Rachel Reeves and Ed Miliband declare war on UK’s biggest firms – and we all lose!
Hapless Chancellor Rachel Reeves appears to have found a unique way to generate economic growth—by driving it into the ground. While she repeatedly claims to be “hard-wiring growth into every cabinet decision,” her actions tell a different story. With every move she makes, she seems to be pushing investment away rather than attracting it. And the latest example of this has come at a huge cost to the UK economy.
AstraZeneca pulls out – A costly blunder
Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, the UK’s largest company, has scrapped its £450 million plan to expand a vaccine manufacturing plant in Speke, Merseyside. And the reason? Reeves’ misguided intervention.
This ambitious project was originally championed by former conservative chancellor Jeremy Hunt, who set up the deal last march, offering AstraZeneca a £90 million incentive. However, once in office, Reeves wasted months trying to haggle the sum down to £40 million—an effort that ultimately proved disastrous.
Frustrated by the delays and reductions in financial support, AstraZeneca pulled the plug on the project, blaming “the timing and reduction of the final offer compared to the previous government’s proposal.” The company’s CEO, Pascal Soriot, had previously stated that the facility was “absolutely ready to go.” Now, it’s absolutely gone.
Even Hunt himself has condemned the move as a “massive own goal.” By trying to save £50 million, Reeves has inadvertently cost the UK a staggering £450 million in investment—money that would have provided high-quality jobs in a region desperate for economic revitalisation. The irony is almost unbearable, given that Reeves had highlighted life sciences as a key growth sector just days before, even name-dropping AstraZeneca in her speech. Yet, it was her decision-making that effectively killed the expansion.
Ed Miliband targets shell – another blow to business
Unfortunately, Reeves is not the only Labour minister making headlines for the wrong reasons. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has now set his sights on the UK’s second-largest company, oil and gas giant Shell, in what is being described as another major assault on British business.
Miliband’s latest actions have given climate activists a huge victory by helping to block the Jackdaw gas field and the Rosebank oil field. This decision is catastrophic for the UK’s energy security and economic future. These projects would have strengthened Britain’s energy independence, created tens of thousands of jobs, and generated billions in tax revenue. Instead, Labour’s intervention risks pushing one of the country’s most valuable companies out of the UK altogether.
Shell is now reportedly considering a shift to the New York Stock Exchange, where it would likely receive a much warmer welcome. If the company does relocate, its valuation could instantly rise by tens of billions—but in US dollars, not British pounds. This would be yet another devastating loss for the UK economy, further eroding its position as a global business hub.
A pattern of self-sabotage
More Read
Reeves and Miliband’s actions raise serious concerns about Labour’s approach to economic policy. At a time when Britain should be doing everything possible to attract investment, these ministers seem determined to do the opposite. Blocking vital energy projects and driving away pharmaceutical giants does not “hard-wire” growth—it unplugs it entirely.
The reality is that the UK cannot afford to keep losing major companies due to political blunders. The economy is already under immense strain, and decisions like these will only make things worse. The loss of AstraZeneca’s investment and the potential departure of Shell are stark warnings that Labour’s economic strategy is not just flawed—it’s actively harming the country’s future.
If Reeves and Miliband continue on this path, Britain’s biggest businesses will start looking elsewhere. And when they leave, so will jobs, investment, and economic growth. In the end, it’s not just these companies that lose—it’s all of us.
