Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Here is what I think would make a lot of people NOT vote UKIP


Non-UKIP voters making it obvious that UKIP don't have a fair point.


As it is, the media saturate us with UKIP presence in all programmes (in a way other minority parties don't get) and lots of people who have felt they Have been unable to be publicly bigoted for years suddenly feel liberated and encouraged.


So you encourage them if you want.


Free speech? I'm not stopping them speaking - I'm just saying what they say is wrong.


If I was a woman I would be petrified of UKIP having any access to power for example.

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Here is what I think would make a lot of people

> NOT vote UKIP

>

> Non-UKIP voters making it obvious that UKIP don't

> have a fair point.

>

> As it is, the media saturate us with UKIP presence

> in all programmes (in a way other minority parties

> don't get) and lots of people who have felt they

> Have been unable to be publicly bigoted for years

> suddenly feel liberated and encouraged.

>

> So you encourage them if you want.

>

> Free speech? I'm not stopping them speaking - I'm

> just saying what they say is wrong.

>

> If I was a woman I would be petrified of UKIP

> having any access to power for example.



I'm not encouraging anyone, so fuck off on that one.


I'm saying that not everyone of them is a thick cab driver or a closet bigot now happy to "cone out". 10 years ago I'd have said that, but things jave changed and if you can't see that then you're being more closed minded than sone of them.

Loz Wrote:

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

> StraferJack Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > If I was a woman I would be petrified of UKIP

> > having any access to power for example.

>

> OK, I'll bite... which of UKIP policy/manifesto

> promises makes yoou think that?


I believe the UKIP manifesto proposes a statutory duty upon UK women to clean behind their fridges on a quarterly basis... Or face being publicly branded "a slut".

Was there a party NOT supporting that war quids?


Otta. You are in quite the charming mood lately.


"Part of me feels pleased about UKIP winning a seat in parliament"


Sound familiar?


No way to I think you are in anyway a ukip supporter. But I think that sentence displayed encouragement to UKIP voters. Do you think it doesn't?


Loz. I'm sure the source will be enough for you to dismiss it but just in case


http://leftfootforward.org/2014/05/15-reasons-women-shouldnt-vote-for-ukip/

Brendan Wrote:

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

> Need a beer much?



Well yeah, but it wouldn't change what I'm saying here.


I think that if we all took SJ's stance (and not just SJ obviously, I'm not picking on him, but he's voicing it rather strongly), then more and more people would end up going to UKIP, because what UKIP do is divide, and start and "us and them" thing. SJ seems to be playing in to that from where I'm sitting.


Where SJ is spot on is that the media are giving UKIP the kind of press that, say, the greens could only dream of. But whilst that's going on, I don't think it helps for the self appointed "clever press" to say "look at them, isn't that silly".


At least Nick legg had the bottle to go up against Farage, Cameron should send Borris after him. Two big media personalities who happen to be politicians. Let the very popular (with many) Borris take a pop at Farage.

"because what UKIP do is divide,"


is that what they do?


every individual or party "divides" people


But it's pretty easy to stay on THIS side of a UKIP line isn't it?


If I suddenly stated an intention to vote UKIP, would people say "wtf has happened to him?" or would people say "fair enough really. The party he has supported for the last 25 years has let him down and he didn't feel he had an alternative"

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Was there a party NOT supporting that war quids?

>

> Otta. You are in quite the charming mood lately.




I'm fed up with being nice and charming, it gets you nowhere, and I'm finding you really bloody patronising.



>

> "Part of me feels pleased about UKIP winning a

> seat in parliament"

>

> Sound familiar?



Yes, it's a selected part of my facebook status from Friday. The WHOLE thing went


"Part of me feels pleased about UKIP winning a seat in parliament. Feel like something is actually happening for a change and hopefully the arrogant leading parties might start to take notice and actually stand up and fight rather than just dismissing it."



> No way to I think you are in anyway a ukip

> supporter. But I think that sentence displayed

> encouragement to UKIP voters. Do you think it

> doesn't?



Well if you just take the bit you chose to share on here in order to paint me in a certain light, then yeah I guess.


