Jump to content

Recommended Posts

aquarius moon Wrote:

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

> If there are only two choices (which there are), would it be Labour or Conservative?



I've said it before and I'll say it again... there is really sweet FA difference.



> Oh, and isn't it strange that so many people here have so many opinions about things that don't

> really concern them?


> And then there's the fox hunting ban........


Surely by your definition, you'd have to be a fox to be allowed an opinion on that one?

Anyone else watching QT?


So far, Cameron has pretty much failed to answer any questions, but done it rather brilliantly. Miliband was savaged and pretty much has ruled out deals with anyone bar the Lib Dems. So unless he's going to u-turn on those pledges, his chances of PM are going to be practicably nil.

Pampered home-counties boy? Wow, why not tell me what you really think Dave. I think making it personal is a bit unnecessary.


I also don't see why, whatever your background, you cannot have an opinion on Conservative party policies for those at the bottom of society.


I think your idea that the disabled should simply become "consumers" to help themselves is frankly laughable. Thousands rely on state financial support to simply get by. And yet you belittle that.


And I'm not an Ft subscriber either but if that's their leader comment on how Cameron is committed to tackling inequality you might want to check out who the chief leader writer is for the FT. Hint: he went to oxford and was in the bullingdon club at the same time as someone with my initials.

I can read the FT article perfectly well and it makes a lot of sense....but maybe I in some facist posh boy conspiracy too *sighs. Back in the real world the article actually critics the Tories and is saying it supports a continuation of the Current coalition (as I do). If it mattered here, as in it was a marginal I would vote Tory (for the first time in my life) over Labour but it isn't and I'll either not vote or vote LD.


I think Milliband has run by far the most effective campaign but I think the Labour Party's tone on wealthcreation, the Rich and big business is at best naive thinking from a man and party that really wants to try what France has and take us back to the 70s or at worst populist rubbish...a bit of both. sadly in a global world which is pulling millions out of poverty we have to compete unless we think we can run a modern health service with an ageing population as some sort of pop up option funded by craft beer sales we need global investment and an enterprise culture. Labour increasingly looks more left wing - intervention, politics of envy, business bashing. Also many 'progressives, claim to liberal is quite frankly laughable it( the left) is by nature authoritarian, interventionist and top down on economics and social issues and smearing and shouty at opponents or pretending things aren't true if they go against the 'progressive' bible - see Rotherham or more recently Tower Hamlets...open minded my arse. I'd have them over UKIP but that's all.

Ps left wing pin ups like Krugman and Pinkerty. Krugman back in 2010'was ranting on about the sure to come mass unemployment in the UK. Still waiting. I think Pinkerty (Sp?) book is good and interesting but very western orientated in terms of the effect of globalisation and wealth and also carries the implicit assumption that wealth equality is morally right end of. Interestingly Pinkerty in the Observer a few weeks back was completely honest about the failure of the high tax rate in France in increasing revenue......so look forward to that Ed. the top 1% of earners in the UK contribute 12% of income tax revenue by the way so we do genuinely need to be a bit careful with that particular ' not pulling their weight' ,not in it together' populist nonsense .....

Loz Wrote:

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

> Anyone else watching QT?

>

> So far, Cameron has pretty much failed to answer

> any questions, but done it rather brilliantly.

> Miliband was savaged and pretty much has ruled out

> deals with anyone bar the Lib Dems. So unless

> he's going to u-turn on those pledges, his chances

> of PM are going to be practicably nil.


It would be done on a vote by vote basis.


That's not an agreement - and is pretty democratic.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Didn't catch question time debates last night but

> hear Milliband ruled out coallition with SNP.

> That's the end of his chances of being PM then.




It's panning out for Miliband as I expected

Minority government leader - no agreements



Even if Cameron forms the first government - Milliband puts

vote of no confidence on a free vote and then set up as PM

with all small parties voting as they want.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Anyone just see the mid-30's 'yoof' bloke on This

> Week. Finest crash and burn I've seen on TV in a

> long while.


Do you mean his Iraq and Suez blunder?


Superb the way they all had to correct him on the facts and then he got all truculent with "I've not come here for a history lesson".


Seems like a true aspiring politician as in why would you ever let the truth get in the way.

adonirum Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Anyone just see the mid-30's 'yoof' bloke on

> This

> > Week. Finest crash and burn I've seen on TV in

> a

> > long while.

>

> Do you mean his Iraq and Suez blunder?

>

> Superb the way they all had to correct him on the

> facts and then he got all truculent with "I've not

> come here for a history lesson".

>

> Seems like a true aspiring politician as in why

> would you ever let the truth get in the way.


Why did the idiot think this generation is special because of Iraq/Afghanistan

In the 80s we had the Cold war, numerous proxy wars and the Falklands.


and as someone on Twitter told me .. The Cod War.


He got a kick up the arse as he left (verbally) :)

Miga I think you're confusing Marxist theory with marxist practice.


To be completely clear I think large parts of Tory policy on welfare especially is pretty unpleasant and am very uncomfortable with the demonisation of benefit claimants whilst plenty of affluent pensioners ( and that,s the majority of them presently) get mass state subsidies they don't need but in the modern world the welfare state and provision of health and education need reforming or we will go bust. The Tories at least acknowledge this even if their execution isn't always right? If labour wins by the way they will either break their supporters hearts or the country...or maybe both. I completely support the Tories education policies a continuation of the excellent initiatives started by New Labour and which are finally turning our state education standards round quite dramaticallyand yet Red ED is going to reverse much of these as his union backers oppose reform.


Miles away from its working class origins, The Labour Party is increasingly a niche party for the public sector unions, the client state and , of course, the 'useful idiots' of Hampstead and Islington - discuss

If that's the case ????, why are they still voted for by northern, working class communities across the north-west (Manc, 'Pool etc) and the north-east (Newcastle, Sunderland, etc) and midlands (Brum, Notts, Derby etc).


I think those folk might object to being lumped in with your mythical Hamstead/Islington dinner party crowd.

Lower turnout rates and defections to other parties aside ( see also Scotland) it's just tribal loyalty. Their great grandfathers founded the Labour Party in the face of horrendous social inequality, living conditions and employment practices. That Labour Party helped right those wrongs and was stacked full of these same people.This labor party? A bunch of white collar public sector union apparatiks and North London policy wonks with naive lefty ideas about patronising hand me down 'progressiveness'. You think it truly represents them in a meaningful way?

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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