Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Tories got 35% of the vote in Greater Manchester at the last election btw. It’s hardly the Labour one party state that people think it is.

 

Would love someone to explain the logic in Boris going to battle with one of the areas that basically made him PM

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I gather that Hancock has now said the £60m was still on the table (if he still has any say within cabinet). But that wasn't what was being said earlier - or what the council leaders were told earlier.

 

Have a look at the sections at 17.21, 17.24, 17.32 & 18.17: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-54611402/page/2

 

Perhaps, if the £60m was still on the table the Govt should have announced that earlier - rather than giving the impression that it might well have been withdrawn. Utterly irresponsible or incompetent, depending on whether they did it deliberately.

 

I know 2 people who have known Burnham well. Both said that he was a very honourable, moral person. These were people who were critical of other Labour politicians. Indeed, one thought that Burnham might be too idealistic and not calculating enough to be Labour leader (the conversation was in 2015). Burnham claims that the £90m figure was calculated by a former Treasury official......but I'm sure some negotiating tactics went into it (sounds like £90m first bid, while hoping for £75m, with £65m as the figure below which they wouldn't go - probably agreed with multiple council leaders, some of them Tories). A bit like LCFC wouldn't announce their bottom line at first bid in transfer negotiations. So, I find your "greedy cvnt" comment out of order.

 

A bit of context: the eventual negotiating difference was £5m.....whereas Johnson has blustered on about "Operation Moonshit" giving everyone a daily Covid test or whatever. Someone costed that project at £100bn - that's 20,000 times more money, I think, if my Maths are correct. I understand that he's trying to draw a line in the sand for other councils he expects to put into Tier 3 with inadequate support, but are the financial savings worth all the anger this will cause?

 

 

Nail on head. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Burnham claims that the £90m figure was calculated by a former Treasury official......but I'm sure some negotiating tactics went into it (sounds like £90m first bid, while hoping for £75m, with £65m as the figure below which they wouldn't go - probably agreed with multiple council leaders, some of them Tories). A bit like LCFC wouldn't announce their bottom line at first bid in transfer negotiations. So, I find your "greedy cvnt" comment out of order.


I know very little of Burnham’s character, so I couldn’t say either way whether there’s any politicking going on, but calling someone a ‘greedy cvnt’ for trying to get a better deal for the businesses under his charge, which have been through a hellish year as it is, seems a little off.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Finnaldo said:


I know very little of Burnham’s character, so I couldn’t say either way whether there’s any politicking going on, but calling someone a ‘greedy cvnt’ for trying to get a better deal for the businesses under his charge, which have been through a hellish year as it is, seems a little off.

‘Greedy cvnt’ trying to protect the lowest paid members of the Greater Manchester area. Deary me. 
 

Being paid 66% of your minimum wage salary is absolutely brutal 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.)  

The difference being that the Tier 3 precautions are not to the same level of those nations. 
 

Burnham’s counter acting point as been that the SAGE scientists are saying Tier 3 won’t work, so why have the double whammy of businesses trying to keep open without financial support whilst the virus continues to spread with an inadequate precaution. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

A decade of austerity | Centre for Cities

Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :D

 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

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

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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..... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

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

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :D 

 

Must work...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...