Between July 2001 and December 2002, Mrs Blair bought clothes worth more than £75,000 – equivalent to £150,000 today – but paid just £31,000 for them, newly released papers from the National Archives suggest.
AstraZeneca's new US investment plans Here’s where AstraZeneca plans to spend its $50bn:
Expansion of its R&D facility in Gaithersburg, Maryland
State-of-the-art R&D centre in Kendall Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Next-generation manufacturing facilities for cell therapy in Rockville, Maryland and Tarzana, California
Continuous manufacturing expansion in Mount Vernon, Indiana
Specialty manufacturing expansion in Coppell, Texas
New sites to supply clinical trials
And the UK...oh we told them to go f##k themselves because they wanted extra £15m of government funding.
Yes, we did and in an industry we are good at and we want to grow and develop in the U.K.
Utterly short sighted.
I am pretty certain it was like a load of the initial decisions it was because it was a Tory government policy. Slowly a load of things that initially got binned have been brought back to life, but AZ haven't waited around for them to hopefully change their minds.
And why would they ? Business doesn’t need indecision.
This govt has been a massive let down, no doubt, however many of the issues they are dealing with are part of a really shit legacy from the Tories. However their own business unfriendly policies as well as the upcoming so-called workers rights bill won’t help.
I said it last year, I’ll say it now. This is 1974 not 1997.
Mr Dog and I are bravely already out in the woods, both nursing our insect bites from yesterday. I think this is what passes for a view in Finland....you can just see the lake through the trees. Today is forecast the hottest day, with local warnings out for extreme heat, forest fires, and thunderstorms later.
Well over a thousand people took part in a meeting tonight, with contributions from @jeremycorbyn and @zarahsultana, plus NEC members from #Unite #UCU #NEU #Unison #PCS and other trade unions, about the need to build, with trade unions and trade unionists at its heart, a new anti-austerity and anti-war party.
Why do I feel that is going to be a lot more appealing than Starmer's New Austerity/Ploughshares for Swords Party?
Like Jezza first time around and Trump, the underlying situation hasn't change that they are pushing at an open door where the system isn't working very well for lots of people.
A lot of people for instance have done what they were told, go to uni, get a degree and now are left being underemployed in a job that just about pays the bill and not much more, with little prospect of much more than being able to move out of their rented accommodation to own their own place.
But… But stacking them in HMOs with no fire safety reduces the burden on the housing market because it is efficient.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a comment you are willing to protect.
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
I didn't care much either way about the original question - a fairly standard piece of William Glennery I thought.
I am interested in policy - and the only actual policy discussed that I am aware of is one of a financial incentive to return to the country of origin - which I am yet to read a convincing argument against, or even an opinion on, from Barty, BigG, Nigel, or yourself.
The strongest argument against it from my perspective, but one that some will doubtless dismiss as woke snowflakery, is that such a policy would stigmatise foreign born citizens, make them feel second class and unwanted, and encourage nationalist thugs to ram that feeling down their throats at every opportunity.
Would it not actually add lustre to their chosen British status because they turned down pecuniary advantage in order to commit and put down roots?
People already have to pay thousands of pounds to acquire UK citizenship, but that doesn't stop racists being racist at them.
are you that stupid, thousands are taxied in , put up in luxury hotels with pocket money and iphones before they get onto full benefits and free social housing and every other help going. Compare to some poor sod born here.
But Starmer says there are plenty of homes for them. So enough to go round surely ? Unless he’s full of shit.
Britain will have to pay the EU a percentage of the value of any weapons bought from UK companies via a Brussels-led defence fund, under plans being drawn up by the bloc to counter the growing threat from Russia. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in May said the UK would join the EU’s new €150bn Security Action for Europe (Safe) project to boost military spending across the continent, as part of a “reset” of bilateral relations.
Seems reasonable in principle, since we don't contribute to the fund itself, don't you think ?
What's the percentage, though ?
If UK companies won contracts funded by Safe money, the UK government must pay a percentage into the fund to help balance out the economic benefit of the contracts, the diplomat added.
Sounds like the contribution will “balance” the value of the economic benefit of the contract. Which makes one wonder that the benefit of joining in the first place is.
There could be small benefits net because defence is an industry characterised by economies of scale. So if our companies grow as a result of getting these contracts, their remaining products become a bit cheaper.
But yes we could get the same result just by awarding them contracts of similar value ourselves.
The main benefit comes from Starmer, who never saw a British interest he didn't sell out, having an excuse to suck up to his masters in Brussels, and Macron, who never misses an opportunity to screw us over, getting off from making us beg.
Well over a thousand people took part in a meeting tonight, with contributions from @jeremycorbyn and @zarahsultana, plus NEC members from #Unite #UCU #NEU #Unison #PCS and other trade unions, about the need to build, with trade unions and trade unionists at its heart, a new anti-austerity and anti-war party.
Cowed by nonentity backbenchers trying to reduce spending by even a small amount.
