Jump to content

Recommended Posts

diable rouge Wrote:

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

> I've found that poll I referred to earlier, it's

> quite the eye

> opener...https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/arti

> cles-reports/2019/06/18/most-conservative-members-

> would-see-party-destroye

>

> Not only were Tory members strongly in favour of

> breaking up the Union, they were just as strongly

> in favour of there being ''significant'' damage to

> the UK economy and even the ''destruction'' of the

> Tory party itself, if it meant delivering Brexit.

> I think it's fair to say that for them at least,

> Brexit was definitely an emotional vote, and I

> suspect for a lot of non-Tory members likewise.

> I've long thought that how Cat came about his

> decision to vote Leave was an outlier, and instead

> most people voted on a more simplistic, emotional

> basis, on the Remain side too.

>

> Any emotional vote very much plays into the

> 'Braveheart' narrative...


Don't disagree.....many people will indeed vote on 'principle' or 'concept' without all the detail. I'm sure most remain voters did exactly the same. Doesn't necessarily make it wrong, it's probably how most people vote in most elections, most of the time.


I probably was an outlier in the amount of independent research I did (it's sort of my job, so wasn't too heroic!). But also, perhaps there are more similar 'outliers' than you think. My biggest objection to the post-referendum back and forth, is the constant assumption that all leave voters are either thick, racist or were hoodwinked. Sure some are....some remain voters were too.


So you and seabag may well be right. And the Scottish will vote with the heart. Fair enough, that's there prerogative.

More referring to people voting on principle. I know some remain voters who did absolutley no research, and their only rationale for voting remain was 'I'm not a rascist'.


Of course a good thing to aspire to, but not exactly any more informed than the charactiture of the standard leave voter is it?


With regards to hoodwinked...well we could go over all the 'lies' of the remain campaign....but that's a can or worms that been opened many times before...

Cat


Nobody (apart from you) mentioned ?thick, racist or hoodwinked? and I was very careful to be more rounded in my phrasing.


So can we leave that bit out here on in please.


Gut feeling is a big part of the reason people vote as they do, and like you alluded to, not many people go to great lengths to measure the arguments as you did etc.


But Scotland is hearts and minds and a whole back history of resentment agains Westminister. And this current Team Westminister are pretty tone deaf on matters beyond their own wants. Lots of talking at people, not much talking to people. And I think Scotland is done with that on the whole.


Oh and barefaced Brexit shafting (even you must admit this has been shockingly bad for them) the fishing industry is probably a final distillation of enough is enough for many. No shell fish exports until April?! I wonder how that going down. Timing wise, not great for some bluff ?better together? TPHQ type sloganeering.


To add insult to injury, George Eustice uses the phrase ?teething problems? and this is a man who apart from being in UKIP was also in PR, amazingly.

"

Nobody (apart from you) mentioned ?thick, racist or hoodwinked? and I was very careful to be more rounded in my phrasing."


Wasn't referring to any specific comments. Mean the dominant public narrative of the 'typical' leaver as seen by most 'typical' remainers.


But I'm pretty sure a quick search of this forum would unearth a bountiful list of comments which characterise leave voters in this way.


I've posted this one before, but Jonathan Pie describes it well...





Anyway.....I'm getting off topic now, so I'll stop!

Seabag Wrote:

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


> But Scotland is hearts and minds and a whole back

> history of resentment agains Westminister. And

> this current Team Westminister are pretty tone

> deaf on matters beyond their own wants. Lots of

> talking at people, not much talking to people. And

> I think Scotland is done with that on the whole.

>


Many don't get the resentment Scotland, Wales and others feel due to history. So many in the past assumed England is the UK. What is this plan to send Prince Edward to Scotland - who came up with that.


In Wales it's only fear of rule by Cardiff that keeps many hanging on, not a love of the UK and gradually that fear will fade.

Seabag Wrote:

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


> Oh and barefaced Brexit shafting (even you must

> admit this has been shockingly bad for them) the

> fishing industry is probably a final distillation

> of enough is enough for many. No shell fish

> exports until April?! I wonder how that going

> down. Timing wise, not great for some bluff

> ?better together? TPHQ type sloganeering.


Weirdly I think this could be a double edged sword. At the moment I?m sure it?s playing strongly towards the independence vote, but in 12-18 months when the referendum happens, might people feel that the damage has been done and that another 2-4 years of doing it all again to leave the UK and rejoin the EU will just compound the damage? I think a lot will be down to the EUs position on accession, agreement to roll-over UK terms followed by a rapid accession probably tips things towards independence, but Spain might block that type of overture.

From Gavin Esler?s new book


?England is fundamentally broken. Westminster is the problem and unless there is reform all round it cannot be fixed. International comparisons, however, do not always help. For instance, Germany works as a federal state in part because the Germans had the good sense to abolish Prussia; there seems little enthusiasm in England for its own abolition.?




https://apple.news/AP7WkW1AYSUKI2_mOwIsCQg

Topical article today illustrating what I was talking about previously on this thread, that the currency issue makes this a very different proposition from brexit....


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scotland-s-next-financial-crisis


People may well vote with their hearts...but with a massive fiscal deficit, and no ability to issue your own currency... a vote for Scottish independence is a vote for Scottish austerity (even the snp acknowledge this in their own economic reports).


Those opposed may argue that sensible economic forecast were similarly ignored in the brexit process....but the as I've said, the currency issue means it's chalk and cheese I'm afraid....

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Seabag Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > But Scotland is hearts and minds and a whole

> back

> > history of resentment agains Westminister. And

> > this current Team Westminister are pretty tone

> > deaf on matters beyond their own wants. Lots of

> > talking at people, not much talking to people.

> And

> > I think Scotland is done with that on the

> whole.

