If this becomes a long term trend then Tory MPs will become antsy about Badenoch
Comments
-
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.DavidL said:
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.Omnium said:
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)DavidL said:
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).CharlieShark said: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
She needs to act and act now.
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.
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.0 -
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.eek said:
For how many jobs?rottenborough said:
"shadow business secretary Andrew Griffiths said: "There's no vaccine for incompetence."Fairliered said:
Merseyside. Too farc from London to matter to Starmer.CharlieShark said: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
BBC news
Nice one.
Sounds like the difference was ≈ £40m
FFS.
And then divide the money per job estimate the length the factory will be open for and see if it still makes sense.
A vaccine plant may not directly correlate, but better the skills and knowledge are in this country than outside.1 -
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.eek said:
For how many jobs?rottenborough said:
"shadow business secretary Andrew Griffiths said: "There's no vaccine for incompetence."Fairliered said:
Merseyside. Too farc from London to matter to Starmer.CharlieShark said: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
BBC news
Nice one.
Sounds like the difference was ≈ £40m
FFS.
And then divide the money per job estimate the length the factory will be open for and see if it still makes sense.
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?2 -
I know. Trump is going soft in his old age.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Only 10% on China?rottenborough said:
Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
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 items1 -
Favouritism..rottenborough said:
I know. Trump is going soft in his old age.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Only 10% on China?rottenborough said:
Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
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
And remember Taiwan is about to be subject to 100% tariffs on it's chief exports.0 -
As much as I dislike the cynical opportunism of the Lib Dems I can get behind them on this.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/six-nations-tv-rights-bbc-itv-tnt-liberal-democrats-b2689972.html1 -
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.Jonathan said: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.
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?0 -
She should do a Donald Trump and start sacking Treasury blockers by Tweet.rottenborough said: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?0 -
Scott Manley's produced a rough estimation of what the helicopter pilots would have been able to see:
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.0 -
"Note how the light of the plane appears relatively stationary in the sky from their perspective."JosiasJessop said:Scott Manley's produced a rough estimation of what the helicopter pilots would have been able to see:
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.0 -
If the Tories are never going to be in power in Scotland or Wales, what's the point of them?HYUFD said: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.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
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 both0 -
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.MoonRabbit said:
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.Jonathan said: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.
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.Omnium said:
"Note how the light of the plane appears relatively stationary in the sky from their perspective."JosiasJessop said:Scott Manley's produced a rough estimation of what the helicopter pilots would have been able to see:
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.0 -
One for @Leon
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/18854037772318925370 -
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.Omnium said:
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.DavidL said:
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.Omnium said:
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)DavidL said:
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).CharlieShark said: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
She needs to act and act now.
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.
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.
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.0 -
“You don’t need Reform if you have Conservatives” is still a different way of fighting Reform than Badenoch’s though.TimS said:
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.MoonRabbit said:
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.Jonathan said: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.
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?
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.0 -
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.0 -
Two possibilities that I've seen discussed.Taz said: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.
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.1 -
I didn't think for a moment it was personal.DavidL said:
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.Omnium said:
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.DavidL said:
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.Omnium said:
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)DavidL said:
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).CharlieShark said: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
She needs to act and act now.
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.
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.
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.
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.2 -
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.Taz said: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.
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 -
Well, his stated reasons are two fold:Taz said: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.
(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.0 -
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.DavidL said:
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).CharlieShark said: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
She needs to act and act now.
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.8 -
Interesting. ThanksStuartinromford said:
Two possibilities that I've seen discussed.Taz said: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.
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.0 -
Thanks.rcs1000 said:
Well, his stated reasons are two fold:Taz said: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.
(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.0 -
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.
3 -
According to Nils Pratley in the Guardian 20% is the standard subsidy:Nigelb said:
It’s a mark of the relative unattractiveness of the UK to the industry.ManchesterKurt said:FT has the figures on the Speke plant.
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.
Unless and until we reverse that, we’re going to lose more of it, without such subsidies.
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-embarrassing0 -
And yet the Tories not only can’t poll heigher than them, they can’t even come in second…another_richard said: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.
0 -
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?0 -
These clowns could not run a bath. Shows how a couple of years PPE at Uni does not prepare these idiots to run anything.CharlieShark said: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/4aWYs370 -
Or worse: the CCS scam.another_richard said: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.
2 -
Reading the ramblings of Chris Philp helps explain why:RochdalePioneers said:
And yet the Tories not only can’t poll heigher than them, they can’t even come in second…another_richard said: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.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20gkme83mxo0 -
A point a competent opposition should be making loudly and repeatedly.another_richard said: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.
