Jump to content

Recommended Posts

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> I have to say I wasn't fooled by TB for even a

> split second,


He says that now but I swear I've seen a photo of him with a red rosette.


Oh, that may have been his stag do rather than '97.

Like Giggirl I felt the enthusiasm on Tuesday night at a party, eating chilli, drinking Bud and watching the US presidential election results come in. Like her I also feel a bit like a party pooper in offering criticism of Barack Obama or being cynical about his election. I believe he is more intelligent that Tony Blair and I hope my cynicism is misplaced. Barack Obama's speech making is magnificent and his rhetoric is mesmerising but we should be aware - he hasn't done anything yet and his policies have yet to be articulated


So a bit of rain on the parade - here goes:


The range of opinion about Barack Obama's election seems to have two extremes - the BBC, the Guardian the European Union, Greenpeace, EDF and similarly inclined groupings believes he is a fusion of Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and the second coming. At the other extreme those disinclined to see a black president seem to believe he will surround himself with Black Panther bodyguards and declare Ebonics the official language of America.


Both opinions are clearly wrong and neither worth commenting on.


The new presidency is no more about having a black man in charge than New Labour was about having Scottish voices in government. It?s about a desire for change ? brought about more by the failed policies of the outgoing administration and president than the new exciting candidate. The Barack Obama presidency now has no political opposition except a group of neo-cons who disgraced themselves during the Bush presidency - the parallels with 1997 in UK are obvious. In Barack Obama there is now a figurehead that cannot be mocked or even criticised without risk of the most horrid accusations. Barack Obama cannot be more stupid in his actions or more embarrassing in his utterances than Mr Bush has been. HOwever, his essential function as President will be to look after the perceived interests of America ? not redress every wrong in the world.


Predictions:


1. Barack Obama got his campaign funds in the usual way - from business interests that will now want their reward ? yes he harnessed the internet and thousands of small contributions but he is, like so many US presidents before him, in hock to big donors and pressure groups. He will need to operate within a political and economic system that remains dominated by those donors and businesses. There will be no big shift in real power or economic strategy in the US ? except that Democrats, and their supporters, typically have isolationist / protectionist tendencies so we?ll see imposition of tariffs and a lack of engagement in free trade talks.


2. With majorities in both the Senate and Congress the Democratic party can enact almost any legislation it likes. The Democrats are fully signed up the Al Gore view of global warming and the carbon reduction, renewable energy and anti nuclear energy policies that go with it. This may lead to expensive carbon reduction programmes and will not help stem the threatening global recession.


3. There will be a politically fudged withdrawal from Iraq ? handing over control and power to an under-trained Iraqi army and corrupt Iraqi politicians while claiming to have brought stability and democracy to that country.


4. There will be an increase in US military action in Afghanistan and the British will play a major part in that action ? cheerleading the new strategy. Western soldiers will continue to die thousands of miles from home for no discernible benefit to the US or Britain.


5. Within a year or so, the non-whites and many others who are celebrating the Obama victory around the world will have noticed that nothing much has changed as it affects their lives. Some, probably led by Reverend Jesse Jackson, will denounce him as a white man with a black face.

I published the lsit of top contributors above somewhere, and you're by and large right especially about the business, particularly the banking sector, but there wasn't a single lobby or pressure group contribution accepted, which I think can only be a good thing.
People will be disappointed in him, simply because he cannot be all things to all people, or some things to some people. The youngsters who got involved, rallied others to vote and went into overdrive on his behalf will learn, sooner rather than later, that Mr Obama is a politician, living in the most political city in the world with the most difficult job to do. I am pleased that his election might begin to break down some barriers, but I am doubtful that tangible benefits will be felt by people in the US even after his four years will come to an end. He will be found wanting, like any leader, and I think that his inexperience and reliance on spin - for that is what it is - will undermine him.


that is what WHAT is exactly? Everything he says?


Spin is slightly maligned I would say - it is surely a pre-requisite in a world where newspapers print the most outrageous slurs and fears and lots of people just swallow it. Spin becomes a weapon to fight back with

It's when it's spin instead of substance that things are bad.

I'd argue that that characterised Blairism.


