Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I not for one second disagree with your sentiments above robbin. I do hope, for everyone's sake, that you are of course correct and the present situation does continue and that we see growth in the medium to long term as a result of this decision.


Some of the political minds and members of the upper circles, have for decades had vested interests in us remaining part of the EU club. That's surely undeniable? But equally, I believe some people have genuine reasons for enjoying the globalised and perhaps rose tinted view that the EU offers opportunities on our doorstep which far outway anything we could hope for beyond that. Perhaps, in some ways, that could be perceived as quite insular BUT I do genuinely believe those people were more intelligent and informed than that, and had a genuine low for the positives brought to us from membership of the EU... 'if it ain't broke, why fix it?'.


I am often perceived as perhaps being deliberately provocative on this forum, but I can assure you that I did freely vote for Brexit without fully understanding all of the bluster thrown at me during the referendum campaign. If I were offered the vote now, despite everything you say about the non-existent impending doom, I would have voted to remain. Not only because of the lies spouted, but also because it seems like an unnecessary upheaval- with the aim of achieving what exactly? Also thinking of the poor people who's lives have been turned upside down because of all the uncertainty. It just seems like a diversion off of the motorway, which leads us onto some A road heading in the same direction. What's the point?


Louisa.

robbin Wrote:

-

>

> I'm not saying it is all going to be roses, but so

> far so good (albeit we have not left yet -

> obviously I just mean in comparison to the

> ridiculous scaremongering scenarios predicted for

> this stage) "


I might be wrong, but I thought the "ridiculous scaremongering" was referring to when we leave rather than when we vote/trigger.

robbin Wrote:

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


> There's only one thing I am confident about, which

> is that those who constantly complain about the

> referendum result are not going to help matters

> moving forward and will only make themselves

> miserable. You are not getting another referendum

> - time to look back, recognise that you were

> bombarded with lies about looming disaster (just

> as you were with lies the other way about 350m for

> the NHS) and try to get some perspective. If you

> are still buying-in to the messages from those

> same people (the Osborne types) who have now been

> proved to have been completely wrong and/or lying,

> then you need to have a word with yourself because

> you are still being taken in.

>

> I'm not suggesting you strap on rose tinted

> goggles, but be very wary of the messages of doom

> coming from people who have been proved wrong (and

> not just a bit wrong) already. If, by the way you

> do still believe what that well known newspaper

> editor George Osborne (and his ilk) say about

> Brexit, then I have some swampland in Florida

> that's going for a really good price - the

> market's just about to take off - get in quick!"


No-one's been proved wrong. We haven't left yet, as you acknowledge.

titch juicy Wrote:

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


>

> I might be wrong, but I thought the "ridiculous

> scaremongering" was referring to when we leave

> rather than when we vote/trigger.


I think this is the type of 'ridiculous scaremongering' that Robbin is referring to....


"In a sign of the panic gripping the remain campaign, the chancellor plans to say that the hit to the economy will be so large that he will have little choice but to tear apart Conservative manifesto promises in an emergency budget delivered within weeks of an out vote"


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/14/osborne-predicts-30bn-hole-in-public-finance-if-uk-votes-to-leave-eu

Louisa Wrote:

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

It just seems like a diversion off of

> the motorway, which leads us onto some A road

> heading in the same direction. What's the point?

>

> Louisa.


Nice simile Louisa, may have to pinch that one.

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> I might be wrong, but I thought the "ridiculous scaremongering" was referring to when we leave

> rather than when we vote/trigger.


True, though the collapse in the value of the pound was pretty immediate following the vote.


But bad stuff is happening already in the wake of the triggering of Article 50. Today, Lloyds announce 1 in 7 jobs are off to Brussels.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39441035

red devil Wrote:

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

> After the tub-thumping of her Tory party

> conference and Lancaster Gate speeches, May's

> letter looked decidedly conciliatory by

> comparison. As a Remainer I'm not one who wishes

> the economy to go belly-up just so I can later say

> ''I told you so''. It's a difficult situation to

> be in, I don't want Brexit to be a success because

> one day I would want us to rejoin the EU, but

> equally I don't want the country to suffer

> economically. Personally I believe there will be

> hardship, but probably no worse than the credit

> crunch, and we'll therefore have to put up with

> many more years of 'austerity'. But for me it

> wasn't just about the economy, there's the social

> aspect too. How we're perceived as a nation to the

> rest of the world. I don't particularly want to

> live in a country that's doing ok economically if

> it means isolationism, inward thinking, and an

> increasingly xenophobic and jingoistic outlook,

> and that's how it's felt since the referendum.

