As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
I am really appalled. It is not a party political point. I would have been equally disgusted if the previous government had let such an opportunity slip through their fingers. Reeves has to try and recover this and if that involves removing a few heads in the Treasury that is what she must do. This is an industry that we are good at, that shone during Covid, that has a real future, that plays to the strength of our University sector (as we again saw in Covid). She needs to act and act now.
If it were a really exciting investment in an area where we have lots of available and talented staff then AZN wouldn't have pulled out. State investment in such things is mostly misguided. (Things like Nuclear reactors may be different)
Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree. We have a trade deficit that is literally impoverishing our children and ourselves, reducing our GDP per capita and leading to the sale of our productive assets to overseas interests. We must make more stuff, both for our domestic consumption (reducing imports) and for the export potential. Politicians of any stripe wittering on about how they want growth means absolutely nothing if we do not start increasing our production to somewhere near what we think we are entitled to consume.
We were stupid enough to apply EU rules when so few others did and lost a lot of investment and output as a result. Hence our deficit and debt. We need to start looking after our own interests rather more. That means encouraging this kind of investment and at least matching what other countries are willing to offer in the form of incentives. Clinging to some ideological purity about the virtues of supposedly free trade is naïve and foolish.
You don't need to apologise at all for disagreeing. Not quite sure that I'm naive and foolish in my views, but I'd not care to argue.
Nonethless you have to see that industries that need state support aren't the ideal ones, and those that need state support even to start are on quite a bit of a wrong foot. Moreover if you soak up talent in marginal industries then that talent can't find it's way into the really productive future. I concede entirely that such people aren't sitting on the subs bench too.
I think it boils down to what people do after all this - failed ill-thought-out startups are dispiriting, dull production lines are too until you spot a new angle, and if you're on the bench then there's no limit to your imagination.
It's a complex thing. Personally I come down on the no subsidy side. I don't mind at all that you do otherwise.
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
Merseyside. Too farc from London to matter to Starmer.
"shadow business secretary Andrew Griffiths said: "There's no vaccine for incompetence."
BBC news
Nice one.
Sounds like the difference was ≈ £40m
FFS.
For how many jobs?
And then divide the money per job estimate the length the factory will be open for and see if it still makes sense.
That can be a *really* bad way of calculating this sort of thing. When there's a winner, it can be a big winner. I hope I heard it correctly, but 1 in 10 new jobs in Denmark last year were created by Novo Nordisk, maker of Ozempic and other drugs.
A vaccine plant may not directly correlate, but better the skills and knowledge are in this country than outside.
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
Merseyside. Too farc from London to matter to Starmer.
"shadow business secretary Andrew Griffiths said: "There's no vaccine for incompetence."
BBC news
Nice one.
Sounds like the difference was ≈ £40m
FFS.
For how many jobs?
And then divide the money per job estimate the length the factory will be open for and see if it still makes sense.
That can be a *really* bad way of calculating this sort of thing. When there's a winner, it can be a big winner. I hope I heard it correctly, but 1 in 10 new jobs in Denmark last year were created by Novo Nordisk, maker of Ozempic and other drugs.
A vaccine plant may not directly correlate, but better the skills and knowledge are in this country than outside.
Do we know what vaccines this was going to produce? Or is it a case of being a generic vaccine factory that could produce what ever is needed? If the latter we are utterly stupid as a country to not have access to that given the looming pandemics of the 21st century.
Seems on face of it to be yet another 'Treasury Computer says no'.
Is Reeves actually running that department or are they running her?
BREAKING: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt says that tomorrow, Donald Trump will impose a 25% tariff on Mexico, a 25% tariff on Canada, and a 10% tariff on China.
Get ready to pay more for avocados, tequila, vegetables and many more items
BREAKING: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt says that tomorrow, Donald Trump will impose a 25% tariff on Mexico, a 25% tariff on Canada, and a 10% tariff on China.
Get ready to pay more for avocados, tequila, vegetables and many more items
Only 10% on China?
I know. Trump is going soft in his old age.
Favouritism..
And remember Taiwan is about to be subject to 100% tariffs on it's chief exports.
Personally, my hunch is that the Tories already need to roll the dice on Badenoch. Simply not a vote winner and they already start with a massive disadvantage. They can’t afford to carry the dead weight Doesn’t seem to have the will or political capital to do the hard graft to renew the party either.
So why wait and delay the inevitable?
She can do a William Hague and come back later.
I now think Bobby J will be better for the Conservatives. The immediate battle is with Reform, and he would fight much more effectively for Reform voters.
If you felt you can form a government on your own in 4 years time, would your approach be very different than just the best possible result in 4 years time for a launchpad position and smaller swing needed in 2034 election?
I would answer yes - this is exactly it. Trying to sound like a government in waiting as Patel did in that disastrous interview, plays right into Farages hands, but just going all out to see off reform, steal all their votes, push them back into single digits, and get right back into the 250 seat bracket in 2029 is a completely different approach and style needed to take. A short game or play long game is two very different tick lists of what to do everyday? A manifesto where you thought you’d actually have to govern, is a very different manifesto for mopping up voters with what they wanted to hear just to get seats, isn’t it?
Do we know what vaccines this was going to produce? Or is it a case of being a generic vaccine factory that could produce what ever is needed? If the latter we are utterly stupid as a country to not have access to that given the looming pandemics of the 21st century.
Seems on face of it to be yet another 'Treasury Computer says no'.
Is Reeves actually running that department or are they running her?
She should do a Donald Trump and start sacking Treasury blockers by Tweet.
I disagree with TSE, Badenoch has a strong mandate for starters having won the Conservative MPs vote as well as the Conservative members vote, which was not the case for Truss or IDS who both had lost the MPs vote in their leadership contests and were effectively removed by Tory MPs. Second the Electoral Calculus forecast indeed does have Reform on 24% ahead of the Tories on 22.5% in its latest poll average but it also has the Tories still ahead of Reform on seats with 138 to 82 for Reform as BOTH the Conservatives and Reform are making seat gains from Labour who are down to just 278 MPs on the forecast.
As the Conservatives have 0 MPs in Wales and have never been in power in the Senedd or Holyrood I doubt the results of next year's Holyrood elections make much difference, though PR ensures the Tories have a solid presence still in both
If the Tories are never going to be in power in Scotland or Wales, what's the point of them?
Personally, my hunch is that the Tories already need to roll the dice on Badenoch. Simply not a vote winner and they already start with a massive disadvantage. They can’t afford to carry the dead weight Doesn’t seem to have the will or political capital to do the hard graft to renew the party either.
So why wait and delay the inevitable?
She can do a William Hague and come back later.
I now think Bobby J will be better for the Conservatives. The immediate battle is with Reform, and he would fight much more effectively for Reform voters.
If you felt you can form a government on your own in 4 years time, would your approach be very different than just the best possible result in 4 years time for a launchpad position and smaller swing needed in 2034 election?
I would answer yes - this is exactly it. Trying to sound like a government in waiting as Patel did in that disastrous interview, plays right into Farages hands, but just going all out to see off reform, steal all their votes, push them back into single digits, and get right back into the 250 seat bracket in 2029 is a completely different approach and style needed to take. A short game or play long game is two very different tick lists of what to do everyday? A manifesto where you thought you’d actually have to govern, is a very different manifesto for mopping up voters with what they wanted to hear just to get seats, isn’t it?
The Trump story suggests they would probably be best bringing back the buffoon. But he’s no longer an MP. Jenrick simply isn’t likeable or blokey enough to go toe to toe with Farage.
Note how the light of the plane appears relatively stationary in the sky from their perspective.
It'll be interesting to see how the official reconstructions vary from this. Manley's usually quite good at this sort of thing.
"Note how the light of the plane appears relatively stationary in the sky from their perspective."
A stationary light is either fantastically far away or one you're about to crash into.
Indeed, sadly. I'm not a pilot, but I can sort-of see why a pilot, perhaps slightly distracted by other things, might not have realised what was in front of him.
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
I am really appalled. It is not a party political point. I would have been equally disgusted if the previous government had let such an opportunity slip through their fingers. Reeves has to try and recover this and if that involves removing a few heads in the Treasury that is what she must do. This is an industry that we are good at, that shone during Covid, that has a real future, that plays to the strength of our University sector (as we again saw in Covid). She needs to act and act now.
If it were a really exciting investment in an area where we have lots of available and talented staff then AZN wouldn't have pulled out. State investment in such things is mostly misguided. (Things like Nuclear reactors may be different)
Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree. We have a trade deficit that is literally impoverishing our children and ourselves, reducing our GDP per capita and leading to the sale of our productive assets to overseas interests. We must make more stuff, both for our domestic consumption (reducing imports) and for the export potential. Politicians of any stripe wittering on about how they want growth means absolutely nothing if we do not start increasing our production to somewhere near what we think we are entitled to consume.
We were stupid enough to apply EU rules when so few others did and lost a lot of investment and output as a result. Hence our deficit and debt. We need to start looking after our own interests rather more. That means encouraging this kind of investment and at least matching what other countries are willing to offer in the form of incentives. Clinging to some ideological purity about the virtues of supposedly free trade is naïve and foolish.
