Forum menu
Have we done this yet?
The comparison with Truss is probably the best description I've heard yet for Starmer and Reeves. So much for grown-up sensible politics, lets just build loads of random stuff instead! Apart from hospitals of course, we can't afford them apparently, but we can afford billions on airports and roads.
Really looking forward to how the STW c*ntrist cabal justify this one.
Labour are incapable of anything but shrinking the economy. Their past record proves it.
Remind me of what happened 1997(?)-2010 would you?
We had a global economic crisis the consequences of which David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, and Danny Alexander, managed to quite successfully blame Labour for !
How Labour delt with that crisis was actually the one thing that most impressed me during their 13 years in government.
Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling did not hesitate to take immediate action which helped to protect ordinary working people. It is quite astonishing how minimal the consequences were for ordinary working people considering how dire and serious the crisis was.
It would have undoubtedly been very different if the Tories and LibDems had been in government.
It would have undoubtedly been very different if the Tories and LibDems had been in government.
If Starmer and Reeves had been in power no doubt they'd have said we can't afford to bail out the banks because it would break their fiscal rules and scare the markets.
Ok let’s clear something up. Just because a project is in London, doesn’t mean it only benefits London.
In general maybe tho its arguable. In the case of the third runway it certainly is. Manchester airport makes much more sense from a uk wide perspective. Folk have to travel from Scotland and the north of england to get flights going past a perfectly good airport with great transport connections
Folk have to travel from Scotland and the north of england to get flights going past a perfectly good airport with great transport connections
I've said similar for years, freeing up capacity at Heathrow by building capacity in the north of England or Scotland to facilitate long haul travel makes way more sense than increasing the number of flights in and out London. I think we all know that's never going to happen tho
By “we” you mean who?
I think Daz probably means himself and others who never use Heathrow.
Additionally, more than £10bn in additional rail and road spending to support a bigger airport would be laid on the public purse, they say. “What is certain is that taxpayers everywhere – including those living hundreds of miles away from the south-east – will all be paying for the expansion.”
To give it some sort of context a medium size general hospital costs roughly £0.5bn to build, so that's roughly the cost of 20 new hospitals.
The private owners of Heathrow airport who will be paying for the runway?
You seriously think this will all be privately funded? Man U can't even build a new stadium without the taxpayer subsidising them, how is Heathrow going to fund the billions required for a new runway without govt help?
You seriously think this will all be privately funded? Man U can’t even build a new stadium without the taxpayer subsidising them, how is Heathrow going to fund the billions required for a new runway without govt help?
Same way any other business attracts funding I guess, basically by promising investors a share of future profits or some such.
As far as I can see there's no indication that public funds will be used for pay for the additional runway.
You seriously think this will all be privately funded? Man U can’t even build a new stadium without the taxpayer subsidising them
Sir Jim tried that one. The government told him to **** off.
There’s not a penny of taxpayers money going to Manchester United. The government money is going to redeveloping freight terminals on Trafford Park, a bloody massive industrial estate which just happens to be near Old Trafford (the clues in the name).
Last time I looked that had nothing to do with paying Marcus Rashfords ludicrous salary.
Additionally, more than £10bn in additional rail and road spending to support a bigger airport would be laid on the public purse, etc
That article is six years old , Reeves has said transport infrastructure costs are to be paid by the private sector
“Reeves said the government was “inviting proposals to move forward by the summer”, emphasising she would expect the private sector to fund any additional transport connections needed as part of the project.”
Fair point, but your quote which dates from yesterday says she "would expect the private sector to fund any additional transport connections needed as part of the project.”
Saying she expects the private sector to fund it is not the same as saying that it will. I guess her priority is to get the proposal through, she can always say at a later date, when the whole thing has advanced considerably, "well I did expect the private sector to fund the infrastructure costs but unfortunately they lack the finance required and we need to move forward ".
And this is after all a business friendly government.
So the impact assessment from the plan to smash the people smuggling gangs in Calais says that between 0 and 3 extra prison places will be required.
I wish that I could give a lower estimate of 0 for the impact of my work, it'd make it far easier.
I don't know how but this government still retains the ability to surprise and genuinely shock me.
The Labour Party, which won power in July, also plans to retain parts of legislation passed by the previous Conservative government that will disqualify asylum seekers using modern slavery laws to challenge decisions to remove them, and the power to detain child asylum seekers for up to 28 days.
Labour had voted against those measures in parliament when legislation on them was passed in 2023.
Starmer said at the time that the decision to deny asylum seekers using modern slavery laws would "drive a coach and horses" through protections for women trafficked to Britain.
Jess Phillips, now a junior interior minister, said in 2023 the legislation was a "traffickers' dream" because it would hide victims of modern slavery.