> Then there's the long-term political outlook. The

> hard-right of the Tory party seized their chance

> and have taken a power-hold on their party. May

> has become a puppet, the acceptable face of

> Brexit. They are hell-bent on leaving the EU at

> any cost, even if it means Scotland leaving the

> Union. And if that happens their grip will get

> even tighter. Overnight a Tory majority goes from

> a smallish one to a very comfortable one. In a

> democracy, regardless of your politics, an

> effective opposition is a prerequisite, and we

> certainly haven't got that now despite the Gov's

> small majority, and it's likely to get worse

> unless Corbyn does the decent thing. Still, the

> sun will continue to come up...



This ^^^

TheCat Wrote:

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

> titch juicy Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> >

> > I might be wrong, but I thought the "ridiculous

> > scaremongering" was referring to when we leave

> > rather than when we vote/trigger.

>

> I think this is the type of 'ridiculous

> scaremongering' that Robbin is referring to....

>

> "In a sign of the panic gripping the remain

> campaign, the chancellor plans to say that the hit

> to the economy will be so large that he will have

> little choice but to tear apart Conservative

> manifesto promises in an emergency budget

> delivered within weeks of an out vote"

>

> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/14/o

> sborne-predicts-30bn-hole-in-public-finance-if-uk-

> votes-to-leave-eu



That assumed Article 50 was to be triggered in June 2016.


Also So far the government have allowed the devaluation of the pound

to be a buffer against any issues (which Osborne would have done too),

but we really don't know where we're headed at the moment - it's like

the phoney war before the blitz hit.

Loz Wrote:

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

> titch juicy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I might be wrong, but I thought the "ridiculous

> scaremongering" was referring to when we leave

> > rather than when we vote/trigger.

>

> True, though the collapse in the value of the

> pound was pretty immediate following the vote.

>

> But bad stuff is happening already in the wake of

> the triggering of Article 50. Today, Lloyds

> announce 1 in 7 jobs are off to Brussels.

>

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39441035



and Goldmans, UBS and HSBC too


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/goldman-sachs-brexit-bank-jobs-move-out-london-city-eu-deals-european-union-negotiations-a7641876.html


http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-davos-meeting-hsbc-idUKKBN1520SO

We are leaving, at great cost.


Yet we will still


be subject to the ECJ (to get any kind of a trade deal)


take in several hundred thousand migrant workers each year (not to do so would close the NHS and care homes immediately, not to mention most of the businesses in London).


And this in a general climate of increasing protectionism in which all trade opportunities that remain open will be incredibly precious.


Do the Brexiters actually think they will get what they want? If the negotiations collapse then May will be out - the Repeal Acts will be defeated in both Lords and Commons.


Update on BBC News tonight. Independence from ECJ promised by Davies. Well, then we cannot have a trade deal. If we have a trade deal it must be actionable in the courts with those countries we have the deal. In the EU this means the ECJ. So, the government are not planning a trade deal? Or anything much at all, actually?

jaywalker Wrote:

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

> We are leaving, at great cost.

>

> Yet we will still

>

> be subject to the ECJ (to get any kind of a trade

> deal)

>

> take in several hundred thousand migrant workers

> each year (not to do so would close the NHS and

> care homes immediately, not to mention most of the

> businesses in London).

>

> And this in a general climate of increasing

> protectionism in which all trade opportunities

> that remain open will be incredibly precious.

>

> Do the Brexiters actually think they will get what

> they want? If the negotiations collapse then May

> will be out - the Repeal Acts will be defeated in

> both Lords and Commons.

