Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Diable - because it?s a good culture war issue that keeps Labour on the back foot. The argument in favour is superficially simple (you need ID to pick up a parcel) and it?s easy to paint opposition to being in favour of electoral fraud.


Trying to engage with the detail of why it?s a terrible solution to a non existent problem requires a level of detail that is difficult to get across in a 15 second soundbite. It?s also helpful that the people most vocally opposed to this policy will be younger people of colour, allowing them to show that Labour has been taken over by woke, metro elites rather than traditional working class people.


Edited to add: to give the Tories credit, they?re brilliant at this perpetual campaign and Labour are terrible at it. Partially for structural reasons but also because of the people involved.

alex_b Wrote:

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

> Diable - because it?s a good culture war issue

> that keeps Labour on the back foot. The argument

> in favour is superficially simple (you need ID to

> pick up a parcel) and it?s easy to paint

> opposition to being in favour of electoral fraud.

>

> Trying to engage with the detail of why it?s a

> terrible solution to a non existent problem

> requires a level of detail that is difficult to

> get across in a 15 second soundbite. It?s also

> helpful that the people most vocally opposed to

> this policy will be younger people of colour,

> allowing them to show that Labour has been taken

> over by woke, metro elites rather than traditional

> working class people.



exactly this

Although I don't disagree with what you say Alex, I'm not convinced it's solely a continuation of the cultural war.

For a start I don't think it sticks along party lines as say something like 'statuegate' did, as there are plenty of Tories who are opposed to ID cards in principle, likewise there are 'progressives' who aren't.

And as has been said, there is no significant electoral fraud to speak of. If Labour can't bat that away then they might as well give up.

I'm thinking this is more about the Gov preparing the electoral ground for when the proverbial hits the fan economically, and eventually the cost of Brexit/Covid takes effect.

The 'vaccine bounce' will be a distant memory by then...

Yep - I'm minded to agree with DR here


The reason this is happening now, is because (as we have seen with the queen's speech) the ideas cupboard is bare - apart from "getting brexit done" and getting thru COVID there are no ideas to actually take the country forward


But the headwinds of ongoing Brexit-fallout and Austerity 2.0 (much worse than before) mean this government is going to get massively unpopular - so they need to put steps in place to "help" as much as possible

Yep, and the Gov deliberately delaying the start of a Covid public enquiry and its expected negative ramifications, could also be tied-in with their electoral planning. If starting next year or later, doubtful it would be completed by the time of the next GE...

@Sephiroth,


Agree with most of what you say however most governments can turn external factors in their favour eg Covid, wars (Falklands) etc.


It's the self-inflicted wounds that bring govts down eg Poll Tax, Tory sleaze and things like the Profumo affair.


And even then, it takes an opposition leader with charisma and an aspirational message to complete the task as per a certain Tony Blair.

Wasn't the whole contrived 'voter fraud' thing something Farage was pushing for a bit? Johnson tried to neutralise it by putting voter ID in the manifesto? He's simply following through on something they promised to prevent Farage getting the wind in his sails again. It's on the fringes of the thinly veiled racism grift where Farage and others like to hangout.
  • 2 weeks later...

Cummings? comments have realised my worst fears about the Govt and BoJo, there was little that sounded fantastic to me and a lot that had parity with my impression of the amateurs holding power.

I did wonder whether all or some of it is lies, but my understanding is if he is lying he is committing perjury because this committee is a legal framework, not just a chat with mates.

Some of what has been claimed today is just obviously true, such as we have an inexperienced cabinet with limited real-life background, Boris dismisses some advice off hand proclaiming that he is the Prime Minister, the lockdowns were late starting, and other stuff (bored typing now).

Thing is, even if every claim could be evidenced up and down, I?m not convinced anything would change or be done about it and that a massive % of the England population still support and would vote again for the tool in charge and his party of Richard Heads.

I don't feel any administration of any political colour would all have had the same lack of experience of dealing with a global pandemic. Cummings was out to undermine the Govt and has succeeded in giving the opposition parties the ammunition to attack on a variety of fronts. Cummimgs clearly wanted to hang Hancock out to dry and achieved that, BUT it will be interesting to see Hancock's evidence in two weeks time.


I agree lockdown was over due but no Party had the required knowledge or experience to deal with a pandemic, I'd further suggest that this whole episode show's the inadequacy of Whitehall and the men in suits who follow out of date guidance rather than thinking outside the box to deliver the required objectives.