‘ BREAKING NEWS: More pressure on Chancellor Reeves to raise taxes/repair public finances/‘fix the foundations’ (still a work in progress, contrary to ministerial claims): UK government borrowing rose to almost £21 billion last month, £6.6bn higher than June 2024 and the second-highest June borrowing figure since monthly records began in 1993. City economists had forecast borrowing to increase to £16.5bn. These days when it comes to inflation, growth, borrowing and pretty much every other economic indicator ‘City economists’ are invariably over-optimistic about Labour economic policy.’
UK borrowing rises more than expected, putting pressure on Rachel Reeves
Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show public sector net borrowing rose to £20.7bn. This was £6.6bn higher than the same month a year earlier and the second-highest June borrowing figure since monthly records began in 1993. City economists had forecast borrowing to increase to £16.5bn.
Who is calling the IMF to tell them to ready the bail out?
That's an amazing figure. How is the British government managing to borrow more now than after the bank bailouts? (I'm assuming Covid year takes the top spot)
AstraZeneca's new US investment plans Here’s where AstraZeneca plans to spend its $50bn:
Expansion of its R&D facility in Gaithersburg, Maryland
State-of-the-art R&D centre in Kendall Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Next-generation manufacturing facilities for cell therapy in Rockville, Maryland and Tarzana, California
Continuous manufacturing expansion in Mount Vernon, Indiana
Specialty manufacturing expansion in Coppell, Texas
New sites to supply clinical trials
And the UK...oh we told them to go f##k themselves because they wanted extra £15m of government funding.
The problem is far deeper rooted than that. The UK share of novel drug research has been falling relative even to Europe (which in turn has been falling relative to the US, and in the last few years, China) for the last couple of decades.
Brexit exacerbated the decline by decoupling us from the larger European market - and financial markets.
Our domestic market is one of the least lucrative of developed countries because NIHCE negotiates pretty well on our behalf.
The intellectual, research and manufacturing capital we built up since the war is steadily eroding versus our competitors.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a comment you are willing to protect.
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
I didn't care much either way about the original question - a fairly standard piece of William Glennery I thought.
I am interested in policy - and the only actual policy discussed that I am aware of is one of a financial incentive to return to the country of origin - which I am yet to read a convincing argument against, or even an opinion on, from Barty, BigG, Nigel, or yourself.
The strongest argument against it from my perspective, but one that some will doubtless dismiss as woke snowflakery, is that such a policy would stigmatise foreign born citizens, make them feel second class and unwanted, and encourage nationalist thugs to ram that feeling down their throats at every opportunity.
Would it not actually add lustre to their chosen British status because they turned down pecuniary advantage in order to commit and put down roots?
People already have to pay thousands of pounds to acquire UK citizenship, but that doesn't stop racists being racist at them.
are you that stupid, thousands are taxied in , put up in luxury hotels with pocket money and iphones before they get onto full benefits and free social housing and every other help going. Compare to some poor sod born here.
But Starmer says there are plenty of homes for them. So enough to go round surely ? Unless he’s full of shit.
BTW morning Malc, hope you are well.
@taz Morning Taz, yes all well, hope same with you and you are enjoying your retirement. Have been busy so not on as much recently. Not been able to cause any trouble.
AstraZeneca's new US investment plans Here’s where AstraZeneca plans to spend its $50bn:
Expansion of its R&D facility in Gaithersburg, Maryland
State-of-the-art R&D centre in Kendall Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Next-generation manufacturing facilities for cell therapy in Rockville, Maryland and Tarzana, California
Continuous manufacturing expansion in Mount Vernon, Indiana
Specialty manufacturing expansion in Coppell, Texas
New sites to supply clinical trials
And the UK...oh we told them to go f##k themselves because they wanted extra £15m of government funding.
The problem is far deeper rooted than that. The UK share of novel drug research has been falling relative even to Europe (which in turn has been falling relative to the US, and in the last few years, China) for the last couple of decades.
Brexit exacerbated the decline by decoupling us from the larger European market - and financial markets.
Our domestic market is one of the least lucrative of developed countries because NIHCE negotiates pretty well on our behalf.
The intellectual, research and manufacturing capital we built up since the war is steadily eroding versus our competitors.
Family member was in drug research, then drug marketing but is now looking elsewhere. Nothing to do with AZ £15mn as the trend has been to look for more lucrative markets (US with their limitless profit margins) and the large Asian markets (50%+ of the global population). Can't do anything about population numbers (unless we import more) and can't do anything about drug prices (unless we pay US levels).
No easy answers despite what politicians and pundits tell you.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
I was born abroad.
The gradual process of rad6cslisation on the right is beginning to interfere with PB's gentlemanly rules of conduct.
Hence the more rightwiing sides are gradually becoming even more extreme than our rightwingers here on PB.
I see that trying to stir up civil strife by incessantly predicting it has been joined by direct racism concealed within an unverifiable anecdote.