You don't need to apologise at all for disagreeing. Not quite sure that I'm naive and foolish in my views, but I'd not care to argue.
Nonethless you have to see that industries that need state support aren't the ideal ones, and those that need state support even to start are on quite a bit of a wrong foot. Moreover if you soak up talent in marginal industries then that talent can't find it's way into the really productive future. I concede entirely that such people aren't sitting on the subs bench too.
I think it boils down to what people do after all this - failed ill-thought-out startups are dispiriting, dull production lines are too until you spot a new angle, and if you're on the bench then there's no limit to your imagination.
It's a complex thing. Personally I come down on the no subsidy side. I don't mind at all that you do otherwise.
It wasn't personal at all and I hope you didn't take it that way. To take another example western Europe is in danger of allowing its motor manufacturing industry be destroyed by EVs from China which are currently being dumped on our market at less than cost price to destroy the competition.
How do we respond to this? Free traders would say, well more fool the Chinese, we should simply buy the cars at less than cost and we will be better off. Those who favour managed trade would be more concerned about the loss of skills, the loss of employment, the knock on consequences for our steel and aluminium industries and the balance of trade implications. I think it is in our interests to protect our indigenous industry from such unfair competition and to help maintain those skills.
Of course, a consequence of this can be that we have a restricted market which involves us buying more expensive, less good EVs and that might reduce our overall competitiveness. As you say, these are complicated questions which do not have simplistic answers that you can give on a site like this. But I do think we need a serious rethink about how our policies have worked in the real world where we have a never ending deficit. Some of our underlying assumptions have not done us well over the last 30 years.
Personally, my hunch is that the Tories already need to roll the dice on Badenoch. Simply not a vote winner and they already start with a massive disadvantage. They can’t afford to carry the dead weight Doesn’t seem to have the will or political capital to do the hard graft to renew the party either.
So why wait and delay the inevitable?
She can do a William Hague and come back later.
I now think Bobby J will be better for the Conservatives. The immediate battle is with Reform, and he would fight much more effectively for Reform voters.
If you felt you can form a government on your own in 4 years time, would your approach be very different than just the best possible result in 4 years time for a launchpad position and smaller swing needed in 2034 election?
I would answer yes - this is exactly it. Trying to sound like a government in waiting as Patel did in that disastrous interview, plays right into Farages hands, but just going all out to see off reform, steal all their votes, push them back into single digits, and get right back into the 250 seat bracket in 2029 is a completely different approach and style needed to take. A short game or play long game is two very different tick lists of what to do everyday? A manifesto where you thought you’d actually have to govern, is a very different manifesto for mopping up voters with what they wanted to hear just to get seats, isn’t it?
The Trump story suggests they would probably be best bringing back the buffoon. But he’s no longer an MP. Jenrick simply isn’t likeable or blokey enough to go toe to toe with Farage.
“You don’t need Reform if you have Conservatives” is still a different way of fighting Reform than Badenoch’s though.
Badenoch is reactive to Reform, they post something or say something, and she reacts. It’s the difference between being on the front foot in the fight, or hiding in a fridge in a derelict and empty wharehouse. Quite the contrast in how to deal with their threat.
What would Conservatives trailing Reform, and Reform just behind Labour in polling mean at May’s elections?
With my psephological head on I would look for 2 battlegrounds - Con v LDM, a battle in which LDM been making hay for at least 6 years now, and with these doldrum polling numbers around 20%, can Con come under even more pressure from LDM?
And Just because someone is working class doesn’t mean they vote Labour and not Conservative - Alf Garnett never did, and millions like him especially in the 1980’s. So to what extent Reform hurting Labour in actual elections, depends quite a lot on Ref squeezing the Con vote where it matters? If we see at the next 4 May locals, Reform coming second in their battleground v Labour, not winning because the Con vote held up enough, then we can rightly suspect Labour to have a good night in their battleground versus Reform in the May 3rd 2029 General Election - size of Con vote prevents Ref wins no different than size of alliance vote preventing Labour wins in 1980s elections.
Although 4 and a bit years is a very long time in political terms, we can get quite a few pointers about 2029 this May. Cons need to be a coming force where they have lost much ground in their LibDem battle ground, and Ref need to be mopping up Con vote in their Ref v Lab battle ground over the next 4 May’s. Why is the latter so important for the Conservatives to do well? Simples - if they want a commons working majority, they need to be taking these seats from Labour by mopping up the Reform voters, not struggling to win over Reform voters and coming third behind them.
So what does Trump want from Mexico and Canada. He seems to use Tariffs as a negotiating weapon. What’s his demand here ?
I’ll zip by any responses from anyone with TDS.
Two possibilities that I've seen discussed.
One is that both Mexico and Canada are too lax in letting people into the USA. So it's leverage to get them to build the walls.
The other is that Trumponomics involves using revenues from tariffs to replace other taxes. In which case the percentages need to be big and on major trading partners, because otherwise you don't bring in enough dosh.
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
I am really appalled. It is not a party political point. I would have been equally disgusted if the previous government had let such an opportunity slip through their fingers. Reeves has to try and recover this and if that involves removing a few heads in the Treasury that is what she must do. This is an industry that we are good at, that shone during Covid, that has a real future, that plays to the strength of our University sector (as we again saw in Covid). She needs to act and act now.
If it were a really exciting investment in an area where we have lots of available and talented staff then AZN wouldn't have pulled out. State investment in such things is mostly misguided. (Things like Nuclear reactors may be different)
Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree. We have a trade deficit that is literally impoverishing our children and ourselves, reducing our GDP per capita and leading to the sale of our productive assets to overseas interests. We must make more stuff, both for our domestic consumption (reducing imports) and for the export potential. Politicians of any stripe wittering on about how they want growth means absolutely nothing if we do not start increasing our production to somewhere near what we think we are entitled to consume.
We were stupid enough to apply EU rules when so few others did and lost a lot of investment and output as a result. Hence our deficit and debt. We need to start looking after our own interests rather more. That means encouraging this kind of investment and at least matching what other countries are willing to offer in the form of incentives. Clinging to some ideological purity about the virtues of supposedly free trade is naïve and foolish.
You don't need to apologise at all for disagreeing. Not quite sure that I'm naive and foolish in my views, but I'd not care to argue.
Nonethless you have to see that industries that need state support aren't the ideal ones, and those that need state support even to start are on quite a bit of a wrong foot. Moreover if you soak up talent in marginal industries then that talent can't find it's way into the really productive future. I concede entirely that such people aren't sitting on the subs bench too.
I think it boils down to what people do after all this - failed ill-thought-out startups are dispiriting, dull production lines are too until you spot a new angle, and if you're on the bench then there's no limit to your imagination.
It's a complex thing. Personally I come down on the no subsidy side. I don't mind at all that you do otherwise.
It wasn't personal at all and I hope you didn't take it that way. To take another example western Europe is in danger of allowing its motor manufacturing industry be destroyed by EVs from China which are currently being dumped on our market at less than cost price to destroy the competition.
How do we respond to this? Free traders would say, well more fool the Chinese, we should simply buy the cars at less than cost and we will be better off. Those who favour managed trade would be more concerned about the loss of skills, the loss of employment, the knock on consequences for our steel and aluminium industries and the balance of trade implications. I think it is in our interests to protect our indigenous industry from such unfair competition and to help maintain those skills.
Of course, a consequence of this can be that we have a restricted market which involves us buying more expensive, less good EVs and that might reduce our overall competitiveness. As you say, these are complicated questions which do not have simplistic answers that you can give on a site like this. But I do think we need a serious rethink about how our policies have worked in the real world where we have a never ending deficit. Some of our underlying assumptions have not done us well over the last 30 years.
I didn't think for a moment it was personal.
There's not a great risk in not making cars. Things like steel though are of national importance. I don't like it at all, but I think having all government contracts being obliged to shop first for their steel in the UK may well be the right thing to do. I'd not underestimate the PB debate. We all as we're anonymous mostly have no vested interests - so we can say what we think.
So what does Trump want from Mexico and Canada. He seems to use Tariffs as a negotiating weapon. What’s his demand here ?
I’ll zip by any responses from anyone with TDS.
He wants Canada. Specifically, he wants the Northwest passage. Once mythical, climate change has made the Atlantic-Pacific seaway passable during certain times of year. Canada owns the rights. Trump wants it. For the same reason he wants Panama.
Mexico is just a prelude to invading them to break up the cartels.
He said he would make America great again. He is. But great does not mean nice.
So what does Trump want from Mexico and Canada. He seems to use Tariffs as a negotiating weapon. What’s his demand here ?
I’ll zip by any responses from anyone with TDS.
Well, his stated reasons are two fold:
(1) The flow of drugs and migrants over the border (2) The trade surpluses both those countries run with the US
With regards to (1) - both the Mexican and Canadian governments could do more. It is worth noting, of course, that one of the reasons why people arrive in Canada on tourist visas and attempt to sneak into the US is because it is extremely difficult to work in Canada without proper documentation, while it's a piece of piss in the US.
It's also the case that drugs flows into the US, because there is massive demand for drugs from the US.
If you want to stop the flow of drugs into the US, stop demand for drugs, by prosecuting users.
But that won't happen.
