Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> Not as important as wider issue, but at least the

> predicted meltdown in the financial markets hasn't

> happened (US/UK anyway - the Dow Jones and FTSE

> are up).


Though as with Brexit, we won't really know the effects until he actually is in power.

I stayed up all night with a bottle, and was intrigued by the result. The so called 'rust belt' of the north/north east of America is a fascinating comparable with the poorest regions of our own north and midlands. Traditional Democratic heartlands totally disillusioned with four decades plus of economic stagnation, and the collapse of manufacturing. Those northern states swung it for Trump, ethnically white in the main, blue collar and down at heel.


When will the political establishment finally wake up to the overwhelming ground swell of despair which has been bubbling under the surface of many, many western democracies? I have to blame the left of centre elites in particular for their continued disconnect with their natural support base, but again, there's something bigger going on and that's not the exclusive issue here. Populists like Farage, Trump, Le Pen and others will continue to take advantage of a political vacuum on the centre ground (left of centre in particular), until a voice can rise to help resolve the slow death of manufacturing, and its aftermath, including the easy scapegoat options for the disenfranchised, more particularly - immigration.


Louisa.

Louisa, what you say simply isn't the case and is really quite insulting to the working class whom I believe you generally support. Of the one third of Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year, more voted for Clinton than Trump, for the 2/3 earning more than that, vice versa. 54% of college educated white males voted for Trump. White college educated women were the only white group who voted in favour of Clinton (and then only 51% of them). Trump would be delighted to have people think this is some great uprising from the deprived heartlands, but in fact it's got just as much to do with middle class whites who want lower taxes and to stop paying for Obamacare and other social security as anything else.

Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

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

> a chill shuddered through me, on reading your last

> sentence, RH


I know, it's supposed to be wrong to wish for anyone's death but I can't help thinking a heart attack between now and January would do the world a big favour. Actually I don't care if it's wrong, I hope the bastard drops dead before he can do the harm he's promised. Though I have no idea what Pence is like, presumably if prepared to be on the same ticket as that filth not terribly nice.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Louisa, what you say simply isn't the case and is

> really quite insulting to the working class whom I

> believe you generally support. Of the one third

> of Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year,

> more voted for Clinton than Trump, for the 2/3

> earning more than that, vice versa. 54% of

> college educated white males voted for Trump.

> White college educated women were the only white

> group who voted in favour of Clinton (and then

> only 51% of them). Trump would be delighted to

> have people think this is some great uprising from

> the deprived heartlands, but in fact it's got just

> as much to do with middle class whites who want

> lower taxes and to stop paying for Obamacare and

> other social security as anything else.


I think your analysis is simplistic and mixing up class & race with income here Rendel. Afro-americans are vastly over represented in the lowest income groups and the majority of them, who voted, almost certainly voted Clinton hence your conclusion. My suspicion is the majority of white working class voted Trump, so i don't think Louisa's analysis is insulting, I think it's correct.

???? Wrote:

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


> I think your analysis is simplistic and mixing up

> class & race with income here Rendel.

> Afro-americans are vastly over represented in the

> lowest income groups and the majority of them, who

> voted, almost certainly voted Clinton hence your

> conclusion. My suspicion is the majority of white

> working class voted Trump, so i don't think

> Louisa's analysis is insulting, I think it's

> correct.


I said I thought it was insulting to the working class, not just the white working class. As I pointed out, the majority of white middle class voters also voted Trump, so this result is not simply the righteous white working class anger Trump would like it to be seen as, it's far, far more complex, more selfish and less "glorious" than that.

According to that exit poll (and we should beware of that...), yes, 53% of Americans who earn less than $30,000 a year voted for Clinton, while 41% voted for Trump, but that represented a swing of 16% from Dem to Rep, the biggest swing either way in all income brackets. For $30,000-$50,000 it was a 6% swing from Dem to Rep, while in fact both the $50,000-$100,000 and $100,000-$200,000 brackets saw swings from Rep to Dem.

???? Wrote:

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

> Le Pen's next (I've had a bet); and expect a GE in

> Italy after their constitutional referendum next

> month....



Fookin' 'ell Quids, where's your scruples, can't you bet on things with nice, happy, fluffy bunny outcomes, like will it snow on Christmas Day? :)...

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> ???? Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > I think your analysis is simplistic and mixing

> up

> > class & race with income here Rendel.

> > Afro-americans are vastly over represented in

> the

> > lowest income groups and the majority of them,

> who

> > voted, almost certainly voted Clinton hence

> your

> > conclusion. My suspicion is the majority of

> white

> > working class voted Trump, so i don't think

> > Louisa's analysis is insulting, I think it's

> > correct.

>

> I said I thought it was insulting to the working

> class, not just the white working class. As I

> pointed out, the majority of white middle class

> voters also voted Trump, so this result is not

> simply the righteous white working class anger

> Trump would like it to be seen as, it's far, far

> more complex, more selfish and less "glorious"

> than that.



Who mentions - "glorious", or "righteous" anger etc? other than you, Louisa or me don't - i think you have a pretty binary view on people's view on people's politics, fairly standard for many on the left , and Louisa and me are in your baddy camp so you think our analysis is somehow supportive of Trump's victory - i can't see anything in either of our posts that suggest this, so, you must 'think' it's our underlying view or something? Hence you adding of glorious and righteous. I think Louisa called this well to be honest.

red devil Wrote:

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

> ???? Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Le Pen's next (I've had a bet); and expect a GE

> in

> > Italy after their constitutional referendum

> next

> > month....

>

>

> Fookin' 'ell Quids, where's your scruples, can't

> you bet on things with nice, happy, fluffy bunny

> outcomes, like will it snow on Christmas Day?

