Manchester refuses to accept Tier 3

T

tangerinenotorange

Well-known member
Should the government allow Andy Burnham to block the imposition of restrictions "because it treats the people of Manchester as second class citizens" ?
 
It's difficult territory.

I don't have any reason to doubt his bona fides. He seems to be acting out of principle. But this throws up all sorts of difficult issues. Can he try to use his democratic mandate to trump that of Government ? Should he and other local authority leaders be seen to condone civil defiance, however indirectly? Or does he have a civic obligation to resist measures that he believes to the economically harmful?

I have some sympathy (a lot, actually) with his dilemma. But I think he should save the rhetoric for the meeting room. He's effectively sticking his neck out a long way on the basis that his judgement is better than the Government's He's also making a number of assumptions about how and why Manchester is in this position and whilst I think some of them are probably right I'm not sure he can offer proof to back them up.

I've no idea how I would react if I were in his shoes. But he is treading a dangerous path.
 
When did this become about money and not protecting the safety & lives of the public?

If the severity of a local "lockdown" can be delayed due to negotiations over financial matters, you have to ask what is driving all this.

If tighter restrictions are imperative to save lives, do it, and sort the rest out later.,
 
basilrobbie said:
It's difficult territory.

I don't have any reason to doubt his bona fides. He seems to be acting out of principle. But this throws up all sorts of difficult issues. Can he try to use his democratic mandate to trump that of Government ? Should he and other local authority leaders be seen to condone civil defiance, however indirectly? Or does he have a civic obligation to resist measures that he believes to the economically harmful?

I have some sympathy (a lot, actually) with his dilemma. But I think he should save the rhetoric for the meeting room. He's effectively sticking his neck out a long way on the basis that his judgement is better than the Government's He's also making a number of assumptions about how and why Manchester is in this position and whilst I think some of them are probably right I'm not sure he can offer proof to back them up.

I've no idea how I would react if I were in his shoes. But he is treading a dangerous path.
Click to expand...
He's not disagreeing with the science, he's disagreeing with the support available. It's a bargaining stance and it's exactly what he should be doing if he feels it will deprive his constituents.
 
Yep, all credit to him for making a stand. We’re in it together and if particular areas have additional restrictions, local businesses should be appropriately supported.

We can’t forget that these northern cities have been impacted by the decision to allow university students to migrate. To a large degree, it’s why Manchester is in this position.

By standing firm AB is putting the government in a really difficult position. If they impose the restrictions and they don’t work, it would be disastrous for them on every level. AB is doing what Parliament is unable to do - calling to account BJ for his shambolic handling of the situation.
 
It’s simple, every business cascades risk and responsibility downwards, so that the company and the senior managers are protected. The government should say to Burnham, over to you, it’s your decision, the money is what it is. You decide what to do, risk and responsibility is all yours.
 
Matesrates said:
It’s simple, every business cascades risk and responsibility downwards, so that the company and the senior managers are protected. The government should say to Burnham, over to you, it’s your decision, the money is what it is. You decide what to do, risk and responsibility is all yours.
Click to expand...
Seriously? That was satire or tongue in cheek surely?
 
Burnham can out manoeuvre this bunch of chancers and they know it, he's not some local council leader, he's been playing Whitehall games for a long time.

They'd better hurry up with the billions thrown at HS2 or there'll be no north for it to run to.
 
basilrobbie said:
I don't have any reason to doubt his bona fides. He seems to be acting out of principle.
Click to expand...

He's a labour party member, a former labour MP and cabinet minister under Brown, there is every reason to question his bona fides and doubt his motivation.

First off, it looks like he's trying to boost his standing within the party, possibly for a subsequent return to parliament and perhaps even an eye to challenging for the leadership.

Secondly, it looks like he's playing politics with the lives of the people he's supposed to represent to give the labour party a gain at the national level.

Finally, there is no way the government can allow itself to be held to ransom like this, it would set a precedent that every other city would follow if they had to raise the lockdown level.

Frankly disgusting behaviour from Mr Burnham and the labour party in general.
 
Lost Seasider said:
He's a labour party member, a former labour MP and cabinet minister under Brown, there is every reason to question his bona fides and doubt his motivation.

First off, it looks like he's trying to boost his standing within the party, possibly for a subsequent return to parliament and perhaps even an eye to challenging for the leadership.

Secondly, it looks like he's playing politics with the lives of the people he's supposed to represent to give the labour party a gain at the national level.

Finally, there is no way the government can allow itself to be held to ransom like this, it would set a precedent that every other city would follow if they had to raise the lockdown level.

Frankly disgusting behaviour from Mr Burnham and the labour party in general.
Click to expand...
Wow, not sure how you could be so wrong on every point.

