people (and indeed they were led by

> old-fashioned globalising liberals Johnson and

> Gove who will have been dismayed by the new May

> agenda).

>

>


I disagree. I think that this (by which I mean the new acceptability in political life of singling out foreigners) has a lot to do with Brexit.


Politicians know that many Leave voters were 'protest' voters and identified the UKIP agenda as a way of making their lives more secure. And TM wants to grab the UKIP vote. That's why her cabinet are prepared to say things that would have been unacceptable even a year ago.


And as to Johnson and Gove. The overriding characteristic of both in my view (though they differ in many ways) is not an adherence to globalising liberalism but a terrifying, childish self obsession.

Firstly I would like to defend the 70s. I enjoyed the music, football and pubs more. But them I am a product of my time. Interesting that someone referred to sugar rationing. I bet that was down to the lack of a competitive market and relying on old school commonwealth.


Secondly in my life time its the first time I've seen a government swing both ways. To nationalism in one respect, and to socialism in another. Perhaps we could define a new word drawing on both words, Na si. And then look for a symbol that would help reunite the coutry, there is a good Hindu one for peace and stability (and possibly strength) that comes to mind.

You have no way of knowing what a seceond vote would result in Teddyboy anymore than any of us. I think a fair section of those who voted to leave would also be repulsed by the anti-immigrant language emanating from the government, along with the numerous attacks that occured since.


This is not about how the vote went anyway (unless you are arguing that half the population voted for Brexit on the issue of immgration - something that many leave voters deny btw). It's about common decency, something I would like to think that most people would aspire to. Targetting immigrants who are already here and working for example, is not about controlling the numbers we allow in, it's persecution of those already here perfectly legally. This is why I and others are speaking out. It sends out absolutely the wrong signal.

Again Jenny is spot on. This is a deliberate attempt to grab votes lost to UKIP by the Tories. When May talks about being for the working class, she means the working class that have swung to UKIP (because she knows that Labour are doing nothing to win those votes). There is no way that Amber Rudd will ever get an act of parliament forcing companies to produce lists of migrant workers through the Lords - and she may not even get it through parliament. The parallels to the right wing tyrannies of the past are just too ominous - don't thnk I've quite invoked Godwin's Law there but... :D

Jenny1 Wrote:

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

> I think Rudd and May may be more authoritarian

> than you suggest jaywalker



They are certainly authoritarian-illiberal-statist-micro-managing-conservatives. One only has to look at the new IP Bill to be sure of that. But they are not authoritarian in the sense I used it in the post.



> Also....


> > It has nothing to do with Brexit as such - the

> > majority of those voting for Brexit are

> perfectly

> > sensible people


> I disagree. I think that this (by which I mean the

> new acceptability in political life of singling

> out foreigners) has a lot to do with Brexit.



Yes, Brexit has indicated to a cynical government that there are votes (and quite a lot of them) to be had by appealing to anti-immigration sentiments, including reactionary ones. It has excused all sorts of mischief. My point was that one cannot pin such sentiments on those who voted for Brexit per se - many perfectly sensible people voted for it (one can even be sensibly anti-immigration). I think we both disagree with the latter, but so what? What matters to me is isolating the appeal to the authoritarian and that is not a matter of Brexit as such.

Absolutely. There were plenty of 'sensible' reasons to vote for Brexit. And I can see that you were meaning something more defined and particular when you talked about authoritarianism than I did. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that everyone who voted for Brexit is an authoritarian.


But surely what matters is how the current government are choosing to interpret and use the referendum result to push forward ideas which last year would have been labelled 'too BNP' by the Conservatives? I'm not saying they're going to implement any of this stuff - but as already noted here - the language really matters because it sets the tone of our society.

Firms already need to report the number of third country national foreign workers. Whilst I am not condoning the extension of the policy to EU foreigners, I do find it interesting that no-one was up in arms when the requirement was imposed on the 3CNs.


I particularly remember when an ID card was proposed in the noughties by the Labour government. Everyone howled about how it would be a terrible infraction of civil liberties, and yet when the decision was made to drop the card EXCEPT for 3CNs, who still have to have one, no-one batted an eyelid.


I have 3CN friends who have been treated like second-class members of society for some time. This clearly isn't right, but the current hyperbole about how appalling this is now it might affect EU nationals is hypocritical.

red devil Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I cannot remember a time when

> > politics has been in such complete disarray.

>

> That all depends how old you are rah3...


I was born in 77 (so 39). I think with everything that going on not just here, but across Europe and in the uS, it feels like politics is struggling. I'm not saying there hasn't been political or economic turmoil before, but things feel a lot less stable / unpredictable than they have for a long time.


Drop in a bit of xenophobic rhetoric and I think its right fo be wary.

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...