For (2), it's true that both countries run trade surpluses with the US. In the case of Canada, 350% of the total is oil and gas. If Canada stops exporting oil and gas to the US via the Keystone pipeline, then the bilateral trade balance will disappear, but the US will import heavy sour crudes from elsewhere in the world. The issue is that the US refining complex is not setup to process the light sweet crudes and NGLs that are coming out of the Permian. Hence: the US is self sufficient in oil and gas, but it imports shitty heavy crude from Canada, and exports light expensive crude to Europe. If Canada stop exporting crude to the US, the bilateral trade deficit will go away, but the US's overall deficit will worsen as it will now import heavy crudes from elsewhere. See: https://substack.com/@robertsmithson1/note/c-89286559
Mexico, ironically, runs a trade deficit in total; it just runs a trade surplus with the US.
I think Canada could (and probably should) do a better job of not letting almost anyone into the country with a tourist visa. Mexico is to a large extent a failed state, and these tariffs may well push it over the edge.
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
I am really appalled. It is not a party political point. I would have been equally disgusted if the previous government had let such an opportunity slip through their fingers. Reeves has to try and recover this and if that involves removing a few heads in the Treasury that is what she must do. This is an industry that we are good at, that shone during Covid, that has a real future, that plays to the strength of our University sector (as we again saw in Covid). She needs to act and act now.
Trump has cut funding for medical research. There is a huge opportunity for Britain to make itself open and attractive to people and companies in this sector. But not with this sort of short-sighted decision-making.
The Treasury needs bringing to heel. It is full of people making the sort of stupid mistakes the highly educated tend to make. Possibly the worst decision of the Blair government was to give the Treasury so much power within government, just to feed Brown's ego and stop him having tantrums.
So what does Trump want from Mexico and Canada. He seems to use Tariffs as a negotiating weapon. What’s his demand here ?
I’ll zip by any responses from anyone with TDS.
Two possibilities that I've seen discussed.
One is that both Mexico and Canada are too lax in letting people into the USA. So it's leverage to get them to build the walls.
The other is that Trumponomics involves using revenues from tariffs to replace other taxes. In which case the percentages need to be big and on major trading partners, because otherwise you don't bring in enough dosh.
So what does Trump want from Mexico and Canada. He seems to use Tariffs as a negotiating weapon. What’s his demand here ?
I’ll zip by any responses from anyone with TDS.
Well, his stated reasons are two fold:
(1) The flow of drugs and migrants over the border (2) The trade surpluses both those countries run with the US
With regards to (1) - both the Mexican and Canadian governments could do more. It is worth noting, of course, that one of the reasons why people arrive in Canada on tourist visas and attempt to sneak into the US is because it is extremely difficult to work in Canada without proper documentation, while it's a piece of piss in the US.
It's also the case that drugs flows into the US, because there is massive demand for drugs from the US.
If you want to stop the flow of drugs into the US, stop demand for drugs, by prosecuting users.
But that won't happen.
For (2), it's true that both countries run trade surpluses with the US. In the case of Canada, 350% of the total is oil and gas. If Canada stops exporting oil and gas to the US via the Keystone pipeline, then the bilateral trade balance will disappear, but the US will import heavy sour crudes from elsewhere in the world. The issue is that the US refining complex is not setup to process the light sweet crudes and NGLs that are coming out of the Permian. Hence: the US is self sufficient in oil and gas, but it imports shitty heavy crude from Canada, and exports light expensive crude to Europe. If Canada stop exporting crude to the US, the bilateral trade deficit will go away, but the US's overall deficit will worsen as it will now import heavy crudes from elsewhere. See: https://substack.com/@robertsmithson1/note/c-89286559
Mexico, ironically, runs a trade deficit in total; it just runs a trade surplus with the US.
I think Canada could (and probably should) do a better job of not letting almost anyone into the country with a tourist visa. Mexico is to a large extent a failed state, and these tariffs may well push it over the edge.
Compare the unwillingness of this Labour government to invest a few million in a new vaccine manufacturing plant as opposed to how willing it was to give billions to Mauritius.
Conservatives had offered a grant of £70m towards the £450m cost of the new plant (15.5% of construction cost) as well as £20m of national R&D contracts for the company. Labour offered £40m towards the construction of the plant (8.9% of build cost).
The company certainly isnt short of money, its investing $3.5bn in the US, $1.5bn in Singapore and $560m in Canada production facilities and its just chasing grants, for example a $300m plant in Rockville to research stem cells that would employ 150 people is receiving $100m in state grants.
It’s a mark of the relative unattractiveness of the UK to the industry. Unless and until we reverse that, we’re going to lose more of it, without such subsidies.
According to Nils Pratley in the Guardian 20% is the standard subsidy:
The international going-rate for state aid to part-fund a large pharmaceutical facility costing a few hundred million pounds, euros, dollars, or whatever, is hard to pin down. Governments don’t publicise sweeteners and a company’s thinking will be guided by many factors, including the wider tax regime. But a rough rule of thumb, say industry insiders, is a 15%-25% subsidy for capital costs. Singapore has a reputation for being more generous.
Thus, if it is correct, as the FT reports, that Jeremy Hunt verbally offered AstraZeneca £65m towards a proposed £450m vaccine-manufacturing plant in Speke in Merseyside, one could say the last chancellor did OK with 14%.
Compare the unwillingness of this Labour government to invest a few million in a new vaccine manufacturing plant as opposed to how willing it was to give billions to Mauritius.
And yet the Tories not only can’t poll heigher than them, they can’t even come in second…
Surprised to see so many right-wing PBers backing state support for a company that is absolutely rolling in money.
Maybe AstraZeneca overplayed their hand? If the difference is, as reported here, around £40m, that may be peanuts to the UK taxpayer. But it's also peanuts to AstraZeneca, isn't it?
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
These clowns could not run a bath. Shows how a couple of years PPE at Uni does not prepare these idiots to run anything.
Compare the unwillingness of this Labour government to invest a few million in a new vaccine manufacturing plant as opposed to how willing it was to give billions to Mauritius.
Compare the unwillingness of this Labour government to invest a few million in a new vaccine manufacturing plant as opposed to how willing it was to give billions to Mauritius.
And yet the Tories not only can’t poll heigher than them, they can’t even come in second…
Reading the ramblings of Chris Philp helps explain why:
Compare the unwillingness of this Labour government to invest a few million in a new vaccine manufacturing plant as opposed to how willing it was to give billions to Mauritius.
A point a competent opposition should be making loudly and repeatedly.
What would Conservatives trailing Reform, and Reform just behind Labour in polling mean at May’s elections?
With my psephological head on I would look for 2 battlegrounds - Con v LDM, a battle in which LDM been making hay for at least 6 years now, and with these doldrum polling numbers around 20%, can Con come under even more pressure from LDM?
And Just because someone is working class doesn’t mean they vote Labour and not Conservative - Alf Garnett never did, and millions like him especially in the 1980’s. So to what extent Reform hurting Labour in actual elections, depends quite a lot on Ref squeezing the Con vote where it matters? If we see at the next 4 May locals, Reform coming second in their battleground v Labour, not winning because the Con vote held up enough, then we can rightly suspect Labour to have a good night in their battleground versus Reform in the May 3rd 2029 General Election - size of Con vote prevents Ref wins no different than size of alliance vote preventing Labour wins in 1980s elections.
Although 4 and a bit years is a very long time in political terms, we can get quite a few pointers about 2029 this May. Cons need to be a coming force where they have lost much ground in their LibDem battle ground, and Ref need to be mopping up Con vote in their Ref v Lab battle ground over the next 4 May’s. Why is the latter so important for the Conservatives to do well? Simples - if they want a commons working majority, they need to be taking these seats from Labour by mopping up the Reform voters, not struggling to win over Reform voters and coming third behind them.
Yet because the Labour voteshare is down more than the Tory voteshare on the GE the Tories will still gain seats overall as the majority of the top 100 Reform target seats are held by Labour not the Tories and the majority of the top 100 Tory target seats are also held by Labour but largely different seats and more middle class
Surprised to see so many right-wing PBers backing state support for a company that is absolutely rolling in money.
Maybe AstraZeneca overplayed their hand? If the difference is, as reported here, around £40m, that may be peanuts to the UK taxpayer. But it's also peanuts to AstraZeneca, isn't it?
Governments spend endless billions in subsidies either directly or indirectly.
Triple lock pensions for example are an indirect subsidy to cruise ships.
A new AZ plant is an opportunity to subsidise something on the wealth creating side of the equation.
I disagree with TSE, Badenoch has a strong mandate for starters having won the Conservative MPs vote as well as the Conservative members vote, which was not the case for Truss or IDS who both had lost the MPs vote in their leadership contests and were effectively removed by Tory MPs. Second the Electoral Calculus forecast indeed does have Reform on 24% ahead of the Tories on 22.5% in its latest poll average but it also has the Tories still ahead of Reform on seats with 138 to 82 for Reform as BOTH the Conservatives and Reform are making seat gains from Labour who are down to just 278 MPs on the forecast.
As the Conservatives have 0 MPs in Wales and have never been in power in the Senedd or Holyrood I doubt the results of next year's Holyrood elections make much difference, though PR ensures the Tories have a solid presence still in both
If the Tories are never going to be in power in Scotland or Wales, what's the point of them?
