Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Non-regulation of commercial practices will just make it easier for businesses to exploit vulnerable people. This will see the rich get richer and the poor poorer.


With that kind of situation how can you guarantee equal access to education and healthcare unless the state provides it?


As for defence, I am of the opinion that if the UK showed less aggression it wouldn?t have to waste so much money on defence.

Having seen some of the considered, balanced posts on here it's hard to add anything


???? - when you (and you're far from alone) constantly talk of "hugely inneficient largely publicly funded public sector bodies" there really isn't anything that can be said back to that. Like the Irish in the recent referendum, a hotch-potch of various negative, paranoid emotions (even with SOME basis in truth) will always defeat reason. It's almost like the old dark-ages withcurning rationale:


"She's a with - drown her! If she survives she's a witch and we'll burn her. If she drowns.. well maybe she wasn't "


Is there a country ANYWHERE which has a super efficent apparatus (be it government, dictatorial or *shudder* private-run) which you aspire to?

Let me just add that I am not defending the current system. I just feel that an equal education for all children regardless of background and equal access to healthcare are the fundamental building blocks for a fair society.


The only way I can logically see this happening is by


1 ? Regulating the economy so that there is very little wealth gap between the richest and the poorest. Then let the providers of healthcare and education compete with each other. (I can?t nor would I want to see this happening)


2 ? Have a free and open economy where people can pursue wealth uninhibited but provide all contributors to that economy with decent healthcare and their children with an equal education. I think this is doable but in the UK will probably involve starting from scratch again. And it will piss off both the, ?I deserve to be privileged because I was born privileged.? and the, ?I deserve not to have to work because it?s my right? sides of society.

Brendan I agree with 2)


Sean, read my post again. You have a habiit of not really presenting an argument but *sighing and talking about 'reason' wheras what you often present is sentiment, the text book view that the 'left' or 'liberal' view is somehow above argument and intrinsically 'right' and somehow oposing opinions are not worth debate. Seriously, you talk a lot of sentiment and not much argument.

???? - if that is true it may be because having posted a lot of argument only to have it ignored, one tires. I would further argue that your viewpoint is a baseless in it's argument as mine and rooted in a different form of "sentiment"


To take my last question to you... society has evolved for millenia. People on different sides of the argument have had their time. And yet government of substantial size exists everywhere. If your argument is so good, where is the evidence?

TO go back and answer a couple of more points.. If I sound like I don't welcome debate then that is simply untrue. To again use the Irish referendum I think it's good that at least one country had the ability to showcase argument and debate around an important treaty.


The fact that the Irish blew it by voting against said referendum because of anti-government sentiment, because Irish mammies "didn't want there good looking boys conscripted to a European army" Quote


and a whole stew of other reasons (also including, yes, a resentment and being "expected" to vote "yes") is neither left wing, right wing or anything else. It is what it is..


Furthermore don't accuse me of not making an argument when the core of your argument is small, efficient government is best, and then not provide any solid example. The case is yours to make, not the other way around.


All that said, I am prone to sentiment. This is not something I would accuse, say, Huguenot, of and yet his long and lengthy argument has not drawn any response from you. Far easier to do the predictable "Seany Sean Sean, dear wee Seany" patronising thing.

One thing I would like to say about unregulated markets after my visit to Jamaica last month where big corporations pretty much have a free hand to do whatever they like.


My BF's mum's electricity bill was $8000 Jamaican dollars for 18 days which is about ?60 and she has two rooms with a light bulb, one tv, two fans, a fridge. a hi-fi and no other electrical items at all.


She took the wiring out of all but two of the rooms to try to keep the electricity costs down.


It gets dark at about 6:30pm so if you have no light your day is pretty much over.


In Jamaica the average wage is about ?27 per week.


There are advertising hoardings up all over Jamaica with a cute looking kid saying, "Mummy, if it's wrong to steal, why do we steal electricity?"


At ?60 for 18 days, tell me who the thief is please!

Sean MacG mentioned the Irish Referendum. Having voted NO what are the logical nest steps?


Ask the Irish to answer the question again?


Ditch the current ratification process?


Review and revise the Lisbon Treaty ?


Allow more countries to hold referenda?


Allow a fast stream / slow stream EU?


I have my own thoughts but throw this out for consultation.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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


> and a whole stew of other reasons (also including,

> yes, a resentment and being "expected" to vote

> "yes") is neither left wing, right wing or

> anything else. It is what it is..


I think the term you are looking for there is petulism (sic). ;-)

score, team Brendan!