It's not so much that are they are retaining the Tory legislation which I find so shocking, it is the fact that are retaining it after condemning it so strongly........ they don't actually believe anything they say do they? And they are utterly shameless.
I actually remember Jess Phillips kicking up a stink about this when she was Shadow Minister for Domestic Abuse.
Dated July 26 2023
MPs have now passed the Illegal Migration Bill. The legislation rolls back protections for victims of slavery who have arrived in the UK illegally, often against their will.
Young women who have been raped multiple times a day in brothels, people who have been forced to work in unsafe conditions for pennies when they were promised legitimate jobs, will be criminalised rather than having the support they deserve.
Jess Phillips MP, the Shadow Minister for Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding, also offered hope. Speaking at an event hosted by our Joint Unit, she said that a Labour government would disentangle modern slavery from immigration crime.
She reminded us that one in four victims of modern slavery are British nationals, with children particularly vulnerable, and called for a strategic criminal justice response to increase the number of prosecutions and convictions. We need a multi-agency response to support survivors and more action from businesses to ensure their supply chains are free of slave labour.
https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/newsroom/the-fight-against-modern-slavery-goes-on
So the problem isn't that Labour don't understand how bad the legislation is, it's just like the Tories they don't really care.
Theresa May’s speech against barring asylum seekers from using the laws put in place to protect trafficked and enslaved people was spot on. Worth reading/watching again.
If that Reuters article is right (I notice there’s no comment or statement from a government minister or civil servant in there), then Labour have got this wrong. The new changes being introduced to uncover people smuggling networks sound appropriate, the bill looks sound to me as regards what it seeks to do, and how. Stopping asylum seekers from using laws and systems designed to protect victims of modern slavery, and identifying those that enslave them, is entirely counterproductive, as well as inhumane, and needs to be ended ASAP. If not as part of this bill, then by other means.
Illegal migration bill will hurt women trafficked to UK, Starmer tells PM
Labour leader attacks plans, but Rishi Sunak calls Starmer ‘just another lefty lawyer standing in our way’
Rishi Sunak’s plan to stop small boat crossings will “drive a coach and horses” through protections for women who are trafficked to Britain as victims of modern slavery, Keir Starmer has said.
If that Reuters article is right (I notice there’s no comment or statement from a government minister or civil servant in there)
Well I can imagine that it might be difficult to find a minister who wants to defend this 18 months after Labour denounced it so strongly.
It does seem to be reported in multiple media outlets including the United States. Some brownie points will no doubt be awarded by Trump supporters.
That’s the same story. Reuters’ work is syndicated. As I said, if this story and headline is correct, then Labour have got this wrong.
Well yes I see that, my point wasn't that it was a different story rather it was that multiple media outlets/news providers are reporting it which suggests that it is considered to be credible.
I truly hope it isn't quite as it appears to be but if that was the case I would expect a Labour minister to very quickly put the record straight.
Totally coincidentally I was at a seminar about human trafficking and modern slavery last night. **** me it was depressing, especially when it was pointed out that the phone in my hand probably contains material which was mined by children, and some of the fruit I eat (I love fresh fruit) was probably picked by modern day slaves
If this all sounds strangely familiar, that’s because it is. As both Labour and Tory MPs have been pointing out, significant chunks of Reeves and Starmer’s plans and rhetoric bear a striking similarity to an unusual source of inspiration: Liz Truss.
Like them, Truss identified growth as the biggest challenge facing the government and believed in much the same prescription: planning reform, scaling back government regulation, cutting benefits and making the state more efficient. She even sacked the permanent secretary to the Treasury in her own version of taking on the blockers.
As the former prime minister put it in her much derided 2022 conference speech: “We must break down the barriers to growth built up in our system. Decisions take too long. Burdens on businesses are too high. Infrastructure projects get delayed for years.
“That is what our plan is about: it is about getting the economy growing.”
Some senior Conservatives who served in the Truss administration cannot quite believe what they are hearing from Labour and are torn between their natural instinct to attack the government and agreeing with many of the things they are doing.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan, who served as Truss’s transport secretary, said: “I am cheering them on. I don’t know if it is ‘Liz Reeves’ or ‘Rachel Truss’, but it is fascinating to see Labour acknowledge that the kind of reforms to planning and the judicial review system that Liz Truss began are both right and necessary..
It is hard to make a direct comparison, because figures are very handily (for thoose who want to disguise reality) presented very differently. But this is my best stab at working it out in a
Since 2000 wages have grown about 66%.
Inflation has run much higher than that, the cost of goods and services have risen about 125% in that period
Since 2000 uk share prices have more than doubled, again probably around 125% more than 2000.