To be in power in the UK (though in Scotland at least it is not impossible Scottish Labour would prefer to govern with the Scottish Conservatives than the SNP or Reform)
Personally, my hunch is that the Tories already need to roll the dice on Badenoch. Simply not a vote winner and they already start with a massive disadvantage. They can’t afford to carry the dead weight Doesn’t seem to have the will or political capital to do the hard graft to renew the party either.
So why wait and delay the inevitable?
She can do a William Hague and come back later.
I now think Bobby J will be better for the Conservatives. The immediate battle is with Reform, and he would fight much more effectively for Reform voters.
If you felt you can form a government on your own in 4 years time, would your approach be very different than just the best possible result in 4 years time for a launchpad position and smaller swing needed in 2034 election?
I would answer yes - this is exactly it. Trying to sound like a government in waiting as Patel did in that disastrous interview, plays right into Farages hands, but just going all out to see off reform, steal all their votes, push them back into single digits, and get right back into the 250 seat bracket in 2029 is a completely different approach and style needed to take. A short game or play long game is two very different tick lists of what to do everyday? A manifesto where you thought you’d actually have to govern, is a very different manifesto for mopping up voters with what they wanted to hear just to get seats, isn’t it?
The Trump story suggests they would probably be best bringing back the buffoon. But he’s no longer an MP. Jenrick simply isn’t likeable or blokey enough to go toe to toe with Farage.
As a more or less lifelong One nation Tory voter at the moment the party is nowhere close to my list of possibles. I think it can only become so by behaving civilised, and being clear what it stands for, where it is going and how it is going to get there. I am not expecting this in the forseeable future. But wait and see. Only Labour and LDs (holding my nose in both cases) are on the possibles list at the moment.
From the purely political perspective however and ignoring what is good for the country, Boris would be currently the Tories real hope.
What isn't easy is to see his way back to the Commons. It seems to me axiomatic that any seat he could win could also be won by Reform in a by-election. Such a contest would be akin to a knock out blow for one or the other. Whether Reform can beat the current Tory party is an unknown; but Reform could not and will not beat Boris in a GE.
As for Jenrick, I would vote for Reform if it meant stopping him. They are more principled.
Surprised to see so many right-wing PBers backing state support for a company that is absolutely rolling in money.
Maybe AstraZeneca overplayed their hand? If the difference is, as reported here, around £40m, that may be peanuts to the UK taxpayer. But it's also peanuts to AstraZeneca, isn't it?
Governments spend endless billions in subsidies either directly or indirectly.
Triple lock pensions for example are an indirect subsidy to cruise ships.
A new AZ plant is an opportunity to subsidise something on the wealth creating side of the equation.
Cruise ships are almost entirely foreign owned. We seem happier to help other countries’ economies than our own.
BREAKING: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt says that tomorrow, Donald Trump will impose a 25% tariff on Mexico, a 25% tariff on Canada, and a 10% tariff on China.
Get ready to pay more for avocados, tequila, vegetables and many more items
Only 10% on China?
China already has a 25% tariff on its imports, so effectively will now face a 35%+ tariff on Chinese US imports
Compare the unwillingness of this Labour government to invest a few million in a new vaccine manufacturing plant as opposed to how willing it was to give billions to Mauritius.
Personally, my hunch is that the Tories already need to roll the dice on Badenoch. Simply not a vote winner and they already start with a massive disadvantage. They can’t afford to carry the dead weight Doesn’t seem to have the will or political capital to do the hard graft to renew the party either.
So why wait and delay the inevitable?
She can do a William Hague and come back later.
Kemi is already forecast to gain seats and deprive Labour of their majority which is a massive advance on the repeat Labour landslide Hague got in 2001
Compare the unwillingness of this Labour government to invest a few million in a new vaccine manufacturing plant as opposed to how willing it was to give billions to Mauritius.
A point a competent opposition should be making loudly and repeatedly.
Indeed and this will be a good test of them.
Are they capable of holding the government to account or are they just a bunch who boast big about their work rates and how they work through their lunches.
Conservatives had offered a grant of £70m towards the £450m cost of the new plant (15.5% of construction cost) as well as £20m of national R&D contracts for the company. Labour offered £40m towards the construction of the plant (8.9% of build cost).
The company certainly isnt short of money, its investing $3.5bn in the US, $1.5bn in Singapore and $560m in Canada production facilities and its just chasing grants, for example a $300m plant in Rockville to research stem cells that would employ 150 people is receiving $100m in state grants.
It’s a mark of the relative unattractiveness of the UK to the industry. Unless and until we reverse that, we’re going to lose more of it, without such subsidies.
Why would any chemical company invest in a country with some of the highest energy costs in the world and with an unpredictable, incompetent government that gaslights about growth but basically looks on business as an ATM for its pet projects?
I'm amazed they didn't walk away the day after the Budget.
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
Nah - that’s just brinkmanship. The government will fold because it’s such bad optics
Surprised to see so many right-wing PBers backing state support for a company that is absolutely rolling in money.
Maybe AstraZeneca overplayed their hand? If the difference is, as reported here, around £40m, that may be peanuts to the UK taxpayer. But it's also peanuts to AstraZeneca, isn't it?
Quite simply, it’s a multinational, and other counties offer more attractive locations. They pay more for their drugs, or tax less. And both the US and EU are far larger markets.
The UK has an excellent science base, but that’s about it. There’s a great deal more we could offer - not just cash subsidies - but we’re not doing so.
Surprised to see so many right-wing PBers backing state support for a company that is absolutely rolling in money.
Maybe AstraZeneca overplayed their hand? If the difference is, as reported here, around £40m, that may be peanuts to the UK taxpayer. But it's also peanuts to AstraZeneca, isn't it?
Governments spend endless billions in subsidies either directly or indirectly.
Triple lock pensions for example are an indirect subsidy to cruise ships.
A new AZ plant is an opportunity to subsidise something on the wealth creating side of the equation.
Why should we subsidise poisons that are killing all our BA pilots?
Conservatives had offered a grant of £70m towards the £450m cost of the new plant (15.5% of construction cost) as well as £20m of national R&D contracts for the company. Labour offered £40m towards the construction of the plant (8.9% of build cost).
The company certainly isnt short of money, its investing $3.5bn in the US, $1.5bn in Singapore and $560m in Canada production facilities and its just chasing grants, for example a $300m plant in Rockville to research stem cells that would employ 150 people is receiving $100m in state grants.
It’s a mark of the relative unattractiveness of the UK to the industry. Unless and until we reverse that, we’re going to lose more of it, without such subsidies.
Why would any chemical company invest in a country with some of the highest energy costs in the world and with an unpredictable, incompetent government that gaslights about growth but basically looks on business as an ATM for its pet projects?
I'm amazed they didn't walk away the day after the Budget.
All the outraged PB right-wingers seem to have forgotten that in 2016 they voted to impose economic sanctions on our country. Maybe we are just no longer an economic draw because we no longer have friction free trade with 27 other nations.
Conservatives had offered a grant of £70m towards the £450m cost of the new plant (15.5% of construction cost) as well as £20m of national R&D contracts for the company. Labour offered £40m towards the construction of the plant (8.9% of build cost).
The company certainly isnt short of money, its investing $3.5bn in the US, $1.5bn in Singapore and $560m in Canada production facilities and its just chasing grants, for example a $300m plant in Rockville to research stem cells that would employ 150 people is receiving $100m in state grants.
It’s a mark of the relative unattractiveness of the UK to the industry. Unless and until we reverse that, we’re going to lose more of it, without such subsidies.
Why would any chemical company invest in a country with some of the highest energy costs in the world and with an unpredictable, incompetent government that gaslights about growth but basically looks on business as an ATM for its pet projects?
I'm amazed they didn't walk away the day after the Budget.
All the outraged PB right-wingers seem to have forgotten that in 2016 they voted to impose economic sanctions on our country. Maybe we are just no longer an economic draw because we no longer have friction free trade with 27 other nations.
Errm, whilst not 'outraged' by this move, I think it's a dumb move by the government. And I voted Remain...
Conservatives had offered a grant of £70m towards the £450m cost of the new plant (15.5% of construction cost) as well as £20m of national R&D contracts for the company. Labour offered £40m towards the construction of the plant (8.9% of build cost).
The company certainly isnt short of money, its investing $3.5bn in the US, $1.5bn in Singapore and $560m in Canada production facilities and its just chasing grants, for example a $300m plant in Rockville to research stem cells that would employ 150 people is receiving $100m in state grants.
So AZ has decided to go back to Rockville? Michael Stipe won’t be happy.
Conservatives had offered a grant of £70m towards the £450m cost of the new plant (15.5% of construction cost) as well as £20m of national R&D contracts for the company. Labour offered £40m towards the construction of the plant (8.9% of build cost).
The company certainly isnt short of money, its investing $3.5bn in the US, $1.5bn in Singapore and $560m in Canada production facilities and its just chasing grants, for example a $300m plant in Rockville to research stem cells that would employ 150 people is receiving $100m in state grants.
It’s a mark of the relative unattractiveness of the UK to the industry. Unless and until we reverse that, we’re going to lose more of it, without such subsidies.
