Jump to content

Recommended Posts

miga Wrote:

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

> Yes, you'll know they're serious about "balancing

> the books" when they do something about pensions,

> which are about half of the welfare budget, or

> 5-6% GDP. That's the demographic timebomb ???? was

> talking about, although UK is probably better off

> than other European countries, what with lots of

> immigration and high birth rates.



I know pension costs are huge - but I really don't want

to see people having money pulled from them at the end

of their lives.


on another note ...


Someone on twitter just said universal credit is called

universal cred by IDS's civil servants - as theres no IT

in it :)

It has not come from a report but the task force set up to look at the impact. Imminent risk of homelessness means errrrr imminent risk of homelessness. Ie rent arrears likely to be grounds for eviction, landlords informing clients that they will evict as payments no longer able to go straight to them, family budgets over stretched.


When findings are published I'll be happy to send them on if I get authority to do so. At the moment DWP are refusing to discuss this. So much for open government eh?

I thought Universal Credit was about the method of distribution, not the amount. On the face of it, it seems like a good idea to just get the one payment rather than multiple different forms of benefit, all of which must be managed separately? Is the worry that money that's not specifically for housing will get used elsewhere by recipients? Or is the worry about changing conditions and eligibility for welfare which might dovetail with UC?

The worry is that vulnerable tenants will not pay the rent. But it all gets complicated when things like bedroom tax are factored in and what happens too if a claimant is sanctioned? In that situation the only money they'll be receiving is the HB payment, and it's not hard to see why people with no money to live on will use the rent money instead. 63% of those sanctioned btw have mental health conditions. They are often people in the Work Related Action Group of ESA, so there is an acknowledgement that they have problems and yet the same harsh rules that apply to JSA recipients apply.


The latest figures show the number of ESA claimants is up. Government policy is making already vulnerable people more ill and at the same time the resources to treat people are stagnating and being cut in many areas. There is so much denial from the DWP. A while back IDS stated that people who refused therapy would lose their benefits. Does IDS even know that NHS waiting lists for psychotherapy are around a year long? And that those sessions are rationed and in many cases are not over a long enough period to effectively treat patients?


I just despair sometimes at ignorance of government.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> The worry is that vulnerable tenants will not pay

> the rent. But it all gets complicated when things

> like bedroom tax are factored in and what happens

> too if a claimant is sanctioned? In that situation

> the only money they'll be receiving is the HB

> payment, and it's not hard to see why people with

> no money to live on will use the rent money

> instead. 63% of those sanctioned btw have mental

> health conditions. They are often people in the

> Work Related Action Group of ESA, so there is an

> acknowledgement that they have problems and yet

> the same harsh rules that apply to JSA recipients

> apply.

>

> The latest figures show the number of ESA

> claimants is up. Government policy is making

> already vulnerable people more ill and at the same

> time the resources to treat people are stagnating

> and being cut in many areas. There is so much

> denial from the DWP. A while back IDS stated that

> people who refused therapy would lose their

> benefits. Does IDS even know that NHS waiting

> lists for psychotherapy are around a year long?

> And that those sessions are rationed and in many

> cases are not over a long enough period to

> effectively treat patients?

>

> I just despair sometimes at ignorance of

> government.




Excellent post.

I get the general criticisms against benefits sanctions, bedroom tax and so on, but the only specific criticism on UC so far has been that some people will struggle to manage their rent money if it's not paid directly to the landlord. I get that, some people struggle with debt or addiction, but to call UC an unmitigated failure on that basis seems a bit OTT. Some people on benefits looking to get back into work would welcome not having the admin overhead of cancelling several types of benefit when they go into work, with their various different timelines and then doing the same when they dip below the threshold again two months later. I'd worry more about the technical implementation of UC, given the horrible track record on IT projects by big government bureaucracy, to be honest.

They don't have to cancel several benefits though. The DWP inform HB and CT if there is a change of circumstances. And the reason for seperate applications has always been that some beneifts are independent of others and/or means tested. The form will still ask all the questions that three forms before asked.


The other thing is that LAs directly took care of HB for claimants. This is important because the level of delay and incompetance experienced by many trying to deal with the DWP is not experienced with LAs in processing HB.


UC might make bureacratic sense but there are downsides to it. People in part time work and in receipt of any kind of benefit will be treated like the fully unemployed. They will have to prove they are looking for more work (a job of up to 35 hours per week), attend interviews etc or risk losing their benefits. This is going to affect a lot of working single parents for example, who work part time to fit around their children.


There are issues to this beyond just money management and rent payment.

