Pfizer fined £84m for charging ‘unfair’ price for epilepsy drug (Blog 10)

Pfizer fined £84m for charging ‘unfair’ price for epilepsy drug

After reading this article I have a feeling of disgust which I am unable to compare with anything else. The basic summary of this article is the drugs company Pfizer uses the distributor Flynn Pharma to distribute it's drugs to the National Health service, the drugs are phenytoin sodium pills used to help people with epilepsy. My main problem is the price of the drugs inflating by a huge 2,600 per cent “overnight" which I personally think this is a disgrace. How can a company, with an estimated 48,000 patients using the treatment, increase the price for 100mg packet of pills from £2.83 to £67.50. This is so morally wrong on so many levels it frustrates me when I see it happen. However this is the worst part of the nightmare, Pfizer advised it's patients not to switch to other products so the NHS had no alternative but to pay the higher prices, this again is another case of a multimillion pound business who are driven by profits and show a total disrespect to the people who rely on them, and in this case it's potentially a life or death situation.

In my eyes it is yet again another cases of an industry which problem occur due to a lack of regulations in a field which is primarily focussed on mass profits and lack of ethics. I wonder how the people who make these decisions sleep at night, I also wonder what decisions would be made if it was one of their family members who relied on this drug to live a relatively normal life. This effects me personally not through anyone I know who uses the drug but when it comes to the money which is spent on it. The annual NHS spending on the drug shot up from £2m to £50m. Now when I see this figure I firstly think of the other drug's companies which must be doing the same thing, exploiting the market and let's face it basically taking the biscuit, secondly I think of how the £48m difference and how it could be spent on other areas such as education and more importantly education fees.

I feel there should be a lot more focus on this area especially because it is most likely happening in other companies and indeed other industries, in my opinion it should be dealt with as a serious matter and brought to light immediately, I'm sure this is just one of the problems the government could look at and actually tackle, surely it should increase the NHS budget which has come under much scrutiny in recent months, can the government not see the how stopping this now can benefit everyone? The government would save massively and be allowed to invest funding into new and old areas helping the people of Britain, it will also improve their public image and for one slim second show them doing something useful for once which I and many others would agree they have done very little of over recent times.

So after reading this article I would say I'm a mixture of emotions, I feel this is just another case of the rich staying rich as the gap between poverty and a normal standard of living increases at a rate which is uncontrollable. These businesses are not only robbing the government of funding but ruining the lives of the people who depend on the drug, anyone can see how this is an unfair situation where we lose out yet again and businesses make millions off a product which is in demand and surely something has to be done about it before it becomes even more ethically unjust. 

Let me know how you feel about this topic below:

https://www.ft.com/content/0a1d0f6e-bc5c-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080

RBS: Inside the Bank That Ran Out of Money (Blog 9)

RBS: Inside the Bank That Ran Out of Money

"The bank that ran out of money". This pun is not the only comical calamity that occurred when The Royal Bank of Scotland or RBS were bailed out for £24 billion by the good old British taxpayer. Words can not describe how I felt after watching this documentary, I would say I got angry but to be honest I'm just gobsmacked by the greed from the people who are in charge of the biggest banks in the world and the people we trust to keep our money safe. Much like my previous blog on "Inside Job" basically like most of America's top banks, RBS went totally pear shaped and needed a bailout of billions from the British government and yours truly the taxpayer.

From watching the documentary I think it's absolutely appalling the extent that RBS went to just for bragging rights. To be known as the biggest bank in the world at their peak. I wonder if these board members who "earned" a healthy pension whilst in their roles think of the thousands of families they have ultimately stole from. Families who would put small amounts of money away each month as a nest egg just frittered away under one man's word. Fred Goodwin. He's the chap who flashed the cash and bought into the lavish lifestyle through using investor money to perform huge, in fact colossal take overs which would have a consequential impact the world. 

So Fred was the CEO of RBS in the time it ran up the biggest corporate loss of British history, a loss of £24.1 billion. However when at it's peak RBS grew faster than any other British bank had ever done before, it pulled off record breaking deals and made billions of pounds in investment banking, but I think that when you look at what the board did to RBS in a business sense, it's actually quite impressive. They turned RBS into the world's biggest bank, expanded and grew, all a business desires. However RBS isn't a business, they stole from their investors in a way which not only ruined their reputation, it also ruined many of the lives of the people who trusted the bank. I find it so hard to understand the greed of these people, in my eyes it's looks like a classic case of the rich getting richer. 