The role of regional mayor is not ceremonial - he has a responsibility to deliver and fight for the region.

He may well be the next Labour leader, but that’s a side issue and irrelevant in the context of what is happening.

Lives of people - he has repeated the advice of the CMO - it‘s the government that’s out of step with science.

Held to ransom - let’s just lie down and let a poorly performing government pile on more misery, completely against scientific advice.

By the way, I’m not a Labour supporter but I am a proud Manc.
 
TimperleyTangerine said:
Wow, not sure how you could be so wrong on every point.

The role of regional mayor is not ceremonial - he has a responsibility to deliver and fight for the region.

He may well be the next Labour leader, but that’s a side issue and irrelevant in the context of what is happening.

Lives of people - he has repeated the advice of the CMO - it‘s the government that’s out of step with science.

Held to ransom - let’s just lie down and let a poorly performing government pile on more misery, completely against scientific advice.

By the way, I’m not a Labour supporter but I am a proud Manc.
Click to expand...
Ohhhh, you've done it now 😀
 
It’s just the same as things people have said to me “I can’t afford to be off work for a fortnight” regarding isolating as a precaution. It’s ok if you can afford to not be paid, but a lot of people were on the breadline before this. So guess what, they continue to go to work. Until this is addressed this virus will continue to thrive.
 
Sooty59 said:
It’s just the same as things people have said to me “I can’t afford to be off work for a fortnight” regarding isolating as a precaution. It’s ok if you can afford to not be paid, but a lot of people were on the breadline before this. So guess what, they continue to go to work. Until this is addressed this virus will continue to thrive.
Click to expand...
This 👍

Marcus Rashford is pushing his campaign again today, for adequate food for children. It is all very well for those well off to spout nonsense about health, but if children starve, Covid is irrelevant. Support HAS to be in place before lockdown, try living on 67% of part time minimum wages. And if you are made redundant, wait two weeks for an appointment, and then 6 weeks for UC. It is politics, it is also ethics. (and please understand this is by no means a pop at all our lovely folk who work for the DSS, they would love to change timings too.)
 
Lost Seasider said:
He's a labour party member, a former labour MP and cabinet minister under Brown, there is every reason to question his bona fides and doubt his motivation.

First off, it looks like he's trying to boost his standing within the party, possibly for a subsequent return to parliament and perhaps even an eye to challenging for the leadership.

Secondly, it looks like he's playing politics with the lives of the people he's supposed to represent to give the labour party a gain at the national level.

Finally, there is no way the government can allow itself to be held to ransom like this, it would set a precedent that every other city would follow if they had to raise the lockdown level.

Frankly disgusting behaviour from Mr Burnham and the labour party in general.
Click to expand...
Fuck me there's some 2 + 2 = 453564 in there.

Some people are spectacularly missing the point, this isn't national, it's selectively deprived areas.
 
Perhaps if AB, as their Mayor, had persuaded the residents of Manchester to follow the Covid guidelines then they wouldn't have found themselves in this situation. Let's not forget that it people that are spreading the virus, nobody else.
 
bfcpete said:
Perhaps if AB, as their Mayor, had persuaded the residents of Manchester to follow the Covid guidelines then they wouldn't have found themselves in this situation. Let's not forget that it people that are spreading the virus, nobody else.
Click to expand...
Jeez pal, many thousands of University students migrated to the city, more than doubling the infection rate in the space of a few short weeks. How is that the fault of local residents?
 
political. He supports national lockdown just like Starmer does.

Too many in positions of responsibility using the opportunity to play games or further themselves.
 
I thought Matt Hancock had completely missed the point (or should I say chosen to miss the point) of AB's stance, when he said that local leaders should stop "playing party politics". It didn't sound to me as if AB was trying to play party politics or further his career (I don't support any particular party). It sounded as if he was representing the residents of his area who are very likely to suffer without adequate support. As someone has posted, paying a low paid worker 2/3 of his/her pay simply isn't providing adequate financial support; would their landlord accept 2/3 of his rent?

I voted "no" in the AVFTT national lock-down poll yesterday , but I think if central government are going to impose/agree a Tier 3 lock-down (esp in deprived areas), a short term return to the furlough scheme is perhaps a better option. I know there are holes in my argument, but I'm not sure what else the government could do to ensure the low paid don't suffer or even lose their homes (other than the circuit breaker proposal I suppose)
 
TimperleyTangerine said:
He told us today, a national circuit break, in line with scientific advice. That means equitable treatment for people and business across the country. If that happened, he wouldn’t be asking for more money.
Click to expand...

Totally ineffective, you'll be back to the same levels of infection within a week, and that is the scientific advice.
 