Why would any chemical company invest in a country with some of the highest energy costs in the world and with an unpredictable, incompetent government that gaslights about growth but basically looks on business as an ATM for its pet projects?
I'm amazed they didn't walk away the day after the Budget.
All the outraged PB right-wingers seem to have forgotten that in 2016 they voted to impose economic sanctions on our country. Maybe we are just no longer an economic draw because we no longer have friction free trade with 27 other nations.
ers". Errm, whilst not 'outraged' by this move, I think it's a dumb move by the government. And I voted Remain...
You are not on my list of "outraged right wingers". If you request politely, I can add you to the list.
I ran our 'hard' 3rd year Sci/Engineering exam papers through it from last year - and it aced them all. So - purely on exam questions - would have been looking at a First. In under 10 minutes.
And this is the 'mini' version. $work was already having a bit of a worry about these things.
I disagree with TSE, Badenoch has a strong mandate for starters having won the Conservative MPs vote as well as the Conservative members vote, which was not the case for Truss or IDS who both had lost the MPs vote in their leadership contests and were effectively removed by Tory MPs. Second the Electoral Calculus forecast indeed does have Reform on 24% ahead of the Tories on 22.5% in its latest poll average but it also has the Tories still ahead of Reform on seats with 138 to 82 for Reform as BOTH the Conservatives and Reform are making seat gains from Labour who are down to just 278 MPs on the forecast.
As the Conservatives have 0 MPs in Wales and have never been in power in the Senedd or Holyrood I doubt the results of next year's Holyrood elections make much difference, though PR ensures the Tories have a solid presence still in both
If the Tories are never going to be in power in Scotland or Wales, what's the point of them?
To be in power in the UK (though in Scotland at least it is not impossible Scottish Labour would prefer to govern with the Scottish Conservatives than the SNP or Reform)
Scottish Labour will work with Reform before they would work with the SNP. In fact, they will work with the Conservatives before they would work with the SNP. They are unable to forgive the SNP for stealing their client vote. If it wasn’t for the SNP they would still control most councils, give their family and friends the best council houses, council jobs and lucrative contacts, in exchange for some nice backhanders. Labour’s relationship with the SNP is the equivalent of Al Capone’s relationship with Eliot Ness.
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
I am really appalled. It is not a party political point. I would have been equally disgusted if the previous government had let such an opportunity slip through their fingers. Reeves has to try and recover this and if that involves removing a few heads in the Treasury that is what she must do. This is an industry that we are good at, that shone during Covid, that has a real future, that plays to the strength of our University sector (as we again saw in Covid). She needs to act and act now.
Trump has cut funding for medical research. There is a huge opportunity for Britain to make itself open and attractive to people and companies in this sector. But not with this sort of short-sighted decision-making.
The Treasury needs bringing to heel. It is full of people making the sort of stupid mistakes the highly educated tend to make. Possibly the worst decision of the Blair government was to give the Treasury so much power within government, just to feed Brown's ego and stop him having tantrums.
If the Republicans can really hold their noses and vote for that complete imbecile RFK as Health Secretary carrying out medical research in the US will be extremely problematic for however long RFK lasts. That is indeed an opportunity that we should be seizing with both hands and this investment could have been a small part of that.
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
These clowns could not run a bath. Shows how a couple of years PPE at Uni does not prepare these idiots to run anything.
Three years, please, Malc. Three years of near-fatal inebriation. I could run absolutely anything. Hold my beer.
Conservatives had offered a grant of £70m towards the £450m cost of the new plant (15.5% of construction cost) as well as £20m of national R&D contracts for the company. Labour offered £40m towards the construction of the plant (8.9% of build cost).
The company certainly isnt short of money, its investing $3.5bn in the US, $1.5bn in Singapore and $560m in Canada production facilities and its just chasing grants, for example a $300m plant in Rockville to research stem cells that would employ 150 people is receiving $100m in state grants.
It’s a mark of the relative unattractiveness of the UK to the industry. Unless and until we reverse that, we’re going to lose more of it, without such subsidies.
Why would any chemical company invest in a country with some of the highest energy costs in the world and with an unpredictable, incompetent government that gaslights about growth but basically looks on business as an ATM for its pet projects?
I'm amazed they didn't walk away the day after the Budget.
All the outraged PB right-wingers seem to have forgotten that in 2016 they voted to impose economic sanctions on our country. Maybe we are just no longer an economic draw because we no longer have friction free trade with 27 other nations.
ers". Errm, whilst not 'outraged' by this move, I think it's a dumb move by the government. And I voted Remain...
You are not on my list of "outraged right wingers". If you request politely, I can add you to the list.
My right arm is totally and utterly outraged that I am not already on the list. I shall write a letter to the editor...
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
I am really appalled. It is not a party political point. I would have been equally disgusted if the previous government had let such an opportunity slip through their fingers. Reeves has to try and recover this and if that involves removing a few heads in the Treasury that is what she must do. This is an industry that we are good at, that shone during Covid, that has a real future, that plays to the strength of our University sector (as we again saw in Covid). She needs to act and act now.
Trump has cut funding for medical research. There is a huge opportunity for Britain to make itself open and attractive to people and companies in this sector. But not with this sort of short-sighted decision-making.
The Treasury needs bringing to heel. It is full of people making the sort of stupid mistakes the highly educated tend to make. Possibly the worst decision of the Blair government was to give the Treasury so much power within government, just to feed Brown's ego and stop him having tantrums.
If the Republicans can really hold their noses and vote for that complete imbecile RFK as Health Secretary carrying out medical research in the US will be extremely problematic for however long RFK lasts. That is indeed an opportunity that we should be seizing with both hands and this investment could have been a small part of that.
Agreed. But we have voted our own imbeciles into power so ......
Hypothetical conversation. AZ: we have you over a barrel on big investment amid high interest rates so we're speccing down the deal, you still give us the same cash or you look like idiots. Treasury: no. AZ: OK.
The flaw in that is the assumption that the average Treasury official has any understanding of whether a commercial deal is good or not. I have met the newer ones, and they do not.
I don't know what you mean by newer. Younger people do tend to require time to learn, but also don't tend to be the ones making decisions. Still, if you have an edge over the Treasury in making nine-figure commercial deals, you are wasting your time telling us about it here and you should be out there getting your 10%.
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
I am really appalled. It is not a party political point. I would have been equally disgusted if the previous government had let such an opportunity slip through their fingers. Reeves has to try and recover this and if that involves removing a few heads in the Treasury that is what she must do. This is an industry that we are good at, that shone during Covid, that has a real future, that plays to the strength of our University sector (as we again saw in Covid). She needs to act and act now.
Then every global manufacturer will have her over the barrel. Give us the extra 10% of capital costs that AZN got on top of the original offer. That might be a few billion over a parliament. On the plus side, some of the projects may succeed if government is better at picking winners than capitalism.
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
I am really appalled. It is not a party political point. I would have been equally disgusted if the previous government had let such an opportunity slip through their fingers. Reeves has to try and recover this and if that involves removing a few heads in the Treasury that is what she must do. This is an industry that we are good at, that shone during Covid, that has a real future, that plays to the strength of our University sector (as we again saw in Covid). She needs to act and act now.
Then every global manufacturer will have her over the barrel. Give us the extra 10% of capital costs that AZN got on top of the original offer. That might be a few billion over a parliament. On the plus side, some of the projects may succeed if government is better at picking winners than capitalism.
Question is whether we want to compete or not. Another pharma company I know considered building a huge plant in Liverpool. The last government - so this issue is indeed non-partisan - offered them 30 million in subsidy. They’d already got 350 million from BARDA the US for a plant and R&D facility in North Carolina, and a similar amount in Australia to build a plant there. So they went to Australia.
Hypothetical conversation. AZ: we have you over a barrel on big investment amid high interest rates so we're speccing down the deal, you still give us the same cash or you look like idiots. Treasury: no. AZ: OK.
The flaw in that is the assumption that the average Treasury official has any understanding of whether a commercial deal is good or not. I have met the newer ones, and they do not.
I don't know what you mean by newer. Younger people do tend to require time to learn, but also don't tend to be the ones making decisions. Still, if you have an edge over the Treasury in making nine-figure commercial deals, you are wasting your time telling us about it here and you should be out there getting your 10%.
Erm, yes they do. Never worked with HMT have you? And your last sentence means you also can’t picture how these deals are done.
Surprised to see so many right-wing PBers backing state support for a company that is absolutely rolling in money.
Maybe AstraZeneca overplayed their hand? If the difference is, as reported here, around £40m, that may be peanuts to the UK taxpayer. But it's also peanuts to AstraZeneca, isn't it?
Governments spend endless billions in subsidies either directly or indirectly.
Triple lock pensions for example are an indirect subsidy to cruise ships.
A new AZ plant is an opportunity to subsidise something on the wealth creating side of the equation.
Talking of subsidies this contains some interesting figures (assuming the numbers are right):
U.S. government agencies have provided roughly a quarter of total funding for early-stage tech companies, and that in the pharmaceutical industry (a sector requiring immense experimentation and a willingness to fail), 75% of new molecular entities have been discovered by publicly funded labs or government agencies.