Now you may ask why this affects me, I look at the situation and think of the people who suffer most. It normally turns out to be people like my mam or dad, or someone's nana or a friend's family who have either lost out through the bank losing its capital or through the tax man coming along and squeezing every last penny they have in order to bail them out. I just feel it's so unfair and shows the lack of respect the banks and also the government have towards the public. The government could have easily intervened and introduced some form of cap on the spending, or just looked at the situation and stopped it before it spiralled out of control, but they didn't and look at us now. 

In my overall conclusion I think this documentary shows two sides of the RBS story. It shows the rise and success the bank occurred but it also shows the monumental fall of what was at one stage Britain's biggest bank. Fred's ruthless yet economical mentality put RBS on the map, it allowed for expansion on an epic scale but the cost which followed as the bank piled up the debt caused his reign to end in shame and embarrassment. Something he will live with for the rest of his life.

Let me know how you felt on this topic below.

The Social Network (Blog 7)

The Social Network

In this weeks blog I chose to watch the film The Social Network, this film was inspired by the creation of the social-networking website Facebook in 2003 and the subsequent fallout between the key players involved. In a summary it's about a Harvard university student called Mark Zuckerberg as he finds himself in "legal hot water" when he is accused of stealing the idea behind the hugely popular site. I believe it shows a harsh reality of Zuckerberg being a stab in the back kind of guy who is only out for his own self worth, but on the other hand it shows how if he didn't make them sacrifices where would we be now without the likes of Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and all the social networking apps we use frequently on a day to day basis, technology is becoming part of us and shows no sign of change.

From the outset of the film I feel Mark's character is portrayed as a socially awkward nerd who is very big on computing and coding. From the opening scenes I felt when watching him interact with people he is a person who is contradictory in a number of ways and almost condescending shown when he speaks to the senior members of Harvard and top professional lawyers. However I also believe this is the genius of Zuckerberg, he is always looking ahead to Facebook's future and the bigger picture. I personally think this is shown best as he stabs his best friend in the back- takes money to expand Facebook then as it becomes a business Zuckerberg reduces his shares so they're worth nothing. All of this is to aid in the evolution of Facebook and ensure it's growth.

As I proceeded to watch the documentary I felt there was a more sinister plot developing, you get the feeling that Mark is going to become the next big thing in computing but at what cost. Well the cost is being sued by multiple people on multiple charges, over a settlement worth multiple millions of dollars. This topic interested me as it really sheds light onto why  Zuckerberg carried out the actions he did, I think that some of the decisions he made were very sly and some may say they were all about personal gain however I believe they hold a higher value. The Winklevoss twins came to Mark about an idea which was exclusive to Harvard, Mark took this idea and altered it so that the rest of the world would become connected whilst also keeping the profiles of these people private. This was the niche idea for Facebook and why it made it so cool and so different. I can only imagine what it would have been like to be one of the first people involved or even on Facebook or "The Facebook" as it was called when it was first built.

I can picture it now, prehistoric Facebook. A small network which would have had a few hundred people on, now it has a following of 1.8 billion people across the globe. I personally think this is astonishing, this was done by student who wouldn't have been much older than me and look at him now, worth around $50 billion with a social networking empire which he built with his very own fingertips inside his university house. I also feel a major scene in the film is when Sean Parker played by Justin Timberlake tells Zuckerberg to drop the "The" from "The Facebook. In my opinion it is such a minute change which has such a major impact on the imagine Facebook has, the definite article "the" is just unnecessary, some may say that it is the most crucial business decision ever made and really they wouldn't be wrong, look at Twitter or Instagram. The simplistic and direct approach all adds to the brands image and also allows for it to flow smoothly when it is the topic of conversation.

I personally feel The Social Network is a great piece of cinematography and captures the real problems Zuckerberg faced when creating Facebook. It delves into the realms of obsession and desire to succeed and captivates you as you become more intrigued with the plot. It also showed me the harsh reality of an entrepreneur who knows he has an idea which so innovating nothing can compare to it, this is why Zuckerberg basically said screw the consequences and went ahead building Facebook. I believe he always had the bigger picture in mind and knew Facebook didn't really have any limits, now 13 years later it is still growing and doesn't show signs of stopping.

Let me know how you feel about some of the choices Zuckerberg had to make below.

Ambassador Farage (Blog 8)

Ambassador Farage

When I first read the title of this article my heart began to beat faster and a feeling of dread took over my body, my initial thought of Ambassador Farage is something which would make a nun blaspheme. I had a picture in my head of Donald Trump in a twisted batman role with Nigel Farage as his goofy sidekick, however when I read more into the article it surprisingly changed my way of thinking and actually "Ambassador Farage" may not be a bad idea after all. The most surprising point of the article was the fact it was actually Trump who suggested it.

