Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I reckon that Man City will walk it, and Palace will not get a lot more points/goals this season. Note to the OP, please use a proper title on the thread. Note to DD, you sound like a chap/chapess who knows about engineering and could do with a project (note to all, a friendly private discussion on a different thread)


That's nicely confused things. Good post on routemasters, my knowledge was drawn from a documentary, trips to the transport museum and Acton, and some personal and professional interest. I can talk more about emissions standards, retrofitting buses and the like. And once drove a bus around a car park which was fab.

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> https://twitter.com/ShaunBaileyUK/status/136931024

> 4866785282

>

> Shaun Bailey is that candidate.

>

> If you are confident that would be a vote-winner,

> maybe get yourself over to William Hill as they

> will give you 16/1 on that currently.


It's easy to promise everything to everybody but I don't think he'd be in a position to deliver.

I think with Mayoral elections people are less inclined to vote purely along party lines, ditto local elections, and the individual comes more into play, hence why the 'liberal' version of Johnson won.

Bailey is an appalling choice of candidate, trying to tap into an illiberal, nationalist populist vote that simply hasn't got the numbers in London, witness his Tweeted attempt to capitalise on the murder of that young woman yesterday. I would've thought the Tories had learned a lesson with Goldsmith's rejection last time after pandering to islamophobia. Obviously not...

that's enough to win on the first round.


Porritt (Lib Dems), Berry (Green), Reid (Womans Equality Party) and Gammons (UKIP) trailing.


Lawence Fox doesn't seem to even make the poll.


"Strikingly, 17 per cent of Londoners who voted Conservative at the 2019 general election intend to vote for Khan in May and a further six per cent say they will abandon the Tories for Berry.Only 67 per cent said they will vote for Bailey."


https://www.onlondon.co.uk/sadiq-khan-has-devastating-26-point-lead-in-latest-london-mayor-opinion-poll/

I was listening to, without watching, the BBC 10 o'clock news tonight and thought they were advertising a new episode of Red Dwarf as I swear I heard Arnold Rimmer speaking, then I looked up and saw it was Kier Starmer launching labours run up to local elections.


I now can't watch him without hearing Space Corp Directive 435, no opposition leader should wear plaid in the house of commons 😱

How would anyone be able to answer that?


I infer that you don't think he has done a great job and can't comprehend that others might have a view that is different to your own. Am I way off in thinking that?




Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Is that down to half of London believing Khan has

> done a good job or a case of not wanting a Tory

> mayor ?

>

> Would be interesting to understand rationale

Duncanw, it's a curiosity,I didn't infer anything, you are trying to read between the lines too much and making your own conclusion.


But to put the record straight, I find any mayor of London an expensive layer of bureaucracy that possibly isn't needed. After all between the abolition of the GLC and the first new mayor we didn't have the whole circus and things ran without any real problems.

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> I was listening to, without watching, the BBC 10

> o'clock news tonight and thought they were

> advertising a new episode of Red Dwarf as I swear

> I heard Arnold Rimmer speaking, then I looked up

> and saw it was Kier Starmer launching labours run

> up to local elections.

>

> I now can't watch him without hearing Space Corp

> Directive 435, no opposition leader should wear

> plaid in the house of commons 😱


Oh good god you're right.


But does that make Boris Dave Lister.

Hi Spartacus,


I did the inferring, which literally means reading between the lines and drawing a conclusion.


You're not really putting the record straight as you have answered a completely different question from the one that you originally posed.


Thinking about your question a bit more though, possibly the best answer I have is that as two out of the last three mayoral elections have been won by a Conservative candidate, that the actual candidate plays a big part in it. But that is me reading between the lines again, so may not be the rationale at all... :)

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Spartacus Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I was listening to, without watching, the BBC

> 10

> > o'clock news tonight and thought they were

> > advertising a new episode of Red Dwarf as I

> swear

> > I heard Arnold Rimmer speaking, then I looked

> up

> > and saw it was Kier Starmer launching labours

> run

> > up to local elections.

> >

> > I now can't watch him without hearing Space

> Corp

> > Directive 435, no opposition leader should wear

> > plaid in the house of commons 😱

>

> Oh good god you're right.

>

> But does that make Boris Dave Lister.


He sure as hell isn't fashionable enough to be the cat.


But Kryten 🤔

TheCat Wrote:

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

> That Brian Rose chap looks like a cartoon version

> of what most people think a banker looks like....

>

> All he needs is a monacle and a fob watch to

> complete the picture....



Brian "Plandemic" Rose. no thankyou.

Obviously Khan will walk it. But it got me thinking tonight that Sean Bailey had been put up as a patsy. The Tories could have put up a stronger candidate but is suits their agenda to both use the current mayor as a scapegoat, but also that this will keep the outer boroughs conservative, where he and his centre left politics are generally not supported.

Current polling puts Khan on 53% and Sean Bailey on 28%, so that's a fairly safe bet - if you could find someone to take it!!


Bailey is a spectacularly weak candidate. It's hard to conceive that the Conservatives couldn't have found someone more credible. I don't buy that he's a patsy though, in that he's been deliberately set up to fail. Labour don't have much to cling on to right now, but a centre-left mayor of London winning a landslide second term is something to celebrate and a beacon for what Labour needs to be to regain it's standing nationally. I am sure the Tories would rather win London if they could.


So why Bailey? Difficult to answer, but maybe:

No-one else really fancied it

CHQ liked the idea of a black candidate

Fundamental lack of due dilligence

Current polling puts Khan on 53% and Sean Bailey on 28%, so that's a fairly safe bet - if you could find someone to take it!!


Bailey is a spectacularly weak candidate. It's hard to conceive that the Conservatives couldn't have found someone more credible. I don't buy that he's a patsy though, in that he's been deliberately set up to fail. Labour don't have much to cling on to right now, but a centre-left mayor of London winning a landslide second term is something to celebrate and a beacon for what Labour needs to be to regain it's standing nationally. I am sure the Tories would rather win London if they could.


So why Bailey? Difficult to answer, but maybe:

No-one else really fancied it

CHQ liked the idea of a black candidate

Fundamental lack of due dilligence

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Obviously Khan will walk it. But it got me

> thinking tonight that Sean Bailey had been put up

> as a patsy. The Tories could have put up a

> stronger candidate but is suits their agenda to

> both use the current mayor as a scapegoat, but

> also that this will keep the outer boroughs

> conservative, where he and his centre left

> politics are generally not supported.



Inner Londoners still gradually moving to Outer Boroughs and the Home Counties - not sure whether it will have an effect eventually or even if they turn Tory :)

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...