>

> Update on BBC News tonight. Independence from ECJ

> promised by Davies. Well, then we cannot have a

> trade deal. If we have a trade deal it must be

> actionable in the courts with those countries we

> have the deal. In the EU this means the ECJ. So,

> the government are not planning a trade deal? Or

> anything much at all, actually?


Sorry, I don't understand the basis for your comment. Perhaps i've missed something, in which case I'm all ears...but countries like Mexico, morroco, south Korea and south Africa all have free trade agreements with the EU, and none of them are within the jurisdiction of the ECJ.....

Lloyds of London (NOT to be confused with Lloyds bank)is a bunch of insurance brokers sitting in a building in the square mile- where they work from does not matter. All that matters is that the 'names' underwrite the risks. The building is horrible and started the trend of vile architecture dominating the London skyline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London

jaywalker Wrote:

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


> take in several hundred thousand migrant workers

> each year (not to do so would close the NHS and

> care homes immediately, not to mention most of the

> businesses in London).


Not so fast, robbin of Brexitwood hath spoken:


...but there's also major benefits - a substantial increase in tourism, hotels sold out, restaurants busy, local businesses in London busier...


We're gonna need a lot more of those pesky immigrants!...

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> Lloyds of London (NOT to be confused with Lloyds

> bank)is a bunch of insurance brokers sitting in a

> building in the square mile- where they work from

> does not matter. All that matters is that the

> 'names' underwrite the risks. The building is

> horrible and started the trend of vile

> architecture dominating the London skyline

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London


I don't suppose anybody did confuse them with Lloyds Bank, do you? However, to say that from where the brokers do their work doesn't matter is nonsense: the average broker salary at Lloyds is around ?150,000, so for every one they send abroad that's around a ?60,000 loss to the UK exchequer. OK, they're only planning to send around a hundred to Brussels at present, so that's "only" ?6M in lost tax/NI revenue, but if that's replicated across the city we're talking many billions lost in direct revenue, plus their purchasing power. It matters rather a lot, the UK economy is heavily shored up by London's position as one of the world's most important financial hubs, when they go elsewhere we all lose out.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> uncleglen Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Lloyds of London (NOT to be confused with Lloyds

> > bank)is a bunch of insurance brokers sitting in a

> > building in the square mile- where they work from

> > does not matter. All that matters is that the

> > 'names' underwrite the risks. The building is

> > horrible and started the trend of vile

> > architecture dominating the London skyline

> >

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London

>

> I don't suppose anybody did confuse them with

> Lloyds Bank, do you? However, to say that from

> where the brokers do their work doesn't matter is

> nonsense: the average broker salary at Lloyds is

> around ?150,000, so for every one they send abroad

> that's around a ?60,000 loss to the UK exchequer.

> OK, they're only planning to send around a hundred

> to Brussels at present, so that's "only" ?6M in

> lost tax/NI revenue, but if that's replicated

> across the city we're talking many billions lost

> in direct revenue, plus their purchasing power. It

> matters rather a lot, the UK economy is heavily

> shored up by London's position as one of the

> world's most important financial hubs, when they

> go elsewhere we all lose out.


Not to mention a *lot* of jobs lost. Both directly and indirectly.

Well Theresa May's fans calling out a win now after Donald Tusk does concede a little


- Some parallel talks

- He acknowledges the security misunderstanding (it wasn't it was a huge mistake and TMs been let off)


Whats happening is the EU is taking the lead on setting the agenda here. Have they not heard of conceding minor points to win the big ones :)

JohnL Wrote:

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


> Whats happening is the EU is taking the lead on setting the agenda here. Have they not heard of

> conceding minor points to win the big ones :)


And, after a week of dithering by May, the EU is today taking the lead on establishing the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU.

Bollocks to this


let's all be Bwitish and miserable and exclude "johnny foreigner"


I refuse to call myself "British" now after this debacle


We should be ashamed of our so called maturer citizens who voted overwhelmingly to leave


What is there to be "happy" about !


It's a power grab by the Tories combined with a complete attack on our civil liberties.

