Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I always find it astonishing when the Tories talk like they're some sort of bullied minority... Going on about liberal elites and media bias, how "you can't talk about immigration", silenced by the (far from apparent) forces of political correctness etc, etc. they've a ridiculous persecution complex considering that they're backed by big business, most of the press and represent establishment interests. They paint the left as soft, whilst (despite having most of the power, money and influence) acting like a bunch of crybabies.

I think you'll find rahrahrah that it's the blindingly obvious you and the London left are yet again refusing to acknowledge. You're blaming it all on the right wing press, the sad fact is that yet again you fail to understand what has happened over the last 48 hours. The majority of the left and centre left electorate OUTSIDE of London does have concerns about immigration, it does fear for the economy, and unfortunantely they will switch to UKIP and the greens on the left and the tories in the centre. Why are you refusing to recognise this?


The Labour campaign failed outside of London! Unbelievable blinkers on again.


Louisa.

This is quite a long one but I think it's important to let people know what the reality is and also don't think it couldn't happen to you.

Now the Tories are in expect a sharp drop in the number of unemployed signing on. Not that there will be any more people working but they are removing people signing on by imposing arbitrary conditions.

Unfortunately I had to sign on last year which is the last thing I wanted. I'd been job hunting but discovered that being 53 my job market is limited. I'm doing all the things like networking, LinkedIn, volunteering etc.

In February, with the full knowledge (and approval)of the Job Centre I started studying to get a professional qualification to back-up my actual experience and I paid for this course myself (?1700)which I am committed to, I purposely chose the course because although I have to attend college two days a week it still left me lots of time to job hunt and also if I got a job I could easily switch to an evening course.

On Wednesday, at a job centre review, I was told that I could no longer claim JSA (and consequentially housing benefits) because they've decided that the amount of study I would need to do outside the course would be added to my time in class and that would exceed the 16 hours study permitted.

They won't give me any idea of how they decided I would need so much study nor are there any official guidelines anywhere(I've actually averaged over 90% in exams so far with minimal outside study as it is material I've experience of already.)

When I spoke to the college advisor he told me that recently he has had a surge in people coming to him with the same problem and it is a ruse to get people off the register. You can appeal but it is a laborious and frustrating task. Many people feel they will then be victimised if they sign back on (eg have to sign on everyday, be sanctioned for not achieving unrealistic targets for job apps etc) and so don't bother to claim what they are entitled to.

So 30 years of paying National Insurance is worthless.

The most illogical thing about the whole matter - if I stopped doing the course (thereby reducing my chances of getting work) I could sign on again immediately.

Your story Tony is not an isolated one, and you illustrate perfectly the reality for people like you and others who are being left in an impossible situation by a party whose only goal is to deny benefits to as many people as possible, and to make it as hard as possible for others to claim.


Instead of the ususal nonsense of left vs right etc and media etc dicussed above, your story are the issues we should be discussing.


I don't care personally which party is in power as long as they deliver a fair society. But the tories have painted people like you as feckless, lazy, idle and as having lots of disposable income on your meagre benefits for things like booze, fags and HD televisions! The demonisation of the poorest has perhaps been the Coalitions greatest success.


The system is not designed to help people back into work, only to penalise as many people as possible so they can cut the cost.


This is the real impact of Tory policy folks. Otta somewhere talked about how there is nothing left to cut in his job, but his job. And more cuts are coming. It is deeply affecting the lives, and livihoods of many people. Meanwhile nothing is growing on the economy at all. Tax receipts down, productivity down, exports down, borrowing up since 2010. The coalition haven't saved the economy at all, and when interests rates go up, as they will have to at some point, the shit really is going to hit the fan.

In the interest of balance and god I really feel for Tony. Something similar happened to me six years ago! I lost my business and my marriage fell apart and I ended up bankrupt and on the dole for a 2 year period (single mother with 3 kids). The inland revenue wouldn't let me sell my house and because I was a home owner I was given a tiny proportion of housing help compared to that of friends who were career doleists given to rent their lovely homes. The upshot was I lost my house, had to sell for silly money and moved out of our area to rent a crsphole flat, had a severely depressed child and had to borrow a huge amount from family to drag myself out of the situation. That was under a labour government. I have only just started revisiting that horrendous period of my life!


This is not meant in any way to take away from Tony's dire situation.