Since 2000 the average UK house price has risen from 75,000 to 240,000, more than 200%
There is a serious problem with the distribution of wealth and growth without fairer distribution will only exasperate the problem not fix it. The wealthiest 10% are doing very nicely indeed, the next 30-40% are probably about nuetral (the growth in assets for them have gone someway to offeset the real fall in earnings, I suspect this is the group most who keep defending the current system on here are in).
The bottom 50% are suffering more and more every year, and will also becoe a growing %.
Younger generations entering the workforce have worse condition and far far less oportunity to get on the asset ladder, housing and pensions take are a massive part of most peoples lifelong costs, and people are paying far more for far less. There is a big generational cost to the way assets have been outstripping wage growth.
Arranging the deckchairs on the titanic is not going to fix these problems, we don't need to just temprarially slow down the transfer of wealth to the top, we need to reverse it. "Living in the real world" as the centrists like to claim they are, is just adjusting the speed in which we aproach distopia.
The wealthiest 10% are doing very nicely indeed
According to the average income percentiles I'm in the top 10% and I can assure you life today is much more expensive than it used to be. I'm not complaining as there are many much worse off than myself but don't assume everyone in the top 10% is better off. It's probably more like the top 1-2% who are directly benefitting from this nonsense rentier economy we have created while everyone else feels poorer.
There is a big difference between the top 10% wealthiest and the top 10% based on income. The more assets inflate then the bigger the group affected by house and general asset inflation becomes. There is also a big generational divide that is widening. Someone in the top 10% of earners in the 70's 80's and maybe the 90's would probably be in the top 10% wealthiest now. Someone entering the workforce now in the top 10% of earners is much less likely to be in the top 10% wealthiest unless they also inherit a decent amount.
I presume Chris Philp is talking about the many people in this country who don't work becaue they derive an income from pensions, rent, investments, and the bank of mum and dad?
Chris Philp
I thought Mel Stride was the peak of the Dunning-Kruger meets Dilbert Principle hilarity.
But Philp just proves that no matter how far you scrape, you can never reach the bottom of the Tory barrel.
I presume Chris Philp is talking about the many people in this country who don’t work becaue they derive an income from pensions, rent, investments, and the bank of mum and dad?
Nah, Chris Philp is talking about those who sit in their living rooms behind a mocked up steering wheel and spend hours driving imaginary cars around imaginary tracks.
Right-wing Tories have more in common with Centrists than you might imagine, apart from more obvious areas such as the environment, growth, and modern day slavery, is the shared contempt for the lumpenproletariat.
don’t assume everyone in the top 10% is better off
You are better off. You just need to sell an asset to realise it. Sell the house, move to a cheap terrace in Burnley, bath in gold like Scrooge McDuck. [ Don’t to that of course, you’d obviously regret it, but your wealth and high earnings gives you options not open to 90% of the population. ]
Don’t underestimate Chris Philp, he has the political skills to convince a huge variety of people that he is on their side… it means he’s full of contradictions, but he has a way of always having something to say to any group that gets them on side. He’d be dangerous as a Tory leader. Won’t happen though… at least not ‘till his party changes… he’s not targeting their active members enough to get the job any time soon. Maybe in ten years after lots of old members have died off, and the UKIP entrants have all left to join whatever Reform is called next.
Richer folk rarely realise how rich they are as they compre themselves to those richer than them
Chris Philp is my MP and I have been to a couple of meetings at my local mosque where he has answered questions and debated Gaza alongside LibDems and Labour.
I found him rather unpredictable performance-wise. The first meeting he did annoyingly well with the use of Arabic greetings and calm diplomatic responses. He's travelled fairly extensively in the Middle East including Palestine which did him favours as it made him sound as if he was speaking from a position of some knowledge.
The second meeting he completely blew it and to my relief he managed to very effectively alienate the whole audience.
He really doesn't seem to preform well under pressure, the LibDem guy, who had seen combat with the British army in the Middle East, very successfully, although unintentionally, wound him up. Philp lost his cool and started acting like an angry teenager, at one point I was half expecting him to start stamping his feet. I was really surprised and not what I expected from a government minister.
The meeting ended with the LibDem guy, who as far as I am aware has never held any elected office, so not an experienced politician, easily coming out the winner. The Labour MP (now a minister) at the meeting was useless, although on a personal level she isn't a bad person imo.
Has this been done? Seems like more incompetance from Labour for the sake of a few quid…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1we943zez9o
Blimey, reading this is going to make any Starmer-Reeves supporters wince
On Wednesday, Reeves named AstraZeneca as one of the "great companies" as she set out her plans to kickstart economic growth, saying she was "determined to make Britain the best place in the world to invest".
But shadow business secretary Andrew Griffiths said: "There's no vaccine for incompetence.
