Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think it would be improper to comment on an ongoing court case, and I've read convincing arguments by academics that take both sides of the Government's appeal; so have no idea what the members of the Supreme Court will decide.


However, I think there is a more interesting general issue. There is quite a lot of comment (not least on TV) that the whole 'Justice' thing is just a distraction, that a democratic choice has been made. There is also a clamour for the executive to implement that choice without further ado - in particular, that Parliament would simply get in the way of the necessary negotiations.


This seems to me to be a fundamental misrecognition of how we thwart power. We know full well that power will take unto itself all means if allowed. It will tend to concentrate itself in few hands. There will be a certainty in its execution - on the claim that "we know" this is the good for all. Embodying 'the people', this has no limits (you do not after all need to look very far to see exemplars of this).


How we have at least to some extent prevented this (for sure, inadequately) has been by insisting on autonomy not heteronomy. The Times today calls for heteronomy, like the other populist tabloids. The commentators invited to pontificate by the BBC last night all called for the same. The people's voice must not be gainsaid - that is democracy.


A very stupid, infantile, notion of democracy. But then we should be against it. The urgency is to re-establish a notion of autonomy. In all walks of life. Not anarchic: rather, based on a notion of the state that requires the individuated voices of the rule of law and the expression of dissensus (politics through parliament, a media uncontrolled by populism or government). This recognises that each should hold the other to account; but on powers constituted in advance: justice interprets the law, parliament establishes it, the police enforce it (not something else), and the media interrogates it. Just as we should strive against heteronomy in the ethics of our own lives.

ianr Wrote:

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

> > I think it would be improper to comment on an

> ongoing court case,

>

> Why?


For the same reason I gave in my post. This must be true of the necessary relative-autonomy of any court case: that they exercise judicial reason not common reason (the autonomy is relative because constrained by the assigned power to act only in a constitutional way as a matter of law). They express this as "impartiality" - but of course, it is really a partiality of a right to interpret the law as-such. That right's autonomy is what I argued for.


What could I say about that from outside the court? I can argue about the terms of that power: but not the particularism of a case.


I do not think this greatly matters - the Supreme Court is currently quite robust. But the principle seems to me worth upholding.

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> Don't forget the people voted for a government

> that promised a referendum...


"the people" was the target of my post. I can only apologise for not making that clear. For you that may be a good - for me it is not.


Then you will accuse me of being anti-democratic. On the basis that democracy = the people I am certainly anti-democratic. This is why I opposed such an idea with the necessity of autonomy in the judiciary, media, and parliament within the powers constituting the state - as an antidote to that monstrosity.

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> Don't forget the people voted for a government

> that promised a referendum...



And?


And they voted for a government that delivered a referendum, but little else


Hence we're up shit creek somewhat. So let's not go down the 'the people have voted' route, coz like really, most people haven't considered the options, and in this case 'options' really matter.


I'm fed up with this 'dare defy the will of the people ' bullshit that the May government are putting out. We (that's you too) need the best deal possible. And some of that deal will hurt your ideal of Island life.


But get over it, because we are less than exited by the stupidity of populism and the cark of 'taking control'

And how do you know that 'the deal' we have got at the moment is any good? We are being shafted by 750 extra politicians who cost us ?63 million a week- whose annual audit has never been ratified. the current 'deal' is NOT helping the poorer and uneducated - even the Archbishop of Canterbury has said as much- before Theresa May said so.....some of you are extremely verbose and I guess you have had an excellent education but you have no idea what the dispossessed are suffering- especially as they watch their kids sink into a life of drugs or petty crime....

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> And how do you know that 'the deal' we have got at

> the moment is any good? We are being shafted by

> 750 extra politicians who cost us ?63 million a

> week- whose annual audit has never been ratified.

> the current 'deal' is NOT helping the poorer and

> uneducated - even the Archbishop of Canterbury has

> said as much- before Theresa May said so.....some

> of you are extremely verbose and I guess you have

> had an excellent education but you have no idea

> what the dispossessed are suffering- especially as

> they watch their kids sink into a life of drugs or

> petty crime....


There's more opportunities than ever before.


Brexit in my opinion will take away opportunities.

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> And how do you know that 'the deal' we have got at

> the moment is any good? We are being shafted by

> 750 extra politicians who cost us ?63 million a

> week- whose annual audit has never been ratified.

> the current 'deal' is NOT helping the poorer and

> uneducated - even the Archbishop of Canterbury has

> said as much- before Theresa May said so.....some

> of you are extremely verbose and I guess you have

> had an excellent education but you have no idea

> what the dispossessed are suffering- especially as

> they watch their kids sink into a life of drugs or

> petty crime...


What you say is true. I have no idea what the dispossessed are suffering.


However, I did not post this thread as for or against Brexit. I wanted to argue for the (relative) autonomy of the judicial system (and of parliament, the media, education, the police, and the other institutions of the state). That autonomy is currently threatened in many ways, not least in the outrage expressed at the fact that this judicial review is taking place.


But you are right in that the basically Hegelian point I made in the post is only one step (the second, necessary one was initiated particularly by Althusser). That is, the state apparatuses in their relative autonomy tend to social reproduction - they stabilise an existing pattern of privilege by validating the identities formed there, so deny the dispossessed a chance.