I’m a big cycling fan and have paid for the Eurosport player for years at about £3/month. It was a great deal. Last year it was transferred to Discovery+ with an increase in price to £7, still a price I’m happy to pay. Last week I got an email sating that from the end of Feb cycling would be transferred to the TNT Platform and we would have to pay £31/month.
That’s more than I’m prepared to pay. I am not prepared to subsidise TNT’s football coverage, which I really don’t care about. So it’ll be back to VPNs and Flemish or excitable Italian commentary.
Conservatives had offered a grant of £70m towards the £450m cost of the new plant (15.5% of construction cost) as well as £20m of national R&D contracts for the company. Labour offered £40m towards the construction of the plant (8.9% of build cost).
The company certainly isnt short of money, its investing $3.5bn in the US, $1.5bn in Singapore and $560m in Canada production facilities and its just chasing grants, for example a $300m plant in Rockville to research stem cells that would employ 150 people is receiving $100m in state grants.
It’s a mark of the relative unattractiveness of the UK to the industry. Unless and until we reverse that, we’re going to lose more of it, without such subsidies.
Why would any chemical company invest in a country with some of the highest energy costs in the world and with an unpredictable, incompetent government that gaslights about growth but basically looks on business as an ATM for its pet projects?
I'm amazed they didn't walk away the day after the Budget.
All the outraged PB right-wingers seem to have forgotten that in 2016 they voted to impose economic sanctions on our country. Maybe we are just no longer an economic draw because we no longer have friction free trade with 27 other nations.
ers". Errm, whilst not 'outraged' by this move, I think it's a dumb move by the government. And I voted Remain...
You are not on my list of "outraged right wingers". If you request politely, I can add you to the list.
Unfortunately for the Tories, it's not obvious that any Tory MP, real or fantasy, would be doing any better.
Jeremy Hunt.
The same Jeremy Hunt who twice failed to win the leadership, who went out in the first round last time, and who would have his unfunded everything thrown in his face at 10 past 12 each Wednesday, or some other Jeremy Hunt?
Well, his retention of his seat in Surrey was pretty impressive. Looked a definite goner but he put money and effort into the contest. He's obviously a decent bloke - not a grifter or chancer - and I think people can see that. Also not mad (which helps).
Yes he would be a much better leader and would do better in elections. BUT he won't get the votes of Tory members, they want to be Reform Lite.
But there's zero milage in being Reform Lite. If anything, it endorses and strengthens the case for the real thing.
See also: today's hoohhah in Germany.
Are there any examples of the mainstream right defeating a hard right party that has properly got off the ground? Boris in 2019 looked like it might have been one, but that looks a lot less convincing now.
There’s no mileage in being Lib Dem lite, either.
TBH, I think the Conservatives have run their course.
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
I am really appalled. It is not a party political point. I would have been equally disgusted if the previous government had let such an opportunity slip through their fingers. Reeves has to try and recover this and if that involves removing a few heads in the Treasury that is what she must do. This is an industry that we are good at, that shone during Covid, that has a real future, that plays to the strength of our University sector (as we again saw in Covid). She needs to act and act now.
Then every global manufacturer will have her over the barrel. Give us the extra 10% of capital costs that AZN got on top of the original offer. That might be a few billion over a parliament. On the plus side, some of the projects may succeed if government is better at picking winners than capitalism.
Question is whether we want to compete or not. Another pharma company I know considered building a huge plant in Liverpool. The last government - so this issue is indeed non-partisan - offered them 30 million in subsidy. They’d already got 350 million from BARDA the US for a plant and R&D facility in North Carolina, and a similar amount in Australia to build a plant there. So they went to Australia.
The costs of not having a pharmaceutical industry can be enormous. And the benefits of having one just as large; look for example at Denmark.
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
I am really appalled. It is not a party political point. I would have been equally disgusted if the previous government had let such an opportunity slip through their fingers. Reeves has to try and recover this and if that involves removing a few heads in the Treasury that is what she must do. This is an industry that we are good at, that shone during Covid, that has a real future, that plays to the strength of our University sector (as we again saw in Covid). She needs to act and act now.
Then every global manufacturer will have her over the barrel. Give us the extra 10% of capital costs that AZN got on top of the original offer. That might be a few billion over a parliament. On the plus side, some of the projects may succeed if government is better at picking winners than capitalism.
I'm quite happy for any and every global manufacturing to get £65m from the taxpayer as long as they spend £400m of their own money in building new production facilities here.
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
I am really appalled. It is not a party political point. I would have been equally disgusted if the previous government had let such an opportunity slip through their fingers. Reeves has to try and recover this and if that involves removing a few heads in the Treasury that is what she must do. This is an industry that we are good at, that shone during Covid, that has a real future, that plays to the strength of our University sector (as we again saw in Covid). She needs to act and act now.
Then every global manufacturer will have her over the barrel. Give us the extra 10% of capital costs that AZN got on top of the original offer. That might be a few billion over a parliament. On the plus side, some of the projects may succeed if government is better at picking winners than capitalism.
Question is whether we want to compete or not. Another pharma company I know considered building a huge plant in Liverpool. The last government - so this issue is indeed non-partisan - offered them 30 million in subsidy. They’d already got 350 million from BARDA the US for a plant and R&D facility in North Carolina, and a similar amount in Australia to build a plant there. So they went to Australia.
It’s strange. The supporters of the Conservative Party, traditionally the party of business, seem to be as reluctant to support business as the Labour Party. Is it just that all parties are now the parties of supporting the service economy, because that’s all they understand?
Unfortunately for the Tories, it's not obvious that any Tory MP, real or fantasy, would be doing any better.
Jeremy Hunt.
The same Jeremy Hunt who twice failed to win the leadership, who went out in the first round last time, and who would have his unfunded everything thrown in his face at 10 past 12 each Wednesday, or some other Jeremy Hunt?
Well, his retention of his seat in Surrey was pretty impressive. Looked a definite goner but he put money and effort into the contest. He's obviously a decent bloke - not a grifter or chancer - and I think people can see that. Also not mad (which helps).
Yes he would be a much better leader and would do better in elections. BUT he won't get the votes of Tory members, they want to be Reform Lite.
But there's zero milage in being Reform Lite. If anything, it endorses and strengthens the case for the real thing.
See also: today's hoohhah in Germany.
Are there any examples of the mainstream right defeating a hard right party that has properly got off the ground? Boris in 2019 looked like it might have been one, but that looks a lot less convincing now.
There’s no mileage in being Lib Dem lite, either.
TBH, I think the Conservatives have run their course.
Don’t underestimate the chances that “solid, boring, competence - look at the coalition” is a winner in a few years; or maybe “Boris but no Covid”.
Just reading through that page, it turns out a certain Anthony Fauci was instrumental in the bombshell report that reported that 180,000 people in the US would die from AIDS. The report recommended comprehensive sex education, rather than abstinence, to Reagan's displeasure.
Personally, my hunch is that the Tories already need to roll the dice on Badenoch. Simply not a vote winner and they already start with a massive disadvantage. They can’t afford to carry the dead weight Doesn’t seem to have the will or political capital to do the hard graft to renew the party either.
So why wait and delay the inevitable?
She can do a William Hague and come back later.
I now think Bobby J will be better for the Conservatives. The immediate battle is with Reform, and he would fight much more effectively for Reform voters.
If you felt you can form a government on your own in 4 years time, would your approach be very different than just the best possible result in 4 years time for a launchpad position and smaller swing needed in 2034 election?
I would answer yes - this is exactly it. Trying to sound like a government in waiting as Patel did in that disastrous interview, plays right into Farages hands, but just going all out to see off reform, steal all their votes, push them back into single digits, and get right back into the 250 seat bracket in 2029 is a completely different approach and style needed to take. A short game or play long game is two very different tick lists of what to do everyday? A manifesto where you thought you’d actually have to govern, is a very different manifesto for mopping up voters with what they wanted to hear just to get seats, isn’t it?
The Trump story suggests they would probably be best bringing back the buffoon. But he’s no longer an MP. Jenrick simply isn’t likeable or blokey enough to go toe to toe with Farage.
“You don’t need Reform if you have Conservatives” is still a different way of fighting Reform than Badenoch’s though.
Badenoch is reactive to Reform, they post something or say something, and she reacts. It’s the difference between being on the front foot in the fight, or hiding in a fridge in a derelict and empty wharehouse. Quite the contrast in how to deal with their threat.
The thing is, the Conservatives have always been, and still are, the party of the "Haves" but Reform claims to be the party for the "Left Behind". How do they square that circle?
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
I am really appalled. It is not a party political point. I would have been equally disgusted if the previous government had let such an opportunity slip through their fingers. Reeves has to try and recover this and if that involves removing a few heads in the Treasury that is what she must do. This is an industry that we are good at, that shone during Covid, that has a real future, that plays to the strength of our University sector (as we again saw in Covid). She needs to act and act now.
Then every global manufacturer will have her over the barrel. Give us the extra 10% of capital costs that AZN got on top of the original offer. That might be a few billion over a parliament. On the plus side, some of the projects may succeed if government is better at picking winners than capitalism.
