Jump to content

Recommended Posts

this is mental - you are literally describing a completely different way of dealing with a situation - and claiming "it;s all the same". Because labour say "were not like them" and prove it by doing something that's the complete opposite of their predecessors

If wrongdoing comes to light, a party can either try and brush it off and ignore it - or deal with it immediately

which do you want? what would make Labour look good in your eyes in this situation?

All of this send them to the Tower, off with their heads reminds me of Cecil Parkinson who got caught with his pants down, resigned his position, then later returned as a minister to standing applause from his Tory MP colleagues.   Ah, the good old days   

  • Like 1
4 hours ago, Sephiroth said:

I see Heidi Alexander’s appointment means the entire cabinet is state-educated for first time in history

thats not nothing - especially if you are a “they are all metropolitan elites - all of em!!!” Type 

It depends how you define 'Metropolitan Elite'.

The cabinet is heavily skewed to the Oxbridge-educated, to lawyers, and particularly to those who went straight from university into think tanks or parliamentary and union researcher posts.

It's a long way from being representative of the workforce in general. There's very little private sector experience, but that's probably a good thing given the misadventures of Reevesy and Haigho when they dipped their toes in it.

It is an improvement on the 'Public School & PPE at Oxford' Tory cabal, but still smacks of a political class well removed from the electorate. 

It's got four members who are related to prominent Labour figures, past and present.

It's still very much an 'Elite'.

19 out of 22 in the cabinet represent either a constuency in a Metropolitan county (England's six largest cities) or one in another large city. One is in the House of Lords. One is in Brighton & Hove. The other represents Swindon, which is about as close as you'll get to a proper city in Wiltshire - I'm disregarding Old Sarum. You're not even allowed to take your pig into a pub in Swindon, elsewhere in Wiltshire you probably won't get in without one. Believe me, I've tried.

The cabinet really couldn't be more 'Metropolitan'.

Even the stench of Rayner's chips & gravy isn't enough to cover the whiff of the seven-vegetable tagine suppers.

 

Edited by David Peckham
Punctuation.
21 minutes ago, David Peckham said:

It depends how you define 'Metropolitan Elite'.

The cabinet is heavily skewed to the Oxbridge-educated, to lawyers, and particularly to those who went straight from university into think tanks or parliamentary and union researcher posts.

It's a long way from being representative of the workforce in general. There's very little private sector experience, but that's probably a good thing given the misadventures of Reevesy and Haigho when they dipped their toes in it.

It is an improvement on the 'Public School & PPE at Oxford' Tory cabal, but still smacks of a political class well removed from the electorate. 

It's got four members who are related to prominent Labour figures, past and present.

It's still very much an 'Elite'.

19 out of 22 in the cabinet represent either a constuency in a Metropolitan county (England's six largest cities) or one in another large city. One is in the House of Lords. One is in Brighton & Hove. The other represents Swindon, which is about as close as you'll get to a proper city in Wiltshire - I'm disregarding Old Sarum. You're not even allowed to take your pig into a pub in Swindon, elsewhere in Wiltshire you probably won't get in without one. Believe me, I've tried.

The cabinet really couldn't be more 'Metropolitan'.

Even the stench of Rayner's chips & gravy isn't enough to cover the whiff of the seven-vegetable tagine suppers.

 

I dunno man 

no political party is going to be formed of people on the street, tapped on the shoulder, and asked “do you want to run the country? You’ll have to be elected and give up a lot for not a huge amount of money - fancy it?”

political parties - grown up ones anyway - will be a self-selecting wonkish bunch.  I’m ok with that.  Doesn’t make them “elite”

I often think English people just love nothing more than to suffer.  And complain about suffering.  But like it really.  

I really enjoyed the play at the National Theatre Nye (Bevan) about the politician and the establishment of the NHS.  He had to seriously compromise including some element of the private sector, GP practices, pharmacies being independent businesses, and consultants keeping on private work 

The days that a working class person from the valleys can be on the Cabinet are all but gone.  But even then he was an outlier

20 hours ago, Sephiroth said:

I dunno man 

no political party is going to be formed of people on the street, tapped on the shoulder, and asked “do you want to run the country? You’ll have to be elected and give up a lot for not a huge amount of money - fancy it?”

political parties - grown up ones anyway - will be a self-selecting wonkish bunch.  I’m ok with that.  Doesn’t make them “elite”

I often think English people just love nothing more than to suffer.  And complain about suffering.  But like it really.  

The English have always been naturally self-deprecating. Having a pop at politicians of all hues is just an extension of that. It's like holding a mirror up to ourselves. We get what we voted for.

Shit.

Ever since Peter Cook et al lampooned MacMillan, through to Mike Yarwood, Yes Minister, Spitting Image and The Thick of It, they've felt far happier taking the piss out of politicians rather than praising them. It's funnier and, frankly, far easier.

I don't expect a cabinet to accurately reflect society at large, but people are becoming less engaged with politics. 2024 was the lowest turnout in 20 years, despite there being an awful lot for people to be motivated to vote about. Maybe that can be put down to the rise of a politico class/wonkocracy who planned their career path to be being a politician at the same age most of us still thought that being an astronaut, princess or dinosaur was a perfectly reasonable career choice. 

I just find them uninspiring and slightly 'Stepford Wives'. It's like being governed by a gaggle of management consultants with Master's degrees in 'Public Policy'.