Why should they sign up for something that the governments own advisors say doesn't work? As Burnam says canaries in a mine. They are using the North as a experiment.. Wouldn't be surprised if this government spread the virus in the North anyway. Does seem strange that it's Manchester, Liverpool, Lancashire and The North east are the highest areas.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Totally ineffective, you'll be back to the same levels of infection within a week, and that is the scientific advice.
Click to expand...
Suggest you refer to the CMO advice that was published in the minutes of the last SAGE meeting. You don’t have to, because you can just consider this - how would a national circuit break be less effective then a local one?
 
Mr Tangerine Man said:
Why should they sign up for something that the governments own advisors say doesn't work? As Burnam says canaries in a mine. They are using the North as a experiment.. Wouldn't be surprised if this government spread the virus in the North anyway. Does seem strange that it's Manchester, Liverpool, Lancashire and The North east are the highest areas.
Click to expand...
How do you think the Government would go about the process of spreading the disease then?
 
TimperleyTangerine said:
He told us today, a national circuit break, in line with scientific advice. That means equitable treatment for people and business across the country. If that happened, he wouldn’t be asking for more money.
Click to expand...
I doubt the people of Cornwall and many other areas with low infection rates would agree with him
 
TimperleyTangerine said:
Suggest you refer to the CMO advice that was published in the minutes of the last SAGE meeting. You don’t have to, because you can just consider this - how would a national circuit break be less effective then a local one?
Click to expand...

Both are largely ineffective, the difference is that a national one is largely pointless also.

The reason is case numbers decline 3 - 4 times more slowly than they rise, so the circuit breaker lockdown looks like this:
  • Two week lockdown;
  • one week off;
  • two week lockdown;
  • one week off;
  • two week lockdown;
  • one week off;
  • two week lockdown;
  • one week off;
  • two week lockdown;
  • one week off;
  • two week lockdown;
  • one week off;
we might as well just go for the full lockdown for the next 6 months.
 
Matesrates said:
I doubt the people of Cornwall and many other areas with low infection rates would agree with him
Click to expand...
I agree, but he‘s asking for equitable treatment. Consider the economic impact on the sleepy village in comparison to a major city. Also consider that the sleepy village exported their teenagers to universities in major cities.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Both are largely ineffective, the difference is that a national one is largely pointless also.

The reason is case numbers decline 3 - 4 times more slowly than they rise, so the circuit breaker lockdown looks like this:
  • Two week lockdown;
  • one week off;
  • two week lockdown;
  • one week off;
  • two week lockdown;
  • one week off;
  • two week lockdown;
  • one week off;
  • two week lockdown;
  • one week off;
  • two week lockdown;
  • one week off;
we might as well just go for the full lockdown for the next 6 months.
Click to expand...
...and Manchester has already been under increased restrictions for weeks. It’s fair to local residents?

Read the CMO advice.
 
Is tier 3 not for areas with mainly 3rd class Citizens? 🤪

Simples way of looking at it.
This has little to do with social standing or wealth btw but EVERYTHING to do with ATTITUDE towards the pandemic.

1st class citizens are very concientious about spreading the virus and follow the guidelines to keep infection levels down.👍

2nd class citizens are on the whole doing most things right but could do better as they are slacking in some key areas🤞

3td class citizens tend not to give a fook, will live their life how they want and have scant regards for the possible consequences to others.👎

3rd class citizens could be youngsters as the virus 'doesnt affect us' Middle aged 'I fkin know best' types or even some of the deluded or 'when its my time. its my time' elderly?

Areas that have more 3rd class citizens around will get 3rd tier restrictions.

simple
Its hardly rocket science
 
TimperleyTangerine said:
He told us today, a national circuit break, in line with scientific advice. That means equitable treatment for people and business across the country. If that happened, he wouldn’t be asking for more money.
Click to expand...
So he thinks it is it is fair to lockdown those parts of the country where infection rates are low and where hospital admissions are low? I am also not aware of any other country that is going for a second national lockdown, which I suspect would be far longer than a two week circuit break. Those other countries that are taking action are targeting cities (for example, France and Spain) or are taking just targeted action across the country (such as pub / hospitality curfews) rather than a full lockdown. Surely, we are doing the same to target the areas of high local infection or causes of the spread?
I can't comment on what additional local support has been offered, because it has not been readily publicised, but the general principle should be if a business is forced to close because of local lockdowns then they should get a continuation of staff wage subsidies, business rates relief, grants etc, as well was extra resources for local test and trace
 
Last edited:
bfcpete said:
I can't comment on what additional local support has been offered, because it has not been readily publicised, but the general principle should be if a business is forced to close because of local lockdowns then they should get a continuation of staff wage subsidies, business rates relief, grants etc, as well was extra resources for local test and trace
Click to expand...
You are of course correct.

