Eddie Murphy has told Sky News he doesn’t ever expect to win awards – but will happily accept an honorary Oscar when he’s 90.

Murphy is one of the biggest stars in comedy after starting out on Saturday Night Live (SNL) in 1980 and starring in a number of big franchises from Beverly Hills Cop to Shrek.

His latest project is heist comedy The Pickup, centred on two security van drivers. Keke Palmer and Pete Davidson star alongside him.

Murphy says award recognition was never something that shaped the projects he chose.

“The movies are timeless, and they’re special, so for years and years those movies play and the movies have commercial success.

“So you make a lot of money and people love it, so you don’t even think about ‘I didn’t win a trophy!’ The response from the people and that the movie has legs, that’s the trophy.

“You know what I’ve earned over these years? One day, they’ll give me one of those honorary Oscars. When I’m really old. And I’ll say thank you so much for this wonderful honour. I’ll be old like that and I’ll have no teeth. I’m cool with getting my honorary Oscar when I’m 90.”

Murphy, 64, has only been nominated once – for Dreamgirls in 2007, when Alan Arkin won the best supporting actor Oscar for Little Miss Sunshine.

Murphy’s co-star Palmer says she considers Murphy an icon in the industry, and The Nutty Professor was a true display of his artistry.

“I feel like recognition and [being] underrated and all this stuff, it annoys me a little bit because I think impact is really the greatest thing, like how people were moved by your work, which can’t really be measured by an award or really anything,” Palmer says.

“It’s very hard to make people laugh, and so when I think about it like The Nutty Professor, Eddie was doing everything, and I swear that the family members were real people.

“He didn’t camp it to the point where they weren’t realistic. His roles had integrity, even when he was in full costume. And I do think that’s something that should change in our industry. Comedy, it should be looked at just as prestigious as when you see somebody cry, because it’s that hard to make somebody laugh.”

Recalling his time on the 90s comedy, Murphy says he’s still in disbelief of what they achieved in making the film with him playing seven characters – Professor Sherman Klump, Buddy Love, Lance Perkins, Young Papa Klump, Granny Klump, Ernie Klump and Mama Klump.

“You can only shoot one character a day. And the rest of the time you’re shooting, I’m talking to tennis balls where the people were sitting.

“So to this day when I watch it, I’m like, wow, that’s a trip. But we were able to mix all that stuff up and different voices and make it feel so that you don’t even feel like when you’re watching it, someone have to tell you, hey, you know, those are all one person.”

The film won best makeup at the 1997 Academy Awards.

Security guards buddy comedy

Palmer says their new project, The Pickup, is responsible for one of the most memorable moments of her life when she mistook Murphy’s acting for real praise.

“First of all, Eddie gives me this big speech before I do the monologue, where he’s like, ‘this is not playing around. This is a pivotal point in the movie’.

“I’m crying in the scene, and then it comes to the end, and Eddie’s [clapping] like, and I’m literally like, ‘oh my gosh, thank you so much’. And he’s like, ‘I’m acting’. When I tell you, it was so crazy, yeah. That’s like one of my most memorable moments in life.”

Davidson is excited to see how the UK puts its own stamp on SNL, the show where both he and Murphy got their start on-screen.

“It’s a smart idea to have SNL over there because it’s not that it’s a different brand of comedy, but it is a little bit. A lot of the biggest stuff that’s in the States is stuff that we stole from you guys, like The Office or literally anything Ricky Gervais does.

“This is the first time I’ve ever heard anything American going to the UK, so I think it’s great. I think it’s great to have two opposite sorts of takes on things, but both be funny. That just shows you how broad comedy can be, you know?

The Pickup is out on Prime Video now.

What do we do about the non-doms? 

It’s a question more than a handful of people have been asking themselves at the Treasury lately.

Politics Hub: Follow latest updates

It had seemed simple enough. In her first budget as chancellor, Rachel Reeves promised a crackdown on the non-dom regime, which for the past 200 years has allowed residents to declare they are permanently domiciled in another country for tax purposes.

Under the scheme, non-doms, some of the richest people in the country, were not taxed on their foreign incomes.

Then that all changed.

Standing at the despatch box in October last year, the chancellor said: “I have always said that if you make Britain your home, you should pay your tax here. So today, I can confirm we will abolish the non-dom tax regime and remove the outdated concept of domicile from the tax system from April 2025.”

The hope was that the move would raise £3.8bn for the public purse. However, there are signs that the non-doms are leaving in such great numbers that the policy could end up costing the UK investment, jobs and, of course, the tax that the non-doms already pay on their UK earnings.

If the numbers don’t add up, this tax-raising policy could morph into an act of self-harm.

With the budget already under strain, a poor calculation would be costly financially. The alternative, a U-turn, could be expensive for other reasons, eroding faith in a chancellor who has already been on a turbulent ride.

So, how worried should she be?

The data on the number of non-doms in the country is published with a considerable lag. So, it will be a while before we know the full impact of this policy.

However, there is much uncertainty about how this group will behave.

While the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that the policy could generate £3.8bn for the government over the next five years, assuming between 12 and 25% of them leave, it admitted it lacked confidence in those numbers.

Worryingly for ministers, there are signs, especially in London, that the exodus could be greater.

Property sales

Analysis from the property company LonRes, shows there were 35.8% fewer transactions in May for properties in London’s most exclusive postcodes compared with a year earlier and 33.5% fewer than the pre-pandemic average.

