Jump to content

Recommended Posts

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> 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.



Why not? I don't think that viewpoint bears out against the reality of how some poeple vote.

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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


> 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...



A friend of mine is visiting his brother and family in California. They all voted Democrat but his brother said there's a general feeling in the country that Obama's presidency hasn't been a success*, that the general population is worse off and struggling to make ends meet, so in the end they voted for change rather than more of the same, which is all that Clinton offered. Which kinda reminds me of that line which I think one of Blll Clinton's aides came up with....It's the economy, stupid


*It should be said that Obama has had his hands tied with a Republican majority in the Senate/Congress, so he was never going to totally deliver what he wanted to...

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.



I assume so for everyone, but I guess it depends on how much you believe the awful stuff and how much you mistrust the "other guy".


Don't get me wrong, I finding the rise of xenophobia deeply alarming and, having experienced sexual harrassment in the workplace and watched far too many colleagues have the same, I personally find Trump scary. I just don't think it's helpful or accurate to impute views to all of his supporters based on what we think is logical. We're only going to get out of the mess Western society is crawling towards by avoiding tribalism and demonstrating a bit of empathy.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> ???? 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...


It's the perennial false consciousness question. Assuming it was the white working class vote swing* that gave Trump the win, and that Trump will indeed be ultimately bad for them**, options include a) they were misled into making a choice that's ultimately bad for them by Capital b) they're responsible adults and knowingly voted for a racist pussy grabber c) some other more complex option.


As neither a) nor b) are very nice things to say or think about a large group of people, I tend to go with c) - which, as a theme, admittedly doesn't fan the flames.


*But also - half-ish of college graduates and people making >$250,000 voted for him, these people rarely get accused of false consciousness

**we don't know that Clinton would have addressed the economic needs of the poor in the rust belt, or that Trump won't.

I'm beginning to wonder whether the angst caused to many by the results of our referendum and the US election has exposed a serious failing of liberal democracies - namely that generation snowflake and the helicopter parents responsible for producing such safe-space little darlings have been left unprepared for the real world where you get winners and losers and they have difficulty grasping that people hold different views that they may not agree with.


Perhaps we need to introduce disclaimers on voting forms to explain what should of course be obvious to anyone eligible to vote, such as:


In giving my vote for my preferred candidate I agree to accept the rules under which this election/referendum is being conducted. I understand that the candidate I am voting for might not win but I will accept the result irrespective of whether I agree or disagree with the winning candidate's/party's political affiliations/policies/beliefs.

Red Devil - yes I agree about people feeling that Obama'a presidency was rhetoric and that they are still suffering badly .

I read the following on another forum and thought it had the ring of truth .


"Obamacare was a brilliant idea, totally neutered by the Senate and Congress. The end result is not the start of social healthcare but a system which actually costs the working poor and lower middle class more. For instance, it used to be the case in America that most young people not in occupational health schemes used to get the equivalent of "3rd party only" car insurance on an old banger. You bought insurance for the unlikely but massively expensive risk of hospital treatment following a car accident or similar, then paid your way as and when on the cheaper stuff like a course of antibiotics for strep throat. Now you have to pay for insurance - and the co-pays mean you're paying more than if you'd bought the antibiotics outright. Obamacare in practise has actually made healthcare moreexpensive for a lot of the poor. So again, the poor are looking at an outgoing president and saying "it was all talk, it didn't actually make my very hard life any easier."

red devil Wrote:

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

> Blll Clinton's aides came up with....It's the

> economy, stupid


Surprised that wasn't said well before Bill :)


I still think that will be the judgement on Brexit too

not 'did they stop coming'

Interesting perspective from a Brit I know across the pond in Memphis.


Any national vote has any number of groups turning out for different reasons. In any vote you'll have dyed in the wool types of whichever side of the spectrum and then you'll have tepids who turn out when they feel so inspired. In this election it wasn't so much about the reactionaries turning out it was the liberals staying at home. The turnout was hugely lower than 2012 which in turn was hugely lower than 2008. You need only look at the figures. If people want to secure liberal gains they need - as we political scientists say in technical parlance - to get off their arses and vote for it.


After the outcome there's a lot going round here (perhaps in all the world for all I know) about some of the rural left-behinds. It's actually a decent point about groups who have been largely abandoned in traditional communities and how little in practical terms is done to address the issue of change brought about by changes in manufacturing and trade. By the way, although all the talk is about the hillbilly rednecks this is a huge problem in rural black communities too. Before all the manufacturing went to Mexico or China they used to like to build factories in places like Alabama or Mississippi where lesser union regs and cheap cost so of living meant reduced manufacturing costs. Anyway these hillbilly demographics aren't the whole reason the election was lost but it did make a difference.