> >

>

> Many don't get the resentment Scotland, Wales and

> others feel due to history. So many in the past

> assumed England is the UK. What is this plan to

> send Prince Edward to Scotland - who came up with

> that.

>

> In Wales it's only fear of rule by Cardiff that

> keeps many hanging on, not a love of the UK and

> gradually that fear will fade.


Maybe it?s because it?s a largely manufactured narrative believed by the historically ignorant. 11/55 of our prime ministers have been Scottish for example. The Scottish and Welsh have played a pivotal role in our politics, history and empire ( although like everything else nowadays it?s- ?wasn?t us guv was the awful English. Don?t tell the Irish and Scots embracing their duel celtic broship where the Protestant settlers of Ulster originally came from by the way: Clue: it wasn?t Surrey. I know it?s all become truth of such as it?s believed but it?s largely built on bullshit

Seabag Wrote:

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

> More jolly sensitivity to the cause. Just what?s

> needed, a tone mutton Tory boy waving a cloth on a

> stick.

> https://apple.news/A9UAW34B6R9mX-uRcDBhz3g


When you go to hospital you don't really care what the logo is on the E111 form (guess it's not that any longer)


https://www.applyghic.co.uk/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA34OBBhCcARIsAG32uvNumOKk2kSwng5FE7opL94dERKPK69EaV1oaY4aYMlZs8rSn61pxxUaAvx-EALw_wcB

When sending ?stuff? between the UK & the UK is made near impossible by Brexit, you know something is very very wrong, and in this case it?s a massive understatement.


Ireland will reunite, and who can blame them. The Union is dying, it?s got a terminal disease called the Tory Party. Tone deaf, wilfully blind, liars.


https://apple.news/Agv5kwAf_SnC8R9gwC0eniQ

?Ireland will unite?


Some not inconsiderable issues with this including.



Dublin taking over the ?10bn subsidy that NI currently gets from the UK

Adding 50% to the republic?s population overnight including around a million or so who wouldn?t really support this including several thousand pyschopathic extreme unionist morons who wouldn?t accept this.

The 2 million people of Northern Ireland giving up their free healthcare


Not saying it?s not possible, the republic itself sacrificed reasonable economic security itself to gain independence, and didn?t really recover from this until it joined the EU, but thinking this is a given at the click of a finger is somewhat naive

???? Wrote:

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

> ?Ireland will unite?

>

> Some not inconsiderable issues with this

> including.

>

>

> Dublin taking over the ?10bn subsidy that NI

> currently gets from the UK

> Adding 50% to the republic?s population overnight

> including around a million or so who wouldn?t

> really support this including several thousand

> pyschopathic extreme unionist morons who wouldn?t

> accept this.

> The 2 million people of Northern Ireland giving up

> their free healthcare

>

> Not saying it?s not possible, the republic itself

> sacrificed reasonable economic security itself to

> gain independence, and didn?t really recover from

> this until it joined the EU, but thinking this is

> a given at the click of a finger is somewhat naive



Nothing?s easy, but the slide is seemingly inevitable, only how fast is the question. And even if it takes decades, it?s the hearts and minds thing, where people want to leave, where they?ve spiritually accepted their relationship with the Union is over, like being in a loveless marriage. It weighs on both sides, and gives further fuel to the lack of unity in a ?United Kingdom?. I mean just that ?UK? thing sounds like a thing of the past, outdated, stale and not fit for purpose. It doesn?t sound like the future very much.


The unionist psycho?s are definitely a concern.

???? Wrote:

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

> ?Ireland will unite?

>

> Some not inconsiderable issues with this

> including.

>

>

> Dublin taking over the ?10bn subsidy that NI

> currently gets from the UK

> Adding 50% to the republic?s population overnight

> including around a million or so who wouldn?t

> really support this including several thousand

> pyschopathic extreme unionist morons who wouldn?t

> accept this.

> The 2 million people of Northern Ireland giving up

> their free healthcare

>

> Not saying it?s not possible, the republic itself

> sacrificed reasonable economic security itself to

> gain independence, and didn?t really recover from

> this until it joined the EU, but thinking this is

> a given at the click of a finger is somewhat naive


You?re points are certainly reasonable (not sure about the healthcare point or how meaningful that would be), but on the other hand it?s unthinkable that Dublin would say no to unification if a majority in Northern Ireland wanted it. It was a founding principle of the Republic and part of the constitution until 1999. I see it as similar to German re-unification it?ll be complicated and painful in some respects but once it has been requested I cannot see it being prevented.

alex_b Wrote:

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

> ???? Wrote:

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

> -----

> > ?Ireland will unite?

> >

> > Some not inconsiderable issues with this

> > including.

> >

> >

> > Dublin taking over the ?10bn subsidy that NI

> > currently gets from the UK

> > Adding 50% to the republic?s population

> overnight

> > including around a million or so who wouldn?t

> > really support this including several thousand

> > pyschopathic extreme unionist morons who

> wouldn?t

> > accept this.

> > The 2 million people of Northern Ireland giving

> up

> > their free healthcare

> >

> > Not saying it?s not possible, the republic

> itself

> > sacrificed reasonable economic security itself

> to

> > gain independence, and didn?t really recover

> from

> > this until it joined the EU, but thinking this

> is

> > a given at the click of a finger is somewhat

> naive

>

> You?re points are certainly reasonable (not sure

> about the healthcare point or how meaningful that

> would be), but on the other hand it?s unthinkable

> that Dublin would say no to unification if a

> majority in Northern Ireland wanted it. It was a

> founding principle of the Republic and part of the

> constitution until 1999. I see it as similar to

> German re-unification it?ll be complicated and

> painful in some respects but once it has been

> requested I cannot see it being prevented.


Just to add that a referendum would decide it, not the Dublin government.

  • 2 weeks later...

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...