That is as true of the judicial system (who is locked up and for what) as the education system (who is recognised as 'intelligent', and can then self-recognise as intelligent to self-justify their privilege: a certain 'verbosity' here helps cloud the process).


But dealing with that is not an argument against relative autonomy because without autonomy there is no basis for antagonistic democratic debate (i.e. against social reproduction) there is only a collapse to a general will unchecked - i.e. dictatorship (however 'popular').

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> And how do you know that 'the deal' we have got at

> the moment is any good? We are being shafted by

> 750 extra politicians who cost us ?63 million a

> week- whose annual audit has never been ratified.

> the current 'deal' is NOT helping the poorer and

> uneducated - even the Archbishop of Canterbury has

> said as much- before Theresa May said so.....some

> of you are extremely verbose and I guess you have

> had an excellent education but you have no idea

> what the dispossessed are suffering- especially as

> they watch their kids sink into a life of drugs or

> petty crime....



The EU parliament costs ?34 million a week....across the entire EU. Let's be generous and say ?1 million a week for the UK.


(It's a fair point, but please get your facts right - it's nowhere near ?63 million a year let alone per week).


Besides, our own Government manages to waste far bigger sums of money - billions per year through shoddy contracting (Capita/Serco et al) and want to spend another ?50 billion on a high speed rail link to Manchester.

jaywalker Wrote:

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

> However, I think there is a more interesting

> general issue. There is quite a lot of comment

> (not least on TV) that the whole 'Justice' thing

> is just a distraction, that a democratic choice

> has been made. There is also a clamour for the

> executive to implement that choice without further

> ado - in particular, that Parliament would simply

> get in the way of the necessary negotiations.




This has nothing to do with "justice". It is a simple question as to whether the PM can do what she wants without checking with parliament.


Don't forget it wasn't just tory voters that voted to leave, and far from all tory voters voted to leave. So surely it's right and proper that this is considered in a cross party manner.


People still taling as if this is an attempt to thwart democracy and stop brexit all together, are just worrying for the sake of worrying.

Otta Wrote:

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

> jaywalker Wrote:

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

> -----

> > However, I think there is a more interesting

> > general issue. There is quite a lot of comment

> > (not least on TV) that the whole 'Justice'

> thing

> > is just a distraction, that a democratic choice

> > has been made. There is also a clamour for the

> > executive to implement that choice without

> further

> > ado - in particular, that Parliament would

> simply

> > get in the way of the necessary negotiations.

>

>

>

> This has nothing to do with "justice". It is a

> simple question as to whether the PM can do what

> she wants without checking with parliament.

>

> Don't forget it wasn't just tory voters that voted

> to leave, and far from all tory voters voted to

> leave. So surely it's right and proper that this

> is considered in a cross party manner.

>

> People still taling as if this is an attempt to

> thwart democracy and stop brexit all together, are

> just worrying for the sake of worrying.


Of course the Judges could ask that the Scottish Parliament

pass Brexit.


That'd kill it :)

red devil Wrote:

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

> I think I'm in love with Lord Pannick. Genius...



Pannick on the streets of London, Pannick on the streets of Birmingham.


TM backs down (and wants a Red, White and Blue Brexit)


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-agrees-to-publish-brexit-plans-before-triggering-article-50-in-major-uturn-a3413821.html

Lowlander Wrote:

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


> The EU parliament costs ?34 million a

> week....across the entire EU. Let's be generous

> and say ?1 million a week for the UK.

>

> (It's a fair point, but please get your facts

> right - it's nowhere near ?63 million a year let

> alone per week).

>

> Besides, our own Government manages to waste far

> bigger sums of money - billions per year through

> shoddy contracting (Capita/Serco et al) and want

> to spend another ?50 billion on a high speed rail

> link to Manchester.


And then you need to consider what the army of lawyers, administrators and international negotiators that we are going to need over the next 10 years to undo/redo everything. ?63m a week will seem a bargain.

I see Helen Hayes has voted against triggering article 50.

Brexit Vote: 89 MPs Refuse To Back Triggering Article 50 In March - But Government Wins

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-vote-89-mps-government-wins-article-50_uk_58485e1be4b07fd553cf1c56

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I see Helen Hayes has voted against triggering

> article 50.

> Brexit Vote: 89 MPs Refuse To Back Triggering

> Article 50 In March - But Government Wins

> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-vote-

> 89-mps-government-wins-article-50_uk_58485e1be4b07

> fd553cf1c56


Ken Clarke :)


Brexit could be scuppered today if legislative consent

is required from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.


More likely to refer that to EU court if at all IMHO.

ratty Wrote:

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

> It was the will of the misinformed people at one

> moment in time. Thats about it.


How do you know they were misinformed? The people of Wales had a lot of money fro the EU and were told how to use it on hare-brained schemes. Same thing probably happened in the North. Londoners have benefited greatly from the free movement of extremely cheap labour and increases in house prices, and a bottomless pit of renters to fund their 2nd, 3rd etc mortgages. Self-serving bunch of champagne socialists...as per usual

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...