Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The sun are running with the powerpoint leaks - a few points


A) The Sun - to date, unlikely carriers pf brexit bad news

B) the contents - not good right?

C) when people say "worst case scenario" they often underestimate what exacrtly a worst case is (see pandemic plans and how that played out this year)


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12474511/emergency-plans-perfect-storm-no-deal-brexit-coronavirus-second-wave/




So - is this nonsense? If so, why are this-most-brexit-loyal of governments even discussing these points?

If it's not nonsense, why are we even considering proceeding?

I don't understand your questions here. Amongst a long list of legitimate complaints we can have about govt actions this year. How is assessing a potential worst case scenario a bad thing for them to do?


Standard risk management protocol to assess a range of scenarios is it not?

They'll sack whoever made the report or call them a pen pushing civil servant if whats happened before is anything to go by. It does say "Cabinet Office" - I thought that was Gove and Cummings after the latest changes.


Actually googling the name links to the below


https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/no10-reveals-details-of-taskforce-europe-as-dexeu-closure-looms


A team headed by a guy called Boris Johnson :)

I guess the answer very much depends on a few things - namely, the likelihood of that scenario occurring, and the effectiveness of whatever other mitigation measures are being put in place, and the risk tolerance of the people making the decisions.


Also....I know the 30 June deadline has obviously now passed for extension of transition period. But I still believe that the UK is contuning to stick to the 'no extension' line as a negotiating tactic which may force a deal from the EU. But if they get to the 11th hour (not sure when that might be) and there really is no deal, they'll find a way to extend....optimistic thinking? Yes probably. A risky tactic if true....definitely.


But looking for silver lining, Im pleased to see the govt assessing the worst case and (assuming) discussing what it means and how they can mitigate the worst risks. It would be significantly MORE worrying if they weren't even assessing worst cases at all....

Barnier is unrealistic and intransigent and over a month ago EU leaders were going to sideline him.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1308687/Brexit-news-EU-member-state-Michel-Barnier-UK-trade-negotiation-border-Michael-Gove


I can't believe Barnier is still in his post since Boris had such a landslide victory and Barnier backed Teresa May's treacherous 'deal'

Barnier is obviously holding out for OUR fishing waters he is a nasty man

I wouldn?t call Barnier a nasty man. In fact I think he?s been doing a good job, working to his brief, from an EU Point of view.


I think we should concede on the fishing issue. Let our EU friends fish in our waters but only with row boats and one fishing rod and a tin of worms each.


The weight of the tin must be in lbs and ozs and the worms can be whatever shape nature gave them - even wonky banana shape.

The government backed themselves into this corner all on their own by promising things that could never be delivered. And with the chickens about to come home to roost you have Brexiteers swallowing the trash of the Express and blaming the EU for it.


Tell me Seenbeen, when you cancel you subscription to anything, do you still expect to have access to the services offered by that subscription? No you don't. We chose to leave the EU. They don't have to give us anything. And FYI, the Withdrawal Agreement is not a trade deal. It is simply the terms for the withdrawal. And while you are at it, how much do you understand about road haulage? Because that is going to be the first headache in your no deal Brexit when 80 percent of haulage can't get hold of the permit they need to drive goods into and across the EU.

seenbeen Wrote:

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

>

> I can't believe Barnier is still in his post since

> Boris had such a landslide victory and Barnier

> backed Teresa May's treacherous 'deal'

> Barnier is obviously holding out for OUR fishing

> waters he is a nasty man


He's working for the EU not the UK and thus you admit he's doing rather well.


He wants the best deal possible for the EU - which means the weaker the UK the better the deal. He also may have other things in his brief - like deterring other countries from leaving the EU.

He is indeed working for the EU and therefore should also be working on a decent deal for the EU - all things considered that is likely to mean working for a deal that works for the UK too. It's not all about fish though SeenBeen. You know that, I think, maybe you're being ironic!

If the UK wants to strike a deal with the French for them to prevent smugglers from exploiting asylum seekers crossing the Channel, then you can bet your bottom Euro that the French will ask for fishing rights to be part of that deal.

And when it comes to OUR fishing waters Mr Been, you might want to familiarise yourself with the fact that UK fishermen sold a lot of their quotas to foreign ownership, especially England which is now well over 50% foreign owned. You can't force people to sell them back despite what the Express may have told you... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52420116

Sephiroth Wrote:

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

> Complaining about Barnier/EU being "nasty" is almost as if some people don't know what international trade negotiations are like. You think China, India or USA are not going to be

> hardnosed in negotiations with UK?


You only have to look at the history of trade negotiations, and especially between those of vast differences in market size to see that. Experts in trade did try to warn about all of this, but leave voters weren't listening, denouncing everything as project fear. And anyone who thinks the US will allow us to leave healthcare and pharmaceuticals off the table, is also deluded. In fact, there are so many supporters of privatisation in cabinet positions, that a betrayal is almost inevitable.

It started off as an interesting take on the specific news of the worst case scenario planning, but it only took a handful of posts for this thread to turn into yet another EDF thread where the usual suspects bang on about how stupid, ignorant and deluded leave voters are/were...with the same tired old tropes and anecdotes.....


If at all possible, can we make some sort tp attempt to rise above that a little! The views of most of us on the other side are well documented in these pages already!

I am sorry TheCat, but leave voters (and yes it is a generalisation, but an accurate one) pretty much rejected every warning about the realities of trade deals and negotiations. No-one trades on WTO terms solely and there is a very good reason for that.

It's true that the usual suspects are banging on the same drums


And that may be boring. But just like the government before it went ahead with it's own plans to "squash the sombrero" or before it went ahead with exam algos, only to crash ito those walls - the government and vocal leave supporters (and you have t o acknowledge the extreme wing of that group) are ignoring warnings about where brexit is going


Is it therefore wrong to say it's stupid? Ignorant? Deluded?


I don't think it is wrong to say those things. Do they like hearing them? Of course not. But we can't just pretend otherwise simply to be nice and gentlemanly

I think most nations of whatever economy are worried.


There are calls for the debts of developing countries to be written off - many will never be able to pay them off and interest payments are keeping their populations in poverty


There are serious concerns global stock markets are divorced from reality and might crash


Fears of a property crash


The virus isn?t going away anytime soon


Etc etc


In short, we might be better off away from the EU to give us the flexibility to respond to a very certain world

We are beholden to global markets just as the EU is. The sub-prime market crash was a US problem, but banks from every country were invested in it and its derivatives. That is why it was a global crash. The size of the city and financial sector as a percentage of our GDP alone, puts us at massive exposure. It accounts for 10 percent of it.

I think some kind of furlough extension will happen. Germany has extended for 2 years - but they always had a part time furlough system available when we had only 100% furlough or 100% work - they are looking like moving to a 4 day week for many workers for 2 years.


With property we wait to see what will happen once the stamp duty holiday runs out next spring which will be right in the throes of any recession :(

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...