Jump to content

Recommended Posts

funny peculiar? as in why is some using a us-centric term beloved of mastabatory internet trolls who fantasise about going postal, use the n word alot, immerse themselves in self-contradictry conpiracy theories, and obsess about cabals and agendas that ususally boil down to 'them thar jews'?


Yeah, hilarious!!

I always find the UKIP-style demand that people who come to Britain should learn the language and integrate amusing, since they are usually the most likely to head off to Spain to retire, don't integrate and never bother to learn the language.


I always find people who hate UKIP amusing, as they are usually the most likely to criticise those who head off to Spain to retire, don't integrate and never bother to learn the language.

There was an interest poll done recently, I'll see if i can dig it up, that had ukip voters as most disposed towards liking europeans and or thinking of moving there.


The thinking britain is going to the dogs and wanting to leave it go hand in hand, and for want of anything else to blame, like you know, the implacable march of technology, globalism, sociological change, its an easy target to blame the EU, and think leaving it will cycle everything back to an imagined pre-immigration utopia.


So not entriely ironic, though the lack of any integration that end is of course hugely and depressingly so.


Bah too many polls about europe, i'll perservere though

Ukip seems to be a very useful red herring to avoid discussing which of the other bunch of lying, two-faced, hypocritical self-interested slugs one is casting one's X for; kind of a "At least I don't support Ukip!" stance to make us all feel better.


So who's in the race? The lying Libs? The legislation-crazed, I.D. card-hungry, War-criminals of Labour? (dropping "New" doesn't make it alright) or the divisive Tories?


Farage loves all the martyr stuff and that kind of defacement - whilst perfectly acceptable as political comment - is more likely to get those entrenched ukip supporters out to vote ("No bloody paint throwing do-gooder is going to tell me how to vote") than make the undecided to vote against him.

Is there a government in history that couldn't be tarred with a sound bite friendly phrase


There seems to be an idea abroad that older, previous governments were somehow better


Or worse, that the notion of government itself is abhorrent


Both need to get a grip. We live in a democracy which means a shed load of compromise, grumbling, occasional violent protest


But if there is a better system, what is it?


Because voting for ukip is simply an unnaceptable alternative. Not as a protest, not as a warning, not as a joke

And if anyone pipes up with "typical liberal telling people what to do" have a word. You have a million choices, including voting for these incompetetent yet dangerous clowns. But don't pretend you don't know they are more than they pretend and it's "unsurprising" people vote for them if the "big" parties are so shit


Sometimes there are absolutes and relativism is downright scary

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Is there a government in history that couldn't be

> tarred with a sound bite friendly phrase

>

> There seems to be an idea abroad that older,

> previous governments were somehow better




I guess they didn't have the social media and 24 hour news to contend with so they didn't have to be so media savvy. The media savvy bit is what's annoying about modern politics.

We have to face it..... UKIP has only come to prominence as a result of changes undergone by other political parties and their failure to respond to the feelings of the silent (or is it silenced?) majority.


Labour was highly Euro-sceptic not too many years ago. The Conservative leadership got rid of Euro-scepticism when they got rid of Thatcher. Only the Libtards have been consistently pro Europe and anyway they dont count. They change their policies more often that Miliband changes his socks. They are Pick & Mix.


Both Labour and Conservatives promised referenda on Europe but failed to deliver again and again.


Both Labour and Conservatives promised to do something about rampant immigration and did nothing.


Hence the rise of UKIP and the fact that it is being attacked vociferously by all three parties.


All three are sh*t scared of the erosion of their voter base by the new kid on the block.


What is more worrying about UK politics is that all the leaders in the Labs, Cons and Libs are career politicos. They started off as SPADs and none of them have ever had a real job in Industry or Commerce. They have never managed anything related to business or economics. How can one expect them to be able to manage the country!


They are all in it for themselves and will do anything to stay in office. Hence appeasement on issues like immigration and failed promises on Europe.


Their abuses of expenses and allowances go unchecked. Their personal tax returns are handled by a dedicated and secretive HMRC department in Cardiff.


And some of you attack UKIP! Vote for UKIP and give these despicable career/establishment politicians a bloody nose!

What business did churchill run btw?


All this better in the past bobbins


Silent majority? Majority don't want what you want. Silenced? Obscene to even suggest it


Words like appeasement? And you have cheek to tell people they are emotional on other threads?


By all means pick apart the problems with mainstream parties and the eu. But ukip as an answer? Incredible

And there you have the kip thing in microcosm.

They are addressing real concerns, they are capable of saying quite reasonable and sensible things, but they undermine it all with hyperbole, distraction, half truths and total idiots saying massively racist things.


