Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Fair comments, Quids, but no need to make it

> personal old thing.

>

> If London was a country in isolation, then you'd

> be paying no income tax at all (I average around

> 7%), it's one of the benefits of city states - all

> that corporation tax (18%).

>

> I didn't come here for tax issues, so much as for

> a progressive socially minded environment that had

> a good industrial infrastructure and market

> opportunity.

>

> Strictly speaking I'm a Blairite socialist, I

> don't believe in redistribution of wealth, I

> believe in equality of opportunity and

> meritocratic rewards.

>

> I'm not saying that public sector isn't bloated,

> I'm just observing that you don't suddenly turn it

> over in one budget. Marmora Man's ideas are

> desirable and workable in principle (although I

> can't guarantee that private companies don't have

> similar levels of administration).

>

> I don't know how easy it is in practice. Both

> teachers and healthcare workers have seen above

> inflation rises in recent years, but both are

> threatening to strike unless that continues. The

> latest NUT conference are balloting to strike

> unless they get what amounts to a 15% rise on

> average.

>

> A budget that fixes expenditure may well be

> perceived to be either reducing pay in real terms,

> or shutting hospitals or schools. You may get a

> strike which damages the economy more than the

> benefits accrued (don't forget public sector is

> 45% of GDP).

> I continue to argue in the main that governments

> have very little control over the 'big budget'

> elements, which is why we get so excited over

> nominal issues like quangos and MP's expenses.



Apologies for the personal thing - It reads worse than I meant it to sound :-$

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6060-budget/page/4/#findComment-195184
Share on other sites

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

snip


>

> I estimate this would save, over 5 years, ?50.6bn

> + non Defence spending of ?65bn. Which is well on

> the way to closing the black hole created by this

> government. It would hurt - but it's better than

> yesterday's budget which was a fantasy land

> exercise topped off with political gamesmanship.


Um, well, the IMF seem to think we are in much deeper doo-doo than the Government admits, which may prove to be even more challenging budget-wise.



IMF sees further 200 bn dollars UK bank losses.


"Britain?s banks have written off only a third of the losses they ultimately face, the International Monetary Fund said on Tuesday as it suggested lenders would have to raise at least $125bn in additional capital to rebuild their balance sheets.


"Britain?s banks have already written off around $110bn on complex debt securities and other assets on their balance sheets, but the IMF estimates they face another $200bn in losses over the coming two years as loans to companies and consumers go sour."


-------


There's been quite a torrent of denial from the Treasury, but if you ask me who do I believe, IMF or Treasury/Darling, I have to say it's not the latter...

And these numbers start to put the Budget numbers into context.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6060-budget/page/4/#findComment-195204
Share on other sites

Keef,


Too many people go to university these days. I was lucky and came up thru' the Grammar / Technical / Secondary Modern school system where anyone from any strata of society** could get to a good school and on to university if he / she was bright enuf. By the time I was at university about 12% of all 19 - 21 year olds went. This system nurtured many of today's politicians and leaders of industry / commerce who were not all from a privileged elite. There was greater social mobility then than now.


With fewer at University the available funding can be provided at no cost to the student. It's only the pointless expansion to a target of 50% (plucked from the air) that has meant the end of student grants that earlier generations were fortunate enuf to receive.


** Yes I know the system wasn't perfect and some chose not to go to The Grammar" because of the cost of uniform or the need to contribute to family incomes - but the Crossman led campaign against grammar schools targeted the wrong end of the problem - it wasn't that the grammar schools were creaming off the best but that the secondary modern schools were failing the less academic.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6060-budget/page/4/#findComment-195212
Share on other sites

Keef Wrote:

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

> Yes, the poorest kids perhaps, but what about

> those who aren't exactly poor, but who's parents

> don't have the extra money for uni?

>

> I was about the second to last year to get the old

> style grants, and withut them, I'd have had no

> chance of going anywhere!


I was in the same camp, but I think the reason they could afford to give us grants because much fewer people went to university in those days. I'd vote for dropping the ridiculous targets they have for % of people in higher education these days - there aren't enough graduate jobs to go round, would be better if more people learned a trade.


As for the increase in tax to 50%... well, I suspect that's going to be a bit of an own goal. But then Labour seem pretty likely to lose the next election anyway so I guess they might as well get their parting shots in while they can. I have to admit the idea of paying 50% tax plus the 1% NI would be enough to put me pushing for the kind of job that paid that well.


There's something about the idea of giving away in tax more than you earn, to fund the generous pensions of civil servants and to pay MPs who can vote themselves inflation busting payrises and claims ridiculous expenses that would really stick in my throat. I wouldn't assume all of those earning over ?150k get to avoid tax either - there are going to be employed people earning at that rate and you can't avoid much tax via PAYE.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6060-budget/page/4/#findComment-195223
Share on other sites

Well Britain does have an exploitable amount of natural recourses left and the ability to industrialise but that would put power back in the hands of those who control the means of production. Isn?t that the communist evil everyone has worked so hard to destroy over the last few decades?


