Starmer's vision quest

[midlandsgrimpeur]

More or less true (IMHO), it's the law of supply and demand. It is distorted however if the Employer is, or can be, backed by public funds, in which case, it is not a "true" market.

The problem is, nothing is a true market. How many private companies have massive public sector contracts that pay employees wages and shareholder dividends. I think a lot of the public mistakenly think that corporations just make money through selling a good or service. You could make the argument they are still selling something via a govt contract, but it is still public money propping up a private entity. What is the difference between a supply chain manager at Serco asking for £60k on a public funded contract and a tube driver asking for the equivalent?

 

[spen666]

Is Lord Mandelsson heading towards a period of unemployment

 

[Stevo 666]

In the capitalist system of market forces they are worth exactly what it takes for employers to employ them. if withdrawing their labour causes their employer more financial or other problems than paying them what they ask then that is just just the sort of good negotiation skills and understanding of market value that righties admire.

It is not up to the 'many' who would argue their pay is already generous to decide their pay levels but is a negotiating matter between employer and employees.

I know how supply and demand works, ta.

I'm less keen on them screwing things up for the commuting public and costing economy hundreds of millions. Its no better than extortion. Although longer term, this sort of tactic will accelerate automation, then let's see how much they can get paid elsewhere. Market forces...

 

[Ian H]

Time to be realistic. How much do you think they would need to be paid to afford a house in London?

Many would also argue that their package (including a final salary pension scheme) is already pretty generous for a job like that. And apparently the poor darlings are suffering from stress and burnout caused by their brutal 35 hour week.

Judging by friends who used to rent off my other half, and who between them earned around £150000pa, quite a lot. They had to move out to Basingstoke to find an affordable house.

 

[The Crofted Crest]

costing economy hundreds of millions. Its no better than extortion.

That"s how capilaisn works, Stevo.

 

[icowden]

It's not about him moving, its about his money going elsewhere.

It was going there anyway

 

[bobzmyunkle]

That"s how capilaisn works, Stevo.

Extortion says @Stevo 666. Yet when the rich threaten to move elsewhere, that's due to leftiebollox higher taxes and should definitely not be seen as extortion.

 

[Shortfall]

It's not about him moving, its about his money going elsewhere.

It probably doesn't matter either that Merck has just mothballed a huge Pharmacy investment in the UK due to the uncompetitive environment.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Is Lord Mandelson heading towards a period of unemployment

It seems his position is increasingly difficult to defend.

But his relationship with Trump, bound by allegations about both and Epstein is critical for UK/US trade etc.

Rock/hard place.

 

[icowden]

It probably doesn't matter either that Merck has just mothballed a huge Pharmacy investment in the UK due to the uncompetitive environment.

Definitely Starmer's fault and not at all to do with Trump threatening sky high import taxes on pharmaceuticals made outside the USA and Boris's Brexit.

They pushed back on claims that the decision was linked to ongoing negotiations over drug prices, in which industry has been lobbying hard for the NHS to approve more and pay more for medicines.
The current pricing regime was set and agreed to by drug companies in 2023 - less than 18 months ago.
Since then, drug companies have come under pressure from the Trump administration to lower drug prices for US customers and to invest more in the US - affecting their ability to invest elsewhere.
In an August interview with CNBC, external, Trump suggested that tariffs on pharmaceuticals imported to the US could reach up to 250%.
The threat followed an executive order signed by the president in May aimed at reducing drug prices for American consumers.

 

[briantrumpet]

It seems his position is increasingly difficult to defend.

But his relationship with Trump, bound by allegations about both and Epstein is critical for UK/US trade etc.

Rock/hard place.

I would hope that they are working out the best way to spin his departure, given that Mandelson has admitted that there's more 'embarrassing' stuff. I suppose it's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that Mandelson got the job *because* of his links to Trump via Epstein, and they thought he'd have some leverage. If so, this likely outcome might have been worth giving some more forethought to.

 

[Ian H]

I would hope that they are working out the best way to spin his departure, given that Mandelson has admitted that there's more 'embarrassing' stuff. I suppose it's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that Mandelson got the job *because* of his links to Trump via Epstein, and they thought he'd have some leverage. If so, this likely outcome might have been worth giving some more forethought to.

View attachment 9883

I'm merely surprised that any of this can be thought likely to adversely affect Mandy's reputation.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

It probably doesn't matter either that Merck has just mothballed a huge Pharmacy investment in the UK due to the uncompetitive environment.

This doesn't give the full picture though. As mentioned Trump's tariffs are a big factor. The NHS claw back rates are also an issue. You can view this from either side, big pharma ripping off the NHS or the perspective of companies that spend on R&D should be able to profit more from the investment.

As with the Jim Ratcliffe stuff, I think we need to be honest about big companies. Many of them expect investment from govts, often to the tune of hundreds of millions. Why should we underwrite them? A lot of companies roll out the "not sustainable for investment" argument when what they really mean is they can't get what they want or make as much profit as they would like.

For full disclosure, I run a small business. SME's account for over 99% of all UK businesses. I don't get subsidised by the govt, if I want to invest and grow and employ more people I have to make money and pay for it. There is this myth that huge corporations drive growth when they really drive money into their shareholders pockets. Small businesses collectively drive growth and employ the majority of the population but we don't run around crying for govt handouts and then shut up shop when we get nothing.

 

[icowden]

I'm merely surprised that any of this can be thought likely to adversely affect Mandy's reputation.

Exactly. And he has the get out of jail free card that he definitely wasn't boffing underaged girls.

 

[Psamathe]

I would hope that they are working out the best way to spin his departure, given that Mandelson has admitted that there's more 'embarrassing' stuff. I suppose it's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that Mandelson got the job *because* of his links to Trump via Epstein, and they thought he'd have some leverage. If so, this likely outcome might have been worth giving some more forethought to.

View attachment 9883

Conservative MP (maybe Shadow Minister or some more senior Conservative Westminster guy) on Newsnight last night explained the Mandleson issue and how it related to Starmer showing bad judgement. This Conservative guy was saying how in the US Epstein is like the UK's Jimmy Saville (one can debate degree, etc. but in US a massive issue). So Mandleson's association incl. more recent e-mail(s) encouraging him to plea bargain is something of a big deal and makes his position untenable.

Some are saying that to throw Madleson out now would be making a statement re: Epstein and that might upset Trumpton. Time the UK grew a moral fibre. Think of the victims and how clinging on to Mandleson sends a message to them.