> :)...


I have won money on the Tories and Trump so far this year RD, all about value in gambling so Le Pen at 7/2. I also bet on Corbyn to win the Labour leadership (poorer odds as it was nailed on) and i didn't want that outcome either!

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Louisa, what you say simply isn't the case and is

> really quite insulting to the working class whom I

> believe you generally support. Of the one third

> of Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year,

> more voted for Clinton than Trump, for the 2/3

> earning more than that, vice versa. 54% of

> college educated white males voted for Trump.

> White college educated women were the only white

> group who voted in favour of Clinton (and then

> only 51% of them). Trump would be delighted to

> have people think this is some great uprising from

> the deprived heartlands, but in fact it's got just

> as much to do with middle class whites who want

> lower taxes and to stop paying for Obamacare and

> other social security as anything else.


I think you are confusing a few variables here rendel. Whilst I agree the white vote, of all socio economic backgrounds vastly swung behind Trump, rich and poor, it was the very poorest 'rust belt' states, which are traditionally Democratic strongholds anyway, which gave him the Electoral College votes he needed ultimately to secure president elect.


If you look at Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan etc they have larger white populations, who are overwhelmingly voting Trump outside of major urban districts (the small Andy medium sized mining towns), where the majority of the population are poor and suffering. The swing state small towns ultimately shifted this election in favour of Trump. They were being ignored by Clinton and the Democrats, she didn't even visit some of these states. They took these votes for granted, and allowed the political vacuum to occur.


Louisa.

???? Wrote:

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


> Who mentions - "glorious", or "righteous" anger

> etc? other than you, Louisa or me don't - i think

> you have a pretty binary view on people's view on

> people's politics, fairly standard for many on the

> left , and Louisa and me are in your baddy camp so

> you think our analysis is somehow supportive of

> Trump's victory - i can't see anything in either

> of our posts that suggest this, so, you must

> 'think' it's our underlying view or something?

> Hence you adding of glorious and righteous. I

> think Louisa called this well to be honest.


Drop the ego Quids, not everything is all about you - by "glorious" and "righteous" anger I was referring to the way Trump and his supporters would like it to be seen, nothing to do with anything you or Louisa said. And were I childish enough to have a "baddy camp" Louisa wouldn't be in it.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Seabag Wrote:

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

> -----

> > A baddy camp, I just love the sound of that

> >

> > How much to pitch up for a weekend RH?

>

> Free entry if you bring a goody along for balance.



I can get bill oddie - does he count?

It's not just the working class of America.


I have a friend who lives in a very affluent part of New Jersey. She and her husband are well educated, he is in a very senior banking job and she doesn't need to work, they are very very wealthy, children attend private schools etc. etc. Both voted for Trump as 'he knows what is right for the United States'.

Salsaboy New Jersey isn't a swing state. This is the whole point that I was making to rendel. We all know that affluent white Americans supported Trump too, that's hardly surprising considering he's been promising tax cuts. I'm sure Dulwich Cillage has many Tory voters but we still end up with a Labour MP come election time. The electoral college is the important thing to remember, notthe popular vote here. The main issue which many people can't understand or won't, is that disgruntled white working class voters in the all important swing and usually Democrat leaning states of the north east in particular, didn't go for Clinton. If they had, you'd have a president elect Hillary today. They went for Trump in numbers they wouldn't usually do for a Republican, because of a whole host of reasons. That's what won him this election, and the centre left need to address this issue.


Louisa.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Not as important as wider issue, but at least

> the

> > predicted meltdown in the financial markets

> hasn't

> > happened (US/UK anyway - the Dow Jones and FTSE

> > are up).

>

> Though as with Brexit, we won't really know the

> effects until he actually is in power.



Short term with the financial markets its all about perception. A lot of people predicted a mass sell off if Trump were to win, its a relief that it didn't happen. Asia has now bounced back overnight too. We all suffer when the markets are hit.


In the longer term I always thought Trump would be good for business in the US, no issues there. He will make the US stronger in business internationally, of that I have no doubt. In the long term socialism makes a country weak in terms on international competitiveness, the future will be interesting.

Hilary has a record of inciting war and devastating the middle east - and she can't distance herself. She's a dangerous woman and while Trump is a shock, I'm relived it's not Hilary.


I do fear for America's people being allowed to become more racist, more homophobic, antagonizing the Chinese (is that a bad thing?), The WALL!!!!!! (what the hell is that all about and HOW?) and general more - up their own asses - and possibly forgetting there is a 'rest of the world' at street level.


Brexit - Obama threatened to punish UK by sending us to the back of the queue in terms of trade deals - that's completely changed and the Republican victory has probably de-stabilised the EU even further. Watch the other countries vote for the leader who will exit.


Interesting times. Short term/ long term are very different views.

Salsaboy Wrote:

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

> It's not just the working class of America.

>

> I have a friend who lives in a very affluent part

> of New Jersey. She and her husband are well

> educated, he is in a very senior banking job and

> she doesn't need to work, they are very very

> wealthy, children attend private schools etc. etc.

> Both voted for Trump as 'he knows what is right

> for the United States'.



That is really depressing.


How can well educated (intelligent?? Maybe not .. ) people have voted for a trigger happy loose cannon with virtually no political experience, who appears to be both sexist and racist and has behaved in the most ridiculous fashion in even televised events leading up to the poll?


And voted for someone who is a climate change denier and appears to think terrorists will gather together in one place in order to be conveniently nuked?


The USA and the world/planet are going to hell in a handcart.


Brexit was bad enough. What are our children and grandchildren going to make of this?


How is everybody walking blindly into it? Do they see nothing beyond their own selfish interests and their own four walls?

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...