Coronavirus Thread

[StanSP]

9 hours ago, String fellow said:

The number of hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the North West is currently more than for London, the East of England, the South East and the South West combined. So Boris isn't 'going into battle' with the North West, he's trying to control the virus there by putting Manchester in Tier 3, for benefit of its citizens. That's something that Andy Burnham seems to have overlooked in the heat of the debate about money. (In contrast, Wales, Northern Ireland and Eire are all taking fairly severe precautions, so maybe that's also something Burnham should think about.)  

Isn't Burnham not minding the lockdown rules, but only if businesses are supported in the right way? And he believes they won't be, therefore not supporting lockdown? I don't think he's overlooked it in any way. He wants to fight for their survival so don't see anything wrong with that. 

[String fellow]

Under the Job Support Scheme, if an employee works a third of their normal hours, the employer will pay the going rate for that work. The shortfall will be topped up by one third paid for by the employer and one third by the government. Therefore the employee should receive up to 77% of their normal income, which isn't far off the percentage provided during the widely-praised Furlough Scheme. As regards Burnham, I noticed yesterday that he took very little effort with his own social distancing, standing close to a colleague at one point, with neither of them wearing a mask.

[Alf Bentley]

On Burnham being "greedy": Newsnight calculated that the extra funds given to Merseyside and Lancashire were almost identical (£28-£29 per head of population) and that the £60m that the Govt wouldn't increase for Manchester equates to that same pro rata amount (£28/head). So, it seems as if they're seeking to pay the same sum pro rata to every region.

 

That might seem fair at first sight. But different regions have different levels of need for multiple reasons - just as you wouldn't devote the same education resources to an area of pensioners as you would to an area of young families.

Part of the reason Burnham demanded more than £60m was because Manchester has been on lockdown longer, thereby accruing greater need, and because it has proportionally more businesses and self-employed in need of support.

 

I don't have comparative data, but on the face of it that case looks justified. I'd add that Manchester almost certainly has a bigger hospitality sector pro rata than Merseyside or Lancashire (other than Blackpool, probably).

This resource equalisation strategy also mirrors what the Govt have done in recent years with local authority funding - reducing funds for poorer areas with greater need in proportion to funds for areas with fewer needs, in the name of "fairness".

 

The Oldham Council leader also said that the £60m offer had never been made on paper (unlike the £22m for testing) - though Jenrick has apparently repeated Hancock's promise that it is still "on the table".

 

A wider risk is that if people don't have enough money to live on, they'll feel obliged to go out to work (e.g. taxi drivers, illegal work), even if they'd prefer to isolate to avoid catching/spreading the virus. This has happened in places like India and Peru, causing a further increase in infections. It also increases the risk of some people ending up homeless during the pandemic. I was last in Manchester about 2-3 years ago and back then they had a major problem with people on the streets off their heads on spice - it was quite shocking to see as someone who'd lived there in the 1990s but hadn't been back for years.

[Strokes]

55 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Isn't Burnham not minding the lockdown rules, but only if businesses are supported in the right way? And he believes they won't be, therefore not supporting lockdown? I don't think he's overlooked it in any way. He wants to fight for their survival so don't see anything wrong with that. 

Don’t the council have any magic money tree funds to top up the difference? Given that council tax is equivalent to about 5% of the average working wage and about 20% of the tax the government will take off you. Maybe burnham should be considering what contributions they should be making.

[StanSP]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Don’t the council have any magic money tree funds to top up the difference? Given that council tax is equivalent to about 5% of the average working wage and about 20% of the tax the government will take off you. Maybe burnham should be considering what contributions they should be making.

Not sure but the government certainly like to plant these quick-growing trees when they really fancy it

 

[CosbehFox]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

A wider risk is that if people don't have enough money to live on, they'll feel obliged to go out to work (e.g. taxi drivers, illegal work), even if they'd prefer to isolate to avoid catching/spreading the virus. This has happened in places like India and Peru, causing a further increase in infections. It also increases the risk of some people ending up homeless during the pandemic. I was last in Manchester about 2-3 years ago and back then they had a major problem with people on the streets off their heads on spice - it was quite shocking to see as someone who'd lived there in the 1990s but hadn't been back for years.

Something which Burnham dedicates 15% of mayoral salary towards. 