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> I did wonder whether all or some of it is lies,

> but my understanding is if he is lying he is

> committing perjury because this committee is a

> legal framework, not just a chat with mates.


I think yesterday he was operating with Parliamentary Privilege.


"Parliamentary privilege grants certain legal immunities for Members of both Houses to allow them to perform their duties without interference from outside of the House. Parliamentary privilege includes freedom of speech and the right of both Houses to regulate their own affairs."


I don't know how 'certain legal immunities' is defined. In other words, can he lie and get away with it?


From what I heard most of it was believable though. Except the old Barnard Castle story. Hunt specifically quizzed him on why he thought it was okay to go with wife and kid on a test drive. Cummings thought there was nothing strange about that.

It?s pretty clear to me that the government made a series of catastrophic mistakes. The only question in my mind is whether or not they?re forgivable under the circumstances. What is clear is that the top team we?re pretty dysfunctional at a time of crisis. It?s mad that Johnson burnt so much political capital on saving Cummings at the time of Barnard Castle.

This may well be the beginning of the end for BoJo (if it?s not, God knows what will ever put an end to this).

But currently he?s mad popular with his fans, and it?s easy (lazy?) and convenient to simplify yesterday as an embittered sacked ex-colleague intent on smearing BoJo?s ?reputation?.

Which begs the question WHAT will it actually take for his fans to concede he?s inept, inexperienced and unqualified ?

KidKruger Wrote:


> Which begs the question WHAT will it actually take

> for his fans to concede he?s inept, inexperienced

> and unqualified ?


Probably the realisation that his 'hairstyle' is so as to cover up the fact he's going bald. I don't think they care that he's inept.


PS No offence intended to bald people with this remark

Well, there's this for starters...https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1397868514795470851


It was kinda ironic to see Cummings wanting/needing people to believe him. The man who helped create and nurture a political culture where it's ok to lie and feed disinformation, and even get rewarded for it. Never forget, this is the man that sought to undermine our democracy and the rule of law with the illegal prorogation of parliament.


But, I actually think that Barnard Castle aside, what he said was based on truth and actual events, we knew most of it already, but it was important to get it from someone who was actually there right in the thick of it (no pun intended). And at least he had the decency to admit to his culpability and apologised, something you won't get from Johnson et al.


I agree that this could well be seen as the beginning of the end of Johnson, it was only a matter of time before this Vote Leave Gov started eating itself, the question is how long will it take.

Like with Trump, Johnson's base will continue to support him regardless, but that base isn't the majority and unlike the US two-party system where all the anti-Trump vote could go to the Democrats, here the anti-Johnson vote is split, and unless that is addressed by some sort of 'progressive alliance', Johnson will keep on winning under our first past the post system. The two upcoming by-elections in traditional red and blue wall constituencies should be an ideal opportunity to put that to the test...

It may or may not have been true, but it was certainly self-serving and I believe deliberately chosen to also serve to advance the interests of Cummings?s allies. For instance Sunak and Gove got away without criticism but Johnson and Hancock got it in the neck. I find it hard to believe that the Cabinet Office and Treasury were not central to the dysfunction of the pandemic response.


Cummings also has absolutely immunity for what he?s said in Parliament (see Rebekah Brookes and her parliamentary evidence of payments to police officers that couldn?t be used at her trial). If he lied he could be held in contempt of Parliament but that?s happened to him before and he didn?t care.

I'm not 'on' Twitter Quids but I do browse around it, mainly journos across the political spectrum and legal experts so as not to expose myself (oooerr missus) to too much political bias.

Agree that Mr Teflon will survive, but isn't that the problem?...

I must say my progressive friends (and journalists) are giving me a wry chuckle across the interweb.....yesterday Dom Cummings was akin to Dr Evil, who would lie/cheat/steal/manipulate etc.....today?.....well he's criticised this tory government....we should believe what he has to say....


Im not saying what he's said is true or false...i've no idea...but he's a proven manipulator with an axe to grind...accordingly, Im not sure if testimony from Cummings is really as ground-shaking as many think it is. So I'm very dubious that its the 'beginning of the end' for Johnson any more than it was the day before yesterday, no matter how much many of his critics would like it to be....

Shockingly I mostly agree with TheCat. I do think that it might be ?the beginning of the end? if it moves the Tories towards regicide (as they are brutally effective at) that?s why I though who Cummings didn?t criticise was as interesting as who he did. However for the moment the Telegraph is siding with Johnson so I guess it won?t be meaningful. Fully agree 90% of the public couldn?t give a toss.

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...