When you look to prior the election, who was the one British politician who personally spoke to Trump and actually had personal meetings with him? The harsh reality is that it was Nigel Farage, so since Teresa May only had a brief 10 minute phone call with the new presidential elect why wouldn't we maybe look to Farage to build bridges with our American allies. Unlike Farage I was against the decision to leave the EU and personally feel that Brexit will leave long-term economic damage which we may not be able to turn around, however that's a different topic, the real benefit of Farage being an ambassador to the White House will be the chance of persuading the Trump administration to make a US-UK trade deal a top priority. For me I feel this is essential to Britain's growth as a nation, a US-U.K trade deal would allow U.K businesses to branch out and become international, expanding both countries economy's as American is the supposed land of opportunity.

The main issue that I and no doubt many others will have is how close should Britain get to Mr. Trump and is Nigel Farage the right man we want to represent Britain in major political issues. In many ways I look at Nigel Farage as just another lying politician who is unable to keep his word on a number of major political issues, however I also see him in a different light, one in which he is potentially a people person. We frequently see him down the pub enjoying a pint and actually talking to people in his community, and he doesn't take home a massive pay check, really how many other politicians can you say have done the same? I think his closeness to Trump is potentially one which we could use in our favour, a strengthening bond between the U.K and US could have major beneficial impact on a vast number of areas which our government is looking to improve. The area of trade is vital factor which we need to strengthen with the US, it would generate billions for the economy and also create thousands of jobs across the globe but also in local areas such as the North East where manufacturing work was once the strongest in Europe. It would also lead to the strengthening of global economy and improving relations between multiple nations we may not necessarily see eye to eye with *cough cough Russia* *cough cough China*.

So what do I make of all of this? Well personally we could be making a deal with the toupee wearing devil, or it could see the UK economy growth without the help of a united European Union. It could see areas of U.K develop and move out of poverty, but I don't necessarily think Nigel Farage is the man to do it and I if somehow he does become ambassador then definitely don't let him do it on his own accord.

Let me know how you feel about Farage's potential role below.

https://www.ft.com/content/f5e33ab0-b0a2-11e6-a37c-f4a01f1b0fa1

Chocolate lovers face smaller bars as ‘shrinkflation’ takes hold (Blog 6)

Chocolate lovers face smaller bars as ‘shrinkflation’ takes hold

When I read the title of this article it really struck a chord with me. I've been a huge fan of chocolate and all the forms it comes in for probably my entire life, but to be honest this could be the final straw. The main issue I have is what is being described as "shrinkflation" where the price of the product remains the same but the portion size gets smaller.  The issue has arisen due to the increase in cost of a chocolate bars main ingredient, cocoa. Now I still remember the humble days of when a Freddo's chocolate bar would cost 10p, now the gradual fluctuation in price has seen Mr. Freddo's grow up, get a mortgage and have 3 kids, with the price now rising to an astonishing 25p.

All I can think about is how as a child I would be given a single pound by either my mam or dad and it would be like I've just won the lottery, I could go down to the shops and the world was my oyster. However it's now a rare occasion I can push the boat out and splash the cash on a pack of Freddo's (partly due to the fact I'm now a student). To be fair to Mr. Freddo's I can see this happening in other areas of the confectionary world, Toblerone, Cadbury's and Mars are just a few of the other big names who have either altered the design of their product or they have reduced the amount of product you get, whilst keeping the price of the product the same. I really really struggle to see how this is fair to us though, yet again it is the die hard confectionary lover who is suffering due to changes way out of our control.

But where does all this come from? Well it's not the actual price of cocoa which is rising- that in fact is actually falling, it is the price of the cocoa butter which is rising, cocoa butter is made from other ingredients such as cocoa beans, whole milk powder and sugar which have increased in price drastically at a rate of 50%. This means it has a significant knock on effect for chocolate lovers like me and others around the world. As I feel so strongly about this certain topic I decided to look into the factual date in more detail and found some interesting statistics, cocoa butter prices have risen by 40% in the past year alone where as cocoa bean prices have recently reached a 3 year low, so it should come as no great surprise that as it's the cocoa butter which gives us the unforgettable melt in your mouth feeling (which lets be honest is the reason we all have fallen in love with chocolate) confectionary manufactures would be reluctant to change its recipe as it could risk the whole companies reputation.

If I we're to look at this from a businesses point of view then I can totally understand the reasoning behind the decisions which have been made. Lets face it, companies like Cadbury's are there to create products and make profits, if the cost of one of their ingredients is on the rise then one of either two things will happen, either the cost of the product will increase just like the beloved Freddo, or alternatively the manufacturer will reduce the amount of product in each packet, shown in the case of Cadbury's multipack of cream eggs which has seen a reduction from 6 eggs in a pack to 5.

