Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This was my thinking too rahrah. We've had cheap (compared to market forces) food for a long time now, down to the hard negotiating of the big supermarkets. I see it as an impasse between big business, more than anything else. But underlying it of course, are rising prices elsewhere in the priduction chain, some of which are affected by the falling pound. We should also espect to see inflation rise in these economic conditions anyway.

Sure there will be a power struggle between supermarkets and producers (general quality of life is surprisingly dependent on two multinational producers - I REALLY do not want to eat Tesco-brand-marmite, and I must have Hellman's not some substitute). There will also be room for serious contest here between Unilever and Proctor & Gamble. Of course the multinationals will win: Unilever only does 3% of its business in the UK it can leverage in a way Tesco would be very brave to try (prolonged empty shelves anyone?) And this is just the first round: think Tesco may have 'first mover disadvantage' here in game theory terms.


But my real interest in the story is the populist reaction by some commentators that if the pound falls by 20% then imported produce should stay the same price - after all we got our country back and marmite is British so how dare they try to 'profit' from Brexit, these foreign companies need taking down a peg or too, so well done to Tesco for flying the flag!


Meanwhile, see petrol prices.

I shall just wait for Lidl to introduce Mahmeitz (ironic that Brexit may see the further rise and rise of this German high street paradise as more people realise their cheaper own-brand stuff - unlike, say, Tesco's - isn't total crap)...


Also Bol noodles are 2 for 1 at Waitrose and far better than Pot... and if young men and women are forced to forego drenching themselves in Lynx/Impulse we'll all breathe easier.


In fact ANY reason not to go to Tesco is a good thing.

I'd bring back retail price control, prevent the supermarkets from selling fags and fresh bread, and return to the 1960s (along with grammer schools and hopefully hanging).


To be serious price controls work in France hence they still have village shops and tabacs with about ten customers a day. Opening hours aren't so great though...

Think I will remember this as the day people began to get a glimmer of the future.


Most firms are at least partially hedged against the fall in sterling until early next year. After that ...


Long term infrastructure projects boost the supply side, but they take decades (and often turn into white elephants). This potential is in any case already more than offset by the appalling anti-EU-worker rhetoric - as prices rise and wage demands grow there will simultaneously be a shortage of labour as the EU workers depart, raising wages further - these costs rising at exactly the same time as input prices for firms increase dramatically from the fall in sterling (about 20 to 25%). We have seen this before: it is always the state-ist wing of the Tories that inflicts this kind of madness (viz Barber in Heath's government) (there are of course other kinds of madness inflicted by the other wing).


And this leaves out of the picture further rises in the oil price (not yet translated into petrol prices) and a greater downward spiral of sterling (particularly when the public finances are admitted). I think all politicians should be shown graphs of just how quickly inflation has spiralled out of control and so often in the UK since WW2 - each time we were told that it was not going to happen and everything was ok.

The problem is that governments and public alike become complacent and forget how it was or what it leads to. It's why we are having decades of boom and bust and every time, the masters of the universe think it won't happen again, because they are so much cleverer this time! No-one ever questions the system when the money is rolling in.

Hmmm boom-bust. Yes in deed. Blair's government was going to rid us of this, noting we were coming out of an economic low at the time. But then we had low interest rates and low inflation, with low unemployment and lots of other factors to encouage us to borrow.


This one is totally self inflicted. I am now liking it to the inflation post middle East crisis in the early 70s which my dad, probably rightly said, screwed up his pension. Which will be the same for me I expect.


Perhaps if the leavers had campaigned with a "panic buy pot noodles" slogan we wouldn't be where we are.


Interestingly it is difficult to stop panic buying which could be seen as a rational decision rather than selfish hoarding (or worse still profiteering). Government say don't panic, but we do as government can't be telling the truth. Media savvy experts say the same, still to the same effect. Usually it is bread, bottled water, fuel and toilet rolls that go first.


Looks like we could be heading back before the 60s, even before the 50s, to the winter of '48 where people had to burn furniture to say warm. But they were good old days of course......


Fack I am unhappy about all of this.

Yes, the technocratic solution (independent Bank of England, Fiscal Policy rules, Office of Budget Responsibility) produces a time-inconsistent policy - that is, the more it is hard-wired into the system as a set of rules (for an allegedly timeless good) the more the system falls apart over time.


Most generally (well beyond economics), this was a major insight of Kant:


"... a concept of the understanding, which contains the general rule, must be supplemented by an act of judgement whereby the practitioner distinguishes instances where the rule applies from those where it does not. And since rules cannot in turn be provided on every occasion to direct the judgement in subsuming each instance under the previous rule (for this would involve an infinite regress), theoreticians will be found who can never in all their lives become practical, since they lack judgement."


I am so in awe of Kant!

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...