"In the same week they talked about growth, Labour seem to have fumbled a deal with AstraZeneca, one of the UK's largest companies and central to the critical life sciences sector."
Reads like they renaged on an already agreed deal too - how will they get companies to even start talking about investing if they feel the goalposts will be moved at the last minute?
looks like it was AZ who changed the deal on the the government
The Treasury said a change to the "make-up of the investment" that had originally been proposed led to the government grant being reduced.
they've had a rocky few months, the head of the china division was arrested for fraud at the end of last year which hit their share price
but ill bet Reeves will be scrambling to make this go away, i predict a sweetnee on the deal for AZ
Another bit of selective reporting I see.
Earlier in the article that EL has quoted from was the quote above, the fuller version below
The Treasury said a change to the "make-up of the investment" that had originally been proposed led to the government grant being reduced.
"All government grant funding has to demonstrate value for the taxpayer and unfortunately, despite extensive work from government officials, it has not been possible to achieve a solution," said a Treasury spokesperson.
Should a new Government automatically continue with deals that the old Government agreed? Even if in their opinion it's a mistake? *
What about if the company's terms change and as a result the deal being discussed/agreed no longer offers good value - they should still continue because a previous Government agreed to a different deal?
* negotiated...once signed and enacted I think there's an obligation to honour it.
You are better off.
Obviously. What I meant though was that I’m not better off than I was a few years ago. The economy we have only benefits a tiny few in the top 1-2%. Almost everyone is poorer now than say 10 years ago while a tiny few are very much richer. Instead getting annoyed at that though we point fingers at each other.
TBH the richest I’ve ever felt was back in the early 2000s aged 27 earning around 22k a year.
but ill bet Reeves will be scrambling to make this go away, i predict a sweetnee on the deal for AZ
I did wonder whether the current problems / popularity, call it what you will had an influence. Whether for example industry is hardening its demands because they know exactly how the Gov will get hammered over cancelling the deal whether justified or not. I wonder how much sleep RR lost over the reception the announcement would get among the STW doom mongers 😉
the STW doom mongers
Crisis ? What crisis ?
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-poll-conservatives-reform-corbyn-3513180
Labour’s score of 25 per cent is the lowest recorded by BMG since August 2019, when the party was being run by Jeremy Corbyn.
This govt doesn't seem to have a clue does it - I mean if you are pinning your hopes on inward investment to stimulate growth and you can't even get a company like AZ to back you it does show incompetence really. Apparently according to the FT they dropped the numbers down to 40 mill from the 70mill that Hunt offered (I'm not sure if they still offered the additional £20mill R & D that he put up as well) then quickly put it back up a bit when it was clear AZ weren't playing around but by then it was too late...
Its very worrying when people like Dr Clive Dix (dep chair of covid vaccine taskforce and very big in UK life science research) on R4 this morning when he said they (the govt) clearly just don't have the expertise on board for this. I've always defended them up till now but it does rather look like they can't comprehend the difference between spending public finances and investing public finances for the long term growth potential - which is nuts when its supposed to be their core strategy
No attempt to answer the question, just post another poll.
This govt doesn’t seem to have a clue does it – I mean if you are pinning your hopes on inward investment to stimulate growth and you can’t even get a company like AZ to back you it does show incompetence really. Apparently according to the FT they dropped the numbers down to 40 mill from the 70mill that Hunt offered (I’m not sure if they still offered the additional £20mill R & D that he put up as well) then quickly put it back up a bit when it was clear AZ weren’t playing around but by then it was too late…
Does it? Any idea what the changes AZ made to the deal were?
“a change in the makeup of the investment originally proposed by AstraZeneca” was behind the decision to offer a reduced government grant.
I ask again
Should a new Government automatically continue with deals that the old Government agreed? Even if in their opinion it’s a mistake?
What about if the company’s terms change and as a result the deal being discussed/agreed no longer offers good value – they should still continue because a previous Government agreed to a different deal?
Now, you can argue that the importance of the investment means a deal 'has to' be achieved, but that's not a great starting point for extracting good value for the tax payer. As a reminder, Government hasn't cancelled the investment, AZ have walked away. Why's it OK for them to decide the deal doesn't meet their expectations but the Gov can't do the same?
You don't need to ask again.
No the govt do not always need to proceed with legacy deals made by the Tories and I never suggested they should - however one would assume that if the chancellor namechecked a particular multinational in a landmark speech not 24 hrs before and that this deal was one of several pivotal to the strategy they have been banging on about since the election and crucially if this deal was supported by the whole sector it pertains to as being a huge driver of not only growth but also national security in the event of future pandemics......well I reckon losing it over the difference between whatever Hunt suggested and whatever they offered, possibly as low a difference as 20 million...well that looks like a pretty crap decision from where I'm standing.