So in my overall opinion I am deeply hurt by the decisions which have been made by the founding fathers of the confectionary world, however in reality there is very little we can do about it. Businesses are businesses and profits are their main goals, the increased cost of products is likely to continue and "Shrinkflation" is here to stay, much to my disappointment.

Please feel free to let me know how you have been impacted by the changes which have been made to confectionary products below.

https://www.ft.com/content/9e71ebe2-ab56-11e6-9cb3-bb8207902122

Inside Job: Storyville (Blog 5)

Inside Job: Storyville

After watching the documentary on "Inside Job: Storyville" which explained how the global financial crises occurred in 2008, I am absolutely amazed by the levels of corruption and greed which have riddled the American banking and political system. I feel shocked at the extremes to which many of the leading figures on Wall Street and in Washington itself went to ensure their own pockets were filled to the brim, taking home millions in bonuses and how they conned many of America's working class out of billions of dollars, which later would have a huge snowball effect plummeting the world into a global recession leaving countries trillions in debt. There are a few key areas which I would like to look into where these huge investment banks really took the biscuit.

Iceland and deregulation:

Deregulation is the process of removing or reducing state regulations, typically in the economic sphere. In 2000 the Icelandic government instructed a broad policy of deregulation to occur, when the country was in a utopia position. In mine and many other people's eyes they had the complete package, a stable democracy, low government debt, clean energy, good health care/ education and a low crime rate. Now when I read that statement it's hard to comprehend why you would want to change any of that, but when Iceland's 3 largest banks were privatised by the government you can blatantly see where things start to go pear shaped. When looking back you could say it was one of the purest forms of deregulation, what really stunned me was the fact it lead to the banks borrowing $120 billion over a 5 year period, now I'm no economist but surely they are crazy numbers. 

I personally feel it is in this time period in which the Icelandic government and regulators really screwed over the Icelandic people. It allowed for the creation of a bubble and the eventual collapse of Iceland's economy. The bankers showered money on themselves, each other and basically whatever they wanted they bought. Then all of a sudden the American's come bulldozing in which is no real surprise with their accountancy agencies and credit rating agencies, who looked into the banks and found there was nothing to be concerned about. The Icelandic regulators then improved the banks ratings to triple A  status which is the highest rating, allowing ultimately for greater risk. In reality it's a pretty disgusting and evil story, the public trusted the banks to keep their money safe because that's what banks are there to do, however when the money was gone and the banks went bust, many people lost their entire life savings. Somehow the exact same thing was happening on Wall Street just on a cataclysmic scale and the documentary gave me a real inside into how this all occurred. 

America and deregulation:

Now this is where the real fun begins, Wall Street. An industry which will either make you filthy stinking rich or leave you penniless. Prior to the 1980's banks were regulated, which meant they were owned by a few investors who had to provide the capital for the bank to work, they would never "bet the ranch" and risk losing everything. A good system right? It allowed for economic growth over a 40 year period and things were looking up, however from the 80's onwards investment banks went public and people on Wall Street got rich.

From the documentary it really opened up my eyes to the greed and addiction people had when it came to making money,  combine this alongside a system which is so corrupt it encouraged the banks to take these risks then you blatantly have a recipe for disaster. In a brief overview of the problem basically around 4 of Americas main banks and a few insurance companies worked together to make massive private gains off public losses. The merger of some of these businesses increased the risk as more and more ways of making money were formed. 

Banks such as the Lehman brothers, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley were just a few of the big names who were involved in the vast level of corruption. It seemed to start in 1981 with President Reagan then carried on with Clinton, Bush, Bush again and now Obama who have all adopted the idea of deregulation and allowed the financial sector to consolidate into a few huge financial firms. The employment of the same people who made millions off deregulation either as board members, CEO's or Lectures for the top universities in America are now the ones in political power as advisors or head of the federal reserve, so yeah you may see where the problems lie. Now when a CEO sells his shares of a bank for over $450 million to go and work for the government do you really think he cares what happens to the people's money that he risked? Hell no. He's just interested in keeping his friends rich and ensuring he won't get the blame when the s*** hits the fan and inevitably that's exactly what happened.

Prior to the financial recession hitting in 2008 the real problem was investment banks borrowing heavily in order to buy more loans and create more CDO's, such as mortgages, bonds and loans in which they would sell to the public and make a ton of money. The amount of leverage which these banks now had was ridiculous. Then came along derivatives, combined with CDO's and subprime lending and you have deals being done which would be upwards of $100 million. These incentives encouraged the bankers to take more risks as they could walk away with millions in bonuses. The video actually made me feel sad at how people could have such lack of morals, selling stocks to people which were literally worthless and then betting on them to fail is just so wrong on so many different levels.