1 -
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 classMoonRabbit said: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.
https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/reform-uk
https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative0 -
Governments spend endless billions in subsidies either directly or indirectly.Northern_Al said: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?
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.3 -
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)No_Offence_Alan said:
If the Tories are never going to be in power in Scotland or Wales, what's the point of them?HYUFD said: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.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
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 both0 -
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.TimS said:
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.MoonRabbit said:
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.Jonathan said: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.
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?
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.
0 -
Competition @Benpointer
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 02 -
Cruise ships are almost entirely foreign owned. We seem happier to help other countries’ economies than our own.another_richard said:
Governments spend endless billions in subsidies either directly or indirectly.Northern_Al said: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?
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.1 -
China already has a 25% tariff on its imports, so effectively will now face a 35%+ tariff on Chinese US importsSunil_Prasannan said:
Only 10% on China?rottenborough said:
Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
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
https://www.bdo.co.uk/en-gb/insights/tax/vat-and-indirect-taxes/u-s-tariffs-changes-on-the-way1 -
Or carbon capture.another_richard said: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.
1 -
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 2001Jonathan said: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.0 -
Indeed and this will be a good test of them.Cyclefree said:
A point a competent opposition should be making loudly and repeatedly.another_richard said: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.
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.0 -
Great article on the impact of cannabis legalisation in the USA.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/marijuana-legalization-drawbacks/681519/?gift=Q2xxhS27Csx4yHsp7QhJgZlNW9I1WptQNPr1xCizbhA&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share0 -
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?Nigelb said:
It’s a mark of the relative unattractiveness of the UK to the industry.ManchesterKurt said:FT has the figures on the Speke plant.
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.
Unless and until we reverse that, we’re going to lose more of it, without such subsidies.
I'm amazed they didn't walk away the day after the Budget.2 -
Nah - that’s just brinkmanship. The government will fold because it’s such bad opticsCharlieShark said: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/4aWYs370 -
Quite simply, it’s a multinational, and other counties offer more attractive locations.Northern_Al said: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?
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.
0 -
Why should we subsidise poisons that are killing all our BA pilots?another_richard said:
Governments spend endless billions in subsidies either directly or indirectly.Northern_Al said: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?
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.
(Have I come on the right day?)2 -
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.Fishing said:
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?Nigelb said:
It’s a mark of the relative unattractiveness of the UK to the industry.ManchesterKurt said:FT has the figures on the Speke plant.
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.
Unless and until we reverse that, we’re going to lose more of it, without such subsidies.
I'm amazed they didn't walk away the day after the Budget.2 -
Errm, whilst not 'outraged' by this move, I think it's a dumb move by the government. And I voted Remain...Mexicanpete said:
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.Fishing said:
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?Nigelb said:
It’s a mark of the relative unattractiveness of the UK to the industry.ManchesterKurt said:FT has the figures on the Speke plant.
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.
Unless and until we reverse that, we’re going to lose more of it, without such subsidies.
I'm amazed they didn't walk away the day after the Budget.
0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/31/keir-starmer-warned-against-approving-rosebank-oilfield-labour-unease-heathrow
‘We’d go absolutely nuts’: PM warned of Labour fight if he backs huge oilfield0 -
Especially if they waste another year doing it.TimS said:
So AZ has decided to go back to Rockville? Michael Stipe won’t be happy.ManchesterKurt said:FT has the figures on the Speke plant.
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.0 -
You are not on my list of "outraged right wingers". If you request politely, I can add you to the list.JosiasJessop said:
ers".Mexicanpete said:
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.Fishing said:
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?Nigelb said:
It’s a mark of the relative unattractiveness of the UK to the industry.ManchesterKurt said:FT has the figures on the Speke plant.
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.
Unless and until we reverse that, we’re going to lose more of it, without such subsidies.
I'm amazed they didn't walk away the day after the Budget.
Errm, whilst not 'outraged' by this move, I think it's a dumb move by the government. And I voted Remain...1 -
Apols for AI chat. But OpenAI just shoved out their new 'o3' model : https://openai.com/index/openai-o3-mini/
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.0 -
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.HYUFD said:
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)No_Offence_Alan said:
If the Tories are never going to be in power in Scotland or Wales, what's the point of them?HYUFD said: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.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
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 both1 -
They're reportedly painting over a mural at the FBI. Jenrick was ahead of his time.2
-
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.Cyclefree said:
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.DavidL said:
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).CharlieShark said: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
She needs to act and act now.