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Don’t the council have any magic money tree funds to top up the difference? Given that council tax is equivalent to about 5% of the average working wage and about 20% of the tax the government will take off you. Maybe burnham should be considering what contributions they should be making.

 

[Strokes]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

The government have a budget too don’t they? The council take a huge amount of money, they should be offering up some help if they feel it’s needed. 

[Alf Bentley]

Just now, Strokes said:

The government have a budget too don’t they? The council take a huge amount of money, they should be offering up some help if they feel it’s needed. 

 

"Let them eat cake", eh? Thanks for that one, Marie-Antoinette! 

 

For years, there have been massive cuts in the funds local govt gets from central govt. Can't be arsed to look up stats, but about 40% real-term cuts, from memory - as suggested by that graph.

Until recently, local govt was prevented from increasing council tax, I think. I believe that's changed recently, but clearly councils can't get more funds by increasing council tax at short notice - especially in the middle of this crisis.

 

Some councils, including some Tory councils, are already at risk of bankruptcy, despite years of cuts in services and staffing, selling off property, using up council reserves etc. 

[Guest Markyblue]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

"Let them eat cake", eh? Thanks for that one, Marie-Antoinette! 

 

For years, there have been massive cuts in the funds local govt gets from central govt. Can't be arsed to look up stats, but about 40% real-term cuts, from memory - as suggested by that graph.

Until recently, local govt was prevented from increasing council tax, I think. I believe that's changed recently, but clearly councils can't get more funds by increasing council tax at short notice - especially in the middle of this crisis.

 

Some councils, including some Tory councils, are already at risk of bankruptcy, despite years of cuts in services and staffing, selling off property, using up council reserves etc. 

No intention of getting involved other than she supposedly never said that, history being written by the victors.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Markyblue said:

No intention of getting involved other than she supposedly never said that, history being written by the victors.

 

I thought that she supposedly did say it, but it was mistranslated to her detriment?

Hearing that the peasants had no bread, she said "let them eat a different sort of bread" (mistranslated as "cake").

 

I don't suppose anyone recorded the interview..... 

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

23 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Something which Burnham dedicates 15% of mayoral salary towards. 

Spice?

[Guest Markyblue]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

I thought that she supposedly did say it, but it was mistranslated to her detriment?

Hearing that the peasants had no bread, she said "let them eat a different sort of bread" (mistranslated as "cake").

 

I don't suppose anyone recorded the interview..... 

Yes it did refer to a type of bread not really cake. For her bad points she was regarded as having sympathy for the peasants and many historians deny she ever said it. Anyway....

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

"Let them eat cake", eh? Thanks for that one, Marie-Antoinette! 

 

For years, there have been massive cuts in the funds local govt gets from central govt. Can't be arsed to look up stats, but about 40% real-term cuts, from memory - as suggested by that graph.

Until recently, local govt was prevented from increasing council tax, I think. I believe that's changed recently, but clearly councils can't get more funds by increasing council tax at short notice - especially in the middle of this crisis.

 

Some councils, including some Tory councils, are already at risk of bankruptcy, despite years of cuts in services and staffing, selling off property, using up council reserves etc. 

They could redirect money from building projects, or borrow against future tax rises like the government is.

[boots60]

Labour scoring points off Conservatives

Conservatives scoring points off Labour

(Some) Polititians & their aides doing what the feck they like re- social distancing setting dreadful examples,

The first time since the second world war we really need our "Leaders" to come together as one & what happens?

FFS, I despair.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

They could redirect money from building projects, or borrow against future tax rises like the government is.

 

Rather easier for central govt to do that when it has much the bigger budget in the first place and hasn't lost a large percentage of its revenue over the past decade or more.

 

Particularly when Johnson has the dosh to promise a £100bn Operation Moonshot, and the govt is paying billions to incompetents like Serco for its piss-poor test-and-trace service and to various Tory mates making megabucks out of the Covid crisis.

 

Hell, Chris Grayling even found £13.8m for a ferry company with no ferries. That would have covered the £5m disparity and funded a bloody good piss-up for the rest of us.

 

On a personal level, my ex works for the county council and I've lost count of the number of times she's had to reapply for her job (3-4?). She's survived so far, but various colleagues haven't. That should give you an idea of the state of local govt funding, together with that graph........but I'm sure you're determined to ignore reason.  

 

Must work...