I'm quite happy for any and every global manufacturing to get £65m from the taxpayer as long as they spend £400m of their own money in building new production facilities here.
I do agree, but we do have to be a bit careful.
With a market our size, one economically equivalent choice would be to apply a lot of tariffs on imports. You put your thumb on the scales the other way. And that’s a dark path. Global trade is a good thing, and relies on us not wanting to do everything.
Brave to predict a draw the way England are playing test cricket ght now
Weather.
It's in Australia.
More days lost to rain in Sydney than any other test ground.
More than Old Trafford? I'm stunned!
It used to be claimed that Old Trafford was the only ground where a five-day Test had been abandoned without a single ball being bowled. And it happened twice. But records are meant to be broken and it's quite possible an even less-favoured cricket location has since usurped the crown.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 8m Summary of Trump’s first two weeks:
Trump has thrown the federal government into chaos thus endangering your services and benefits; he’s pardoned violent criminals; he’s announced tariffs that will raise your prices; and he’s done nothing to help you and your family.
"The international going-rate for state aid to part-fund a large pharmaceutical facility costing a few hundred million pounds, euros, dollars, or whatever, is hard to pin down. Governments don’t publicise sweeteners and a company’s thinking will be guided by many factors, including the wider tax regime. But a rough rule of thumb, say industry insiders, is a 15%-25% subsidy for capital costs. Singapore has a reputation for being more generous. Thus, if it is correct, as the FT reports, that Jeremy Hunt verbally offered AstraZeneca £65m towards a proposed £450m vaccine-manufacturing plant in Speke in Merseyside, one could say the last chancellor did OK with 14%."
1. Highest share of the vote in 2025 with a BPC registered pollster in a GB wide poll for each of Lab, Con, LD, Reform. Lab 30, Con 30, LD 15, Reform 30 2. Lowest share of the vote in 2025 with a BPC registered pollster in a GB wide poll for each of Lab, Con, LD, Reform. Lab 20, Con 17, LD 9, Reform 18 3. Number of Reform MPs on 31/12/2025. 5 4. Number of Tory MP defectors to Reform in 2025. 2 5. Number of Westminster by-elections held in 2025. 3 6. Number of ministers to leave the Westminster cabinet during 2025. 3 7. Number of seats won by the AfD in the May 2025 German Federal Election. 166 8. UK CPI figure for November 2025 (Nov 2024 = 2.6%). 2.5% 9. UK borrowing in the financial year-to-November 2025 (Year to Nov 2024 = £113.2bn). £135bn 10. UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2025 (Oct 23 to Oct 24 = 1.3%). 1.1% 11. US growth annualised rate in Q3 2025 (Q3 2024 = 3.1%). 1.8% 12. EU growth Q3 2024 to Q3 2025 (2024 = 1.0%). 1.3% 13. USD/Ruble exchange rate at London FOREX close on 31/12/2025 (31/12/2024 = 114 USD/RUB). 105 14. The result of the 2025-2026 Ashes series (2023 series: Drawn 2–2). Drawn 2-2 (absolutely no idea so going for a repeat)
I’m a big cycling fan and have paid for the Eurosport player for years at about £3/month. It was a great deal. Last year it was transferred to Discovery+ with an increase in price to £7, still a price I’m happy to pay. Last week I got an email sating that from the end of Feb cycling would be transferred to the TNT Platform and we would have to pay £31/month.
That’s more than I’m prepared to pay. I am not prepared to subsidise TNT’s football coverage, which I really don’t care about. So it’ll be back to VPNs and Flemish or excitable Italian commentary.
Shame.
I feel the same about Sky Sports. There's a lot of sport I'd be content to pay for. But with most packages you basically end up paying for football, and get a few other sports thrown in. The cost of football dwarfs the cost of other sports but my interest in football isn't that great.
As mentioned late on the last post, just what is the Labour growth all about it? This is dreadful.
Financial Times @FT Breaking news: AstraZeneca is pulling out of its plans to build a £450mn UK vaccine manufacturing plant after months of wrangling with British officials about state investment for the Merseyside project. https://on.ft.com/4aWYs37
I am really appalled. It is not a party political point. I would have been equally disgusted if the previous government had let such an opportunity slip through their fingers. Reeves has to try and recover this and if that involves removing a few heads in the Treasury that is what she must do. This is an industry that we are good at, that shone during Covid, that has a real future, that plays to the strength of our University sector (as we again saw in Covid). She needs to act and act now.
Then every global manufacturer will have her over the barrel. Give us the extra 10% of capital costs that AZN got on top of the original offer. That might be a few billion over a parliament. On the plus side, some of the projects may succeed if government is better at picking winners than capitalism.
I'm quite happy for any and every global manufacturing to get £65m from the taxpayer as long as they spend £400m of their own money in building new production facilities here.
I do agree, but we do have to be a bit careful.
With a market our size, one economically equivalent choice would be to apply a lot of tariffs on imports. You put your thumb on the scales the other way. And that’s a dark path. Global trade is a good thing, and relies on us not wanting to do everything.
Trying to do everything would be foolish.
Not caring if we do anything would be certainly disastrous.
The optimum spot to aim for is to be able to chose to do what is most profitable and strategically secure.
Comments
Nonethless you have to see that industries that need state support aren't the ideal ones, and those that need state support even to start are on quite a bit of a wrong foot. Moreover if you soak up talent in marginal industries then that talent can't find it's way into the really productive future. I concede entirely that such people aren't sitting on the subs bench too.
I think it boils down to what people do after all this - failed ill-thought-out startups are dispiriting, dull production lines are too until you spot a new angle, and if you're on the bench then there's no limit to your imagination.
It's a complex thing. Personally I come down on the no subsidy side. I don't mind at all that you do otherwise.
A vaccine plant may not directly correlate, but better the skills and knowledge are in this country than outside.
Seems on face of it to be yet another 'Treasury Computer says no'.
Is Reeves actually running that department or are they running her?
And remember Taiwan is about to be subject to 100% tariffs on it's chief exports.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/six-nations-tv-rights-bbc-itv-tnt-liberal-democrats-b2689972.html
If you felt you can form a government on your own in 4 years time, would your approach be very different than just the best possible result in 4 years time for a launchpad position and smaller swing needed in 2034 election?
I would answer yes - this is exactly it. Trying to sound like a government in waiting as Patel did in that disastrous interview, plays right into Farages hands, but just going all out to see off reform, steal all their votes, push them back into single digits, and get right back into the 250 seat bracket in 2029 is a completely different approach and style needed to take. A short game or play long game is two very different tick lists of what to do everyday? A manifesto where you thought you’d actually have to govern, is a very different manifesto for mopping up voters with what they wanted to hear just to get seats, isn’t it?
https://x.com/DJSnM/status/1885410313132269742
Note how the light of the plane appears relatively stationary in the sky from their perspective.
It'll be interesting to see how the official reconstructions vary from this. Manley's usually quite good at this sort of thing.
A stationary light is either fantastically far away or one you're about to crash into.
I’ll zip by any responses from anyone with TDS.
Benny Johnson
@bennyjohnson
·
1h
🚨Karoline Leavitt leaves every reporter in stunned silence after decimating their repeat LIES about COVID origin:
"COVID leaked from a lab in China... we now know that to be the confirmable truth."
They lied to your face for years, now we get to watch them seethe at the truth.
https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1885403777231892537
How do we respond to this? Free traders would say, well more fool the Chinese, we should simply buy the cars at less than cost and we will be better off. Those who favour managed trade would be more concerned about the loss of skills, the loss of employment, the knock on consequences for our steel and aluminium industries and the balance of trade implications. I think it is in our interests to protect our indigenous industry from such unfair competition and to help maintain those skills.
Of course, a consequence of this can be that we have a restricted market which involves us buying more expensive, less good EVs and that might reduce our overall competitiveness. As you say, these are complicated questions which do not have simplistic answers that you can give on a site like this. But I do think we need a serious rethink about how our policies have worked in the real world where we have a never ending deficit. Some of our underlying assumptions have not done us well over the last 30 years.
Badenoch is reactive to Reform, they post something or say something, and she reacts. It’s the difference between being on the front foot in the fight, or hiding in a fridge in a derelict and empty wharehouse. Quite the contrast in how to deal with their threat.
With my psephological head on I would look for 2 battlegrounds - Con v LDM, a battle in which LDM been making hay for at least 6 years now, and with these doldrum polling numbers around 20%, can Con come under even more pressure from LDM?
And Just because someone is working class doesn’t mean they vote Labour and not Conservative - Alf Garnett never did, and millions like him especially in the 1980’s. So to what extent Reform hurting Labour in actual elections, depends quite a lot on Ref squeezing the Con vote where it matters? If we see at the next 4 May locals, Reform coming second in their battleground v Labour, not winning because the Con vote held up enough, then we can rightly suspect Labour to have a good night in their battleground versus Reform in the May 3rd 2029 General Election - size of Con vote prevents Ref wins no different than size of alliance vote preventing Labour wins in 1980s elections.
Although 4 and a bit years is a very long time in political terms, we can get quite a few pointers about 2029 this May. Cons need to be a coming force where they have lost much ground in their LibDem battle ground, and Ref need to be mopping up Con vote in their Ref v Lab battle ground over the next 4 May’s. Why is the latter so important for the Conservatives to do well? Simples - if they want a commons working majority, they need to be taking these seats from Labour by mopping up the Reform voters, not struggling to win over Reform voters and coming third behind them.