The real turning point in the documentary for me is the economic paper published by the IMF's chief economist Raghuram Rajan which was presented to the leading central bankers of the world, the likes of Greenspan and Summers who were the head of firms and government correspondents which opposed any regulations on banks and encouraged deregulation, they basically criticised the paper and went against any advice given in order to make millions. I felt from this point that if people at the top of the industry don't care about the possible financial collapse of the world then what hope is there for the rest of us, the power of money really shines through in this documentary and shows how everyone has their price- along with the grand scale of corruption in Washington. 

Key factors in the build up to the recession

Firstly in as early as 2004 the FBI had raised concern about an epidemic of mortgage fraud, they reported inflated appraisals, fake supporting loan documentation and other fraudulent activity.
Secondly in 2005 the IMF's chief economist Raghuram Rajan wrote the paper on how firms are risking too much and could potentially destroy their own company and indeed the world's economy as we know it.
Thirdly in 2006 came Nouriel Robini's warnings of the bubble which has already been created.
2007 was Allan Sloan's newspaper articles on Subprime lending and the effects it would have. There was a also a Powerpoint called "What's in the bag?" which explained the impact which the bubble has has and the aftermath of it once it pops.

These key factors which all come from reliable sources were just turned away, discarded as if they were written by a fool. I honestly can't believe how many people were so arrogant and stupid but I suppose that's what money does to people, and when you have many of these people together on one street the greed is catalysed on a colossal scale.

To be honest the sad reality is that it's the poorest people who suffered the most from all this corruption, the senior management of the firms supply massive financial aid to political representatives, firms would sell a product to a customer then bet against the same product because they knew it wouldn't make money and board members would be given multi million dollar bonuses. I can't comprehend how this went on for so long and how it actually is still going on today.

Americans start voting in US presidential election (Blog 4)

Americans start voting in US presidential election

Well the time has come for America to choose it's next president, however in my opinion its a double ended sword. This two horse race features two candidates which have come under some scrutiny in recent times. On one side of the battle for presidency you have Hilary Clinton who deletes thousands of secret emails at a time from the FBI, she also accepted millions in illegal bond loans from foreign governments who harbour terrorists, suppress women and regularly execute gays and lesbians. The same women who is the former First Lady and also Senator State of New York with a vast democratic history, oh and who's husband was also an ex president. Against Donald Trump, a so called billionaire tycoon who wants to build a "great wall" across the border to stop Mexicans getting into the country as they "rape our women and smuggle drugs", he also hates Latinos. Trump also takes a dislike to blacks, women and most of all muslims, stating how there must be a system of when muslims enter and leave the country along with blaming them for 9/11, but to top it all off he also hates people with disabilities and surprisingly Barack Obama, who lets face it is probably the coolest president the Americans will ever have. Honestly if I were an American I'd probably just stay at home on election day and watch a movie.

Firstly I want to look at Hilary Clinton's campaign, she primarily is focusing on jobs for the American people, making college tuition fees free with the government taking on the debt, combating terrorism and keeping the homeland safe and immigration reform. I don't know if it's because I'm not knowledgable when it comes to American politics but when Hilary Clinton's slogan for the campaign was "stronger together" it didn't give me much to go on, it just seems like yet again another corny catchphrase in which at the end of it being used in a commercial she'll turn to the side camera and do a big cheesy smile. However this may be working as in the polls she's narrowly ahead over her rival so I can see the appeal to voters, with Hilary you get a sense of unity in which you feel if she becomes president she'll tackle issues like the economy and getting jobs for people. But then I also think of the b******t which comes from politicians mouths, her background of politics is impressive there's no denying that but on the other hand t's also highly corrupted which is turning voters away. In their final rallies Trump accused his rival of being corrupt talking about investigations with the FBI, deleting emails in secret and securing funds from foreign countries illegally. To me this isn't someone I would want running the country. 

If you look past Donald Trumps outrageous statements and take a look at his policies or lack of them, his "make American great again" campaign has caused uproar in the country and really divided voters. He fits many of the presidential criteria, he has a big mouth to shout down opponents, he has a vast amount of wealth to fund his campaign, but mainly he has ideas on how America should be ran and this makes him eligible to run for president. Hilary's main backlash at Trump came while the Democratic nominee labelled the New York developer unfit for high office, the surge in voting from Latino's is up 80% from 4 years ago showing how there may be a potential turn in the tide for Mrs.Clinton, one which Trump may have caused himself.