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, boots60 said:

Labour scoring points off Conservatives

Conservatives scoring points off Labour

(Some) Polititians & their aides doing what the feck they like re- social distancing setting dreadful examples,

The first time since the second world war we really need our "Leaders" to come together as one & what happens?

FFS, I despair.

 

Agree with the second part.

 

But, for the record, Burnham's negotiating position was agreed with local Tory council leaders and some (not all) local Tory MPs are unhappy with the Govt response - it's not all party political.

[Voll Blau]

I've met quite a few senior Labour and Tory politicians in my time, very few of either colour impressed me as people. Andy Burnham was easily the most notable exception to that, he's one of life's good guys.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Rather easier for central govt to do that when it has much the bigger budget in the first place and hasn't lost a large percentage of its revenue over the past decade or more.

 

Particularly when Johnson has the dosh to promise a £100bn Operation Moonshot, and the govt is paying billions to incompetents like Serco for its piss-poor test-and-trace service and to various Tory mates making megabucks out of the Covid crisis.

 

Hell, Chris Grayling even found £13.8m for a ferry company with no ferries. That would have covered the £5m disparity and funded a bloody good piss-up for the rest of us.

 

On a personal level, my ex works for the county council and I've lost count of the number of times she's had to reapply for her job (3-4?). She's survived so far, but various colleagues haven't. That should give you an idea of the state of local govt funding, together with that graph........but I'm sure you're determined to ignore reason.  

 

Must work...

The government are offering support though, all of it.

Liverpool council found money to help out, with little resistance but Burnham would rather lead the outrage brigade and offer nothing it seems sadly.

[Kopfkino]

I don't really understand why it's necessary for there to be any bargaining. Whether Burnham is a great bloke or not, whether he's seeking to gain political capital or not shouldn't need debating because the government could just do the right thing by the people affected. 

 

The Treasury should just have the pots of money and schemes to help affected people and businesses, irrespective of location, at the same level as earlier in the year, possibly with some creativity based on the slight nuances compared to earlier in the year. And the Treasury should swallow its pride and admit it was wrong to unwind and end schemes without knowing the future state of public health and forget any notion of short-term fiscal responsibility (for want of a better word, the responsible thing is to provide as much fiscal support as possible).

 

It's a false economy, if you don't support people sufficiently they're less likely to be able to follow the rules.

 

[Alf Bentley]

15 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The government are offering support though, all of it.

Liverpool council found money to help out, with little resistance but Burnham would rather lead the outrage brigade and offer nothing it seems sadly.

 

Entering negotiations and standing by demands you see as justified now constitutes "leading the outrage brigade", does it?

In that case, I presume Johnson himself is just "leading the outrage brigade" in standing by his Brexit demands, is he?

 

I've already quoted reasons why it could be justified for Manchester to get more pro rata than Liverpool or Lancashire, but you ignore that.

I've already highlighted the swinging cuts in local govt funding over recent years and the vast sums given via national govt contracts with corporate mates. You also ignore that.

 

It is clear that:

1) Having responded to the initial emergency with a fair financial package, the Tories are now reverting to austerity thinking and trying to manage the 2nd wave on the cheap, which could have horrendous consequences for some of those prevented from working, for businesses that have potential to resume viability - and for public health if people on low pay cannot make ends meet and end up working unsafely, homeless or reducing their Covid compliance out of contempt.

2) They are also seeking to impose inflexible financial support pro rata to population with little or no consideration of the needs of a particular area. If pursued, this means wealthy (generally Tory-voting) areas placed under Tier 3 will receive as much support pro rata as big cities where large numbers rely on a minimum wage or low self-employment income or work in industries closed down or rendered non-viable, like hospitality or taxi-driving.

 

I've no reason to believe that Manchester offers less to its citizens than Liverpool or will offer less once this dispute is over - and doubt you have.

Your comment echoes the Tory attempts to use "divide and rule" between different councils, be that Manchester v. Liverpool/Lancashire or now, apparently, offering to negotiate with individual councils within Greater Manchester.

Still, all worth it, I suppose, so long as they have enough cash left to offer their corporate mates megabucks contracts and for Johnson to bluster on about spending countless billions on Operation Moonshot (not mentioned recently).

 

This is all ongoing so let's see what happens, eh?

