Jump to content

Recommended Posts

MrBen Wrote:

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

> Where to start Henry old

> chap.......underpopulated, beautiful , the last

> true wilderness on the planet, mineral rich, an

> attractive exchange rate and one of the highest

> standards of living outside of Sweden. Excellent

> fly fishing, positive attitude to entrepreneurs,

> Albertan steak. Albertan women. Bears. Quiet

> roads. Uncrowded ski slopes. An incredible social

> health care system and solid and underlying

> constitutional principles born of Scottish

> sensibilities and fairness.

>

> And best of all.....they're not American.


'mineral rich'. Never had that as top of my list of reasons for moving to a new country/continent before. I suppose it depends on what industry you are in. Did you forget canoes? Thought Canada was famous for those too? Also, poutine...!

Today's Telegraph splash has me all kinds of hulk-angry. I link to it only for information purposes:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11507586/General-Election-2015-Labour-threatens-Britains-recovery-say-100-business-chiefs.html


Now, there are so many things wrong with this I'm not even sure where to start.


1) This is a non-story. Big business and the people running/owning them support the Conservative Party. Well, blow me down with a feather and call me Shirley. How the feck is that a story. A 10 year old should be able to tell you that. Of course they do. They always have. That's who the party is meant to represent. If they were supporting Labour, that would be a story. If trade union leaders were backing Cameron, that would be a story. But this?!


2) Some of these people are already Conservatives, party members or donors. Karen Brady is pictured. She's a Tory life peer in the House of Lords. And now she's going to support the Tories at the election?! Wowzers. What next? "Miliband votes for himself in Doncaster constituency - the arrogance of the man."???


3) It's not even true. Look at levels of foreign investment in the UK since 1997. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/foreign-direct-investment The idea that this government has made Britain "open for business" is clearly BS. Levels of investment are at a modern low.


4) Is there anything more pathetic than a bunch of people who have more money than they could ever need or spend bleating about paying their fair share of tax while heading up companies who avoid tax, pay minimum wage (that they would have opposed in the first place) and have workers on zero-hour contracts. When was the last time you heard normal people whining like this about paying tax?


As Tim Burgess has said:


"When should we share the letter from all the rich people we have made richer at the expense of everyone else?"

"April Fools Day?"

"Cool."


It'd be funny except it's true.

Meanwhile the Centre for Macroeconomic Studies destroys the coalition myth about...well....everything.


http://cfmsurvey.org/surveys/importance-elections-uk-economic-activity


From Robert Peston:


The Centre for Macroeconomics, which groups leading economists from Cambridge University, LSE, University College London (UCL), the Bank of England and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), polled what it calls its 50 experts on whether the ?austerity policies of the coalition government have had a positive effect on aggregate economic activity (employment and GDP) in the UK?.


Its result was a decisive no.


Two-thirds of the 33 economists who responded disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposition that austerity had been good for the UK.


Now to be clear, this is not a scientifically robust poll of those who know best. But nor is the Telegraph?s letter - and those those who took part in the economists? survey are no less distinguished in their field than the business signatories.


Among those who disagreed strongly that austerity had been a good thing, Oxford University?s Simon Wren-Lewis (never shy to express an opinion) asked if the question was ?a joke?, adding that ?the only interesting question is how much GDP has been lost as a result of austerity? (which he thinks could be as much as 10% of national income).


John Van Reenen of the LSE, who also disagreed with austerity, said ?UK GDP is about 15% below where we would have expected on pre-crisis trends... Premature austerity has damaged UK welfare and, as I and others argued at the time, delaying consolidation would have left the UK in a much stronger position than it is today.?

Have you just woken up from a long coma, DC? All the papers are biased and print crap in the run up to elections.


The one that made me laugh yesterday was the terrible Guardian "Reality Check" page, which attempts to emulate the excellent Channel 4 one. They took on the Tories claim they'd created 1000 jobs a day. An unnecessarily long thesis involving a lot of graphs finally, grudgingly, concluded that the claim was probably correct, but then threw in the entirely unrelated "but there are lots of food banks too". Just can't help themselves.

No one seems to care or be interested in this today so I'll make this my last point.


Of the 100 people on the list:


3 Tory Peers

5 Tory Advisors

12 Tory Donors

1 employee of the Telegraph

Rooney Anand - head of Greene King brewery who concocted a highly articificial tax avoidance scheme

Richard Joseph - a convicted fraudster

Lord Bamford - originally withdrew from peerage due to allegations abouthis tax affairs


And that's a cursory search done by me and some folk on twitter.


Never mind the links to HSBC which led to the Telegraph's chief political commentator quitting because of editorial bias. This is the shoddiest front page I've seen in an election campaign.

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> No one seems to care or be interested in this

> today so I'll make this my last point.