In conclusion I feel sorry for the American people that one of these nominees have to become their next leader. As China’s state-owned Xinhua argued: “American voters will be the biggest losers in the election,” and claimed the US system is now controlled by a small number of rich and connected. This is coming from a State Owned country.

Let me know your views on the US presidential debate below.

https://www.ft.com/content/bf1da11a-a2b4-11e6-aa83-bcb58d1d2193

Nissan to build new models in the UK (blog 3)

Nissan to build new models in the UK

Nissan one of the worlds leading car manufactures has said today that it will produce the new model of its Qashqai SUV at it's Sunderland plant, as well as the X-Trail SUV which is currently made in Japan. For me personally this is great news, I have friends and family who work for the company and after Brexit there was a huge shadow of doubt which was cast over the plant, many people thought that Nissan would simply uproot and move it's production to another country such as France or Japan, however this news will be viewed as a massive positive for the area by keeping thousands of workers employed but also by allowing younger people to achieve something when opportunities are few and far between.

From growing up in the North East of England I can personally tell you as a whole it is a poverty stricken area and has been for many years there's no denying that, however with substantial investment from Nissan they have now taken over the pit and ship yards as the leading form of industry in Sunderland, becoming the lifeline for many people to get out of poverty and actually earn a decent living. It is the first UK investment decision by an international carmaker since the Brexit vote in June and was made following assurances from the prime minister to Nissan chief executive Carlos Ghosn that the company would be protected from its impact. I believe that this is a really powerful message and through Nissan kickstarting this investment stage that hopefully many other businesses in a variation of fields will soon follow, not only providing investment in the London and Manchester etc. but actually creating a proper so called "Northern Powerhouse" which goes the extra 140 miles beyond Manchester to Sunderland and it's surrounding neighbouring cities... 

The Nissan factory in Sunderland is the largest car plant in the UK, it produces over 500,000 cars a year and employs over 7000 people, that is not to mention the other companies which support Nissan in the building and manufacturing of parts such as Unipress. The vast opportunities of work that Nissan can offer are specifically why people look into apprenticeships or full time work as soon as they leave school, many of my friends who didn't wish to carry on education at college full time have gone on to an apprenticeship at Nissan in which they earn good money for an apprentice and gain qualifications which can allow them access to university or allow them to progress higher in the industry. This was also a temptation I faced when choosing to go to university or not. However I feel that going to university will open the door to many businesses such as Nissan and allow me to reach a higher level then my friends who are on the line everyday. The expansion of the Sunderland plant has been supported due to the plant running three shifts around the clock, the second line only has two so may need to add a third, this shows support from Nissan and is an encouraging sign that more workers will be hired.

I understand that there was a real threat that Nissan may end it's production work at the Sunderland plant and move elsewhere, prior to the Brexit vote Nissan stated that if the UK were to leave the EU then so would Nissan as tariff costs would be too high to export goods, however after reassurances from the Prime minister, Mr Ghosn has described Sunderland as a “European plant based in Britain”. Showing support for Sunderland and the continual manufacturing of products at this plant which will supply the rest of Europe.

Let me know if your area faces similar problems due to the Brexit vote below.

https://www.ft.com/content/eabd6152-9c29-11e6-8324-be63473ce146

Inside John Lewis (practise blog)

Inside John Lewis (Practise Blog)

Through the documentary "Inside John Lewis" I can clearly gain an understanding of how they have been one of Britain’s biggest and best known department stores for over 100 years, this documentary shows the company taking on new contemporary issues such as changing tastes and tougher competition whilst also explaining how they have battled the worst recession for 80 years. When looking into John Lewis I found a company which was much more than just a brand, John Lewis is part of people's lives, I came to this conclusion through the video in which "partners" is a commonly used phrase compared to an employee by senior members of staff. However when partners were interviewed they expressed some concern over their future, stating how John Lewis was a job for life and now there is a sense of unease.

I personally believe John Lewis have had some very important and crucial decisions to make, kick started by the recession. The main issue the company faced was the increase in costs this is primarily due to the recession and its knock-on effects, this means the purchasing of products has increased so therefor this will impact on the company's profit. This drastic reduction in profit by nearly 50% is what lead to John Lewis making some pf its employees redundant, now this for John Lewis was never heard of before, most employees thought of John Lewis as a job for life but they are now questioning this. In my opinion I feel this has major repercussions mainly involving the name of the brand and the reputation it holds, this could be tarnished if partners are concerned about the safety of their job. This is concern is shown in the documentary as David Jones the director of Partner Welfare explains how when partners were surveyed on statements such as "I feel secure in my job." partners average score dropped from 17 points to 10 points, showing concern around pay and security of their jobs.