Obama has kept a very tight campaign, which was won despite offering very few solid policies, maintaining a tone of hope and talk of change.


Only time will tell whether there will be substance to back up his words, but his announcement that he will shut down Guantanamo is a good start (no mention of the hundreds rotting in foreign prisons thanks to rendition mind) and from the roles he's filled so far he also seems to be fulfilling his right man for the job regardless of who, for instance keeping Robert Gates in the Sec Defense role.

It did make me chuckle reading all the Facebook status updates from friends happy that Barack Obama had been elected the next President of the United States - as I suspect their sentiment, and many others, is that Obama seems a jolly good chap and is without doubt the new Gandhi.


Every single Southern state and majority of the mid west voted for his rival McCain - and by quite big margins. whereas Obama cleaned up similarly the West Coast and most of the Northern states. In other words Old Boy America voted McCain and Modern America voted Obama. According to the BBC on election day, Obama gained 95% of the Black vote across the US - and on the same thread, McCain took 75% of White Evangelical Christians.


Just goes to show that actual policies don't count for much - it was only 15 months ago that Obama said let's bomb Pakistan. In Aug 2007, Obama said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," - obviously President Musharraf has now gone but you get the tone. In same speech he said, "The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan,"


March 2007: Sen. Barack Obama said the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us." September this year he said: "It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. It would be a game changer, and I've said that repeatedly. I've also said I would never take a military option off the table." Also in regard Iran he said, "I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and United States' interests."


No doubt he can talk the talk.. but we shall see what he delivers in due course.

I misused the word 'spin'. I meant froth, hype, marketing, advertising.

It will get tough for him, and I predict that Michelle will become, to some at least, the US Cherie Blair. I suspect that he will on some issues become uber-American, willing to annoy his allies a la Bush so as to gain or keep support at home.

Please don't have him down as a great president even before his been handed the keys. It's unrealistic for him and for his supporters to think like that.

When he elects his cabinet and most of them are white, DC insiders, how will the black, grass-roots supporters react? When he decides to wage war, what will his Facebook friends think and do then?

good points Nero and pretty much bourne out by the fact that his administration are looking like they will be white political elites, many of them up to their neck in involvement with previous administrations.


Perhaps sensible, but doesn't really smack of the promised change. Indeed some backtracking on promises re Iraq will likely be his first foreign policy decision.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122688537606232319.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

  • 2 months later...

given that there aren't many days where people get to be optimistic, can we give the guy a chance at least?


So yes, he is one man. yes he is constrained by many levers, competing interests yadda yadda


But if we believe that W was THAT bad, then somebody else can be equivalently good. At least. And for now, that's good enough.

I feel strangely hopeful and positive about him. I admit I did get emotional at Clinton's inaugeration specially listening to Maya Angelou's contribution.

He will have so many hurdles including of course the fact racism is just still so rife in America.

Indeed just one man.

But maybe one honest man who is upfront about what his problems are may make a difference to how the people feel about the problems and what they do themselves to overcome them. I like he has already said that people have to change their attitudes too. Big talk!

I'm kind of with Snorky having thought about it quite a bit.


Yes he seems a bit different, and yes America and the world are ready for a change. However, he is just one man, and he has been left with a big mess to clean up, and whilst a staggering number of Americans said in a poll last week that they were pleased he was taking over, they also said they'd give him 2 years to make a difference...


Hang on, didn't you just give Bush 8 years, how is 2 years going to be enough time to do anything?

Yes optimism is overly-indulged by the media at the moment, but being realistic, who else would we have entering office at the moment?


snorky is of the opinion that it doesn't matter who is elected as the whole system is so rotten we need some kind of anarchic revolution. Maybe we do, maybe we don't.. but I have yet to meet anyone I would follow on such a course ("no dude you totally miss the point, there will be no leaders and we will all be...." yeah yeah yeah - I'm no longer 14 and suceptible to that line)


If we are not so binary as to think Bush=bad/Obama=good and realise that genuine progress happens over time, not weeks and there will be all manner of pitfalls along the way, as things stand I can't think of anyone I would rather take office in america at this point in time

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...