This cabinet is pretty homogeneous in it's background, as well. Out of the 'Big Four', three went to Oxford. Three represent 'inner' London constituencies. Two are lawyers, two are 'economists'. Their total experience outside of the public sector and politics is less than 20 years. That's not a great breadth of knowledge.

There's also the Minister for Business who has never actually worked in a business and a Minister for Rural Affairs who represents beautiful, bucolic Croydon.

That does seem silly enough to take the piss out of.

We really really need Spitting Image back, they would have had a field day with the previous lot and this lot...

I agree that laughing and ridiculing politicians is one of the ways we hold them accountable and our cultural heritage is laced with great examples, Private Eye, Spitting Image etc etc

 

Edited by Rockets
54 minutes ago, David Peckham said:

The English have always been naturally self-deprecating. Having a pop at politicians of all hues is just an extension of that. It's like holding a mirror up to ourselves. We get what we voted for.

Shit.

Ever since Peter Cook et al lampooned MacMillan, through to Mike Yarwood, Yes Minister, Spitting Image and The Thick of It, they've felt far happier taking the piss out of politicians rather than praising them. It's funnier and, frankly, far easier.

I don't expect a cabinet to accurately reflect society at large, but people are becoming less engaged with politics. 2024 was the lowest turnout in 20 years, despite there being an awful lot for people to be motivated to vote about. Maybe that can be put down to the rise of a politico class/wonkocracy who planned their career path to be being a politician at the same age most of us still thought that being an astronaut, princess or dinosaur was a perfectly reasonable career choice. 

I just find them uninspiring and slightly 'Stepford Wives'. It's like being governed by a gaggle of management consultants with Master's degrees in 'Public Policy'.

This cabinet is pretty homogeneous in it's background, as well. Out of the 'Big Four', three went to Oxford. Three represent 'inner' London constituencies. Two are lawyers, two are 'economists'. Their total experience outside of the public sector and politics is less than 20 years. That's not a great breadth of knowledge.

There's also the Minister for Business who has never actually worked in a business and a Minister for Rural Affairs who represents beautiful, bucolic Croydon.

That does seem silly enough to take the piss out of.

If things are a bit crazy in the UK this is nothing compared to the States.  The radio 4 show Dead Ringers still does a good job of lampooning politicians, the sketch with our national treasures getting position under Trump was classic, for example Ian McKellen was given head of Middle Earth.

3 weeks after the thread started and looking at the markets I think we can say that no - Rachel Reeves is NOT becoming the new Liz Truss

Regular, garden-variety political missteps or "controversial" policy shouldn't be mistaken for the calamity of the last government - specifically under Truss 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Indeed Seph.

This from the BBC's Economic Editor Faisal Islam for the more fiscally minded, or in layman's terms, much ado about nothing....

''5 year gilt rate now 10 basis points below morning of Budget…. Not far off going below 4% again… important for 5 year fixed mortgages… 10 year and 2 year also 10 bps down… All back within a few bps (ie under 0.1%) of where they were on election day was some properly crazed stuff on markets just after Budget… esp on currency. Sterling now up vs euro, down 2% vs dollar. All these moves really rather normal, and as I said the day after the Budget a 15 bp rise at peak a relatively modest reaction vs significant increase in borrowing, tax & spend/ change in fiscal rules''

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

FTSE is steady near an all time high. The knocking Labour that is expected from the right wing rags seems to have become infectious.  If I Was PM I'd just tell them all to FO.

I'm far more interested in last night's Questiontime, and the arrogance of Farage (also could be applied to Johnson, Clarkson and others who do not answer questions, shoulder no blame and go into pantomime mode when put on the spot).

So Mr Farage, Brexit has hit our economy badly.  And he takes no blame, whilst he was happy to stir up anti-immigrant fervour following the Southport tragedy.

I suggest you lay off Labour and focus on those that deserve our disgust.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
2 hours ago, malumbu said:

FTSE is steady near an all time high. The knocking Labour that is expected from the right wing rags seems to have become infectious.  If I Was PM I'd just tell them all to FO.

It's -40 points today obviously the market is reacting well 😅

Screenshot_20241206_223753_Google2.thumb.jpg.3f54d6977f9e59520dd8419418910e19.jpgScreenshot_20241206_223823_Google2.thumb.jpg.4ff99dd6e8e227c81f54051e5a6aee56.jpg

Perhaps some of you are unaware of the damage that the coalition did to our economy through their unnecessary programme that f'cked public services and led to a massive drop in real term pay across the public sector.

Or maybe your teachers, doctors, nurses do not deserve a decent wage.  Quite shocking if you are into this American way of thinking. 

Not about banging saucepans or clapping them. They do great work, but an 8.3% in 5 months. What happened to reality.

And Starmer got a total battering at PMQ's today, was well worth watching seeing Kemi lay it on him and watching him squirm. 

Loving the irony of a thread which is supposed to be "Rachel Reeves yeah? she's as bad as Liz Truss!" which is clearly not true - but has now morphed into some people praising Kemi Badenoch - someone who may ACTUALLY be much worse than Truss. She is barely in touch with reality

 

 

I mean: WTF is she on about here:

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/kemi-badenoch-lunch-breaks-are-for-wimps-and-sandwiches-are-not-real-food/

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...