The bulk of the republican vote has little to do with male privilege. The are huge swathes of fundamental religious folk who will put their reasons for voting as number one "pro-life", number two pro-gun. Despite the ironies implicit in this these people are very real and very prevalent. Also very hard to understand from a European perspective. One thing worth bearing in mind in a nation so very spread out and with a fairly light government support net is the role of the church in providing help and support and basic things like community meeting places. They really are enmeshed in the fabric of - especially rural - life and so the churches have a much stronger cultural prevalence the in Europe whee other structures have largely superseded.

Malumbu - thanks for that! Really interesting;


I particularly liked the phrase "Rural left-behinds" Cutting to say the least. Stinging. If not downright nasty.


Assumed definition: "a section of society that no-one wants or gives a toss about, who don't fit in with the glamour and glitz of the First World".

I found this graph really fascinating, it basically demonstrates that Trump has done no better than the previous two Republican candidates, he's lucked into a lot of antipathy for Hillary.


*well it would be interesting if I could upload the photo but it's resolutely refusing to do so, sorry!

This was an edited view but probably reflects British society too. Lincolnshire. There, I have said it.


I think that it is fine to preach from our liberal safe haven, but interesting to hear from those living in the separate world out there.


This is posted purely for debate rather than to inflame emotions!

keano77 Wrote:

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

> I'm beginning to wonder whether the angst caused

> to many by the results of our referendum and the

> US election has exposed a serious failing of

> liberal democracies - namely that generation

> snowflake and the helicopter parents responsible

> for producing such safe-space little darlings have

> been left unprepared for the real world where you

> get winners and losers and they have difficulty

> grasping that people hold different views that

> they may not agree with.



Firstly, the right to protest and providing opposition and challenge to the incumbents is a fundamental part of democracy. Judging by your perjorative tone, I'm guessing you are more conservative. Would you expect, upon Labour winning, that the Tories and all their supporters threw their hands up in the air and said "Well that's alright then. The people have spoken. Let's do nothing for the next few years."? If so, you would be supporting a weakening of democracy.


Secondly, when you use terms like "generation snowflake" and "helicopter parents", you are betraying a very narrow-minded point of view. If you had sensible observations to make on the topic, you wouldn't need to resort to perjorative terms and sweeping generalisations. I really do hope you're not one of those people who complains about political correctness, because this is exactly the same thing from a different direction.


And before you write off my opinion because you think I'm on a different side of the political fence, I'm not a Labour supporter.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> Malumbu - thanks for that! Really interesting;

>

> I particularly liked the phrase "Rural

> left-behinds" Cutting to say the least.

> Stinging. If not downright nasty.

>

> Assumed definition: "a section of society that

> no-one wants or gives a toss about, who don't fit

> in with the glamour and glitz of the First World".


Why assume a negative definition? Promoting class snobbery is hardly helpful.

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

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


> Secondly, when you use terms like "generation

> snowflake" and "helicopter parents", you are

> betraying a very narrow-minded point of view.


"Generation snowflake" is such a lazy and meaningless term which is cropping up more and more often. It's the new way of saying "political correctness gone mad" - when Richard Littlejohn uses it in virtually every article you know something's wrong with it. It's so insulting to write off a generation who are actually, from what I've seen in teaching and from working with them as a volunteer, more politically active and more inclined to get involved and volunteer than many of their predecessors.

btw, I see there are rumours that the EU may seek to destabilise brexit by offering voluntary EU citizenship to Europhile UK citizens. Free movement and right of abode, and a vote in EU elections. If the majority of Londoners took this up (with Scotland, and almost certainly Bristol, Manchester and Oxford) that would be quite a force. The London mayor would have, for example, to seek ways of offering reciprocity on labour movement and residency - i.e. seek a very welcome quasi-independence from the reactionary inhabitant of Downing Street. No doubt a pipe-dream but it would be an astute move by the EU and tell May something.


It is interesting, isn't it, that Trump has no interest of any kind in the UK as a trading partner: he does not believe in trade deals, only protectionism. So I wonder just where we think we will be in two or three years time having rather burnt our boats with India last week and been looked at with mild derision by China.


However, no doubt Ruritanians will take heart that we can still beat Scotland at football.

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...