No attempt to answer the question, just post another poll.
Because your question is irrelevant to what is being discussed. Whether the government is right or wrong isn't the issue but let's for argument's sake say that they right about the AstraZeneca deal.
How the **** does AstraZeneca pulling out of a deal two days after the Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivers a major speech prioritising growth, including in the life sciences, inspire confidence that the government are on top of things and knows what the **** they are doing?
Did Rachel Reeve not know that "the deal being discussed/agreed no longer offers good value", as you put it ?
And the poll showing the dire political situation for Labour was in response to your "STW doom mongers" claim, as if to suggest that only doom mongers would be bothered by the collapse of support for Labour and the huge rise of support for Reform. I thought that was obvious - I even quoted you.
You’d think with all the trouble Starmer and Reeves are in they’d be looking to make their lives easier. But no, they want their equivalent of Thatcher’s poll tax.
They can F*** right off!
Did Rachel Reeve not know that “the deal being discussed/agreed no longer offers good value”, as you put it ?
I don't know. Nor does anyone else based on what's been reported, apart from the parties involved.
I can imagine circumstances in which even in the last couple of days the deal has soured, but that's supposition, and I'm trying to be careful to stick only to what is actually known. Point of note it wasn't less than 24 hours before, it was Tuesday for a deal that failed on Friday.
As to namechecking them - it was a very cursory namecheck - and indeed Life Sciences was mentioned (using Ctrl-F seems 3 times in a long document) but it wasn't a speech about Life Sciences
We are at the forefront of some of the most exciting developments in the world…
… like artificial intelligence and life sciences…
… with great companies like DeepMind, AstraZeneca, Rolls Royce… and of course Siemens…
… delivering jobs and investment across Britain.
Sure it's slightly embarrassing that the deal has then failed but I'm still of the opinion that's not the reason to consomethinge it just to avoid a negative headline.
I reckon losing it over the difference between whatever Hunt suggested and whatever they offered, possibly as low a difference as 20 million…well that looks like a pretty crap decision from where I’m standing.
So you don't know what the difference was or why it is now considered to not deliver good value, but you'd have signed it anyway. Possibly as low as - possibly as high as what?
Your version
How the * does AstraZeneca pulling out of a deal two days after the Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivers a major speech prioritising growth, including in the life sciences, inspire confidence that the government are on top of things and knows what the * they are doing?
Alternate interpretation based on what's also included in the reporting
How the * does the Government signing a deal that doesn't deliver value to the taxpayer inspire confidence that the government are on top of things and knows what the * they are doing?
Do you think they should have signed regardless of what the changes AZ made were?
Also FWIW, AstraZeneca is still a large employer in the UK, continues to maintain a facility at Speke, and has in the past praised the UK for its policies supporting R&D / clinical trials. Pulling out of a reportedly bad deal doesn't mean AZ aren't still important to the UK.
Secondly - the deal involved commitments by AZ, Gov and third parties. It feels quite a bit more complex that Reeves just deciding to pull investment unilaterally. An AZ statement said
“Following protracted discussions with the Government, we are no longer pursuing our planned investment at Speke,” the spokesperson said. “Several factors have influenced this decision including the timing and reduction of the final offer compared to the previous government’s proposal.”
Your version
Which seems to chime with a lot of people. Have you actually been following the news?
How the * does the Government signing a deal that doesn’t deliver value to the taxpayer inspire confidence that the government are on top of things and knows what the * they are doing?
Do you think they should have signed regardless of what the changes AZ made were?
For a moment I thought that I had actually written that false quote. I thought to "htf did I screw up and get what I meant arse about face", it was only when I scrolled up that I realised that I hadn't!
Now read the correct quote slowly and try to understand the point being made:
How the * does AstraZeneca pulling out of a deal two days after the Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivers a major speech prioritising growth, including in the life sciences, inspire confidence that the government are on top of things and knows what the * they are doing?
And maybe stop blaming other people for the mess that Starmer-Reeves find themselves in. Labour won the general election and it is them who are now responsible when the government screws up.
My answer to the point being made is that it's your interpretation whereas an alternative equally valid interpretation based on what is known would be what I wrote.
The article indicates that as early as August, after they'd been in power a couple of months, the deal had been identified as needing review.
By August, Financial Times had reported that the U.K.’s new chancellor of the exchequer, Rachel Reeves, wanted to reduce the amount of government support for AZ’s vaccine plant
So at that point the options are to continue a deal offered by the Tories (and I think we'd agree the record there is hardly one that inspires confidence) or to renegotiate. And it turns out that in that process, between AZ, Gov and third parties a suitable compromise was not reached, so AZ have pulled out.