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.2 -
Three years, please, Malc. Three years of near-fatal inebriation. I could run absolutely anything. Hold my beer.malcolmg said:
These clowns could not run a bath. Shows how a couple of years PPE at Uni does not prepare these idiots to run anything.CharlieShark said: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/4aWYs370 -
Anything he can get. He cares about being seen to have won, not winning. I think that’s the key to playing him.Taz said: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.
0 -
Brave to predict a draw the way England are playing test cricket ght nowEabhal said:Competition @Benpointer
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 00 -
My right arm is totally and utterly outraged that I am not already on the list. I shall write a letter to the editor...Mexicanpete said:
You are not on my list of "outraged right wingers". If you request politely, I can add you to the list.JosiasJessop said:
ers".Mexicanpete said:
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.Fishing said:
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?Nigelb said:
It’s a mark of the relative unattractiveness of the UK to the industry.ManchesterKurt said:FT has the figures on the Speke plant.
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.
Unless and until we reverse that, we’re going to lose more of it, without such subsidies.
I'm amazed they didn't walk away the day after the Budget.
Errm, whilst not 'outraged' by this move, I think it's a dumb move by the government. And I voted Remain...0 -
Weather.turbotubbs said:
Brave to predict a draw the way England are playing test cricket ght nowEabhal said:Competition @Benpointer
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 00 -
It's in Australia.DavidL said:
Weather.turbotubbs said:
Brave to predict a draw the way England are playing test cricket ght nowEabhal said:Competition @Benpointer
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 00 -
Agreed. But we have voted our own imbeciles into power so ......DavidL said:
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.Cyclefree said:
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.DavidL said:
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).CharlieShark said: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
She needs to act and act now.
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.1 -
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%.biggles said:
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.EPG said: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.0 -
More days lost to rain in Sydney than any other test ground.turbotubbs said:
It's in Australia.DavidL said:
Weather.turbotubbs said:
Brave to predict a draw the way England are playing test cricket ght nowEabhal said:Competition @Benpointer
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 00 -
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.DavidL said:
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).CharlieShark said: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
She needs to act and act now.0 -
The US CDC has removed STI treatment guidelines. Because treating syphilis is woke, presumably.0
-
YouTube have just shown me an advert from ... Thames Water.
I know taking the piss is part of their business but they should stick to doing it literally.3 -
More than Old Trafford? I'm stunned!Cookie said:
More days lost to rain in Sydney than any other test ground.turbotubbs said:
It's in Australia.DavidL said:
Weather.turbotubbs said:
Brave to predict a draw the way England are playing test cricket ght nowEabhal said:Competition @Benpointer
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 01 -
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.EPG said:
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.DavidL said:
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).CharlieShark said: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
She needs to act and act now.1 -
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.EPG said:
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%.biggles said:
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.EPG said: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.
0 -
👍Eabhal said:Competition @Benpointer
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
There is till time for those late entries, just saying.1 -
All manly men should get it. Twice. It was a viable strategy for dealing with the Mexicans too, 500 years ago.bondegezou said:The US CDC has removed STI treatment guidelines. Because treating syphilis is woke, presumably.
0 -
Blessed be the fruit.bondegezou said:The US CDC has removed STI treatment guidelines. Because treating syphilis is woke, presumably.
0 -
All I know about cricket is that sometimes it rains and that's... it.turbotubbs said:
Brave to predict a draw the way England are playing test cricket ght nowEabhal said:Competition @Benpointer
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 00 -
That's just another attack on "DEI".bondegezou said:The US CDC has removed STI treatment guidelines. Because treating syphilis is woke, presumably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_and_AIDS0 -
How long before the US-Canada situation becomes a constitutional crisis for King Charles?0
-
Talking of subsidies this contains some interesting figures (assuming the numbers are right):another_richard said:
Governments spend endless billions in subsidies either directly or indirectly.Northern_Al said: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?
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.
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.2 -
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.Taz said:As much as I dislike the cynical opportunism of the Lib Dems I can get behind them on this.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/six-nations-tv-rights-bbc-itv-tnt-liberal-democrats-b2689972.html
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.0 -
Blessed dayEabhal said:
That's just another attack on "DEI".bondegezou said:The US CDC has removed STI treatment guidelines. Because treating syphilis is woke, presumably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_and_AIDS0 -
Surely a polite request would disqualify him?Mexicanpete said:
You are not on my list of "outraged right wingers". If you request politely, I can add you to the list.JosiasJessop said:
ers".Mexicanpete said:
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.Fishing said:
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?Nigelb said:
It’s a mark of the relative unattractiveness of the UK to the industry.ManchesterKurt said:FT has the figures on the Speke plant.