However I also fully understand where Andy Street, the managing director of John Lewis and businessman, is coming from in the challenging times of a recession. His job is to ensure John Lewis turns its losses into profit and he has to make some decisions which some people may not like, perfectly summed up in the documentary as he says "Leadership is about making smart decisions even though they may not be the most popular ones." showing how he is thinking of the future of the business even though it may have a negative effect on certain aspects in the short term.

The main positive which came out of the documentary I felt was the expansion of one of John Lewis' lesser known areas, fashion. The recession allowed John Lewis to look into other areas of the company which were behind the times and needed a revamp. This was a perfect opportunity for growth and something Andy Street would have focussed upon, this is what lead to the building of the John Lewis store in Cardiff, the biggest John Lewis store in Wales. It cost a total of £35 million and took 8 weeks to build, during this time head office recruited experts in the field of fashion and focussed on revamping the John Lewis look which was outdated and lacked appeal to certain target audiences. Another positive of the Cardiff store was the introduction of "flexible knowledge" this involved a partner being an expert in more than one area so when certain departments were busy other could cover with he demand, this was first introduced into the Cardiff store but since has been expanded to all of the John Lewis stores. 

However I also feel that John Lewis have let down some of their partners who have potentially been at the company for up to 40 years, this commitment to the brand is what lead to John Lewis earning its reputation of looking after their partners and giving them added extras. The recession allowed for growth in the fashion departments but may have come at a cost of some partners in other departments where the demand was no longer needed.

If I were in the position of Andy Street I wouldn't have done anything different, out of a total of 1000 partners 40 were made redundant so the scale of jobs created to jobs lost allows for the pros to outweigh the cons. He had the vision to take John Lewis forward by looking at areas which could develop and thrive in todays society, altering the look and style of their fashion department was a major influence which allowed them to keep up with the times just like other high end retails stores. He also looked at the idea of downsizing, opening smaller more specialist stores for electronics and homeware products in smaller towns and cities so everyone had access to John Lewis' products, allowing the company to maximise profits and increase their sales. 

Overall when looking at all the factors I believe John Lewis is in a much better place than it was at the start of the recession,  the correct personal were hired to take the company forward and revitalise the John Lewis brand, with out them the company may have crumbled and may not even exist today.

BAE to build governments nuclear submarines (blog 1)

Financial Times Blog: BAE gets funds to start building new submarines

In this week I have read an article online through the Financial Times' website on how the government have released a £1.3 billion plan for the first initial stage of the "Successor Nuclear Deterrent Programme." This basically is a £1.3 billion contract which has been awarded to BAE Systems who will be starting the new manufacturing work on a new class of submarines. Now since we are supposedly in times of cut backs the government will set a budget of a whopping £41 billion, for the building of  these 4 new Royal Navy submarines.

The main focal point of this article which concerns me is the dispute it is currently causing in the labour camp, this is mainly due to the anti-nuclear campaigner Jeremy Corbon, who also happens to be the leader of the Labour Party. In a time where we are set to be moving away from nuclear weapons the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon stated "We cannot know what new dangers we might face in the 2030s, 2040s and 2050s so we are acting now to replace them." showing to me a blatant divide in the camp. The other main issue in my eyes is where else this money could be spent.

I believe that when looking at this particular area there are a few issues which can be contradicted in multiple ways, firstly I totally agree that the U.K needs to have some form of military protection because obviously without it we would be totally defenceless and open to invasion, nuclear weapons haven't been discussed as an issue for over 50 years yet somehow they have remained a hidden agenda which is rarely spoken about. The use of nuclear weapons by countries in the far east has caused Britain and her allies to fight against the regimes which own them, yet I'm just a tad confused as we are sat developing ours and actually investing heavily in nuclear warfare through the manufacturing of these new submarines.

I also feel that due to the vast amount of money which is being used to develop these weapons- because ultimately that's what they are, this funding could be used for other areas which the government has actually neglected, areas such as the NHS, public sector workers or a revamp of the education system could all be potential candidates for the excessive money which is being thrown around here. (With my mam working as a Nurse and my dad as a Civil Servant, you could say I'm not necessarily all for this decision.)

However BAE systems are contributing something worthwhile to the economy as it is estimated that by the early 2020's BAE Systems will employ some 5000 workers across the MoD, this total will rise to 7,800 new jobs as the development of the programme continues, but the real question on my mind is "will it all be worth it?" I feel that with the political might of Russia and conflict in the middle east, all of this could be coming at the wrong time, potentially provoking some countries into an armed response.

