Forum menu
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.