Don?t forget the next government will be conservative so we can?t have that sort of thing going on. Primary production should be kept out of sight, out of mind and out of our voting constituencies, preferably somewhere far away and full of brown people who will be grateful for the work. But nowhere near where we go on holiday mind. Nobody wants to see that sort of thing.*


*Other opinions are available.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6060-budget/page/4/#findComment-195261
Share on other sites

Brendan Wrote:

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

> All very well and good but what?s the use of

> technical qualifications and trades in a country

> that destroyed its manufacturing industry to

> replace it with a ?knowledge based economy? that

> could supposedly magic money out of nowhere?


I ahree about manufacturing, but have you ever tried to find a decent plumber or decorator? Good trades people are like gold dust, I've had to wait months to get someone decent to do a job for me before.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6060-budget/page/4/#findComment-195270
Share on other sites

Cuts....


Quids and MM have highlighted the need for cuts in the budget, which they didn't feel were apparent.


The Institute for Fiscal Studies (a big academic but politically neutral research group), said there were massive cuts in the budget. Perhaps they were there, but the chancellor didn't want to talk about them?...


The chancellor avoided mention of spending cuts in his budget speech, concentrating on a 0.7% a year increase in spending from 2011, which excludes investment in key areas such as schools and hospitals. But the IFS pointed to the 17% annual cuts in investment spending from 2011-12 which will see it halve in three years, concluding that this will mean total spending will fall by 0.1% a year over that period.


Once the effect of the 8% annual growth in debt interest payments and rising spending on unemployment benefit are stripped out, spending across government departments will have to fall by an average of 2.3% a year in real terms, said IFS economist Gemma Tetlow. Cuts of this order were last seen in the 70s.


She added that with the government pledged to continue increasing spending on overseas aid, it was likely that all other departments would face spending cuts. "Health, education, law and order would all experience real cuts."


Chote said it looked likely that the bulk of the savings required over the coming eight years would mainly come from spending cuts rather than new taxes.


"The main burden of the looming tightening - at least over the next few years - is likely to fall on the users of public services," he said.


So does that mean you actually got what you wanted? I'm guessing you'd disagree with the final statement, as you'd see the main burden of the cuts falling on pointless administrators?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6060-budget/page/4/#findComment-195351
Share on other sites

And that is most of us, certainly me and my family but we've (UK PLC) been living beyond our means for too long and that means we need bigger cuts - Public Spending and the huge pension liabilities of the public sector are not sustainable. Nor, is the public sector very efficiently managed or run.....the service delivery has a lot to be dessired too. Hugenot your emotive "Are we to scrap pensions?" is the kind of emotive response that the Public Sector gives as soon as anyone dares to qusetion its cost and effectiveness....anyay, now we need to do these things or investors won't invest in our debt unless we can demonstrate we are dealing with our huge debts, as you say this is happening but it will take morethan the eduction of inflation it will take cuts....
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6060-budget/page/4/#findComment-195354
Share on other sites

What I don?t get is why little Al and his big mate Gordon keep on reiterating that this is a problem that the whole world is facing.* Every country is up to its eyeballs in debt apparently.


Well if every country in the world is up to its eyeballs in debt, who do they owe all this money to and why don?t they just tell them to go fuck themselves?


*I understand that they are trying to absolve themselves and thier supporters because admitting to being short-sighted, self-serving and arrogant would mean that the entire country would similarly have to stare that truth in the face and quite possibly consider becoming decent and sensible. That would in turn lead to a moral obligation to publicly execute just about every senior member of the major political parties.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6060-budget/page/4/#findComment-195384
Share on other sites

Yeah I know. But in theory all investors are ?part of the world? so if the whole world is in dept who is profiting from the interest? Surely they can?t be in dept too? Whose economy are their profits being fed into or are the profits not as important as the political puppet strings that come with national dept?


Seriously why don?t we tell them to go fuck ?emsleves? What are they going to do? The lack of any profit they make being fed back into our economy surely can?t be worse than having it as a deficit in public spending?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6060-budget/page/4/#findComment-195393
Share on other sites

All governments of the world are in debt, but lots of people remain wealthy and invest in Government bonds. Governments always have debt to top up the tax take.

If you default on government debt you will not be able to raise money in the future. Russia defaulted on its debt thoughh, so who knows.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6060-budget/page/4/#findComment-195399
Share on other sites

Thanks for the Econ 101 lesson, Mick Mac. I do agree with all of your arguments especially the fact that taxing ?150,000 income at 50% will ultimately have a negative effect. Although it's only .05% of the population I don't doubt that we will see people who don't have to be in the UK leave or at least take their money elsewhere. It certainly does seem like a pre-election ploy on the part of Mr. Brown.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6060-budget/page/4/#findComment-195405
Share on other sites

Brendan Wrote:

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

> What I don?t get is why little Al and his big mate

> Gordon keep on reiterating that this is a problem

> that the whole world is facing.* Every country is

> up to its eyeballs in debt apparently.


Except China. China is basically bailing out the US etc.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6060-budget/page/4/#findComment-195406
Share on other sites

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...