Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Today we saw two increases to family spending:

A 54% rise in the energy price cap

A .25% rise in interest rates


Both fuelled by a global bounce back from the pandemic and the Bank of England are predicting inflation of around 7%


It's going to be tough on so many people and despite the chancellor giving us council tax rebates in April plus a ?200 "loan" in November it's going to squeeze a lot of family budgets


Let's wait to see how much our council tax bills rise in April to put the icing on the cake.


We're doomed Captain Mainwearing, we're doomed

Of course they do but can you imagine the title if I included everyone

e.g It's going to be tough on families, single people, pensioners, war heroes, non binary people and the general unwashed? 🤔


The title was generic but I forgot how people like to nit pick on here. 🤣

''Of course they do but can you imagine the title if I included everyone e.g It's going to be tough on families, single people, pensioners, war heroes, non binary people and the general unwashed?''


I thought you had it there for a moment.


How about It's going to be tough on...*cue drum roll*...everyone

diable rouge Wrote:

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

> ''Of course they do but can you imagine the title

> if I included everyone e.g It's going to be

> tough on families, single people, pensioners, war

> heroes, non binary people and the general

> unwashed?''

>

> I thought you had it there for a moment.

>

> How about It's going to be tough on...*cue drum

> roll*...everyone


Exactly!! I wasn't trying to be all snowflakey, but there's no need to go making out one group is the only one to suffer when the vast majority of people are adversly affected in some way by the financial mess the country is in.


The policians all seem to go on about "hard working families" as if other groups don't matter, I don't understand it. Maybe they think they are more likely to change who they vote for at the next election??

I think Spartty is okay to say 'families'.....families can take all different forms these days...its doesnt just define the traditional nuclear family....and in anycase living alone doesnt mean one doesnt have a family...but fair 'everyone' might just be easier....:)


Back in the general direction of the topic.....


While people can point to 'global' gas prices, brexit, supply chain issues etc etc etc as being the cause of the current inflationary cycle...all of that missing the real, main 'cause' (which actually is the driver of some of thsoe thigns i've listed)...lockdowns...if you shut down society ? that is, restrict productive activity, across almost the entire world ? while at the same time pumping vast amounts of money into the economy via fiscal stimulus, monetary stimulus, business relief and furlough schemes, then you are going to have inflation.....whether that be through global gas prices, tansport costs, food costs, or whatever...it was always going to happen.


So I truly hope that the people who argued (and a fair arguement too) that the life saving nature of lockdowns during a pandemic massively outweight the economic implications.....are now not also the same people moaning about massive inflation and rtising costs of living...somewhow I dont think thats probably the case....

I think most sensible people realised that there would have to be some payback for the lockdowns etc, so it's more a case of how.


Surprised the Gov in its current plight missed the open goal of a windfall tax on the energy companies, who are making huuuuuge profits on the back of energy price rises. Seems Sunak didn't want to 'put off investors'.


Profits before people, I wonder how that will go down in the Red Wall...

The ?200 'loan' seems to echo the prevalent Wonga economics of 'buy now pay back later' of financing purchases, albeit without extortionate interest rates, which originally used to be for one-off big-ticket purchases, but has now crept into mainstream weekly grocery/clothes shopping.


Despite no interest, they still have to be paid back, and I suspect this 'loan' is just going to add to an already ticking time-bomb...

An Oil & Gas windfall tax, may indeedd be a decent way to claw back some money. But who are you taxing? Companies that are produce gas in the UK? - most of them barely make a profit most of the time, this country's domestic gas production industry is well past the 'decline' stage (take note indepednent scotland supporters). Companies that are listed in the UK and produce gas elsewhere in the world? So we would effectively be forcing up other countries energy prices. What about the ~40% of energy (inclouding gas) that the UK use that it actually imports? The companies importing arent making a windfall, they're the ones paying the high prices. Anyway...not saying it cant be done, but while its a nice soudbite when you're in opposition (easy votewinner to rage against faceless, big, dirty oil companies!), it is much more difficult to apply in practice to rasie an amount that will actually make a tangible difference...