I still can't decide if that is a bad outcome or a good one, without knowing what the issues were. All we can do is read the report that says that the Gov cannot find a deal that they feel offers good value to the taxpayer, and presumably AZ can't find one that suits them. What role the 3P has IDK, again could speculate but that wouldn't be helpful.
Which seems to chime with a lot of people. Have you actually been following the news?
I'll make this point one more time, when the media is consistently reporting a negative angle I'm not reading a lot into polls where people reflect that back to them.
And maybe stop blaming other people for the mess that Starmer-Reeves find themselves in. Labour won the general election and it is them who are now responsible when the government screws up.
I'm not blaming other people; simple fact is that there were multiple parties involved in the complex negotiation and between them they couldn't find a deal that all could agree to. Do you think that refusing a deal that they believe offers poor value to the taxpayer is a screw up?
My answer to the point being made is that it’s your interpretation whereas an alternative equally valid interpretation based on what is known would be what I wrote.
I haven’t made any “interpretation” at all. What interpretation do you believe I have made? You obviously didn’t bother reading again what I wrote, the most relevant words are “inspire confidence that the government….”
For the Chancellor Rachel Reeves to announce that she is prioritising growth, including in the life sciences, and she names AstraZeneca in this very major speech, then two days later one of the major news stories is that AstraZeneca has announced they pulling out with a deal with the government is quite frankly farcical. It certainly doesn't inspire confidence in the Chancellor, and why would it?
Like you I of course know absolutely nothing about the deal and what was discussed which is why I haven't commented on it. My comment purely concerns Rachel Reeves's public humiliation and lack of joined-up thinking which you prefer to blame on those nasty headline writers.
As I have said previously government ministers can to a great extent write the headlines, as indeed Reeves did on Wednesday with her growth speech. Unfortunately for governments the headlines are sometimes not the right ones, that doesn't mean that it has to be someone else's fault.
As I wrote
Also FWIW, AstraZeneca is still a large employer in the UK, continues to maintain a facility at Speke, and has in the past praised the UK for its policies supporting R&D / clinical trials. Pulling out of a reportedly bad deal doesn’t mean AZ aren’t still important to the UK.
Just because everything AZ want is not supported doesn't mean that they're not still important and won't be continuing to receive Gov support, for example RDEC. Perfectly possible to namecheck them briefly in a speech on Tuesday and at the same time prioritise value for tax payers over a specific initiative with them and others.
It's your interpretation* that it's humiliating. An alternative would be that it shows that she won't allow poor value deals to be made just to avoid difficult decisions and poor optics.
* and that of the unbalanced reporting in the press.
I suspect that if they'd signed the deal before long they'd have been lambasted for delivering bad value for the taxpayer. It's what sells papers, and drives negative polls. I've made it clear that I think the press is substantially negative - ref eg: the Byline Times article pointing out all the positive things that you can barely find in the mainstream.
It’s your interpretation* that it’s humiliating
You think she's not bothered? Well I have to admit that I haven't seen her face. So what's your problem then if you believe there is nothing humiliating about it?
An interesting article here btw although it's nearly six months old:
Reeves should nail down UK AstraZeneca deal. A collapse would be embarrassing
Nah, Chris Philp is talking about those who sit in their living rooms behind a mocked up steering wheel and spend hours driving imaginary cars around imaginary tracks.
Any idea what the planet would be like if all 8 billion people lived the lifestyle of the average American or Brit?
And yet, if the average American or Brit thinks they might have to give up 1% of their lifestyle for whatever 'greater good' (nationally or internationally), they reach for the populist/fascist button. Personally, I find that disgusting.
But I'm weary of making this point over and over again. I won't ever think any different.
I think the original idea in 2021 was that government support for the vaccine plant was justified because it was felt that we'd need COVID vaccines to be updated and deployed on a large scale quite regularly, hence it was in the interests of public health that government support was provided. Otherwise, Astrazeneca is a very wealthy private company and should surely fund its own expansions.
In the end that additional vaccine capacity hasn't been needed, so it makes obvious sense to review the support offered. Reeves could have swept it under the carpet, gave the money away and blamed the Tories for a bad deal. But reviewing it was the right thing to do, so that's what they've done. Sounds like another perfectly good, sensible bit of work to me.
You think she’s not bothered?
I suspect she is but that's not the same as humiliated. Of course it would be good to have the investment here, but not on a deal that (they say) does not provide good value for taxpayers.
One assumes that AZ and the third part(ies) will be viewing in a similar manner except reviewing against shareholder value. AZ have choice to take their investment elsewhere, and as the article says, hold the stronger hand. Doesn't mean that Gov should capitulate to a bad deal just to avoid making a difficult decision.
