Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But there have been plenty of Tory campaigners in the past who didn't use language like that Louisa. Don't know what steak has to do with anything either. It has nothing to do with policy. What I do think is that certain Tories felt a need to compete with the nationalistic fervour that seemed to be so popular from the SNP and UKIP. The irony is that for all the fear they tried to create around the SNP, they played to the same sentiment in their own campaign.


You only have to look at the post election anger and the split between views to see how divisive this Tory government are. It's not a good sign of anything. What I think the reality will be is no significant change to anything. There are going to be Tories who don't toe the whip, and I think many bills will have to be watered down to get through Parliament and the Lords.

Moon,


See Robin's posts above as to why many in the socially liberal economically conservative camp may have become frustrated by the typical accusatory line of thought from certain parts of the of centre left prior to and following the election, which simplistically States "didn't vote labour, want more foodbanks, because me".


As Robin explained, even accepting that an administration that isn't left of centre would mean a worse deal for the disadvantaged in society, it is a simplification to paint things in such black and white terms given people may have considered those things alongside their own self interest and those of their family in arriving at their voting decision.


However, this view is not just a simplification, but in fact patronising arrogance, because it discounts the possibility that one could have the opinion that society as a whole might be better off, as well as oneself, and as well as the disadvantaged, under a non left of of centre administration.

Every credit to Quids. He seems to be the only one who has analysed the election outcome objectively and with a commendable degree of insight and expertise. Blah Blah, Moon and some others just keep on spouting bigoted left wing tosh.


Many seem to assess the outcome based largely on what Miliband, Cameron, Cleg and Farage said was in their manifesto. This type of analysis is the default for younger voters - one reason Labour/LibDems want to lower the voting age. Those of us, of a certain age, know that one should take all that is said with a bit of salt. Judge them not on what they say but on what they have done in the past.


Each Labour administration has always over-borrowed and created massive increases in public sector headcount and expenditure. Each Labour Govt. since 1964 therefor has resulted in either a Sterling devaluation or fiscal crisis. They have been ant--business and have always raised taxes. The Tories then get in and have to clear up the mess - which makes them really unpopular and so the cycle keeps on repeating itself.


That's why older people, who have seen it all before, tend to vote Conservative of UKIP.


Edited for misspellings

What are you talking about Green Goose? I've for one have agreed with some of ???? points, but he is further right than me for sure. I equally get fed up of people like you rejecting every opposing view as left wing tosh! I've been consistent in saying the Tories don't spend enough (and public services DO suffer) and Labour go the other way, agreeing completely with Louisa for once even!


The truth is that any sensible person can see we need to be somewhere in between. Try telling the diasabled and those who can't get appointments to see their GP, and those on the now longer waiting lists that their experiences are just left wing tosh. Try telling those on min wage who need tax credits and beneifts just to make ends meet that the Tories are better for them.


You can't keep cutting. Eventually you have to face up to the fact that we need many more jobs, that pay better, and we need them outside of the south east, in places like the North and Scotland, places that both the Tories and New labour have utterly failed to serve.


I don't see anything in Camerons manifesto to deal with housing. I don't see anything more than more cuts for the poorest. I do see tax giveaways for those who need them least though. I don't see any fiscal plan for getting exports and productivity up (there is some investment for business but weofully small). And I don't see any plan for closing the gap between wages and the cost of living, so that tax payers money doesn't need to be spent topping them up.

What's with this age thing?


Older people vote tory? Older people are pro capital punishment?


And how old is older? 40's?, 50's?, 60's?, 90's?


Ridiculous assumptions really because I know people in their 90's and 20's who have exactly the same opinions.


It just depends on the individual person and what they believe in regardless of age.

Henry_17 Wrote:

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

> Moon,

>

> See Robin's posts above as to why many in the

> socially liberal economically conservative camp

> may have become frustrated by the typical

> accusatory line of thought from certain parts of

> the of centre left prior to and following the

> election, which simplistically States "didn't vote

> labour, want more foodbanks, because me".

>

> As Robin explained, even accepting that an

> administration that isn't left of centre would

> mean a worse deal for the disadvantaged in

> society, it is a simplification to paint things in

> such black and white terms given people may have

> considered those things alongside their own self

> interest and those of their family in arriving at

> their voting decision.

>

> However, this view is not just a simplification,

> but in fact patronising arrogance, because it

> discounts the possibility that one could have the

> opinion that society as a whole might be better

> off, as well as oneself, and as well as the

> disadvantaged, under a non left of of centre

> administration.



Sorry, I'm not really into P.I.B. so haven't a clue what this post is about.


ETA: Green Goose, I keep on spouting bigoted, left-wing tosh? Really?

Louisa Wrote:

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

> Labour have always overspent and the Tories

> underspent.

>

> Louisa.


That's not exactly true though. George oabourne has accrued more debt during the Tories last term than all Labour administrations since 1900. A large part of the benefits bill is down to the cost of housing, we are forced to subsidise both wages an private sector rents . This can be seen as a legacy of Right to Buy... A policy that on the ace of it was about shrinking the state, but in reality has led to more public money being channeled into subsidising housing, simply in a less efficient, more expensive manner. Other examples of where similar things have happened can be seen in the trains, public utilities and the Nhs. The Tories are ideologically opposed to the state running services, regardless of cost. There is no pragmatism. labour, despite ridiculous charac tyres of them as Marxist extremists, believe in regulated market economy an an appropriate role for the state.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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


>

> You can't keep cutting.


BB. You uhit on a crucial point. Govt has to keep cutting expenditure until the budget balances. Otherwise the UK has to borrow money. That money has to be paid back PLUS interest in future. The national debt increased hugely under the last Labour Govt (as it always does) and is only just barely sustainable because gilt interest rates are at an all time low.