Anyway.....that aside, not sure I agree that 'most sensible people' were really fully aware of what they were asking for (economically speaking) in supporting lockdowns. And now that the piper wants to get paid it seems that 'most' people are searching around for anyone but themselves to blame...


from the indy....


"Sixty-nine per cent of voters say ministers are to blame for rising energy prices, ahead of household energy providers (65 per cent) and the regulator Ofgem (58 per cent). Only oil and gas companies themselves, the windfall tax targets, are seen as more blameworthy, with 78 per cent of voters saying they bear responsibility for the energy crisis"


Im not saying people shouldnt moan about rising cost of living, and im not saying that the government shoulodnt try to help them more....im just saying that people shouldnt just brush off the consequences of lockdowns like it was always going to be a minor inconviencne. Im sure you (and others) would ask brexiteers to 'own' the finacial impacts of brexit...fair enough...so lockdown advocates (of which there are a great many in the opposition parties) should also 'own' the root casue of much of the inflation we're now seeing...

''not saying it cant be done, but its a nice soudbite when you're in opposition (easy votewinner to rage agaist faceless, big, dirty oil companies), but much mroe difficult to apply in practice to a degree that will actually make a tangible difference...''


Oh I agree, rightly or wrongly, this will ultimately be about 'politics' rather than prudent economics. People won't give a fig about economic intricacies when the bills start landing on the floor.



''...not sure I agree that 'most sensible people' were really fully aware of what they were asking for (economically speaking) in supporting lockdowns.......Sixty-nine per cent of voters etc''



I never said sensible people were in the majority, after all 'a majority' voted for Brexit...

no no no...it was only a majority of people who voted, not an actual majority....the rest of the people who didnt vote were all against it i've been told:)


but anyway....lets not drag this into another 'B' debate....


In ancyas, its all rather the depressing if a majority of senisble people still equal a tiny minority of all people....

As it's a global issue (oil and gas prices) it wouldn't have mattered if we went into a lockdown or not as most of the world did.


Blaming the people who wanted a lockdown isn't going to help.


It's not an easy fix as global multinationals are putting their prices up to meet demand (there isn't a shortage of raw products) and the wholesale global market needs to be tackled rather than individual governments trying to put a sticking plaster on it.


Maybe there needs to be a global collection of governments working together to garner the wholesalers into better prices.

I expect that it won't be tough on many around here who have the money to spend 100s of thousands extending their property. They've had the benefit of house price inflation, low interest rates, and some will have inherited small fortunes. Think of the next generation in particular those that won't be benefitting from family with money in property.

Waseley Wrote:

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

> I expect that it won't be tough on many around

> here who have the money to spend 100s of thousands

> extending their property. They've had the benefit

> of house price inflation, low interest rates, and

> some will have inherited small fortunes. Think of

> the next generation in particular those that won't

> be benefitting from family with money in property.


There are many people around here spending ?200,000+ on their extensions ?

Why do you think that ?!

Seabag Wrote:

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

> Be honest as well , there?s lots of people who

> might not like it, but does it really effect them,

> really really?

>

> No, much of ED is fairly insulated in its bubble.

>

> I live in Sevenoaks now, another bubble.

>

> But it does give us all something to gripe about.



Do you have any idea how much it cost to heat a ?200K extension??!!

TheCat Wrote:

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

> Seabag Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Be honest as well , there?s lots of people who

> > might not like it, but does it really effect

> them,

> > really really?

> >

> > No, much of ED is fairly insulated in its

> bubble.

> >

> > I live in Sevenoaks now, another bubble.

> >

> > But it does give us all something to gripe

> about.

>

>

> Do you have any idea how much it cost to heat a

> ?200K extension??!!


About a weekend?s worth of gak?

Seabag Wrote:

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

> Be honest as well , there?s lots of people who

> might not like it, but does it really effect them,

> really really?

>

> No, much of ED is fairly insulated in its bubble.

>

> I live in Sevenoaks now, another bubble.

>

> But it does give us all something to gripe about.




Are you the "boy in a bubble" ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_in_the_Plastic_Bubble


It may be okay for some but not everyone

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...