Can Osborne really take credit for Glaxo's move?
It was a 2009 Labour announcement, not Osborne's Budget, that persuaded Glaxo to invest.
By George Eaton Published 22 March 2012 13:13
For George Osborne, who declared that his Budget "unashamedly backs business", GlaxoSmithKline's announcement of a new biopharmaceutical factory in Cumbria [its first manufacturing facility in the UK for 40 years] couldn't have come at a better time. In his interviews this morning, the Chancellor didn't miss an opportunity to take credit for the decision:
You have GlaxoSmithKline, one of the world's biggest companies, one of the great British success stories, saying the budget has changed their view of Britain as a place to invest.
They're going to create 1,000 jobs here. Now, surely my responsibility as the country's chancellor is to get the economy moving, to get jobs created, and when big companies say that about Britain, people should sit up and notice that we are changing the British economy for the better.
It is rather misleading, however, for Osborne to claim it as an overnight success. The main reason for GSK's move is the introduction of a "patent box" [which introduces a lower rate of corporation tax on profits generated from UK-owned intellectual property], a measure previously announced by Alistair Darling in the 2009 pre-Budget report. As Labour has highlighted this morning, yesterday's Budget document even admitted as much [see Table 2.2, p.53].
In his statement, GSK chief executive Andrew Witty made it clear that the patent box was the ultimate pull factor:
The introduction of the patent box has transformed the way in which we view the UK as a location for new investments, ensuring that the medicines of the future will not only be discovered, but can also continue to be made here in Britain. Consequently, we can confirm that we will build GSK's first new UK factory for almost 40 years and that we will make other substantial capital investments in our British manufacturing base.
In fairness to Osborne, however, Witty also cited further cuts to the general rate of corporation tax, which will fall to 24 per cent next month, having stood at 28 per cent when the coalition took office. Of interest, then, is the timing of GSK's announcement. The company's press office has confirmed to me that the decision was taken several days in advance of the Budget. To some, the conveniently timed announcement by Witty [who was knighted in 2012] has a whiff of corporatism about it.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















10 comments
I am a bit confused, is Osborne basically saying that by asking rich people to pay less tax, they will stop trying to avoid paying it altogether? This is what I think he is saying but It seems such a ludicrous suggestion I can't believe it.
As a teacher, I am excited to hear him say education reform is the best thing we can do to improve our economy. Not too long ago this was business. Does this mean I am in line for a substantial tax cut too?
of course he'll take credit, he's done nothing but listen to business leaders for 2 years. He will do what they ask, capex will explode (FTSE 100 companies are swimming in cash) and eventually unemployment will come down. it's called making an economy structurally competitive. It's dealing with structural deficits at a roots causes level, not the sticking plasters that moron brown and Balls advocated, touching on symptoms. Most commentators at NS , Blanchflower and all, have done nothing but attack EVERY SINGLE policy whilst the youngster outsmarted at almost every turn. It will be remembered at the ballot box i guess.
I know who i'd rather play cards against.
Can Gideon claim credit?
Is he a politician?
The answer is obviously yes to both!
Did cronyism occur?
Well nothing Blair wouldn't do...
Probably worth mentioning, those people who were let go from Sandwich by Pfizer last year were research scientists. These are basic industrial manufacturing jobs. So what effectively we are seeing is a reversal of the so called smart economy, replacing high skilled, high wage jobs, with low skilled low wage jobs. Well done Mr Osborne, for putting PhDs to work as machine operatives!!
By the time the Tories are done here they'll have returned Britain to an agrarian society and we'll be shoveling horse sh*t for a living.
Ever feel you've been conned?
Yip- it'll be whores with sores and lemon peel floating down the goddamn streets!
'Can Osbourne take credit...'?
One thing be certain - Liebore cannot !
Elpenor's comments show complete ignorance of the skill required in large scale pharmaceutical production. The knowledge required our operators would put most pHDs to shame. They are by no means low skilled (or low paid) positions. Plus there are a significant quantity of highly qualified chemists, engineers etc working in the facilites who would also take exception to the snobbis, superior tone of the comments made.