Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I know. Depleting the council housing stock and selling public assets for less than they're worth... yeah that's exactly what we need right now, isn't it?


Also talking about tax cuts (both inheritance tax and higher rate income tax) just doesn't seem right at a time when services are being slashed and the NHS is in crisis (and no I don't have any faith in his ?8bn pledge). Have heard Miliband being called "unelectable" over the last few months, but IMO he sounds much more fiscally responsible... what the tories are proposing just doesn't add up.

Oh well, cheer yourself up by reading the Green's manifesto. There's a set of policies dreamt up by a group of people in full knowledge that they will be nowhere near any form of power come May. It almost makes the Labour "free owls" policy look relatively sane and practical.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Oh well, cheer yourself up by reading the Green's

> manifesto. There's a set of policies dreamt up by

> a group of people in full knowledge that they will

> be nowhere near any form of power come May. It

> almost makes the Labour "free owls" policy look

> relatively sane and practical.


I think the Tory policies are drawn up assuming a hung

parliament - so they won't implement them in any coalition.


At least EdM tried.

JohnL Wrote:

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

> I think the Tory policies are drawn up assuming a

> hung

> parliament - so they won't implement them in any

> coalition.


That's an interesting thought. I've been wondering how on earth the Tories think they'll be able to implement this ridiculous policy. The assets they're proposing to sell off belong to numerous private social enterprises. They would require a change in the law which would be unlikely to get through the Lords and would no doubt be open to legal challenge regardless. But perhaps they have no intention on this policy making it though coalition 'negotiations'.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> JohnL Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I think the Tory policies are drawn up assuming

> a

> > hung

> > parliament - so they won't implement them in

> any

> > coalition.

>

> That's an interesting thought. I've been wondering

> how on earth the Tories think they'll be able to

> implement this ridiculous policy. The assets

> they're proposing to sell off belong to numerous

> private social enterprises. They would require a

> change in the law which would be unlikely to get

> through the Lords and would no doubt be open to

> legal challenge regardless. But perhaps they have

> no intention on this policy making it though

> coalition 'negotiations'.



EXACTLY, they're not yours to sell you stupid bastard!

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Cameron's pledge to extend 'Right to Buy' to

> Housing Association tenants is probably the most

> depressing thing I've heard during this entire

> campaign.



And in order to fund it they would force councils to sell off property as it became vacant, rather than reallocate to someone else.


It's twisted.

It's a completely bonkers policy. HAs will almost certainly legally challenge anyway. HAs have completely different financial setups to LAs when it come to home building. Only an idiot would think that homes sold off would be replaced at the same rate. This to me is the same Tory disbelief in social housing that got us partly into the mess we are in in the first place. They really do believe that anyone who works can afford a home or private rent! Would be a complete disaster if this went through. And I really can not believe they would force councils to sell of homes to pay for it! Who will replace the homes lost there?


Agree with some of the comments above re: Miliband and Labour looking like the responsible party now. The Conservatives have just gone a bit bonkers over the last few days. They have shown just how uninterested they really are in the real problems. And the Greens?....sigh.....

why hasnt anyone suggested extending help to buy scheme so that those council and housing association renters who wish to own their own property would be given the present/proposed discount off a property in the private sector. This would create a constant stream of vacant council/ association properties.

Many social housing tenants who work are on minimum/low wages Alice. That's why they are in social housing (and why we need it). They are never going to earn enough or be in stable enough employment to keep a mortgage on a private market property going.


And how about we stop artificially inflating the housing market and let it return to normal market forces. I.e. when first time buyers can no long afford to buy, the price comes down, instead of bringing out yet more products designed to give people part ownership etc.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Many social housing tenants who work are on

> minimum/low wages Alice. That's why they are in

> social housing (and why we need it). They are

> never going to earn enough or be in stable enough

> employment to keep a mortgage on a private market

> property going.

>

> And how about we stop artificially inflating the

> housing market and let it return to normal market

> forces. I.e. when first time buyers can no long

> afford to buy, the price comes down, instead of

> bringing out yet more products designed to give

> people part ownership etc.


I'd say that Shared Ownership isn't social housing

any more - it's a mechanism to buy when you can't

afford it.


Apparently you need 65K+ income min for the shared ownership

blocks in Elephant & Castle lend lease.

That's how I see it too John. It's an admission that prices are too high for ordinary working people to afford. Lend lease are just profiteers, who pretend to be specialists in urban regeneration.


Totally agree miga. There is no consideration of a problem that will take more than the lifetime of a parliament to rein in. It smacks of desperation really. Wishy washy Cameron couldn't win the last election outright and looks like he won't improve in this one. The delusion of power by the back door!


You have to ask yourself, do they really think these policies are the kinds of vote winner to swing an election? For the 1.3 million HAs tenants there are many more trapped in private rented accomodation or living with parents. I'd say the conservatives have now alienated those people.


When Thatcher came to power, the economy was so crippled it wasn't hard to be radical. If we want to be radical today, it has to be about bringing a fairer distribution of wealth surely? I don't see any of that from the Conservatives, just the usual pre-election tax bribes and giveaways, from a party that says we need to make more cuts in the next term to keep the deficit down! It just doesn't add up.

I completely agree that New Labour didn't do enough, BUT they did reduce the discount on right to buy. The coalition on the other hand increased it to a higher discount than even under Thatcher. The issue remains the same for both parties. We need more jobs and more people working as a percentage of the population to raise the taxes needed to look after everything else. Neither party seems to have any solutions for that. The Conservatives are total free market enthusiasts, but we know that the free market doesn't take care of everything (without regulation to force it to do so). Labour on the other hand stand for some regulation but are essentially free market supporters too. Neither party wants to alienate the only wealth creating sectors we have left, and rightly so but there needs to be more effort to support start ups and to help successful small businesses to expand (especially in new technologies).


On social housing. The free market has never taken care of people at the lower end of the pay scale. That's why social housing came about, along with the welfare state. Either we believe in a minimum quality of life, housing etc for all, or we don't. I think the demonisation of the poorest has only been possible because middle income earners are feeling the squeeze as much as the low waged. The cost of housing/ property is playing a huge role in that.

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...