Estate agents blame falling demand from non-dom buyers.

This comes as no surprise to Magda Wierzycka, a South African billionaire businesswoman, who runs an investment fund in London. She herself is threatening to leave the UK unless the government waters down its plans.

“Non-doms are leaving, as we speak, and the problem with numbers is that the consequences will only become known in the next 12 to 18 months,” she said.

“But I have absolutely no doubt, based on people I know who have already left, that the consequences would be quite significant.

“It’s not just about the people who are leaving that everyone is focusing on. It’s also about the people who are not coming, people who would have come, set up businesses, created jobs, they’re not coming. They take one look at what has happened here, and they’re not coming.”

Lack of options for non-doms

But where will they go? Britain was unusual in offering such an attractive regime. Bar a few notable exceptions, such as Italy, most countries run residency-based tax systems, meaning people pay tax to the country in which they live.

This approach meant many non-doms escaped paying tax on their foreign income altogether because they didn’t live in those countries where they earned their foreign income.

In any case, widespread double taxation treaties mean people are generally not taxed twice, although they may have to pay the difference.

In one important sense, Magda is right. It could take a while before the consequences are fully known. There are few firm data points for us to draw conclusions from right now, but the past could be illustrative.

Read more on Sky News:
Reeves warned over tax rises
What is a wealth tax?

The non-dom regime has been through repeated reform. George Osborne changed the system back in 2017 to limit it to just 15 years. Then Jeremy Hunt announced the Tories would abolish the regime altogether in one of his final budgets.

Following the 2017 reforms there was an initial shock, but the numbers stabilised, falling just 5% after a few years. The data suggests there was an initial exodus of people who were probably considering leaving anyway, but those who remained – and then arrived – were intent on staying in the UK.

So, should the government look through the numbers and hold its nerve? Not necessarily.

Have Labour crossed a red line?

Stuart Adam, a senior economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the response could be far greater this time because of some key changes under Labour.

The government will no longer allow non-doms to protect money held in trusts, so 40% inheritance tax will be due on their estates. For many, that is a red line.

Mr Adam said: “The 2017 reform deliberately built in what you might call a loophole, a way to avoid paying a lot more tax through the use of existing offshore trusts. That was a route deliberately left open to enable many people to avoid the tax.

“So it’s not then surprising that they didn’t up sticks and leave. Part of the reform that was announced last year was actually not having that kind of gap in the system to enable people to avoid the tax using trusts, and therefore you might expect to see a bigger response to the kind of reforms we’ve seen announced now, but it also means we don’t have very much idea about how big a response to expect.”

With the public finances under considerable pressure, that will offer little comfort to a chancellor who is operating on the finest of margins.

It could be diplomatic dynamite.

The first meeting between a sitting US and Russian president in more than four years, following one of the bleakest periods in the history of their countries’ bilateral relations.

But a Putin–Trump summit does not necessarily mean there will be a ceasefire.

Ukraine war latest: Kremlin aide’s full statement on Trump-Putin talks

On the one hand, it could signal that a point of agreement has been reached and a face-to-face meeting is needed to seal the deal.

That has always been Russia’s stance. It’s consistently said it would only meet at a presidential level if there’s something to agree on.

On the other hand, there might not be anything substantive. It might just be for show.

It might just be the latest attempt by the Kremlin to diffuse Donald Trump’s anger and dodge his deadline to end the war by Friday or face sanctions.

It would give Trump something that can be presented as progress, but in reality, it delivers anything but.

After all, there has certainly not been any sign that Moscow is willing to soften its negotiating position or step back from its goals on the battlefield.

Tellingly, perhaps, it’s this latter view which has been taken by some of the Russian press on Thursday.

“Putin won” is the headline in Moskovsky Komsomolets regarding the Kremlin leader’s meeting with Witkoff.

The state-run tabloid quotes a political scientist, Marat Bashirov, who claims Putin “bought time” ahead of Friday’s deadline.

“It is noteworthy that in his rhetoric [on sanctions] Trump did not mention Russia at all,” the paper notes.

Komsomolskaya Pravda is similarly dismissive.

“Donald Trump has two simple interests in connection with Ukraine: to earn money for America, and political whistles and the Nobel Peace Prize for himself,” it says.

“Russia has its own interests,” it adds, “securing them is what Vladimir Putin will seek at a meeting with Trump.”

At this stage, the most likely location is the United Arab Emirates. Putin met the country’s president in the Kremlin today, and afterwards said it would be a “suitable location”. It felt like a strong hint.

And the UAE certainly makes sense.

It’s played mediator for a number of the prisoner swaps between Russia and Ukraine; it has good relations with the US (and was one of Trump’s stops on his recent Middle East tour); and most importantly for Moscow, it’s not a member of the International Criminal Court. So Putin doesn’t have to worry about being arrested.

But if NBC’s reports are correct, that a Putin-Trump summit is conditional on the Russian president meeting with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy, then the summit may not happen at all.

Read more on Russia and Ukraine:
Trump went from frustration to a possible Putin meeting in hours
What could a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine involve?
India hints it will keep buying Russian oil – despite Trump threats

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Until now, Putin has refused to meet Zelenskyy, despite numerous demands from Kyiv, because he views him as illegitimate.

The Kremlin said the prospect of a trilateral meeting between the leaders was mentioned by Witkoff on Wednesday, but the proposal was left “completely without comment” by Russia.