An analogy can be made with household income ie it is suicidal to support current/regular expenses out of borrowed money - one just gets deeper and deeper in debt.


By all means use borrowing to fund an investment in an infrastructure project that will bring a return or increased productivity as it make sense. But to increase debt to fund more benefits and public services etc is fiscal irresponsibility.


The "Welfare State" with all its benefits was intended to be a safety net for the disadvantaged the sick the disabled and the unemployed. We have to trim the costs to a level so that it can be met from a balanced budget and stop it being a life-style choice for the feckless and work-shy.

GG

The coalition have done a terrible job with the economy. We have seen close to zero growth over their entire term in office and debt has increased massively. They stopped the recovery in its tracks when they took office, by withdrawing investment at a time that private capital was also in retreat. Austerity has been disastrous. This is a good article from Nobel prize-winning, Princeton Economist Paul Krugman on the 'austerity delusion?, which you should read : http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion.


The idea that Labour crashed the economy by overspending is nonsense. But bear in mind that in 2007, the conservatives were not only pledging to match Labours spending plans but actually increase upon them (.. a reminder about the Tories position on Labour's 'profligate spending' before the crash. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm). This article on Labours ?profligacy? is worth reading if you have time: http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/mediamacro-myth-2-labour-profligacy.html.


The truth is that the Global economic crash was the result of under regulation (for which Labour is as culpable as anyone else). But what were there Tories saying about banking regulation, circa 2007: https://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/lest-we-forget-in-2007-cameron-endorsed-even-less-regulation-of-banks-than-labour/. Even Mervyn King has recently admitted that Labour cannot be held responsible for the crash http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/29/labour-government-not-responsible-crash-bank-england-governor-mervyn-king.


The financial crash has been used by the Right as cover for further shrinking of the state. The truth is that our public services have been massively under invested in ? for example, our ?bloated healthcare system? actually has one of the lowest spends (as a proportion of our GDP), of virtually any major, developed Western economy. If you really want to know where most of the benefits bill goes, it?s on pensioners, in work benefits and housing (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending#img-1). So let?s look at those last two. The reason that we have to top up peoples wages, is because the cost of living is so high ? to be specific, the cost of housing. The housing benefits bill is high because?. Yep, the cost of housing. Housing is complicated, but a significant reason why affordable housing is so scarce and rents so high, is because council houses have been sold off at huge discounts and not replaced. Because of the ?right to buy?, local authorities are not incentivised to build replacements (as they have no choice but to sell them off again at under market value). Also, they are prevented from borrowing money to invest in new housing. The decision to sell off the family silver at knock down prices is classic Tory policy (they?re looking to do it again with Lloyds). The Tories want to extend right to buy further and to offer mortgages underwritten by the taxpayer, to those who would be considered creditworthy under normal circumstances (?help to buy?). This kind of ?subprime? lending is exactly what led to the credit crunch.

... which takes me back to my previous point, that the Tories are ideologically opposed to the state running services, regardless of cost. There is no pragmatism.


Labour, despite ridiculous caricature of them as extremists Marxists by some of the press, actually believe in a regulated market economy and an appropriate role for the state.

Goose Green


I think that's a big part of the problem, it is a complicated system that we do not fully understand, and we vote unaware of the implications.



The Tory narrative is easy to follow. You don?t have to know much about what?s going on to believe it, and it fits the modern media model where long-term, chronic issues are ignored in favor of short-term results and immediate crises. Everyone reports that UK growth figures were better this year than Germany?s were, but no one reports that Germany is still in a much better position relative to where it was 5 or 7 years ago than Britain is now. It?s easy for people to think of government spending the way they think of their own pocketbooks. It?s hard to show people how and why the government?s relationship to money is very different from that of a business or household. Not only do people have to understand the arguments, but they have to understand the basic concepts underlying those arguments. How many voters even understand how the interest rate affects economic growth or inflation? How many even understand what a multiplier is, let alone the research about how big it might be? How many know how a devaluation works, or know what a liquidity trap is? The Tories tell a great morality story about a profligate and irresponsible Labour Party that creates a horrible economic crisis from which only the Tories can save everyone. The left has to explain why that simple story isn?t true. I think this may be where Labour failed

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> Many seem to assess the outcome based largely on

> what Miliband, Cameron, Cleg and Farage said was

> in their manifesto. This type of analysis is the

> default for younger voters - one reason

> Labour/LibDems want to lower the voting age. Those

> of us, of a certain age, know that one should take

> all that is said with a bit of salt. Judge them

> not on what they say but on what they have done in

> the past.




This is the single most depressing thing I've read this week.


Nothing will ever change, look to the past.

Depressing but substantially correct, I think.


With some exceptions a career in politics tends to attract wrong'uns or at least even if they are not when they started, many (because of the system) feel they have to compromise on principles to get ahead. Then there's the temptations of lobbyists, free lunches and living expenses...


Anyway, interesting post from Bodsier some of which I agree with - particularly the fact that many voters do not understand the finer points of macro economics. Abvove all, I'm glad you are off your fabric analysis jag from yesterday! ; )

miga Wrote:

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

>

>

> Always talking, saying nothing.


With the greatest of respect miga, you're always talking and saying nothing too.


You tried to make the argument for the Alternative Vote electoral system against 'FPTP', when to be honest it was a redundant argument. It was emphatically rejected by the electorate in 2011 by 67.9% to 31.1%.


I was proven correct in making the case for the stability of 'FPTP' and that's exactly what the people opted for on May 7th, despite what the polls told us.


Funny when you disagree with someone that you throw in the poorly thought out one liner above (with regards the death penalty). Whether you agree with it or not consistent polling has shown if there were a referendum tomorrow it would be a pretty close call. So how exactly am I saying nothing?


Louisa.

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...