Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well, the scary Southwark Cyclists lady did say that it was imperative that Southwark adopt the five mandated policies before the May 2022 elections. Perhaps she?s realised that there will be an electoral backlash, even if the councillors haven?t... Or is it that Labour see their biggest threat in Southwark as the Greens?

This truly is a parallel universe.


They've made their own constituents life worst by pushing more pollution, dirt and noise to the already busy and polluted roads, they've made air pollution worst by creating miles of idling traffic, they've been ignoring constituents concerns - and they are congratulating themselves on this?

Labour seems to have lost all sense of constituent empathy. As they did at the last general election they have become dangerously disconnected from the voting public, are putting their own ideology ahead of everything else and becoming a liability to themselves and all that Labour represents. You would have thought they would have learnt some lessons from the Corbyn disaster.

" Is there no sane person in this mutual adoration society?


Shame on Southwark council and its councillors."


Amused me greatly as this thread comes across as a bit of mutual admiration society at times between many of the posters.


Anyway, to be serious.


Rocks you have gone on here, and now on the scooter thread, that Southwark should be investing in on street infrastructure for electric vehicles. Most of the money is held by the government through the Office of Zero Emission Vehicles (previously known as OLEV). TfL is the coordinator for this in London. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/grants-for-local-authorities-to-provide-residential-on-street-chargepoints/grants-to-provide-residential-on-street-chargepoints-for-plug-in-electric-vehicles-guidance-for-local-authorities. Early funding under the Go Ultra Low Cities Scheme granted ?13m across the whole of London https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/our-key-themes/transport/roads/gulcs


No doubt some councils will spend some of their own money on some recharging, which will be fairly modest.



And I was asked whether boroughs can introduce road charging schemes. They can't. Again that is down to GLA (TfL being part of this).


You could also argue that the better off benefit from subsidies for EVs, certainly the EV car grant does, but government should kill this off and focus on charge points and moving to a sustainable position (note early adopters of electric vehicles were generally wealthy empty nesters, more often that not using this as their second vehicle)

Well I suppose the political future of our councillors depends on whether their mutual admiration society is bigger and more galvanised than our one.


But, in my books, politicians are supposed to be the catalyst for creating a meeting of minds amongst constituents not driving a wedge between them.


Brave politicians would try to find a resolution that appeases everyone rather than seemingly celebrate the fact a huge swath of the electorate are being ignored per Cllr McAsh and that his "comrades" are brave for continuing to do so - maybe that is modern day Marxism for you!

First and foremost, the brave politicians would listen to their people.


When all this started I thought I was the only person noticing the increase in traffic post-road closures in the area and contacting the councillors; I then discovered than most of my neighbours have been doing exactly the same. The councillors should have come over, talk to people, listen, discuss, see what can be done. Instead, most of us have never received a reply and those who have, got a copy-and-paste emails full of ideological waffle.

My politics is certainly left of Councillor McAsh - but amazingly this hasn't caused any issues with either how my brain functions or my ability to count cars, see traffic and smell pollution. It also isn't a cure for my asthma.


I also have not been impacted negatively by my left-wing/ green politics, causing an inability to recognise change or analyse data or critically (using this term in the way peer reviewing uses 'critically') review published research.


So quite why Councillor McAsh cannot understand that the Tory Policy of HTN closed roads impacts the residential roads that house much of Labour's base voters and that the consequential increase in idling traffic actually contributes to more pollution both in terms of noise and air quality defies any logic.

I found this blog quite an interesting read. Some parallels with the LTN situation.


https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/2021/09/01/filling-you-in-local-resistance-to-southwark-council-infill-development-on-estates/




ab29 Wrote:

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

> Yet another example of how Southwark council

> ignores people

>

> https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/anti-infill-p

> rotesters-march-on-southwark-councils-tooley-stree

> t-offices-again/?fbclid=IwAR2GyPQaZR5hE0m_OkrMpypD

> fJEQFkbkPNbmKvSs750FDB9qErMPiQl5cTA

Please never, never compare traffic issues of any kind in Dulwich/East Dulwich with any area in the north of the Borough. If I had a Tube nearby I would not need to consider either leaving home 30 minutes before I need to, to get on a bus, or use my energy up to walk further than the two niles everyone goes on about.

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Oh for heavens sake, please don't bring the Tories

> into this, whatever your beefs are with Soutwark

> Council. Tories are fundamentally pro choice (ie

> car) and against intervention (ie protecting the

> environment).


You don't expect a rival party to use the negative elements LTN scheme as a reason for gaining votes in May 2022?


I'd expect the Lib Dems to be pro choice in their manifesto regarding these schemes, while Labour will continue to shoehorn them in as they claim to know best for everyone in Dulwich as long as lemmings vote them in as they do in every local and general election.

Few things to flag:


Link to video of scrutiny committee meeting on Weds is at https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7003, with Cllr Rose?s presentation about an hour and a bit in. No particularly incisive questions, a transcript of Cllr Newens commentary is doing the rounds on Twitter

- apparently the Croxted Road situation is down to Lambeth and TfL!


Peckham Lane / Peckham Rye cycle scheme being made permanent: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50027998. Report notes that traffic filters initially included in plan weren?t installed, and that ? The Council are proposing a wider scheme in the area, which will aim to reduce traffic volumes and complement the highway measures proposed in this report. This scheme is currently in outline design with further consultation planned for mid-2022.? Existing measures have decent level of support.


School streets for Rye Oak and Comber primaries made permanent https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7504. A decision on a new batch of school streets has been added into the Forward Plan for decision in Feb but no indication which schools yet.


Next cabinet meeting is on Tuesday 7th. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7017. The new Southwark Plan (which dictates planning policy) is due to be adopted ( note it will be subject to ?early review? to beef up climate strategy commitments). To see the long, complex plan you can click on the link at the bottom of the report document listed in the agenda. P48 to P54 of the document deal with transport issues related to new developments including levels of car and cycle parks and charging points related to new developments.


Proposed bid for TfL funding also on cabinet agenda here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103397/Report%20and%20appendix%20Approval%20of%20TfL%20grant%20submission.pdf appendix gives a vague idea of upcoming priorities.


( unrelated to traffic, also on the agenda is for Southwark to set up its own in house construction company to build council housing).

( unrelated to traffic, also on the agenda is for Southwark to set up its own in house construction company to build council housing).


I lived in Lambeth during Red Ted Knight's rule. They had an in-house building business - notorious for corruption. This bodes extremely badly. Housing construction is a non-trivial business. Many councils (in the 1920s and 1930s) had quite good in-house firms - but post-war there is little experience or understanding within councils of what qualifies as 'good'.

Haven?t read it yet but at least looks like an incremental approach of building an in house skills base and focusing first on reducing consultancy, maintenance etc rather than setting up a full bells and whistles company to compete with the private sector. Deserves its own thread, but link here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103374/Report%20Southwark%20Construction%20Company%20report.pdf

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...