Jump to content

Recommended Posts

To answer the original question, YES, Reeves has become the new Liz Truss. Now don't get me wrong, Truss was as mad as a hatter, but Reeves, she steals the biscuit. In the next couple of years, and that's if she survives that long, you'll see just how much damage her, Rayner and Starmer have done to this country. Three million other people also think this Govt is pants and want rid. And yes, Kemi did batter Starmer, so much so he was clinching his butt cheeks cause ne knew he'd been found out. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkPqybdOhMA

 

Edited by jazzer

you'd have to go some to call the WASPI situations where most of the women knew well in advance and where it would cost bajillions we don't have a dsisaster

you can call it unfortunate, slippery, political, clumsy

But a  disaster it ain't

46 minutes ago, malumbu said:

In deed, and why are you so excited by this/continually look for dirt on Starmer?

because they hang around very excitable online right-wing forums/YouTube videos where this stuff is poured into their brain by the second. And not being a very critical thinker, they lap it up

  • Agree 1

Ha ha, speak for yourself Sephiroth - I can assure you I do not hang out in any right-wing cesspit (unless of course you're part of the bunch who think the BBC is is a right-wing forum!).

It is a political disaster - you just can't keep scoring these own goals without it doing long-term harm to your reputation and if Labour fail to get on top of this it is going to be an incredibly rough ride for them and I worry they will play into Reform's hands - and that is something no-one wants to contemplate. For the benefit of everyone they have to do better - and quickly.

I think it's possible to view several of the mistakes labour has made as "not good" without it equalling a disaster

I know there is a narrative out there that this will play into Reform hands - but  you would have to look at all of the major issues and think Reform would do a better job. No sane person could think that. 

And then there is the obvious problem with Farage - people don't like him. Oh I know in some heartlands he has a big enough core - but the country as a whole? Nah

I think labour are being clumsy in some areas, wrong in others, deeply dissapointing in some cases - and yet even before they were elected I knew most of this was likely - just because of the  size of the problems facing the country  (and I still reckon most people haven't quite grasped how bad things are after 14 years)  coupled with the fact that labour talent pool is  mid-table at best, compared with New Labour years. 

All still HUGELY more desirable than what we have had previously tho

 

 

Does this list satisfactorily summarise the trips Reeves, Rayner and Starmer have so far succeeded in tripping themselves up with?

i) 5.5% pay increase for public sector 

ii) £300 Pensioner heating allowance withdrawn 

iii) Budget increasing employer NI contributions

iv) Two consecutive months of GDP reducing by 0.1% each month

v) Farmers Inheritance Tax to be increased 

vi) Inflation increasing

vii) WASPI women compensation scheme denied 

viii)  still to happen

viiii)  still to happen

x)  still to happen

No it doesn’t - not all of them are even bad or down to a new government 

 

and none of them compare to the shitshow inherited, the brexit debts mounting or the pensions lost to truss

 

not even close 

For a start

 

ii) £300 Pensioner heating allowance withdrawn” isn’t even accurate - many pensioners will still receive it 

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha, speak for yourself Sephiroth - I can assure you I do not hang out in any right-wing cesspit (unless of course you're part of the bunch who think the BBC is is a right-wing forum!).

It is a political disaster - you just can't keep scoring these own goals without it doing long-term harm to your reputation and if Labour fail to get on top of this it is going to be an incredibly rough ride for them and I worry they will play into Reform's hands - and that is something no-one wants to contemplate. For the benefit of everyone they have to do better - and quickly.

Just the bbc is it rockets?  Totally believable - maybe you even believe it yourself 

 

chinny reckon 

i) 5.5% pay increase for public sector, implemented by Starmers Govt

2.8% pay increase offered to public sector in addition to the 5.5% increase given July 2024

ii) £300 Pensioner heating allowance withdrawn,  implemented by Starmers Govt

iii) Budget increasing employer NI contributions,  implemented by Starmers Govt

increase of minimum wage, implemented by Starmers Govt

iv) Two consecutive months of GDP reducing by 0.1% each month, as a result of the budget

v) Farmers Inheritance Tax to be increased,  implemented by Starmers Govt

vi) Inflation increasing, reported as 2.6%,an increase for two consecutive months as a result of the budget

vii) WASPI women compensation scheme denied, implemented by Starmers Govt

viii) £50m given to Syria, while UK pensioners will freeze this winter and have to choose between heating and eating, implemented by Starmers Govt

 

All done and signed off by Starmer and a result of Reeves budget. And all factual as well, they can't be argued with either because they happened. 