This place is becoming a cesspit for simple minded bigotry and extremism.
It is depressing how Social Media has legitimised overt racism over recent years.
Twix is giving me lots of subtle and not-so-subtle anti-black racist stuff. There seems to be a distinct split between UK and US online racism: US's seems to be often about blacks and how poorly they behave; the UK's about Muslims. But the commonality seems to be an insinuation that not only are those groups dangerously different, but somehow 'below' us. Or even unhuman.
Twitter largely gives me stuff I’m interested in. Darts, investing, soccer, pro wrestling, classic British TV and Steve Inman.
My feed on a Tuesday morning is always crammed with stuff from last nights Raw.
Last night it was mainly darts.
But that’s what I engage with.
There's the "Following" tab, where I would (largely) agree with you, as it is more fed by your interactions. with some (ahem) oddities.
Then there's the "For You" tab, which is where the majority of issues lie. And staying within "Following" tab can be rather limiting in what you see.
Really, the "For you" tab should be renamed the "Random Rubbish" tab. Or perhaps the "Musk's Mind" tab.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
If we prioritised social housing for people born in the local area then you wouldn’t have anything to worry about.
Most places do.
From the parish, first dibs. Then adjacent. Then wait a month. Then the next ring of parishes. Etc. wait. Etc Connections of five years or even ten are sometimes needed. Just living somewhere isn’t enough.
The way many things in local government are designed to work, surprisingly reasonable.
Feel free to absorb this and then review your assumptions.
Which has its own downsides- on yer bike becomes a lot harder, for a start. It highlights the very human hypocrisy at the heart of somewhereism; it sucks when Yourtown changes around you, and it sucks if newcomers price you out of living there. But trying to stop that by cutting internal migration would suck even more. People have always wanted to move away, as much and as fast as the technology allows. Whereas what most of us would really like is for everyone else to stay put and build the somewheres that we can flit around freely.
The answer to the social housing issue is mainly to have more social housing available, though.
Yeah. It’s always swings and roundabouts.
I don’t like the way the policy discourages diversity. In a 98% white district, it feels to be structurally regressive.
There’s always downsides to any prioritisation of local housing availability. And while I’d like to tackle housing shortages with national policy provision I can see why we are where we are.
+ I can imagine bumping up the scoring for ‘forinners’ is likely to be a tad controversial. They can be miserable buggers, my residents.
Comments
Mrs Blair was at the LSE.
This govt has been a massive let down, no doubt, however many of the issues they are dealing with are part of a really shit legacy from the Tories. However their own business unfriendly policies as well as the upcoming so-called workers rights bill won’t help.
I said it last year, I’ll say it now. This is 1974 not 1997.
I’m sure the public are touched by their concern for patients!
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg9xdy7eqko
So it’s all good.
NEW THREAD
BTW morning Malc, hope you are well.
But yes we could get the same result just by awarding them contracts of similar value ourselves.
The main benefit comes from Starmer, who never saw a British interest he didn't sell out, having an excuse to suck up to his masters in Brussels, and Macron, who never misses an opportunity to screw us over, getting off from making us beg.
Looks like next time they will top their careers by delivering a party of the extreme right.
Power to the people!
Spending like a drunken sailor on payday.
Cowed by nonentity backbenchers trying to reduce spending by even a small amount.
‘ BREAKING NEWS: More pressure on Chancellor Reeves to raise taxes/repair public finances/‘fix the foundations’ (still a work in progress, contrary to ministerial claims):
UK government borrowing rose to almost £21 billion last month, £6.6bn higher than June 2024 and the second-highest June borrowing figure since monthly records began in 1993.
City economists had forecast borrowing to increase to £16.5bn. These days when it comes to inflation, growth, borrowing and pretty much every other economic indicator ‘City economists’ are invariably over-optimistic about Labour economic policy.’
https://x.com/afneil/status/1947541763582808142?s=61
The UK share of novel drug research has been falling relative even to Europe (which in turn has been falling relative to the US, and in the last few years, China) for the last couple of decades.
Brexit exacerbated the decline by decoupling us from the larger European market - and financial markets.
Our domestic market is one of the least lucrative of developed countries because NIHCE negotiates pretty well on our behalf.
The intellectual, research and manufacturing capital we built up since the war is steadily eroding versus our competitors.
No easy answers despite what politicians and pundits tell you.
Then there's the "For You" tab, which is where the majority of issues lie. And staying within "Following" tab can be rather limiting in what you see.
Really, the "For you" tab should be renamed the "Random Rubbish" tab. Or perhaps the "Musk's Mind" tab.
I don’t like the way the policy discourages diversity. In a 98% white district, it feels to be structurally regressive.
There’s always downsides to any prioritisation of local housing availability. And while I’d like to tackle housing shortages with national policy provision I can see why we are where we are.
+ I can imagine bumping up the scoring for ‘forinners’ is likely to be a tad controversial. They can be miserable buggers, my residents.