[Innovindil]

34 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

I don't really understand why it's necessary for there to be any bargaining. Whether Burnham is a great bloke or not, whether he's seeking to gain political capital or not shouldn't need debating because the government could just do the right thing by the people affected. 

 

The Treasury should just have the pots of money and schemes to help affected people and businesses, irrespective of location, at the same level as earlier in the year, possibly with some creativity based on the slight nuances compared to earlier in the year. And the Treasury should swallow its pride and admit it was wrong to unwind and end schemes without knowing the future state of public health and forget any notion of short-term fiscal responsibility (for want of a better word, the responsible thing is to provide as much fiscal support as possible).

 

It's a false economy, if you don't support people sufficiently they're less likely to be able to follow the rules.

 

Hear hear. The only reason I can see that the government would stop the (largely successful) furlough scheme would be because cvnts were abusing it. But surely if it was needed then it is still needed now since very little has changed. 

[String fellow]

Will those who regard Andy Burnham as some kind of folk hero be so enthusiastic about his out his stance when the local death rate rockets up, as a direct result of his prevarication and resistance to the government's attempts to get his area to be moved up to Tier 3? Interestingly, the Mayor of Sheffield Dan Jarvis has realised that the lives of his citizens take priority over everything and will take his city into the higher tier without all of the nonsensical and antediluvian 'canaries down mines' rhetoric that we've witnessed from Burnham in recent days.

[Strokes]

25 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Entering negotiations and standing by demands you see as justified now constitutes "leading the outrage brigade", does it?

In that case, I presume Johnson himself is just "leading the outrage brigade" in standing by his Brexit demands, is he?

Apples and Oranges.

 

25 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I've already quoted reasons why it could be justified for Manchester to get more pro rata than Liverpool or Lancashire, but you ignore that.

I've already highlighted the swinging cuts in local govt funding over recent years and the vast sums given via national govt contracts with corporate mates. You also ignore that.

I didn’t see notice a response about why Manchester should receive more pro rata than Liverpool but I’m trying to work at the same time so if I missed it I apologies, certainly not ignoring it.

Neither did I ignore the cuts, I said that both councils and government have budgets and it’s not like anyone has planned for this.

25 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It is clear that:

1) Having responded to the initial emergency with a fair financial package, the Tories are now reverting to austerity thinking and trying to manage the 2nd wave on the cheap, which could have horrendous consequences for some of those prevented from working, for businesses that have potential to resume viability - and for public health if people on low pay cannot make ends meet and end up working unsafely, homeless or reducing their Covid compliance out of contempt.

2) They are also seeking to impose inflexible financial support pro rata to population with little or no consideration of the needs of a particular area. If pursued, this means wealthy (generally Tory-voting) areas placed under Tier 3 will receive as much support pro rata as big cities where large numbers rely on a minimum wage or low self-employment income or work in industries closed down or rendered non-viable, like hospitality or taxi-driving.

I don’t deny that we need more support financially in all areas, but Burnham delaying has annoyed me, he could have accepted the restrictions much earlier and still negotiated in the background.

25 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I've no reason to believe that Manchester offers less to its citizens than Liverpool or will offer less once this dispute is over - and doubt you have.

Your comment echoes the Tory attempts to use "divide and rule" between different councils, be that Manchester v. Liverpool/Lancashire or now, apparently, offering to negotiate with individual councils within Greater Manchester.

Still, all worth it, I suppose, so long as they have enough cash left to offer their corporate mates megabucks contracts and for Johnson to bluster on about spending countless billions on Operation Moonshot (not mentioned recently).

 

This is all ongoing so let's see what happens, eh?

I guess we will.

[Alf Bentley]

14 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Apples and Oranges.

 

Tariff-free, I hope?

 

14 minutes ago, Strokes said:

 

I didn’t see notice a response about why Manchester should receive more pro rata than Liverpool but I’m trying to work at the same time so if I missed it I apologies, certainly not ignoring it.

 

Cheers. This was the bit I meant:

 

"So, it seems as if they're seeking to pay the same sum pro rata to every region. That might seem fair at first sight. But different regions have different levels of need for multiple reasons - just as you wouldn't devote the same education resources to an area of pensioners as you would to an area of young families. Part of the reason Burnham demanded more than £60m was because Manchester has been on lockdown longer, thereby accruing greater need, and because it has proportionally more businesses and self-employed in need of support".

 

Really must work myself now, too.....