Edited by jazzer
3 hours ago, Sephiroth said:

Just the bbc is it rockets?  Totally believable - maybe you even believe it yourself 

Ha ha, I love it when anytime anyone disagrees with Labour their supporters accuse them of being rabid right-wing borderline fascists.....normally it's to mask the fact they know Labour are an absolute disaster right now and they're a bit embarrassed as this is not what anyone expected. 

I am a left leaning centrist and really struggling to find any redeeming features of this government. The dream they promised is fast becoming a living nightmare and I sense they're losing a lot of the people who won them the election. 

A bit like Brexit a lot of people are getting voters' remorse....

It’s not that you disagree with Labour.  I often find myself disagreeing with them too 

 

it’s the catastrophising. And the phrases you use 

 

you might consider yourself a left leaning centrist.  And maybe you were.  Very little sign of it now 

serious question.  Election tomorrow.  Which party would get your vote ?

But you have to admit the first months of this government have been a disaster. I cannot think of another party that has struggled so much in the first months of leadership. Clearly the rhetoric that they had been preparing for 14 years was just that as it doesn't feel like they spent 14 weeks preparing.

I really would struggle if the election was tomorrow and not sure anyone would get my vote.

Labour - nothing fills me with confidence that they have what it takes and most of the cabinet are nothing more than glorified local councillors and should be nowhere near a government. Will likely implode.

Tories - chasing the Reform vote and lurching further towards the far right will not win them the swing voters. 

Lib Dems - feels like a wasted vote although they are making some headway after the Coalition disaster.

Greens - again wasted vote and even more like local (fringe) councillors

Reform - scary populist racists who are a real threat to our country

 

There's some good debate here, but sadly this forum can become quite polarised and the title of the thread doesn't work.  It's useful to look back on how we got in this mess.

Blair had the benefit of a massive feel good factor, and his personality, but he did some dodgy things even before the war crime of Iraq, such as the Formula One fiasco.  He will be looked at, no doubt, as both a moderniser, war criminal and the person responsible for much of the pain resulting from on line gambling.

The BBC documentaries on both Thatcher and Blair were excellent, and reinforced many of my opinions.  I wonder what a similar documentary will say about Cameron.

Which brings me on my thought for the day.  Somewhere in the mid tens the world became more fractious.  And many became less interested understanding politics getting their information from less reliable and more biased sources.  A far more divided country and world.  Not sure how much of the coalition government contributed to this, it was benign in some respects, with LD blunting perhaps some of the more extreme policies of their Tory partners, but of course we know what happened to the LDs at the next election.  The early stage of blaming civil servants was not very helpful (and followed by successive governments including Starmer, in part.  Austerity definitely contributed to decimation of the public services and perhaps an even more alienated group of 'have nots'.

Then Labour missed the open goal of the 2015 election, the Tories played it very savvy in their campaign and of course the LDs were routed.  I fully expect that Brexit will be seen by historians as the turning point/watershed.  I'm still scarred 8 years later, and have lost 'friends' and still have some awkwardness with family members.  How much Brexit begat Farage begat Trump I don't know.  I expect the tide was turning across the west, but the UK helped accelerate this.  Many were already turning away from conventional sources of information - I remember before Brexit seeing a 25 year olds news feed and it was all one lines echoing the Daily Mail, we are all 'going to hell in a handcart'. 

The failure to invest by more recent Tory governments when lending was cheap, the continued mess of Brexit (and the negative impact on our economy), then the relative unavailability of Covid and Ukraine, and here we are now.  The elephant in the room is managed migration, I'm being served by Indian students in bars in London, rather than French or Eastern Europeans.  No issue for me.  Students have always worked in bars.  But there is an enormous gig/minimum wage job  sector out there that relies on foreign workers which I can't get my head around.

Looking forward to you sorting out this mess PM.  I think there have been some poor handling and timing issues, and some decisions not made that would have peed many off (anything to do with cars!) which were a missed opportunity with such a large majority.  Diluting commitments on nationalisation of the rail network/operators being another prime example.  I don't run with the more extreme and somewhat viral view of its a catastrophe.  Yet.  Just a very much first school term report as should have done much better.