Marmora Man - of the 5 options you presented, #3 comes closest. In fact the other 4 would be non-starters in my book. If #1 happened I'd almost be tempted to vote no myself


I don't think it does politicians any harm to have to get out and explain themselves more readily. But I'm of the firm belief the EU project should go ahead. Sometimes I think I'm living in South Dakota in the late 19th century, with all around me hellbent on saying no to the union

Sean - the EU project 'may' be right, but the politicians and bueracrats(sp0 who run it have not yet made a convinvcing case and presented communicated this properly and then when the 'people' reject it have tried to get it in through the back door. Again, in the 21st century we have to try and have ongoing dialogue far too many politicains (especially many on the continent) are still stuck in this 'we are the political elite we know what's best trust us' view of the world....a hangover from post 1945 consensus (largely mildley socialist) politics. It's crap today - a prime exaample being GD himself his "I feel your pain" shite...'trust me, i know best"...no wonder we haven't engagement. The US constitution is one of thye most straightforward and understandable piece of political 'paper' (sorry I can't think of a better word with a hangover)..the EU constitution is 500+ pages......madness.
i,ll tell you what will happen, exactly what happened the last time the irish voted no. the yesmen will shake up and wake up and realise that yet again a yes vote was not a formality, they will get their act in gear and be a bit more proactive in actually encouraging people to vote yes, and hold another ref early next year.

EU:


The Irish NO vote gives EU politicians an opportunty and challenge. The oportunity is to explain the rationale for increased integration and growing oversight by an unelected bureaucracy (you'll note my scepticism). The challenge is to win that argument - they haven't, so far, managed to do so with me.


For my part I can see the argument for a larger / more co-ordinated voice in the world - the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. This could work well for trade, possibly for international diplomacy and defence. Doing this by treaty makes sense and is analogous to NATO, SEATO, NAFTA, EFTA and other groupings of interested parties.


The wider, less publically acknowledged, objective of creating a new United States of Europe is less acceptable to me. Particularly as it is currently formulated with no democratic accountability. The comparison of the EU with the USA as two "countries" is false analogy - Europe dos not share a common language or a common heritage that can be bought into. The US is a relatively loose federal grouping with significant local accountability and tradition. The EU project (Sean MacG's phrase) seems to be pursuing a centralist, directive policy intent on submerging indvidualism at country, county, town and village level to some, supposedly, higher objective of a common Europe.


Summary - an extended Common Market of interested countries bound together by common interest / economics - YES.


United States of Europe - NO. (PS: Please don't quote Churchill on this).


In time it is entirely possible that European countries will gradually align an eventually become one larger entity but this change must follow people's gradually changing wishes and not be driven by policians aspirations. Everyone can discuss and argue for change - but forcing it through wholesale seldom works.

Why big Government? Because some apparatus is required to iron out the "natural" inequalitis that we have inherited. It's really all about the children. I might agree that when it comes to adults we could be free to compete in a necessarily regulated "free" marketplace - but only if we all get to be adults on a relatively even footing. As it is things are so skewed that the idea we have a free market is frankly laughable. We have a stratified market. The whole issue of Human Rights beloved of Europe is the philosophical basis behind the growth of Government. Thank god it is on the agenda. It is not fair that some people are born priveleged and others not.

The problem with referenda is that they are manifestly not democratic. Their dependence on Yes/No answers makes them subordinate to the black & white politics of fear, rather than the grey areas of complex interrelated challenges which contribute to social progression.


Before you suggest that this makes me a dictator, I'd point out that the biggest historical users of the plebiscites were tyrannies - Hitler, Mussonlini, Napoleon and Pinochet in the modern era. It was rumoured that 90% of the German inmates of concentration camps had actually voted for withdrawal from the Geneva convention on the basis of German sovereignty, without realising that they had also given the state a mandate for the Final Solution.


In Ireland the no campaign was lead by Declan Ganley, an unelected businessman on the basis of loss of sovereignty, high taxation and legalisation of abortion. This is neither democracy, nor honest. It is however nicely black & white, and that wins referenda.


I'm sure Ganley is no idiot. One possible outcome of this decision is that Ireland withdraws from the EU and all the economic support that it offers, leaving Ireland once more to become the European backwater it was, with high unemployment and corrupt leadership. These leaders are no doubt sponsored by the cash rich monopolies favoured by big business.


Handing power from the people, to Ganley.


Referenda - Democracy? Don't make me laugh.

James Madison on government vs. referendum...


"...an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.... ...there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion [Capital punishment??] or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men [Ganley?], may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.


"In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?


"What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next."

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...