If however you read the whole thing, I think (if you have half a brain) you'd realise that I am pleased because I think the whole political world needs a kick in the arse. Isn't that part of the reason you were wetting yourself over the Scottish referendum a couple of short weeks ago?


I watched Question Time on Thursday, and still the likes of Harriett Harman were just dismissing UKIP voters, even though a good few of them were telling her why they'd felt this was all that was left for them. I don't agree with these people, but dismiss them and soon enough you'll see that UKIP are not just a little protest party.


THAT is what I want to avoid, I just think that your attitude to it is playing in to their hands.


But we'll agree to disagree.


I'm not trying to fall out with anyone, but I won't be mis/selectively quoted and dismissed either.

I was on the phone and couldn't copy paste the whole thing - I wans't trying to misrepresent you at all


Nor do I think your full paragraph changes anything - it says to people who are tempted to vote UKIP they are doing a good thing ultimatly


The SNP comparison is bogus, because it was actually about a constitutional change and the GOOD part was the high level of engagement and turn out across Scotland (you do remember I posted about being on the No side don't you?)

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> I was on the phone and couldn't copy paste the

> whole thing - I wans't trying to misrepresent you

> at all

>

> Nor do I think your full paragraph changes

> anything - it says to people who are tempted to

> vote UKIP



Oh FFS. it's MY FB page, so I'm voicing an opinion which was not pro UKIP but rather hopeful that the "main" parties might step up.


If someone is stupid enough to base their vote on what I write on FB because they think they've got my blessing, then they are a f**king moron. But I very much douby that my status will lead anyone to vote UKIP.

Otta - you're engaging in this conversation si I'm using you as a reference point but I'm not trying to make it about you


The opinion you posted is one that has a lot of currency at the moment - Loads of people are expressing the same opinion. And I disagree with it


True, in isolation YOUR opinion isn't going to change anything (none of us have that magic power) but when an idea is common currency then yes it does encourage people

Otta Wrote:

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

> Cameron should send Borris after him. Two

> big media personalities who happen to be

> politicians. Let the very popular (with many)

> Borris take a pop at Farage.



Okay I should have known better than to say that. Just heard Bozza on the radio basically saying. I had a chat with Douglas (Carswel) and basically we pretty much agreed on everything, so his beloved "kippers" may as well just vote Tory".


Oh dear.

Political disengagement part 207 - a party that wins 1 seat and polls about 12% now seems to dictating the policy for Dave and Ed.


Political pygmise both of them, Unlike SJ I'm pretty sure I've friends (and possibly family) who will say they are going to vote UKIP, rather than huffing off with my Guardian tucked under my arm tutting I WILL be pointing out how fooking stupid their action are...which is more than the PM and the Leader of the 'progressive' party seem to be able to do right now

I think I have (extended) family who will possibly be looking down that road too. MAYBE even my old man (if the blokes in the pub convince him)...


And I suspect I have "friends" (in a facebooky - used to know them, think they're pretty decent people, but unlikely to be seeing them anytime soon - way) who will also be tempted or even definites already. And I will tell them I think they're wrong, but I won't be dismissing them all as racist idiots.

" rather than huffing off with my Guardian tucked under my arm tutting I WILL be pointing out how fooking stupid their action are"


I thought I wasn't doing any of the former and plenty of the latter, for which I've been told I've been patronising?


"Unlike SJ I'm pretty sure I've friends (and possibly family) who will say they are going to vote UKIP"


Have I said I don't have no friends and family who would vote UKIP? If I have I stand corrected (as I've already bemoaned the fact on facebook)


"which is more than the PM and the Leader of the 'progressive' party seem to be able to do right now"


I thought this was the point. Otta has already pointed out Harriet Harman was dismissing UKIP voters, Brown got in trouble for calling a woman a bigot, and until UKIP made electoral gains recently leaders of both parties got in trouble for dissing UKIP voters. I wish they had stuck to those guns.. but you rpost seems to be made up of off-the-shelf cliches rather than what people are actually saying

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...