Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I grasp that Louisa. I think some of the criticism of Hillary was deserved,and some of it was rooted in deep-seated biases.


I have had an issue with her ever since she started taking an active role in the presidency when her husband was president as I believe in democracy.


Trump didn't win this; Hillary lost it.

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> Trump didn't win this; Hillary lost it.

>

> Dear Lord ,EVERYTHING is Hillary's fault .She can

> do no right .



That's a ridiculous response. I'm not saying she's to blame for everything, I'm saying that antipathy towards her resulted in a lower Democrat turn-out.


I get very tired of Hillary fans who can't accept ANY criticism of her.

???? Wrote:

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

> So to sum up the great and good of the EDF...I

> think it's a great pity the plebs have the

> vote......yes, pesky democracy eh


Funny, I said absolutely the opposite - don't patronise the working class by treating their voting choice as just an angry tantrum which is someone else's fault, every adult has a vote and takes responsibility for how they use it. A rightwing maniac becomes president and it seems, to some people, that's not the fault of the people who voted for him, it's the left's fault really...

The two sides who DID vote are equal in total to the number who did not bother to vote.


As with Brexit, people who votes the opposite will say those who voted in favour did not know what they were doing. I don't think that could be farther from the truth.


They may not be clear on how this will end, but they are clear where they didn't want it to start.

People knew exactly what they were voting for. Trump didn't mince his words, he was clear what his values were (he's an unreconstructed misogynistic, racist bully). It may be comforting for those on both the right and the left to try and rationalise this as a protest against economic grievances, but the truth is that isn't what the voters themselves say. It's about immigration, about 'political correctness' - there are a lot of angry white men who don't like the social changes which have seen their privilege slowly eroded and want to take us back to the 'good old days' when they could say what they wanted without being challenged on it. And it's not just blue collar workers, there were a greater percentage of affluent, older white men who voted Trump.
Whilst I agree that there are a sizeable chunk of people who voted for him because they agree with his vile views, I think it's simplistic to write off everyone as having voted for the same reason. For instance, there were a lot of extremely poor people who voted for him because the system is not working for them and they want change, and Hillary represented the social structures that they feel have kept them oppressed.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Let's cut to the chase here. People who vote in a

> dangerous Proto-fascist deserve to be called out

> for their choices. The things Trump has said and

> done aren't OK. If someone is a racist and a

> sexist and a bully and a liar and you support

> them, then personally I don't think that's some

> kind of legitimate form of protest.


Hopefully he will govern as a chief executive - get good

people in and let them make choices.


He seems to have calmed down already. There won't be a wall

as there's a fence already, the anti Islamic stuff was removed from

his website as soon as he won (says it all)


I fear for the supreme court - but just have to accept it - it'll swing back

maybe when a certain Michelle enters the race next time :).

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

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

> Whilst I agree that there are a sizeable chunk of

> people who voted for him because they agree with

> his vile views, I think it's simplistic to write

> off everyone as having voted for the same reason.

> For instance, there were a lot of extremely poor

> people who voted for him because the system is not

> working for them and they want change, and Hillary

> represented the social structures that they feel

> have kept them oppressed.


Of course there is no one simple answer. Different people voted Trump for different reasons, but there is no getting away from the fact that a vote for Trump is at some level an acceptance (or at least not a rejection) of his clearly and repeatedly expressed (and in my opinion quite vile) views.

I disagree. For some, they simply felt desperate and thought he was the lesser of two evils and the only chance for change. There have been a number of really interesting docos on this that really changed my assumptions.


Saying that the voters had to accept his views is like saying that anyone who voted for Hillary accepts flouting of security policy and adultery. You can vote for a candidate without endorsing everything they do and say.

People are very good at discounting what they don't want to acknowledge or accept, so it is possible, even likely, that voters were willing to suspend their disbelief at his more egregious beliefs and policies, thereby allowing themselves to vote for him.

Just heard an articulate, sane, 30-something mum in Virginia who works as an estage agent, saying she is perfectly capable of making up her mind and saying she voted for him because the US needs to be better run, like a business, by a non-career politician.

Then again, I also just that the KKK is holding some kind of vitory rally......

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

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

> You can vote for a candidate without endorsing

> everything they do and say.


Of course that's true. But you can't really vote for a candidate without endorsing the central tenants of their campaign.

Nigello Wrote:

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

> People are very good at discounting what they

> don't want to acknowledge or accept, so it is

> possible, even likely, that voters were willing to

> suspend their disbelief at his more egregious

> beliefs and policies, thereby allowing themselves

> to vote for him.

> Just heard an articulate, sane, 30-something mum

> in Virginia who works as an estage agent, saying

> she is perfectly capable of making up her mind and

> saying she voted for him because the US needs to

> be better run, like a business, by a non-career

> politician.

> Then again, I also just that the KKK is holding

> some kind of vitory rally......


Not defending Trump - who maybe mad as a hatter :)


Bill Clinton had some really bad sides to him - but

I have him down as a good president in terms of what

he got done. He got impeached and couldn't give a toss

(which impressed me for some childish reason)


Hillary: what happened today Bill

Bill: I got impeached, it happens :)

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

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

>

> You can vote for a candidate without endorsing

> everything they do and say.



Absolutely agreed. But doesn't there come a point when what someone does and says become so extreme that alarm bells need to go off in your head, and if they don't, there's something wrong?


I also saw the story that Nigello notes about 'The Klan' . Wouldn't people have been concerned about voting for a candidate who played to this section of the electorate? We're known by the company we keep.

Angelina Wrote:

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

> so when you vote - so you vote against who you

> don't want? or only vote for who is fully aligned

> to your beliefs?

>

> I think it's more the former.



The last Prime Ministers to lose an election


Gordon Brown

John Major


was it Callaghan before that - that might have been the economy ?


Edit: Wow just realised they were all 'follow ons' (Blair, Thatcher, Wilson)

Jenny1 Wrote:

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

> P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> > You can vote for a candidate without endorsing

> > everything they do and say.

>

>

> Absolutely agreed. But doesn't there come a point

> when what someone does and says become so extreme

> that alarm bells need to go off in your head, and

> if they don't, there's something wrong?

>

> I also saw the story that Nigello notes about 'The

> Klan' . Wouldn't people have been concerned about

> voting for a candidate who played to this section

> of the electorate? We're known by the company we

> keep.



So do you apply this position and logic to Corbyn and McDonnell, Livinsgtone and Abbot to name just 4?

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> People knew exactly what they were voting for.

> Trump didn't mince his words, he was clear what

> his values were (he's an unreconstructed

> misogynistic, racist bully).


Well, a good friend of mine in California (who voted for Clinton) said that on the stump Trump banged on and on about the economy, wages, manufacturing, infrastructure, tariffs and free trade all the time ? far, far more than he did about Mexicans and Muslims. And lots of those speeches were shown live on TV (as indeed were Hillary's), so I suspect many Americans got a different perspective from those of us in this country who saw very little of that.


Not that I think his 'solutions' make much sense...

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...