Jump to content

Recommended Posts

UKIP has damaged Labour far more than the tories by reducing Labour's vote in the marginals quite significantly. The neglect of its core traditional vote has bitten Labour on the arse, something the party, social media and our very own Mr Carnell have been in denial about for years. Talking perpetually to yourselves in the Guardian and Twitter rather than the plebs completly removes any sense of reality of what people really think...

The Guardianista urban intelligentsia, Labour's minority who currently dictate policy for the whole party, and who I presume the likes of David_Carnell would loosely be associated? Are blind to the realities of the wider Labour movement. Just over a week ago I was accused of spouting nonsense, just the sort of dismissive unfounded opinion which has allowed the traditional membership to feel isolated and removed from the top table. The core left vote has been fragmenting for some time, and this election has seen more than ever that UKIP and the Greens to a lesser extent are seen as a viable alternative in the traditional heartlands of the north. I called the election, and I will now call the future of the Labour Party. If they do not listen to the membership in the heartlands, the UKIP protest vote will start to take seats off of them, and they will turn into a party that represents the socialist elite of London, and pretty much no-one else.


David_Carnell, you got it wrong about the popularity of Miliband and you got it wrong about the direction of the party.


Louisa.

Reply to RD


That's just a small part of it. This is bigger than that though - it's not just BNP voters they were only a force in a few constituencies this is accross the board.


If i was Labour i'd get out and talk to some other people than party members and 'progressives' and maybe some proper debating rtaher than shutting down/shreiking at people who don't hold the 'book of left' views. Social media this morning hasn't convinced me that's going to happen - it's all 'the plebs are idiots' or it's Murdoch's fault.

Otta Wrote:

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

> grabot Wrote:

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

> -----

> > A shame for James Barber. I wasn't a fan of

> his

> > early on. Seemed to be too much politicking

> from

> > him on the East Dulwich forum. But of late, to

> > me, he has shown himself to be a man of genuine

> > conviction and someone who has done a lot of

> good

> > in the local community.

>

>

> Agree with this completely.


Otta, Grabot -- yes indeed. James is a decent sort. I hope that he continues to contribute to making Southwark, and East Dulwich, better places.

Wow. The gloating started early.


I was wrong about the result. No argument there. As was just about every opinion poll.


It's too early to comment on where or what Labour should go/do next. Let the dust settle.


One interesting stat I've just seen though:


Con % share of vote in 2010: 36.6

Con % share of vote in 2015: 36.8


Lab % share of vote in 2010: 29.4

Lab % share of vote in 2015: 30.5


And yet look at the stark change in seats. It doesn't explain much but adds nuance and depth to the picture.

Well I'm ?250.00 better off by backing my belief, in February, that the result would be a Cameron led majority.


So personally I'm very happy. I also consider the nation is, and will be, better off under a Conservative government.


My only niggle is that there must be a statesman like resolution of the UK Constitution (such as it is). Tempting as it would be to grant the SNP their demand for full fiscal autonomy - that would only lead to a bankrupt Scotland. More appropriate to my mind is to convene a constitutional forum, led by some 'political greybeards'(Jack Straw, William Hague, Menzies Campbell - or maybe reach further back) that can be both pragmatic and ignore party loyalties to debate and propose a new settlement.


What price USGB - United States of Great Britain under a federal model?

TillieTrotter Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I was naive and just hadn't realised how much

> of

> > the Labour vote would go to UKIP. Assumed it

> would

> > all come from Tory voters because, well you

> know,

> > they're all @#$%&.

>

>

> I suppose now you just going to have to accept

> that its labour voters than are the @#$%&!

> 😁





Or the most desperate.

Otta Wrote:

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

> Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It's the economy stupid and most people have recognised that the

> > Tories have done a good job.

>

> Most people have swallowed the lie that they've done a good job.


Not really sure about this one. We don't really know what would have happened under a different leadership, we only have anecdotal evidence about what has happened in other countries. All we really know as that the Tories haven't screwed up the economy (modest growth, lower unemployment), although they have of course failed in their deficit reduction aims.

"Try telling that to Ed Balls - UKIP has let tories win or especially hold plenty of marginals..that's the point"


I'm not convinced by this. It assumes that UKIP voters in the marginals are either defectors from Labour, or are Tory defectors who in the absence of UKIP would have voted Labour, and I don't buy that, particularly when Labour is perceived as being more pro-Europe and softer on immigration than the Tories. It's also not borne out by what little data I have seen from the Labour target seats, where generally the Tories have increased their poll at the expense of the Lib Dems.

Otta Wrote:

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

> Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It's the economy stupid and most people have

> recognised that the

> > Tories have done a good job.

>


> Most people have swallowed the lie that they've

> done a good job.


Have they? The smell of fear instigated about the possible affect of the SNP is palpable.

HP

Posted by Henry_17 Today, 12:41PM


Louisa,


Credit where it's due, well done for calling it correctly earlier in this thread.



Posted by Louisa March 20, 09:01AM


I predict the Libs will cling on to 25/35 seats and go in with the Tories again alongside some sort of confidence supply job with the DUP. Unless Labour can seriously pull ahead in the next month or so.


Louisa.

The SNP must be well pissed off - finally get to the party, all set to boogie up a storm only to find their date's done a runner.


Now they'll have to sit on the edge of the dance floor for five years hoping some chinless tory twat* glances in their direction and throws them a crumb or two.


"Independence referendum?"

'No chance.'

"Voting reform??"

'No chance.'

"Er... what about some nicer offices for the SNP members?"

'We'll think about it.'




*I am of course using the accepted SNP definition of a right honourable member of HM Govt.

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> One interesting stat I've just seen though:

>

> Con % share of vote in 2010: 36.6 - Con % share of vote in 2015: 36.8

> Lab % share of vote in 2010: 29.4 - Lab % share of vote in 2015: 30.5

>

> And yet look at the stark change in seats. It doesn't explain much but adds nuance and depth to the picture.


That's mostly because the Labour share was all over the shop. Sharply down in Scotland, reasonably up in London, well up in LibDem seats and taken to wearing purple in the north.

It seems that either they were exceptionally unlucky or allocated resources exceptionally poorly given this.


Arguably Scotland was out of their hands but everywhere else? And this is with the Ashcroft data opened up which I believe both sides made a song and dance about in the media as a tool that should have assisted them.

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...