Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :mellow:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, String fellow said:

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.

 

How do you know the South Yorkshire negotiations weren't made far smoother by what happened with Greater Manchester?

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Get your arse into the politics thread Stan. I come in here to read lockdown arguments not this nonsense!

It mentioned pandemic so it's allowed :ph34r:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I live near Manchester (but don't fall under its lockdown rules) and work in the GM area.  There's real anger all over the place at how it's been handled. I think fair enough for Burnham for trying to get payment because it is about 3 million people. But I don't get why they don't just say full lockdown for the area/ north for 2 weeks. The 10pm curfew was a complete joke in practice. They should have had staggered closing times across the city. 

Though, I should mention, I haven't ventured to a pub in months. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone convince me why age related restrictions would be no good?

 

It's a shame people that are of a certain age arent taking the steps to protect themselves or getting the support.

 

I dont see why the world has to stop and peoples lives be significantly impacted when we know that the main group of people suffering most are the elderly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, filbertway said:

Can anyone convince me why age related restrictions would be no good?

 

It's a shame people that are of a certain age arent taking the steps to protect themselves or getting the support.

 

I dont see why the world has to stop and peoples lives be significantly impacted when we know that the main group of people suffering most are the elderly.

because the people that run the world who created the virus are old and elderly so its a big f u to the rest of us.

 

 

only jesting don't take my posts to serious now lol 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, filbertway said:

Can anyone convince me why age related restrictions would be no good?

 

It's a shame people that are of a certain age arent taking the steps to protect themselves or getting the support.

 

I dont see why the world has to stop and peoples lives be significantly impacted when we know that the main group of people suffering most are the elderly.

Mainly, yes. But anyone can be effected. People can be effected at any age and the effects can cause "long COVID" in people who are generally healthy. "people suffering the most are the elderly". What are you classing as elderly? 60, 70, 80? Also an elderly person might be your mum, dad, sister, brother, uncle, gran etc...it's about protecting everyone as no matter of who you are you have the right to live. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, filbertway said:

Can anyone convince me why age related restrictions would be no good?

 

It's a shame people that are of a certain age arent taking the steps to protect themselves or getting the support.

 

I dont see why the world has to stop and peoples lives be significantly impacted when we know that the main group of people suffering most are the elderly.

Say they opened the football tomorrow and allowed everyone back, what you’re are saying is , I’m sorry but all you elderly people aren’t allowed in for fear the rest of us give you the virus.. is that okay. How about the other way round, we’re elderly and at risk, so how about... you lot who are at less of a risk but more likely to be spreading it around because you’re carrying on as normal and are therefore more likely to be passing it round, stop coming to the football and putting us at risk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

So is it established that life won't return to anything like normal until a vaccine is in use? Then it'll just be another flu we have to deal with every winter?

Doubt it. I’m no expert in flu related deaths and the effects of flu but surely a vaccine is there to prevent the shear numbers of people contracting the virus and keeping it under some sort of control. I would have thought there will still be a lot of people dying from it in the future, vaccine or not.

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...