Likewise UC for self-employment / freelance and fluctuating income will be extremely difficult. At the moment tax credits (and housing benefit) take account of annual earnings for self-employed earners. UC rules will assume a 35 hr p/w minimum wage even when not earned that week / month and will not allow for fluctuations in income. As more and more people "choose" or have to work outside of traditional employment structures (like, you know, a regular salary) this is a real problem. If it is deemed that you're not earning "enough" you will be treated as unemployed and made to look for work or do more work. You won't be able to make a new claim for UC if you are already self-employed.


Also - earnings must be reported monthly and in that month if your expenses exceed tour receipts, tough, you'll be assumed to have earned a minimum monthly amount based on minimum wage. If the next month your receipts bunch together, again, tough, you can't offset expenses incurred if they don't occur in the same month. As with employed people a consideration for tax and ni will be made but ONLY actual amounts paid in that month. As self-employed people pay their tax and NI in arrears and based on their annual accounts this means, essentially, that for benefits purposes self-employed people will be treated as if their gross earnings are their net, unlike the employed.


Benefits like child tax credits and housing benefit are mostly paid to those who are working and those who are low paid. Most self-employed people are low paid as well as being without sick pay, holiday pay and other employment protections they will now be largely excluded from in-work benefits.


https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/universal-credit-for-the-self-employed


UC roll out in London boroughs starts in November this year. It will be "interesting" to see how that pans out given that according to the stats: most "new jobs" in the "growing economy" are self-employed, most self-employed people live in London; most self-employed people earn less than their employed counterparts.

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> That idea is at least two years old and it wasn't

> originally Corbyn's. And the 'story' only says

> "could" and "talks of consultation" and "pilot

> studies." Just more crap from the Tory press.



Corybyn reported in the Independent as a potential policy and the criticism reported is from the other Labour candidates ....filthy Tories that they all are I know.

Indeed Bawdy-nan. They have moved from a system that accounted for the diversity in employment status to one that tries to make one size fit all. They do this consciously. There is plenty of evidence now (and data, that the DWP refuses to publish, even when ordered to do so by the ICO) that their 'reforms' are causing great hardship and destitution. And now they are going after people who are working and low paid too. And yet we have to wait four years to see the living wage that is recommended NOW. Who knows what the recommendation will be in four years and that's if there are any more low paid workers or unemployed living in London.

???? Wrote:

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

> Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> -----

> > That idea is at least two years old and it

> wasn't

> > originally Corbyn's. And the 'story' only says

> > "could" and "talks of consultation" and "pilot

> > studies." Just more crap from the Tory press.

>

>

> Corybyn reported in the Independent as a potential

> policy and the criticism reported is from the

> other Labour candidates ....filthy Tories that

> they all are I know.


From Jezza -

"I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome." What? A politician who wants to listen to voters views and then open up the discussion to see if a possible policy was wanted by the public? Good grief! We wouldn't want that, now would we?"


Last year, Claire Perry, a Conservative junior transport minister, said the idea of women-only carriages was interesting, but it does not appear to have been taken forward by her department.


But if someone like Corbyn suggests such a thing he's a fecking loony lefty with silly ideas.

I wonder if the women only carriage idea was more to do with creating an environment that some women would feel safer travelling in, esp late at night? Whilst it's probably not a practical idea (which might explain it not being pursued), it's not a silly idea either when thought of in those terms. Someone somewhere considered there to be a need to think about addressing.


Totally agree though on the hypocracy of who likes an idea!

Not practical in terms of enforcement, unless it's the carriage next to the driver. It's not a controversial idea at all. It's only a media bias that is making it into something because they are determined to terrify the electorate as much as possible about a Corbyn leadership.
THE CRITICISM HAS COME FROM HIS RIVALS FOR THE LEADERSHIP FFS. Not the corporate Tory media Zzzzzzzz whole world is going mad everyone, even people I see as normal are trotting out this narrative. Thank god in reality Social Media doesn't reflect actual reality, normal people are far cleverer than the twtish memes of social media.
No one likes listening to reality jah, certainly not the lefty echo chamber which you now seem part of.pass your stuff round social media to each other..... the Tories were gonna get absolutely slaughtered on there back in April. Russell Brands intervention was 'game changing' according to Owen Jones and boy did that do the rounds on Twitter Facebook even the EDF etc etc. personally I believe Corybn will be a disaster for the Labour Party, so I wish you all the very best. Best quote I've seen at a Norwich rally for Corbymania "we haven't had this many people at a lAbour hustings since Michael Foot in 1983" you,re all just talking to each other......

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...