>

> Of the 100 people on the list:

>

> 3 Tory Peers

> 5 Tory Advisors

> 12 Tory Donors

> 1 employee of the Telegraph

> Rooney Anand - head of Greene King brewery who

> concocted a highly articificial tax avoidance

> scheme

> Richard Joseph - a convicted fraudster

> Lord Bamford - originally withdrew from peerage due to allegations abouthis tax affairs



You missed the non-exec board member of the Guardian Media Group that signed it!


I don't know why you are getting so het up about this. 100 businessmen supporting the Tories is about as exciting as 100 senior union members supporting Labour.

DulwichMum is the leader of The Absolutely Fabulous Party and I am the Sheriff.. under a Twitter pseudonym


(until she tells me otherwise)



My main responsibility is maintaining the Ducking Stool. Currently in storage .


Awaiting my instructions.. Long list of prospective candidates.


DulwichFox

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> No one seems to care or be interested in this

> today so I'll make this my last point.


I was interested, I just didn't feel I had anything valuable to say.


Loz Wrote:

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

> Have you just woken up from a long coma, DC? All

> the papers are biased and print crap in the run up

> to elections.

>

> The one that made me laugh yesterday was the

> terrible Guardian "Reality Check" page, which

> attempts to emulate the excellent Channel 4 one.

> They took on the Tories claim they'd created 1000

> jobs a day. An unnecessarily long thesis

> involving a lot of graphs finally, grudgingly,

> concluded that the claim was probably correct, but

> then threw in the entirely unrelated "but there

> are lots of food banks too". Just can't help

> themselves.


It's not entirely unrelated though. The fact is that jobs are being created which are barely worth having, and so food banks are needed. It'[s an important point which should be pointed out every time the tories boast about their record numbers of people in work.

Otta Wrote:

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

> It's not entirely unrelated though. The fact is that jobs are being created which are barely worth

> having, and so food banks are needed. It'[s an important point which should be pointed out every

> time the tories boast about their record numbers of people in work.


In a wider sense of the current economy, I fully agree. But when they set yourself up as a 'myth busting service' but then widen the remit, then they look foolish. Especially if you don't look even deeper to show that it is the beneficiaries of these new jobs that are attending food banks.


As I said, the Channel 4 FactCheck did this sort of thing with much, much more credibility.

Excellent posts David Carnell. I'll just throw in that under the coalition we spend ?28 billion a year subsidising low paid workers with child tax credits and Housing Benefit. Everything the Tories claim about Britain recovering with a strong economy is crap.


Is productiity up under the coalition? No.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32143552


Are tax receipts up now all those jobs have been created under the coalition? No.


Are exports up? No. In fact they are down.


http://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/how-has-uks-coalition-government-performed


Osbourne is a fantasist.

Productivity and tax receipts are indeed down, blah blah, and that is a big black mark against the coalition. But it would be plain wrong to say the economy is not growing - and at a rate that is currently faster than most major western economies. Even the Guardian (grudgingly) admits that. But another Guardian article also points out this is also the slowest recovery since the 1920's. Both views are correct. Tories will concentrate on one view. Labourites the other. It's always the way with one-eyed support. It's why I find newspapers during elections particularly useless unless you read a few and try and find the real truth.


Personally, I think the economy is - relative to the rest of the world - in pretty good shape. But I also suspect that is more down to Osbourn being lucky rather than competent.


And without knowing what housing benefit and child tax credit costs were in, say, 2007 (pre crash) and 2009 (pre-Tories) that single figure of benefits is hard is hard to judge. Is ?28bn good, bad or normal? I can find housing benefit in 2009 (?21.5bn according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11466178) but I can't find any of the others.

That in work benefits bill is up Loz. It has a lot to do with low wages and increasing costs of living, namely rent.


I disagree with you Loz in that a growing economy where tax receipts, productivity and exports are down, it reflects the scenario that what growth there is, is being hoovered up by a few sectors (finance being one). So for me, it is not the sign of a healthy economy at all. Low wages, poor exorts, productivity etc, affect things like national debt. We are still borrowing more than we did in 2010. We've done nothing to change the aspects of the economy that caused the crash. Business in banking is the same as ever, and we gave them billions of our money to get back there.


What I would say is that these are the problems of an economy that has been in decline for the last 50 years. And yes Osbourne has been as lucky as Gordon Brown was unlucky to be the scapegoat of a massive global crash. Well that's just the ways it goes. But to think for one minute that Osbourne is delivering anything but more of the same, when we all know that more of the same hasnt worked for at least two decades, is fantasy.


We think the last financial crash was bad. We are heading for something far worse unless we get back in control of our wealth. There isn't much left to give away to foreign shareholders tbh. The free market does NOT take care of all. the cost of housing IS out of control, the over 65's are going to become even more expensive to the state finances etc and no-one in government or in opposition really seems bothred enough by any of it. But then it seems, nor are we!

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...