Yes I think there is an irony Tillie in that we happily give benefit money to landlords to pay their mortgages but don't help those with mortgages themselves who fall on hard times. It's a complex thing to balance. But instead of having a sensible debate about it (I'm talking about politicians here) we engage in the politics of envy to justify hitting people as hard as possible. There has to be a better way to sort all of these things out than we have at the moment. We could start with some honesty from our press and politicians.

I don't think Miliband was dishonest, he just had nothing particularly good to promise us. That's why when I voted Labour I was voting against the tories, not voting FOR an ideal.


I want Labour to take some time to rebuild and come back with a new choice.


Not holding my breath though.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> What are talking about? I haven't blamed anything on the press. I've pointed out that the Right

> banging on about media bias and liberal elites.. as some Tory supporters have predictably done in

> this thread, is ridiculous.


But isn't that just the same as the constant mumblings from the left in the Guardian comments that the BBC has a 'right wing bias'. Now I personally think the Beeb has got the balance pretty much correct, but if it does have any bias it certainly isn't to the right.


I think it's the same old story - as you move more away from the centre, in either direction, the paranoia increases.

So ????, tell us just where the growth actually is in the economy? It's not rocket science. Borrowing is up since 2010. Tax receipts are down. Exports down and productivity too. Oh I know, the 2 million new jobs? But you see, I just can;t balance that with tax receipts being down somehow.

Otta Wrote:

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

> I don't think Miliband was dishonest, he just had nothing particularly good to promise us. That's

> why when I voted Labour I was voting against the tories, not voting FOR an ideal.


That's an interesting view on it, Otta. And I think sums up Labour's problem - it didn't sufficiently set out an alternative (let's face it - their entire manifesto was basically Tory-lite) and other parties like UKIP and the Greens soaked up the anti-government protest vote.


I think Labour has to decide what it is. At the moment it is an uncomfortable coalition of old-school Labour movement and the urban left. If the urban left part got together with the Lib Dems and created a liberal-left party, casting off the remainder of the union link and the old-school reds, then I think that could be the basis of a political party with a soul.

Yep, I'd be on board.



I am a fan of Miliband the man, but could never understand why he never hid Ed Balls away out of sight and mind right from the start.


May have been a bit harsh on Balls but the Tories spent 5 years successfully convincing everyone that Labour were reapinsinle for all of the world's financial woes, and no one represented the Brown government from a financial perspective like Balls did.


He was poison for them just be sitting there.

Except the Labour party was formed with the alliance of unions representing ordinary working people. And unions still have an important role to play. I personally don't have any issue with that.


But I do agree with the identity crisis that Labour currently has Otta. Miliband failed to read the mood of the country and took far too long into his leadership to provide any kind of opposition. The Tories had a good two years of getting their skewed core message out, unchallenged, at the start. By the time Miliband started to respond, it was too late to change that. People genuinely think Labour ruined the economy!


I do also think that the Tories did a great job of striking fear into people regarding the SNP, and they did it in a way that also took the bite out of UKIP.


*crossed posts otta but I think we are on the same page*

No chance of the lib Dems ever going down the road of teaming up with the right of the Labour Party. Let's not forget, the lib dems are a patch work quilt of politician ideologies. You have elements of red old school socialism sat alongside traditional liberalism. Unless the lib dems break apart after having internal debate, very unlikely.


Louisa.

Down on projections. Expenditure continues to rise although we'll have to wait and see what impact new cuts have on closing the gap. I tend to think also that any party in power would have seen a recovery. I think it has less to do with Colaition policy and more to do with the natural rebound after a major crash. The real test will be to see if living standards increase over the next five years and if that gap can close without massive pain. The Tories promised a lot of givaways as well in their manifesto.
No because the reciepts are not proportionally high enough. We need better paid jobs at the lower end. More people are out of tax altogether than ever (because of low wages) and most people in full time work earn below the average ?23k salary. We are subsidising employers more money than ever (?28bn per year) with working tax credits and other benefits. That is the inbalance I am talking about. It is costing other tax payers money to keep people in work. That is not the sign of a healthy, balanced or growing economy.

Some useful data here...


http://www.poverty.org.uk/15/index.shtml


3.3 million working households in receipt of tax credits in 2011. Will try and find some data for 2014. But the message is clear. Millions of people can only afford to work if we top up their salaries.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

'It is costing other tax payers money to keep people in work.'

This is true. Also true is tax payers are subsidising profit making companies who then, in a double whammy, do not pay tax on those profits. This is how public money is being diverted to private companies.

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...