Mr Django Wisteria Wrote:

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

> Bollocks to this

>

> let's all be Bwitish and miserable and exclude

> "johnny foreigner"

>

> I refuse to call myself "British" now after this

> debacle

>

> We should be ashamed of our so called maturer

> citizens who voted overwhelmingly to leave

>

> What is there to be "happy" about !

>

> It's a power grab by the Tories combined with a

> complete attack on our civil liberties.



I voted remain and am a child of the 60s.


What I discovered though (due to this) - The baby boomer

generation is considered to have ended in 1964 which means

I'm Generation X (just) :)

Mr Django Wisteria Wrote:

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

> It's a power grab by the Tories combined with a

> complete attack on our civil liberties.


And when they said all EU laws would be translated

to UK law then parliament would debate any changes


OK the Charter of Fundamental rights maybe a load

of BS - but we agreed on how this was to be done and

now the precedent has been set.


"While the Bill will provide for around 19,000 pieces

of EU legislation to be brought onto Britain?s statute

books, the Charter of Fundamental Rights will not be one

of them."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/30/uk-takes-back-right-deport-britain-repeals-powers-eu/

It's not just about age, though that did play a part.


It was;


Urban vs Rural

North vs South

Poor vs Wealthy



This whole thing was basically brought about by a London centric government ignoring English regions, where poverty reigned and no one in power bothered to do anything about it. A modern day peasants revolt ultimately, but obviously more complex than JUST that.


Louisa.

Loz Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

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

> -----

> > uncleglen Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Lloyds of London (NOT to be confused with

> Lloyds

> > > bank)is a bunch of insurance brokers sitting

> in a

> > > building in the square mile- where they work

> from

> > > does not matter. All that matters is that the

> > > 'names' underwrite the risks. The building

> is

> > > horrible and started the trend of vile

> > > architecture dominating the London skyline

> > >

> >

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London

> >

> > I don't suppose anybody did confuse them with

> > Lloyds Bank, do you? However, to say that from

> > where the brokers do their work doesn't matter

> is

> > nonsense: the average broker salary at Lloyds

> is

> > around ?150,000, so for every one they send

> abroad

> > that's around a ?60,000 loss to the UK

> exchequer.

> > OK, they're only planning to send around a

> hundred

> > to Brussels at present, so that's "only" ?6M in

> > lost tax/NI revenue, but if that's replicated

> > across the city we're talking many billions

> lost

> > in direct revenue, plus their purchasing power.

> It

> > matters rather a lot, the UK economy is heavily

> > shored up by London's position as one of the

> > world's most important financial hubs, when

> they

> > go elsewhere we all lose out.

>

> Not to mention a *lot* of jobs lost. Both

> directly and indirectly.


I'm not being argumentative here but people have to think a bit wider..this isn't a non-moving vacuum so here's some random thoughts


- we will lose some high end jobs, but not as many as the acoplytic forecasts predict but

-numerous EU companies have pass-porting rights into the UK for finance if these go too (as they will if ours do) that creates opportunities and jobs here by EU companies having to set up here to access capital/have UK customers etc

- if we come to no finance deal with the EU that creates opportunities in some reduced restriction/regulation which makes the UK a more attractive place for some financial companies, hedge funds and other forms of finance/investment etc

- taking SOME of the froth off our over reliance on Finance and the City isn't a bad thing in the medium term (rebalance, house prices etc)

- the huge amount of capital controlled, assetss managed & held here will look wider than europe for investment opportunities (it does already of course but this will be accelerated)and growth elsewhere is looking far healthier

- there's a lot of bright and motivated people in London, we'll lose some but some will look and find opportunities not yet realized, we have far more flexibility, rules, ease of start ups, and access to finance for entrepreneurship than our big EU rivals -especially France and Germany -skill shortages is the potential issue here so that does need addressing.


The general tone among the worried is that UK based business/finance/entreprneurship/capital will just sit here doing nothing whilst EU rivals chip away at it. Clever people are doing stuff now not waiting on dullard politicians.


Finally, as I said before, nice to see finance, bankers, hedgefunders etc suddenly loved and adored by the Guardian and other lefties after 10 yesr of "feck em, stick them all in jail" lunatic rhetoric.

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...