 

Edited by malumbu
  • Like 1

i) 5.5% pay increase for public sector, implemented by Starmers Govt

2.8% pay increase offered to public sector in addition to the 5.5% increase given July 2024

Just to clarify...

The new government has accepted the pay recommendations of the independent Pay Review Bodies (PRBs), meaning that public sector employees will see their pay increase by between 4¾% and 6% in 2024–25, depending on occupation.

The 2.8% rise is for the following tax year, and at the time of writing is only a recommendation by Gov depts and  nothing has been implemented.  

Obvious question...in light of years of austerity cuts when public sector workers have received little or next to nothing in pay increases in real terms, why is giving them a pay increase a bad thing? Is it any wonder public services across the board are failing, staff morale is low, and with skilled worker shortages that lead to an ever increasing dependency on overseas workers to plug the gaps. 

Even with this year's rise, public sector pay rises still lag behind the private sector, latest ONS figures for Aug - Oct show that private sector pay grew at an annual pace of 5.4%, while the public sector was only 4.3%.

If we're going to be a serious country again we need fully functioning public services, and that includes a workforce that is paid accordingly... 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

What scares me most is Trump in office in the New Year, Farage on his second coming to lead yet another Party that isn't even a proper Party and Starmer, Reeves and Rayner and go walking into one self inflicted catastrophe after another.

That is not to say that Theresa, Boris and Liz also did the same thing, walking into blunder after blunder, May had to go as she stalled politics for three years, Boris had to go because he was out of control, Liz Truss had to go as she had no idea and Rishi + Jeremy tried to steady the ship and were turning things around. He then had to call the election, the rest is history. We now have had nearly 6 months of Starmergeddon and it isn't getting any better.    

1 hour ago, diable rouge said:

Obvious question...in light of years of austerity cuts when public sector workers have received little or next to nothing in pay increases in real terms, why is giving them a pay increase a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing but when the government gives junior doctors 25%+, accepts the pay review recommendations (they don't have to) and then tells WASPI women - sorry, we can't afford your compensation, or they remove the Winter Fuel Allowance - it creates bitterness. What they meant to say is "we can't afford it for you". And when you see the role the unions of said public sector workers played in the run-up to the election you can start putting the pieces of the jigsaw together for yourselves....which is why teachers are so angry because they feel they got duped or aren't getting their part of the spoils of victory.

43 minutes ago, jazzer said:

If I was working and in the space of 5 months was offered a combined 8.3%, I'd be happy with that. If 8.3% is not enough, how much do they expect?

Not as happy as if you worked in the private sector and had the average combined pay rise of 10.8%...

2 hours ago, jazzer said:

What scares me most is Trump in office in the New Year, Farage on his second coming to lead yet another Party that isn't even a proper Party and Starmer, Reeves and Rayner and go walking into one self inflicted catastrophe after another.

That is not to say that Theresa, Boris and Liz also did the same thing, walking into blunder after blunder, May had to go as she stalled politics for three years, Boris had to go because he was out of control, Liz Truss had to go as she had no idea and Rishi + Jeremy tried to steady the ship and were turning things around. He then had to call the election, the rest is history. We now have had nearly 6 months of Starmergeddon and it isn't getting any better.    

Glad to read that you are on first name terms with so many PMs, I'm not.  This friendliness was half the problem with Johnson - ohh it's Boris, he is a self serving liar that has helped fac the country but he is so funny, I just have to vote for him.

@Rockets, you ar comparing apples with pears

@Rockets Although it's far more nuanced than what you paint, I don't doubt that the optics aren't great. It's the classic conundrum of the economic pie not being big enough to feed everyone. 

For me this stems from the country as a whole and it's obsession with taxes, or rather, to pay as little tax as possible yet expect everything in return. I'm old school and just wished Labout had said they'll stick a penny or two on income tax and be done with it, that it would hopefully only be for a couple of years until we steady the ship, and stop all this slipping and sliding around. But we all know why they didn't. Ditto for Brexit.

Instead of worrying about the optics Labour should've had a series of grown-up conversations about all these issues, but here we are...

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...