And they aren't offering that level of support, not surprising AB is holding his ground
 
TimperleyTangerine said:
...and Manchester has already been under increased restrictions for weeks. It’s fair to local residents?
Click to expand...
Manchester has lots of cases, large parts of the country don't.

See the difference?


TimperleyTangerine said:
Read the CMO advice.
Click to expand...

It's not the CMO's advice, it's minutes of a meeting he attended.

The person seemingly pushing for this circuit breaker is John Edmunds (see the action note at the end of the minutes); this is the more detailed advice: Summary of the effectiveness and harms of different non-pharmaceutical interventions

Some key points:
  • Over a fortnight’s “break”, two weeks of growth could be exchanged for two weeks of decay in transmission, assuming good adherence to measures, and no additional increase in contacts before or after the break.
  • The amount of “time gained” is highly dependent on how quickly the epidemic is growing –the faster the growth or stricter the measures introduced, the more time gained.
  • Multiple circuit-breaks might be necessary to maintain low levels of incidence.
So there's considereable doubt how effective it might be due to likelyhood of increasing contacts before and after, adherence to measures is also in doubt.

I'm also concerned about this idea of multiple circuit breaks, the effectiveness of the policy furhter declining with each successive break.

To me, it looks like a policy to keep in reserve to be used once or twice when there's a real danger of the NHS being ovewhelmed, not something to be wheeled out to appease a showboating city mayor
 
Lost Seasider said:
To me, it looks like a policy to keep in reserve to be used once or twice when there's a real danger of the NHS being ovewhelmed, not something to be wheeled out to appease a showboating city mayor
Click to expand...

I agree with the showboating terminology. There's definitely a 'look at me' element about AB.
 
Lost Seasider said:
He's a labour party member, a former labour MP and cabinet minister under Brown, there is every reason to question his bona fides and doubt his motivation.

First off, it looks like he's trying to boost his standing within the party, possibly for a subsequent return to parliament and perhaps even an eye to challenging for the leadership.

Secondly, it looks like he's playing politics with the lives of the people he's supposed to represent to give the labour party a gain at the national level.

Finally, there is no way the government can allow itself to be held to ransom like this, it would set a precedent that every other city would follow if they had to raise the lockdown level.

Frankly disgusting behaviour from Mr Burnham and the labour party in general.
Click to expand...
Boris Johnson only allows himself to be held to ransom by the right wing extremists in his own party or the brexiteers even further to the right.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Yes and the nation as a whole should support them if they want them to shut up shop
Click to expand...

Support yes, get held to ransom by them no, and that's exactly what Mr Burnham is trying to do.

In fact by going public Mr Burnham is actually working against his residents interests, because there's no way the government can be seen to give in to them without being held to ransom by every other local authority that needs to go into level 3.
 
By going public after the Government threatened him?

You mean by telling his residents that the Government wants to shut them all down despite lack of financial support , and effectively warning the rest of the country of the same?

Seems like he's looking after his folks pretty well. Let the light of publicity shine forth.
 
We need to give the people who need help financially during the proposed Tier 3 restrictions. The MP's who are dallying re Manchester are totally detached & seemingly can't comprehend what skint really means. I would consider myself somewhat detached but I'm a lot closer than they are.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Support yes, get held to ransom by them no, and that's exactly what Mr Burnham is trying to do.

In fact by going public Mr Burnham is actually working against his residents interests, because there's no way the government can be seen to give in to them without being held to ransom by every other local authority that needs to go into level 3.
Click to expand...
Bit rich when the Govt leaks it’s plans to the Press and then won’t take questions on its plans from the Northern MP’s
 
basilrobbie said:
It's difficult territory.

I don't have any reason to doubt his bona fides. He seems to be acting out of principle. But this throws up all sorts of difficult issues. Can he try to use his democratic mandate to trump that of Government ? Should he and other local authority leaders be seen to condone civil defiance, however indirectly? Or does he have a civic obligation to resist measures that he believes to the economically harmful?

I have some sympathy (a lot, actually) with his dilemma. But I think he should save the rheto
Click to expand...

basilrobbie said:
ric for the meeting room. He's effectively sticking his neck out a long way on the basis that his judgement is better than the Government's He's also making a number of assumptions about how and why Manchester is in this position and whilst I think some of them are probably right I'm not sure he can offer proof to back them up.

I've no idea how I would react if I were in his shoes. But he is treading a dangerous path.
Click to expand...
Robbie,
Neither have I. I walked passed him, a few years ago, on the way back from the buffet car on a London to Glasgow train. The fact he was sat in standard class speaks volumes for his integrity.
He’s also got a lot of political nous. It sure won’t help Boris, in the north, if he imposes a tier change.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top