Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't believe I'm massaging the figures at all. They speak for themselves. Scotland has shifted to the left oddly on a nationalistic ticket, and England has shifted to the right, again as a result of nationalism.



Scotland should be turning to Labour if it's shifting left, it didn't do that. UKIP came second in a string of Labour heartland seats across the north of England. The Tories even increased there vote share significantly in Wales where they had a net gain of +3 seats.


After a term in office the tories should have been down, but they were not, vote share was up in southern England and across the marginals. Labour had a static vote share, increasing only in northern English heartlands and some London marginals. The stats speak for themselves.


If the Labour Party is going to recover, and fast, they need to recognise this.


Louisa.

I believe that economic recovery is not yet achievable.


The Tories being the Governing Party will therefore bear the burden as things are likely to get worse.


Unless they have a magic wand and turn things around, they will be unelectable in 2020.


Labour need to take some careful decisions about there future policies and who they represent.


DulwichFox

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The truth is that the Tories played to fears about

> immigration, to the perception that the financial

> crash was down to Labour overspending, and to some

> people's suspicion that their are people living

> lavish lifestyles paid for by benefits. This

> doesn't wash with those living in metropolitan

> areas, because they can see the benefits of

> immigration (and/or are immigrants themselves),

> see the reality of those living on benefits (due

> to the cheek by jowl nature of London

> communities)and are probably more concerned about

> Labours main election issue, cost of living.....

> In my opinion.


Unfortunantely rah, your analysis plays into the hands of the right. That sort of lefty metropolitan view is patronising to the vast majority of centre-left voters who have an entirely different experience, especially those outside of the M25 where unemployment and immigration from Eastern Europe are married up (rightly or wrongly), and they don't think Labour wants to or needs to acknowledge that. This is why such a substantial proportion of the left are bizarrely turning to right wing groups such as the BNP previously, and UKIP this time around. Labour just isn't speaking to them anymore. You can't have that attitude of 'us' and 'them' regarding metro lefties and heartland socialists, it reinforces division. The Tories will be loving it.


Louisa.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The truth is that the Tories played to fears about

> immigration, to the perception that the financial

> crash was down to Labour overspending, and to some

> people's suspicion that their are people living

> lavish lifestyles paid for by benefits. This

> doesn't wash with those living in metropolitan

> areas, because they can see the benefits of

> immigration (and/or are immigrants themselves),

> see the reality of those living on benefits (due

> to the cheek by jowl nature of London

> communities)and are probably more concerned about

> Labours main election issue, cost of living.....

> In my opinion.


it annoyed me a lot that Labour never really defended these charges.


Meaning when that lady challenged EdM over overspending I wanted him to say

'please look at the leaflets being given out now for a detailed repudiation

including information from the then BOE governor'

Lousia, the Scots did not shift towards the left (and you contradict yourself in that point), they shifted to the right in support of a nationalist party. The SNP are nationalists first, fighting for independence. They election campaign was fought on fighting austerity and last time I checked fighting poverty wasn't necessarily a left wing issue, or would you have us all believe that no one on the right cares about such things?


But I'm glad to see you at least acknowlege that the Tories only improved mainly in their traditional heartlands (and that's where the swing actually was). Marginals do go back and forth - so nothing significant there for me. I'd hardly call it a significant swing to the right. It's a far cry from the real gains made by the Tory party in the 80s. If anything it shouws only a polarisation between core voters of both the main parties with the SNP gains and libdem losses deciding things. So a nation of three halves if you like.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Lousia, the Scots did not shift towards the left

> (and you contradict yourself in that point), they

> shifted to the right in support of a nationalist

> party. The SNP are nationalists first, fighting

> for independence.


I don't think that's right. Nationalism is not inherently right wing. It's about national identity and self determination.

Oh Ok a bit of flaming. Reasons to cheer up if you're a labour supporter


- a Conservative Majority is actually far better for your potential for the next election than a coalition with the LDs would have been without the Liberal Democrats to tone the nasty bits down

- there's a huge rump of idealogues/near UKIPers on the right side of the Party that will cause both trouble and embarrassment to the leadership

- not many tory voters love them

- I think Boris Johnson isn't PM material...not the same gig as the Mayor at all

- you've no longer got Ed

Blah, rah, miga,


Of course the Tories have constructed a narrative which exaggerates the extent to which the crash was Labour's fault, and exaggerates the extent to which the economy has outperformed under their governing vs. how it would have likely performed under Labour's. As politicians that is their nature.


Dont allow this frustrating fact obscure an objective analysis of whether the fiscus would have likely been in materially better shape going into the recession under the Tories, would have likely performed materially worse under a (for the first time democratically) elected Brown led administration following the recession.


IMO, most of the points you all raise are reasonable in terms of debunking the narrative, but less so in terms of assessing how much better / worse the downturn could have been.


The most common point raised is that the downturn was not caused by labour but by external factors. This is true in the sense that as I'm sure you all appreciate there are myriad causes of any downturn of varying degrees of importance. While we can clearly identify some material factors for which Labour deserve no blame such as loose US monetary policy and inadequate regulation of banks, there are also clearly identifiable factors for which they do, such as Browns overtly political decision to replace RPI with CPi as the BoE's inflation target, severing any link between UK monetary policy and housing costs and therefore admittedly somewhat less directly house prices, after which we saw a fantastic housing boom and horrible crash.