As you say that article is 6 months old and in that time a lot of discussions have been had. It mentions a £25m gap which may be less, or maybe it's more if the third party (poss a financier) has cut their share, or the cost of the project has changed? According to AZ it's "Several factors ....... including the timing and reduction of the final offer"
sensible bit of work
Not amending her major speech on wednesday was possibly not sensible though
We are at the forefront of some of the most exciting developments in the world…
… like artificial intelligence and life sciences…
… with great companies like DeepMind, AstraZeneca, Rolls Royce… and of course Siemens…
… delivering jobs and investment across Britain
Or was she totally unaware of the possible consequences of not sweeping the issue under the carpet? Either way it doesn't exactly project an image of competence, or that things are going in the direction that she hopes they will.
Why are governments at the mercy of the wims of private pharmaceutical companies anyway, especially in sectors vital to public health?
I already said this:
AstraZeneca is still a large employer in the UK, continues to maintain a facility at Speke, and has in the past praised the UK for its policies supporting R&D / clinical trials. Pulling out of a reportedly bad deal doesn’t mean AZ aren’t still important to the UK.
Just because everything AZ want is not supported doesn’t mean that they’re not still important and won’t be continuing to receive Gov support, for example RDEC. Perfectly possible to namecheck them briefly in a speech on [correction, Weds] and at the same time prioritise value for tax payers over a specific initiative with them and others.
It's a single issue, in a big relationship with AZ. Why should it be swept under the carpet, address the issue head on and show you won't be cowed by the potential for negative press and will make difficult decisions in line with delivering taxpayer value.
Why are governments at the mercy of the wims of private pharmaceutical companies anyway, especially in sectors vital to public health?
Very good question, but without big PHARMA drug discovery/trials, etc., and then recouping that in pricing, new and improved drugs would stop. In theory GOVs could completely privatise but that would be massive and for most, unaffordable. There is a halfway with publicly owned manufacturing of off patent drugs - I believe a few countries have this but others manage by contract purchasing and price controls.
There are times when 'Gov' refuses to be at the mercy; it's 15 years since I worked in a PHA aligned industry but I vaguely recall HIV drugs to Africa; the label pharma drugs were too expensive and charity / foundation told them that they were going to copy it and give it to Africa, so sue and be damned. The moral implication would vilify the companies. You wouldn't get the same traction with heart drugs for fat western businessmen. Vaccines - bit in between potentially.
"The company said the level of investment it was planning to make had not decreased."
Whatever way you look at it a deal had been done.
If the company the government (of the time) had done the deal with hadn't changed their plans then they're right to be peeved when a new lot come in and decide they don't like those plans. Again, it doesn't bode well for continued long term investment in the UK from any company.
If it doesn't bode well for the prospect of large wealthy companies being gifted tax payer funds for no reason then I'm all for it.
The UK is ranked as one of the best places in the world to do business. I'm sure companies don't need any more free help at the expense of ordinary working people.
The state of people claiming to be left wing while demanding private companies are given government hand outs. Political discourse is in the gutter.
The state of people claiming to be left wing while demanding private companies are given government hand outs.
I totally agree. There is nothing "left-wing" about nationalising the loses and privatising the profits. The Tories have been doing that for decades.
“The company said the level of investment it was planning to make had not decreased.”
However, as the article makes clear "a change in the makeup of the investment originally proposed by AstraZeneca" was behind the decision to offer a reduced government grant. Devil is in the detail, of which we are not appraised.
Further, according to AZ, “Several factors have influenced this decision including the timing and reduction of the final offer compared to the previous government’s proposal.”
WRT
If the company the government (of the time) had done the deal with hadn’t changed their plans then they’re right to be peeved when a new lot come in and decide they don’t like those plans.
Sorry but I totally disagree. 1/ they shouldn't be beholden to deals agreed by the previous GOV that don't provide good value, that's just nonsense. Once properly committed, signed, spades in ground then maybe there's a case but when still sat at the table, no way. And in any case 2/ seems like they had changed the detail of their plans.
If I agreed to buy your bike for £1000 and we have an agreement in principle, if I then change my offer to be £50 a year for the next 20 years are you allowed to change your mind?
If it doesn’t bode well for the prospect of large wealthy companies being gifted tax payer funds for no reason then I’m all for it.
May not be ethically right - but unfortunately that's the way the world works. Global companies can stick their plants anywhere they want, so if you want them in your country sweeteners are always handed out. This sounds like Reeves was playing hard-ball and it's back-fired.
I voted Labour but they are really screwing things up. 100% a one-term government. We were promised jam and we're being served gruel.
We need Led by Donkeys to break into BBC news and splice that Pie video into the lead bulletin.
I suspect some of the true believers will decide he is clearly wrong and we need to buy into the idea that multi nationals can do what they want.
Hey we like our inefficient utilities inflating for no good reason, and for the service to be shit.