The above post is for the most part very reasonable and addresses real concerns, but the singular use of libtard gets it filed under 'poster is a moron'.

Whoops.


The problem with the current political class is that it's a post Blair situation, whereby the intent of the politician is everything, even if the means are disingenuous.


They are sceptical about being able to sell a message about the advantages of immigration, the problems of demographics and pensions and the fact that in or out of the EU we'll have to jump to its financial tune and abide by its laws if we want to sell to it (setting aside for a moment the ukip having your pie in the sky and eating it of leaving the eu and remaining in EFTA).

So they just try to ignore the voters to large degree, patronise them.


Despite the accusations of libtard, the liberal party is the only one honestly setting out its stall and telling truths to the electorate, and has been trounced by populist soundbites, and appeals to fear (see also electoral reform referendum), so can we blame the two main parties for simply trying to ignore the problem and making minor concessions to this ugly undercurrent in order to keep ukip at bay.


Are they shit scared? No. Protest votes in European elections are easy but people know a clown when they see one and they will be marginal come general election. Are they concerned enough that they are losing the faith of core voters? Absolutely. Are they afraid that not appeasing this will mean another hung parliament. For sure.


But as SJ hints at, we Ey flippant about the emerging nationalist movements at our own risk. We can see in Ukraine how easily lies are latched on to how rhetoric can galvanise and how ugly a force nationalism is.


As someone pointed out recently, fascism is often vaguely comical, and never says 'out project involves violence, militias, an end to rule of law'.

It says 'we will restore your pride, we will give you back your jobs, we will make things safe for us' and that's the messGe I'm hearing, no wonder that Indian member resigned and said 'I'm feel like them in your rhetoric chasing power'.

Ukip have been seduced by the very power they accuse others of abusing.


I genuinely think an abstention is a valid protest vote (though that can certainly be a dangerous tack) but for gods sake don't vote for ukip as a protest!!!!

The mainstream parties are owned by commercial interests and UKIP are as scary as a pre-war National Socialist German Worker's Party.


The only party that comes close to being worthy of my vote is the Green Party, but unfortunately they are being drowned out by the constant noise surrounding UKIP.

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Is there a government in history that couldn't be

> tarred with a sound bite friendly phrase


Hm, yes... but here is how some may just view things...


Suppose one has been (perhaps) a life-long Labour voter (let's say) and came (for example) to loathe everything the Right stood for - then they experienced the New Labour regime with its almost constant knee-jerk legislation, its drive to restrict personal rights in the name of fighting terrorism - and the war thingy; then a fellow might have looked kindly on the (oh how nostalgic it all seems) "I agree with Nick" thing.


Before they revealed themselves as lying chancers there was a possibility that integrity and honesty (especially when it came to promises made) still mattered and that even if right and (new) left tore into each other a voice of sanity existed. The spectacle of Cable justifying the hedge fund profits from selling of the Post Office, long after the tuition fees argument had faded, was a timely reminder that (in exchange for a laughable charade of a vote for electoral reform) the libs are whores who will do anything if the price is right.


Labour and Conservatives are only vying now for who gets to take the whore into bed.


Don't know where ukip fit into this - vying with the EDF (not this one) and BNP as the home for the mad, bad and dangerous to live next door to?

I have zero interest in voting UKIP - I think we should be in Europe and I am an immigrant myself. But democracy needs parties like UKIP - and even the BNP - to exist. Hopefully no one will vote for them, but if they do, it gives people the chance to be heard.


UKIP has hit upon some people's fears. Now I believe those fears are misplaced, but they are there. The correct reaction to this is to debate them, calm those fears or understand them better. The wrong reaction is to call the party and their potential voters names. All that does is make them martyrs.


I don't think UKIP are a racist party as a whole, nor Farage a racist. They do have some pretty unsavoury people in their ranks but I think that is because they're not a big enough party to vet every single candidate. Let's face it, the big parties still let the odd dodgy person slip through. I'm sure even the Greens have some people in the party we'd rather not have power like some extreme animal libbers.


So UKIP existing just means democracy is working. They just need their arguments countered.

This is quite interesting. It's an article about how the Greens not UKIP could be the real threat to Labour in the Euro elections.


http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/05/20/comment-the-green-party-are-now-the-real-threat-to-labour


Might be wishful thinking (not that I know which way the author votes), but I live in hope :-)

It would be good if some interviewer would really nail Forage and get him to admit that many of the UKIP policies are far to the right of the Tories, especially low rate flat taxes, which would result in even more massive cuts in public spending. Then the poorer, Labour voters who are contemplating voting UKIP might start to realise that they would be really screwed financially if Forage and his mates were able to put their policies into effect.


So far Forage has been able to get away with murder (metaphorically of course).

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...