Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have to wonder who's going to benefit from the Trump tarrifs 

Possibly those in tje know who dumped their shares before it happened, banked the cash,  bought shares at rock bottom  and are now waiting for stock that crashed to go up again and make a fortune.

But the bigger losers will be Americans who expect industry to move their factories to America, provide jobs and revive the economy, 20 years ago that could have happened but since then most factory jobs can now be done by robots  including warehouse movements, and if a tech company is going to build a new factory they will obviously use robotics and maybe AI to do the work, which means a gluten of goods and no one with the cash to buy them. 

America will go into another depression and take the rest of the world with it.

Forget the issues Liz Truss and Rachel Reeves combined have caused the economy, the trump tarrifs will make them look like saints by comparison.

  • Sad 1

The real worry is that Trump will never admit he got anything wrong and, as he did today with more threats to China, will keep doubling-down. Those tactics might work in real estate in the US but this is not real estate. I do wonder whether other governments will be forced to absorb the short-term pain in the view that they need to let him crash things to such a point that Americans go...what are you doing. Although he seems to be trying to mitigate dissent within his own party by turning on them quickly - like all good dictators do.

It just seems ludicrous to think this puts the US in a stronger short-term position - I saw analysis that a Boeing 787 bill of materials now costs $20m more with the tariffs due to them only being assembled in the US and the parts manufactured all over the world. Just who is this supposed to be benefiting.  American 401ks are linked to the stock market so American pensions are going downhill fast.

Edited by Rockets

Imagine a country voting for something that has a major financial hit to a country and having an electorate and different governments too proud/embarrased/dumb to reverse said decision

After 9 years

America and Trump might be on a different scale but England could do with a bit of reflection before judging other countries (at a national level.  I know lots of you sane, wise posters are not culpable) 

Yeah but I suppose the issue is that Brexit/Truss moment destabilised our economy and Trump's Truss moment is destabilising every economy globally and rocking the very foundation of global trading. Our stupid moments were just our stupid moments - Trump's stupid moment is everyone's stupid moment. The fact that people have been getting out of gold as well as stocks speaks volumes - gold is normally the safe-haven investors head for but lots are just cashing out completely.

Well yes.  But only up to a point

eu countries have had to spend a LOT of money to accommodate English madness  - and has had to deal with years of incoherent positioning.  It has destabilised the EU as a group - or has at the very least distracted it and consumed bandwidth 

which is why Putin was so pro-Brexit. Which enabled other subsequent events - it’s hard to imagine the world as it is now without Brexit.  A stronger EU.  Uk not a mess and in its own after multiple elections and way more prime ministers than 9 years could possibly allow

 

a stronger united front 

  • 2 weeks later...

Grim

and the U.K. govts past and present have no answers

And even if they did the papers and enough of the population would rise up in protest and prevent 

far easier to complain and vote reform next time, watch everything get worse and complain some more 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/apr/20/nhs-cancer-patients-denied-life-saving-drugs-due-to-brexit-costs-report-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

  • Sad 1
  • 2 weeks later...

Looks like your theory on voting reform is turning to reality 

Both main parties are getting a spanking which reflects on how they've treated the public recently (from party gate to pensions raids and employer NI increases) 

Labourbwant to go faster and further which may sink them further into the quagmire 

Torys possibly haven't a hope in hell  in reforming before 4 years are up 

I dispare over UK politics at the moment, but then again looking at America, we're all doomed , doomed I say 

  • Agree 1
  • 3 weeks later...

When you are this chippy, this stupid, this bitter

”feels like we never left”

yes sweetie, because you being in the eu was never the reason for your problems. But even now you are too dim to realise it

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/17/essex-thurrock-grays-views-brexit-eu-referendum?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

Update May 19:  Jesus wept.  The response to starmer’s negotiations today.  Wartime  “surrender”. Multiple “gimp” references. Much media wailing!

tories (and presumably reform) promising to reverse ALL of the gains   A deeply deeply stupid country 

When you are this chippy, this stupid, this bitter

”feels like we never left”

yes sweetie, because you being in the eu was never the reason for your problems. But even now you are too dim to realise it

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/17/essex-thurrock-grays-views-brexit-eu-referendum?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

 

49 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

Update May 19:  Jesus wept.  The response to starmer’s negotiations today.  Wartime  “surrender”. Multiple “gimp” references. Much media wailing!

tories (and presumably reform) promising to reverse ALL of the gains   A deeply deeply stupid country 

I think all these stupid people should be forcibly moved to America.

They would like it there. They would probably have voted for Trump.

Seems a bit off.  If two countries have a majority of dumbos why do we get to offload ours? Instead of us taking in theirs 

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

They had Farage commenting at the weekend on a radio news bulletin.  Nice balance Beeb... However the left think the BBC is too right wing, whilst the right thinks it is some, so the corporation cannot win.

The corporation reports the whole thing as a soap opera with characters. Instead of reporting the actuality. 
 

bbc is as culpable as anyone in this whole shitshow 

2 hours ago, Sephiroth said:

Update May 19:  Jesus wept.  The response to starmer’s negotiations today.  Wartime  “surrender”. Multiple “gimp” references. Much media wailing!

tories (and presumably reform) promising to reverse ALL of the gains   A deeply deeply stupid country 

When you are this chippy, this stupid, this bitter

”feels like we never left”

yes sweetie, because you being in the eu was never the reason for your problems. But even now you are too dim to realise it

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/17/essex-thurrock-grays-views-brexit-eu-referendum?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

Can you moderate the language you use, it is becoming offensive.

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...