Starmer's vision quest

[BoldonLad]

Were they really trying to get £44b?

Don’t they know that’s another two black holes?

Put one on the Credit side, and, one on the Debit side, and you are in balance 😊

 

[Psamathe]

<offtopic>The AstraZenica UK Government subsidy issues also highlight new sources of fake news.

Fron Google:

So Google AI can't tell the difference between total intended AstraZenica investment and the subsidy it wants/is offered from the UK Government.

The trouble is many casual users will read the AI summary, believe it and suddenly iyt's all over Social Media and "established fact".

We already have plenty of sources of untrue information/fake news (politicians, vested nterests, etc.) and now we have another traditionally relied on by many as "reliable".

nb Reuters

The newspaper said Reeves wanted to reduce state provisions to the company's vaccine centre, which would cut the pledge made by the previous administration from about 90 million pounds to 40 million pounds.
(from https://www.reuters.com/business/he...an-build-558-mln-uk-vaccine-plant-2025-01-31/)

</offtopic>

Ian

 

[Cirrus]

Were they really trying to get £44b?

Don’t they know that’s another two black holes?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1we943zez9o

£450m according to the BBC

 

[tarric]

Has it dented AstraZeneca’s share price?

Yes

 

[icowden]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1we943zez9o
£450m according to the BBC

Not even that. AZ were going to invest £450 million of which some of it was "Government Support". The amount of Government support remains confidential we only know that the government lowered their offer of support. The $44bn is their annual revenue as a company which does suggest that they don't need *that* much support.

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes

You sure, last I saw was up 30p

 

[Psamathe]

Not even that. AZ were going to invest £450 million of which some of it was "Government Support". The amount of Government support remains confidential we only know that the government lowered their offer of support. The $44bn is their annual revenue as a company which does suggest that they don't need *that* much support.

As I posted above

The newspaper said Reeves wanted to reduce state provisions to the company's vaccine centre, which would cut the pledge made by the previous administration from about 90 million pounds to 40 million pounds.
(from https://www.reuters.com/business/he...an-build-558-mln-uk-vaccine-plant-2025-01-31/)

("The newspaper" referred to being the Financial Times)

Ian

 

[Rusty Nails]

Not even that. AZ were going to invest £450 million of which some of it was "Government Support". The amount of Government support remains confidential we only know that the government lowered their offer of support. The $44bn is their annual revenue as a company which does suggest that they don't need *that* much support.

Whether they need the support or not is irrelevant. Large companies will go anywhere in the world and government incentives are a part of the decision. We cannot know how cost effective the incentives would have been in terms of employment and tax returns without being privy to the deal but giving incentives, even to wealthy companies cannot always be avoided.

 

[CXRAndy]

Yes

Only 1 day

 

[tarric]

You sure, last I saw was up 30p

Only 1 day
View attachment 7216

View attachment 7217

It was down on the day you asked the question and since the announcement.

 

[Psamathe]

Independent analysis?

Reeves’s Heathrow third runway report was commissioned by London airport
Rachel Reeves was facing criticism on Saturday night as it was confirmed that a report she cited as evidence that a third runway at Heathrow would boost the UK economy was commissioned by the airport itself.

Experts and green groups also challenged Reeves’s view that advances in the production of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) had been a “gamechanger” that would substantially limit the environmental damage of flying, saying the claims were overblown and did not stand up to scrutiny.
...
Alex Chapman, senior economist at the NEF, said: “It is very concerning that the chancellor appears to be basing her support for Heathrow expansion on a figure from a report commissioned by Heathrow airport.

“Even more worrying is the fact that the methodology they have applied is one that the Department for Transport has previously decided is not fit for purpose, and that the report uses forecast data supplied by the airport itself.
(from https://www.theguardian.com/environ...way-report-was-commissioned-by-london-airport)

 

[AndyRM]

Previously confidential report indicates

1 in every 12 occupants in London is an illegal migrant

Let that sink in

 

[multitool]

Poor old CXR.

So eager to believe anything that panders to his bigotry that he'll completely overlook the source.

What a twat.

 

[CXRAndy]

Poor old CXR

Eh, less of the poor

 

[Xipe Totec]

Poor old CXR.

So eager to believe anything that panders to his bigotry that he'll completely overlook the source.

What a twat.

Believe in Brexit!
Believe 1 in 12 Londoners is an illegal Muslamic in a grooming gang!
Believe it's only the Wokes & Forrins who will lose their Human rights!
Believe Trump knows what he's doing!
Believe Musk is a genius!
Believe you're a millionaire!
Believe there really are people who don't think you're a cünt!
Believe Labour are left-wing!

Belief is great, isn't it? Who needs pesky nonsense like facts or evidence?