It's pragmatism not ideology.
The government can't afford it. FFS.
To be fair when Pie, LBD, Marina Purkiss start mouthing off they might take note.
We are being taken for the biggest ride of our lives.
This must be the most shocking and depressing development since the formation of the current Labour government
Group of Labour MPs urge No 10 to be tougher on migration to fend off Reform
What sort idiot believes that is the way to counter the threat from Reform UK? Even if the halfwits who are pushing this line are too moronic to be aware of what has and is happening in Europe how the **** can they be so ****ing ignorant of what happened in the UK in the run-up to the last general election..... were they asleep ffs?
The last government tried to play Reform UK at their own game making immigration a priority issue and demonising those seeking asylum. The result was utterly predictable - they drove voters straight into the arms of Reform.
If you keep banging on about immigration and asylum seekers/small boats long enough then eventually a significant amount of voters are going to be convinced that it is a serious issue which needs to be urgently addressed. Voting Reform becomes the obvious solution, as the Tories discovered to their cost last July.
One MP said they had been unimpressed recently by the response of ministers at recent briefings when asked about the possibility of processing asylum seeker claims offshore – something Starmer has said he is open to. “Even though the party policy is that we might do this, ministers have mainly been stressing how expensive it would be,” the person said.
So the Tory Rwanda policy was rightly dismissed as both a pointless gimmick and complete waste of money but yet now Labour MPs are urging the government, for exactly the same reasons as the Tories, ie to deal with a far-right threat, to come up with another pointless gimmick and not worry about the cost!!
They feel that the same tactic which totally backfired on a Tory government will somehow magically do the opposite for a Labour government!
To sum up........ voters weren't convinced that the Tories would be tougher on immigrants and asylum seekers than Reform but voters can be convinced that Labour are just as tough or tougher on immigrants and asylum seekers than Reform!
History repeats itself first as tragedy second as farce.
But this is where it starts to get sinister:
Another said they had urged ministers to be more vocal about deportation flights.
One said: “We need to take tougher action on immigration, but we also need to shout louder about what we are doing.”
More vocal and shouting louder is clearly about cultivating a hostile and toxic environment towards immigrants and asylum seekers. Not satisfied with leaving the culture war to the bigots and racists in the Tory and Reform parties these Labour MPs want Labour to join in.
The central argument that centrists make is that whatever else is true they are still better than the Tories, even if it is just a little bit better, they now seem hellbent on demolishing their own argument.
Furthermore the centrists don't even understand the problem. The latest mega-poll shows that the people who are now being attracted to Reform include many left of centre voters who support multiculturalism and see immigration as positive.
The way to weakening Reform is to attack them on the NHS, economic justice, the environment, housing costs, etc. And maybe replace the self-serving careerist who gets wealthy donors to buy him his suits with someone who connects with voters and has some sort of genuine convictions.
This must be the most shocking and depressing development since the formation of the current Labour government
There are some who get it, but I’m sure many on here would dismiss the likes of Clive Lewis as a rabid lefty Marxist.
https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/1886885789142749254?s=46&t=LtLH_brmYFWrcPalxgEeWA
With every passing day I conclude that the PLP is mostly populated by self serving, spineless, cowardly arseholes.
The way to weakening Reform is to attack them on the NHS, economic justice, the environment, housing costs, etc. And maybe replace the self-serving careerist who gets wealthy donors to buy him his suits with someone who connects with voters and has some sort of genuine convictions.
This all over.
What is it with Labour and political suicide?
Looks to me as with the Tories part of the problem is this unelected tosser in the shape of Morgan McSweeney.
What sort idiot believes that is the way to counter the threat from Reform UK?
Unfortunately this is Labour's MO. Their model is to sand the rough edges off the Tories, now that Reform is effectively the opposition they've shifted even further to the right. They still haven't learnt that voters prefer full fat to diet Coke.
What is it with Labour and political suicide?
Thank god this isn't a Labour banner
Thank god this isn't a Labour banner
Well I know it doesn't say "The Labour Party" anywhere on the poster, and they have very cunningly used that same lovely shade of blue that Reform UK uses.......mimicry is the greatest form of praise..... but we can safely assume that it has been produced by a now truly desperate Labour Party.
Personally I think thank God it wasn't the Tories who produced it otherwise this thread would be in meltdown due to the outrage it would have generated... dog whistling, scraping the bottom of the barrel, racist, bigots, etc etc
As it is it will be quietly ignored. Or maybe some half arsed attempt to justify it..... targeting immigrants and asylum seekers in pursuit of easy votes is acceptable because Labour racists are nicer and kinder than Tory racists, probably.
Yesterday it was immigrants, today it's benefits claimants. Punching down seems to be very popular.
Brexit Britain, huh.