When looking in the grand scale of things this revamp of the nuclear programme was always going to happen, with the world we live in today developing and evolving more and more, we as a nation have to keep up with these constant changes. This is backed up by other outside factors such as Brexit and the way other countries act politically and actively (not mentioning any names *cough cough* Russia). Brexit now means that the U.K has independence from Europe and can now follow its own protocol when it comes to military action, the Successor programme will allow us to adequately defend ourselves against Russia alongside other countries who the rest of Europe all seem to fear.    

Overall I can see the reasoning behind this new programme, however I can also see the problems it may cause at home and around the world. Ultimately it will defend our nation and provide safety for the people of Britain, however it could also cause unrest with other nations, along with people in the U.K. Knowing 6% of the budget is being spent on just 4 submarines may not go down too well with everyone. Let me know how you feel about this topic below.

https://www.ft.com/content/594fdcd2-87ce-11e6-8aa5-f79f5696c731

Cadbury's business nightmare (blog 2)

Business Nightmares with Evan Davis: Cadbury's

In this week I have watched a video in which several of the worlds leading companies have come under some scrutiny as they have created some enormous strategic errors which have cost the company, investors, the government and even the tax payer billions. The first business to come under pressure to adapt to the 21st century's rapidly deteriorating health problems was Cadbury's, this primarily confectionary based company was first questioned over its role in keeping Britain's children healthy in 2003. 
I feel you can't help but look at Cadbury's and know it was always going to end badly for them, the then sports minister Richard Caborn raised the issue of what confectionary companies could do to aid in the decline of obesity in the youth of Britain, they deliberately targeted Cadbury's as it is the largest manufacturer of chocolate and confectionary products in the U.K. It's clear to me that the government were out to get them from the start and in the heat of the moment Cadbury's response was one which looked promising, however hindsight is a wonderful thing and in reality Cadbury's had an absolute nightmare.

When I think of chocolate I automatically think of Cadbury's, basically the perfect company to reach out to the younger generation (the age group which the government were most concerned about.) The agreement Cadbury's came to stated that "with every £8 which is spent on Cadbury's products, £1 of sports equipment would be provided to schools or sports programmes, all that was needed was the empty wrapper of the chocolate bar." Even when I read that statement I thought "okay then that seems fair enough" it also seemed like an excellent idea for Cadbury's (bearing in mind they're a confectionary manufacturer) to be shown in the media in a positive light, fighting the battle against obesity, but then also allowed the company to promote more products and basically increase their sales revenue.

However I feel the main issue for Cadbury's arose as they released a list of figures prior to the campaign, the figures corresponded to the amount of chocolate bar wrappers which needed to be returned in order to get a piece of sports equipment. It would take 170 chocolate bars in order to receive a single basketball, 170! This equated to a single child performing 90 solid hours of exercise just to burn the calories off. I'm personally no health expert but what Cadbury's were basically doing was "fighting obesity with chocolate" and just couldn't see the bigger picture. 

After watching the video I feel that Cadbury's did have the right intentions but they just didn't deliver them in the right way. As a business who is effectively aiding in the problem of obesity, it was always going to be a task to try to change their label or brand image. They were stuck between a rock and a hard place as changing their ingredients could have lead to a rapid decrease in sales, altering the brand packaging would again have the same effect. So I believe there was actually very little which could have been done to combat this monumental problem they faced.

The good side to this experience from Cadbury's was that they at least were shown to make an effort and attempted to tackle the problem which now faces the entire world, however I feel there are many numerous bad points based on how Cadbury's dealt with the situation. 
Firstly they came up with an idea which everyone involved with (even the government) thought was THE best idea since sliced bread. Another problem was the line of industry the company is in, the confectionary industry is obviously a line of work which involves certain ingredients which shouldn't be consumed in high volumes, the campaign Cadbury's set up basically looked at encouraging families to go out and buy more of their products in order to contribute to the community and an overall goal of increasing exercise in school children. Finally the last issue which Cadbury's caused for themselves was the length of time they ran the campaign before finally admitting defeat and shutting down the campaign. Over an 8 month period they faced countless newspaper, online and television reports which crucified them in the media, it caused negative publicity and hampered the name of the company. Essentially the campaign actually went against all of the things it stood for. In my opinion if they were to end the campaign as soon as they received criticism, the damage impact would have been less severe and wouldn't have impacted on the business as much as it did.

Overall in the grand scheme of things, this catastrophe won't actually change my mind on chocolate and I will no doubt carry on choosing to eat it, to me chocolate is chocolate at the end of the day and it's just like anything else,  if you consume it in large quantities it's obviously bad for you.

If you were Cadbury's what would you have done different? Let me know below.