One is that both Mexico and Canada are too lax in letting people into the USA. So it's leverage to get them to build the walls.
The other is that Trumponomics involves using revenues from tariffs to replace other taxes. In which case the percentages need to be big and on major trading partners, because otherwise you don't bring in enough dosh.
There's not a great risk in not making cars. Things like steel though are of national importance. I don't like it at all, but I think having all government contracts being obliged to shop first for their steel in the UK may well be the right thing to do. I'd not underestimate the PB debate. We all as we're anonymous mostly have no vested interests - so we can say what we think.
Mexico is just a prelude to invading them to break up the cartels.
He said he would make America great again. He is. But great does not mean nice.
(1) The flow of drugs and migrants over the border
(2) The trade surpluses both those countries run with the US
With regards to (1) - both the Mexican and Canadian governments could do more. It is worth noting, of course, that one of the reasons why people arrive in Canada on tourist visas and attempt to sneak into the US is because it is extremely difficult to work in Canada without proper documentation, while it's a piece of piss in the US.
It's also the case that drugs flows into the US, because there is massive demand for drugs from the US.
If you want to stop the flow of drugs into the US, stop demand for drugs, by prosecuting users.
But that won't happen.
For (2), it's true that both countries run trade surpluses with the US. In the case of Canada, 350% of the total is oil and gas. If Canada stops exporting oil and gas to the US via the Keystone pipeline, then the bilateral trade balance will disappear, but the US will import heavy sour crudes from elsewhere in the world. The issue is that the US refining complex is not setup to process the light sweet crudes and NGLs that are coming out of the Permian. Hence: the US is self sufficient in oil and gas, but it imports shitty heavy crude from Canada, and exports light expensive crude to Europe. If Canada stop exporting crude to the US, the bilateral trade deficit will go away, but the US's overall deficit will worsen as it will now import heavy crudes from elsewhere. See: https://substack.com/@robertsmithson1/note/c-89286559
Mexico, ironically, runs a trade deficit in total; it just runs a trade surplus with the US.
I think Canada could (and probably should) do a better job of not letting almost anyone into the country with a tourist visa. Mexico is to a large extent a failed state, and these tariffs may well push it over the edge.
The Treasury needs bringing to heel. It is full of people making the sort of stupid mistakes the highly educated tend to make. Possibly the worst decision of the Blair government was to give the Treasury so much power within government, just to feed Brown's ego and stop him having tantrums.
The international going-rate for state aid to part-fund a large pharmaceutical facility costing a few hundred million pounds, euros, dollars, or whatever, is hard to pin down. Governments don’t publicise sweeteners and a company’s thinking will be guided by many factors, including the wider tax regime. But a rough rule of thumb, say industry insiders, is a 15%-25% subsidy for capital costs. Singapore has a reputation for being more generous.
Thus, if it is correct, as the FT reports, that Jeremy Hunt verbally offered AstraZeneca £65m towards a proposed £450m vaccine-manufacturing plant in Speke in Merseyside, one could say the last chancellor did OK with 14%.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/article/2024/aug/14/rachel-reeves-nail-down-uk-astrazeneca-deal-collapse-embarrassing
Maybe AstraZeneca overplayed their hand? If the difference is, as reported here, around £40m, that may be peanuts to the UK taxpayer.
But it's also peanuts to AstraZeneca, isn't it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20gkme83mxo
https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/reform-uk
https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative
Triple lock pensions for example are an indirect subsidy to cruise ships.
A new AZ plant is an opportunity to subsidise something on the wealth creating side of the equation.
From the purely political perspective however and ignoring what is good for the country, Boris would be currently the Tories real hope.
What isn't easy is to see his way back to the Commons. It seems to me axiomatic that any seat he could win could also be won by Reform in a by-election. Such a contest would be akin to a knock out blow for one or the other. Whether Reform can beat the current Tory party is an unknown; but Reform could not and will not beat Boris in a GE.
As for Jenrick, I would vote for Reform if it meant stopping him. They are more principled.
1. LAB – 33%, Con – 28%, LD 15%, Reform 30%
2. LAB – 21%, Con – 18%, LD 10%, Reform 15%
3. 6
4. 0
5. 2
6. 2
7. 142
8. 2.4%
9. £118bn
10. 1.8%
11. 2.9%
12. 1.3%
13. 82
14. Australia 4 England 0
https://www.bdo.co.uk/en-gb/insights/tax/vat-and-indirect-taxes/u-s-tariffs-changes-on-the-way
Are they capable of holding the government to account or are they just a bunch who boast big about their work rates and how they work through their lunches.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/marijuana-legalization-drawbacks/681519/?gift=Q2xxhS27Csx4yHsp7QhJgZlNW9I1WptQNPr1xCizbhA&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
I'm amazed they didn't walk away the day after the Budget.
They pay more for their drugs, or tax less. And both the US and EU are far larger markets.
The UK has an excellent science base, but that’s about it.
There’s a great deal more we could offer - not just cash subsidies - but we’re not doing so.
(Have I come on the right day?)
‘We’d go absolutely nuts’: PM warned of Labour fight if he backs huge oilfield
I ran our 'hard' 3rd year Sci/Engineering exam papers through it from last year - and it aced them all. So - purely on exam questions - would have been looking at a First. In under 10 minutes.
And this is the 'mini' version. $work was already having a bit of a worry about these things.
I know taking the piss is part of their business but they should stick to doing it literally.
There is till time for those late entries, just saying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_and_AIDS
https://medium.com/@profgalloway/tech-billionaires-are-the-new-welfare-queens-b17f8f314989
U.S. government agencies have provided roughly a quarter of total funding for early-stage tech companies, and that in the pharmaceutical industry (a sector requiring immense experimentation and a willingness to fail), 75% of new molecular entities have been discovered by publicly funded labs or government agencies.
That’s more than I’m prepared to pay. I am not prepared to subsidise TNT’s football coverage, which I really don’t care about. So it’ll be back to VPNs and Flemish or excitable Italian commentary.
Shame.
TBH, I think the Conservatives have run their course.
And the benefits of having one just as large; look for example at Denmark.
Ice wine with desert. Canadian smoked salmon.
I wonder if this is personal.
Politics is very topsy turvey these days.
With a market our size, one economically equivalent choice would be to apply a lot of tariffs on imports. You put your thumb on the scales the other way. And that’s a dark path. Global trade is a good thing, and relies on us not wanting to do everything.
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
8m
Summary of Trump’s first two weeks:
Trump has thrown the federal government into chaos thus endangering your services and benefits; he’s pardoned violent criminals; he’s announced tariffs that will raise your prices; and he’s done nothing to help you and your family.
https://x.com/BillKristol
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2025/jan/31/canada-mexico-donald-trump-tariffs-saturday-uk-house-prices-inflation-ftse-100-federal-reserve-business-live-news
"The international going-rate for state aid to part-fund a large pharmaceutical facility costing a few hundred million pounds, euros, dollars, or whatever, is hard to pin down. Governments don’t publicise sweeteners and a company’s thinking will be guided by many factors, including the wider tax regime. But a rough rule of thumb, say industry insiders, is a 15%-25% subsidy for capital costs. Singapore has a reputation for being more generous.
Thus, if it is correct, as the FT reports, that Jeremy Hunt verbally offered AstraZeneca £65m towards a proposed £450m vaccine-manufacturing plant in Speke in Merseyside, one could say the last chancellor did OK with 14%."
Submitted only to make everyone else look great.
1. Highest share of the vote in 2025 with a BPC registered pollster in a GB wide poll for each of Lab, Con, LD, Reform. Lab 30, Con 30, LD 15, Reform 30
2. Lowest share of the vote in 2025 with a BPC registered pollster in a GB wide poll for each of Lab, Con, LD, Reform. Lab 20, Con 17, LD 9, Reform 18
3. Number of Reform MPs on 31/12/2025. 5
4. Number of Tory MP defectors to Reform in 2025. 2
5. Number of Westminster by-elections held in 2025. 3
6. Number of ministers to leave the Westminster cabinet during 2025. 3
7. Number of seats won by the AfD in the May 2025 German Federal Election. 166
8. UK CPI figure for November 2025 (Nov 2024 = 2.6%). 2.5%
9. UK borrowing in the financial year-to-November 2025 (Year to Nov 2024 = £113.2bn). £135bn
10. UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2025 (Oct 23 to Oct 24 = 1.3%). 1.1%
11. US growth annualised rate in Q3 2025 (Q3 2024 = 3.1%). 1.8%
12. EU growth Q3 2024 to Q3 2025 (2024 = 1.0%). 1.3%
13. USD/Ruble exchange rate at London FOREX close on 31/12/2025 (31/12/2024 = 114 USD/RUB). 105
14. The result of the 2025-2026 Ashes series (2023 series: Drawn 2–2). Drawn 2-2 (absolutely no idea so going for a repeat)
Not caring if we do anything would be certainly disastrous.
The optimum spot to aim for is to be able to chose to do what is most profitable and strategically secure.