Aside from any arguments over who is to blame, there is then the criticism that Labour irresponsibly left the country exposed to the downturn by entering it in a defict position, when the growth years should have been used to "fix the roof"


The typical rebuttal to this is to point out how the Tories had pledged to match Labour's spending plans. You must at least entertain the idea that this is a red herring. Politicians say things and then do other things, especially politicians in opposition, especially politicians that have been in opposition for an extended period having unsuccessfully tried various strategies to get relected. As others have said look at what they do not what they say. The relevant history to consideration of the most recent recession of what the Tories would have done is that they oversaw two recessions in their period of governing pre Blair. The first they inherited when Thatcher came in, where they also inherited a large fiscal deficit but nonetheless oversaw a long lasting and high growth recovery following it in which employment increased significantly. The second was following their own period of governing, but unlike the one inherited from Labour they enetered this one in a position of surplus. I am not claiming it is admirable for them to have misrepresnted thier likely spending plans when in opposition, but it remains that it is just much more likely given this track record, given their oft criticised ideological leaning towards smaller government, that they would have been in a more "conservative" when a recession reared its head, as it was always going to do despite Brown claims to have eliminated the economic cycle.


Concerning which party would have had the best chance of restoring growth and stability following the downturn, I've already barked about this to miga earlier itt, but in respect of the argument that Labour's and Tories forward looking plans for spending weren't that different, this fails to recognise the more important factor of confidence. The fact is Browns's and therefore Labour's economic credibility was in tatters following proclaimations of having eliminated the business cycle, entering the downturn having missed the opportunity to put the budget in a defensive position. Perhaps it is unfair that perceptions were more harsh than reality, but it is perception not reality that sets the price of gilts, and even with the horrible cuts the economy has had to endure, it has required the sale of a tremendous amount of gilts to achieve even this unenviable position.


rah,


"Tories sold the family silver at Rock bottom prices" worse to figuratively sell the family silver than to literally have sold the family gold?

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Lousia, the Scots did not shift towards the

> left

> > (and you contradict yourself in that point),

> they

> > shifted to the right in support of a

> nationalist

> > party. The SNP are nationalists first, fighting

> > for independence.

>

> I don't think that's right. Nationalism is not

> inherently right wing. It's about national

> identity and self determination.


In the absence of Labour and feeling there was no alternative to Tories they voted SNP and got...Tory!

The SNP have ruined the NHS in Scotland over last 7 years private companies have been given everyone's records it's been entirely devolved yet they still blame Westminster. Nicola bloody Sturgeon can afford to pay for her own prescriptions.


They masquerade as socialists and they are anything but. Blah blah is correct in that for them it's nationalism at all costs. FFA even if it makes everyone poorer. They are a ghastly rabble and I'm looking forward to the inevitable in-fighting between Nicola and Alex as she tries to play it down (for the moment) whilst this self-important, chip on his shoulder, unlikeable embarrassment to Scotland continues to push for it. Scotland and North Korea...who knew?!


On a separate note, someone I know shared a piece by Suzanne Moore on social media which I was surprised to find myself agreeing with. It was, I kid you not, about how those that inhabit the echo chambers of social media should get out from behind.. social media and into the real world!! Heheh.


Also, what Quids and Tillie said several pages ago, completely agree!

I read today Labour has changed their voting rules for the next leader election. Last time, they had three colleges - MPs (about 260), Labour members (250k) and unions (2 million). The MPs and members voted narrowly for David M, the unions voted strongly for Ed and got him over the line.


This time, it's one person one vote. In other words, the 2 million union votes will decide the election. Don't suck up completely to the unions and you leadership bid is effectively scuppered.


That's Labour screwed for 2020 already.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The truth is that the Tories played to fears about

> immigration,


Correct, fully justified and widely held belief.


> to the perception that the financial

> crash was down to Labour overspending,


Correct, fully justified and widely held belief.


> and to some people's suspicion that their are people living

> lavish lifestyles paid for by benefits.


Correct, fully justified and widely held belief. Recent case of one benefits bludger who flew his bride and both their families out to the Caribbean for the wedding.


> This doesn't wash with those living in metropolitan

> areas, because they can see the benefits of

> immigration


What in Heaven's name are the benefits from immigration. Hearing Yoruba or Arabic spoken? Being surrounded by burqua wearers?


Rahrahrah, you revel in this multiculturalism thing and you appear out of touch with ordinary working people's views.

Green Goose,


What are the benefits of immigration?


economic: mobility, of labour, of capital, how does mainstream economic theory view mobility?


MORAL: there are two islands, one is called heaven and the other hell. Should people born on heaven feel morally justified in blocking arrivals of those born in hell because those arrivals dilute their stake in heaven?

Have you had a look at how many doctors and nurses and cleaners come from oversees Green Goose? Such a stupid thing to say that immigration has no benefits. Almost as stupid as saying the same about emigration and internal migration.


I totally agree numbers that the SNP have not been perfect at Holyrood. They have no excuse now though, hence my optimism that the SNP may have peaked.


Still reading your long post Henry :)

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...