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.
Unless and until we reverse that, we’re going to lose more of it, without such subsidies.
I'm amazed they didn't walk away the day after the Budget.
Errm, whilst not 'outraged' by this move, I think it's a dumb move by the government. And I voted Remain...4 -
There’s no mileage in being Lib Dem lite, either.Stuartinromford said:
But there's zero milage in being Reform Lite. If anything, it endorses and strengthens the case for the real thing.logical_song said:
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.Burgessian said:
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).DecrepiterJohnL said:
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?TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeremy Hunt.Cookie said:Unfortunately for the Tories, it's not obvious that any Tory MP, real or fantasy, would be doing any better.
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.
TBH, I think the Conservatives have run their course.1 -
The costs of not having a pharmaceutical industry can be enormous.TimS said:
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.EPG said:
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.DavidL said:
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).CharlieShark said: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
She needs to act and act now.
And the benefits of having one just as large; look for example at Denmark.0 -
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.EPG said:
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.DavidL said:
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).CharlieShark said: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
She needs to act and act now.2 -
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?TimS said:
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.EPG said:
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.DavidL said:
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).CharlieShark said: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
She needs to act and act now.1 -
The Canadian Government won’t let that happen. Though maybe watch what ties he wears or the menu at the State Banquet when Trump comes.rottenborough said:How long before the US-Canada situation becomes a constitutional crisis for King Charles?
Ice wine with desert. Canadian smoked salmon.
0 -
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”.Sean_F said:
There’s no mileage in being Lib Dem lite, either.Stuartinromford said:
But there's zero milage in being Reform Lite. If anything, it endorses and strengthens the case for the real thing.logical_song said:
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.Burgessian said:
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).DecrepiterJohnL said:
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?TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeremy Hunt.Cookie said:Unfortunately for the Tories, it's not obvious that any Tory MP, real or fantasy, would be doing any better.
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.
TBH, I think the Conservatives have run their course.
0 -
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.TimS said:
Blessed dayEabhal said:
That's just another attack on "DEI".bondegezou said:The US CDC has removed STI treatment guidelines. Because treating syphilis is woke, presumably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_and_AIDS
I wonder if this is personal.1 -
Why are AZ trying to screw the British taxpayer out of 40M when they already get billions from us? Doesn’t add up.
Politics is very topsy turvey these days.1 -
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?MoonRabbit said:
“You don’t need Reform if you have Conservatives” is still a different way of fighting Reform than Badenoch’s though.TimS said:
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.MoonRabbit said:
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.Jonathan said: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.
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?
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.0 -
I do agree, but we do have to be a bit careful.another_richard said:
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.EPG said:
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.DavidL said:
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).CharlieShark said: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
She needs to act and act now.
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.
0 -
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.turbotubbs said:
More than Old Trafford? I'm stunned!Cookie said:
More days lost to rain in Sydney than any other test ground.turbotubbs said:
It's in Australia.DavidL said:
Weather.turbotubbs said:
Brave to predict a draw the way England are playing test cricket ght nowEabhal said:Competition @Benpointer
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 00 -
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/BillKristol1 -
According to the Alt-Right-Extremist-Hate-Rag, the GuardianJonathan said:Why are AZ trying to screw the British taxpayer out of 40M when they already get billions from us? Doesn’t add up.
Politics is very topsy turvey these days.
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%."
0 -
Competition
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)
1 -
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.Monksfield said:
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.Taz said:As much as I dislike the cynical opportunism of the Lib Dems I can get behind them on this.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/six-nations-tv-rights-bbc-itv-tnt-liberal-democrats-b2689972.html
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.0 -
Trying to do everything would be foolish.biggles said:
I do agree, but we do have to be a bit careful.another_richard said:
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.EPG said:
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.DavidL said:
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).CharlieShark said: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
She needs to act and act now.
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.
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.1 -
Sydney is rather wetter than Manchester.turbotubbs said:
More than Old Trafford? I'm stunned!Cookie said:
More days lost to rain in Sydney than any other test ground.turbotubbs said:
It's in Australia.DavidL said:
Weather.turbotubbs said:
Brave to predict a draw the way England are playing test cricket ght nowEabhal said:Competition @Benpointer
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 00
