The Mexican Stand Off

I think the governments intransigence will cause trouble in Manchester & more non compliance. As I have said people can't afford to lose wages.
 
www.dailymail.co.uk

Greater Manchester faces noon deadline for Tier Three lockdown move

The PM and the region's mayor spoke on the phone as a noon deadline passed with Mr Burnham conceding he will have to fall into line if the government imposes the squeeze.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

www.dailymail.co.uk

Britain records 241 more Covid-19 deaths in darkest day since June

The 21,331 new positive tests confirmed today mark the second highest figure on record but analysis of the dates on which tests were taken shows daily positive swabs may be plateauing.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

This thread aged well.
 
Interesting and passionate broadcast from Burnham. He’d have come down from £75m and settled on £65m, his absolute minimum, but Johnson wouldn’t go above £60m. And then walked away.

Burnham read out a tweet or something similar live which said the new restrictions would come in on Friday night and only £20m would be available.

Johnson on shortly.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Interesting broadcast from Burnham. He’d have come down from £75m and settled on £65m, his absolute minimum, but Johnson wouldn’t go above £60m. And then had a paddy and walked away.

Burnham read out a tweet or something similar live which said the new restrictions would come in on Friday night and only £20m would be available.
Click to expand...
We'll show these Northern bastards sod £60 million they can have scraps for having the audacity to challenge us. Can't see this ending well.
 
Sooty59 said:
I think the governments intransigence will cause trouble in Manchester & more non compliance. As I have said people can't afford to lose wages.
Click to expand...

They offered the same as Liverpool and the rest of Lancashire, what makes Manchester special.

The government could not cave in, it would set a precedent for every other city and region to do the same thing, thus ensuring that necessary measures get delayed by a week to 10 days.
 
Lost Seasider said:
They offered the same as Liverpool and the rest of Lancashire, what makes Manchester special.

The government could not cave in, it would set a precedent for every other city and region to do the same thing, thus ensuring that necessary measures get delayed by a week to 10 days.
Click to expand...
There are more people in GM apparently
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Ensuring everyone affected gets at least 80% of their income.

Plus other business support and test and trace.

The principle is you can’t close businesses and tell people they can’t work without looking after them.
Click to expand...

No , 2/3rds of wage comes from central government right ? Correct me if I am wrong.
 
The money offered to Manchester is the same or higher than other Tier 3 areas. Boris has rightly decided that it's time to get on with it before the numbers get out of control in Manchester. If Burnham doesn't give support to this then it's clearly all about him and not the people.
 
Tangojoe said:
The money offered to Manchester is the same or higher than other Tier 3 areas. Boris has rightly decided that it's time to get on with it before the numbers get out of control in Manchester. If Burnham doesn't give support to this then it's clearly all about him and not the people.
Click to expand...
Is it? One source says GM wanted £75 mill. Johnson offered £60mill. GM said £65mill. Johnson walked away and is giving them £22 mill. Talk about playing example politics with people's lives.
I suppose it all depends on whether you think Johnson is a test or not.
 
Tangojoe said:
The money offered to Manchester is the same or higher than other Tier 3 areas. Boris has rightly decided that it's time to get on with it before the numbers get out of control in Manchester. If Burnham doesn't give support to this then it's clearly all about him and not the people.
Click to expand...
60m would be proportionately the same as Lancashire and Liverpool. That offer has been withdrawn and reduced to 22m.

What the Government will now do is go directly to the local authorities, bypassing Andy Burnham, and tell them how much of the 38m they can have.

So much for local democracy. “We will close you down and pay you what we think is appropriate”.
 
Tangojoe said:
The money offered to Manchester is the same or higher than other Tier 3 areas. Boris has rightly decided that it's time to get on with it before the numbers get out of control in Manchester. If Burnham doesn't give support to this then it's clearly all about him and not the people.
Click to expand...
They offered £60 M & were asked for at least £65 M & when the Gov refused they got £22 M & when BJ was asked if that £60 M was now off the table he surprisingly waffled & didn't answer. 🤬
 
Sooty59 said:
They offered £60 M & were asked for at least £65 M & when the Gov refused they got £22 M & when BJ was asked if that £60 M was now off the table he surprisingly waffled & didn't answer. 🤬
Click to expand...
See my post at 71 which is what they’ll do next.

And the same for West and South Yorks when they move them into tier 3 within the next few days/next week.

The real test is when some of the Home Counties are edging tier 3. Will compensation be assessed in the same way? What’s the bet that discussion never happens (as it’d trigger a revolt of Tory backbenchers).
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Ensuring everyone affected gets at least 80% of their income.

Plus other business support and test and trace.

The principle is you can’t close businesses and tell people they can’t work without looking after them.
Click to expand...

That comes out of the job support and other national schemes, I don't think Manchester even has the capability to make top up payments to individuals or businesses.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
See my post at 71 which is what they’ll do next.

And the same for West and South Yorks when they move them into tier 3 within the next few days/next week.

The real test is when some of the Home Counties are edging tier 3. Will compensation be assessed in the same way? What’s the bet that discussion never happens (as it’d trigger a revolt of Tory backbenchers).
Click to expand...
Yes by the time I posted there were more replies. It does infuriate me when these toffs pretend to understand how someone on minimum wages can possibly manage on less than they would pay for a meal out.
 
Lost Seasider said:
That comes out of the job support and other national schemes, I don't think Manchester even has the capability to make top up payments to individuals or businesses.
Click to expand...
Exactly. That’s why they needed 65m from central government to bring it to 80%. But they’ve been fobbed off with 22m.

Much less than paid to Liverpool and Lancashire (60m would have been proportionate). And far, far less than would be paid to Home Counties if they were ever moved to tier 3 (not that they ever will be of course).
 
Mexboroseasider said:
60m would be proportionately the same as Lancashire and Liverpool. That offer has been withdrawn and reduced to 22m.

What the Government will now do is go directly to the local authorities, bypassing Andy Burnham, and tell them how much of the 38m they can have.

So much for local democracy. “We will close you down and pay you what we think is appropriate”.
Click to expand...
There isn't really local democracy. The way Central Government overturned the Fracking vote showed that and how they held a gun to the head of local authorities over Local Plans showed they basically use local authorities as administrators but when it comes to key decisions they just override local democracy.
 
Andy Burnham's inflexibility and political game playing has done Greater Manchester a huge disservice. He should have taken 60 million then asked for more at a later date. Poor form Andy. Took the PM on and lost. In fact Bonzo has punished Manchester it would seem with a lower figure of £22 million being paid.

Both parties have behaved appallingly.
 
Macseasider said:
Andy Burnham's inflexibility and political game playing has done Greater Manchester a huge disservice. Poor form Andy. Took the PM on and lost. In fact Bonzo has punished Manchester it would seem with a lower figure of £22 million being paid.

Both parties have behaved appallingly.
Click to expand...
No he hasn't he stood up for Manchester & it sounds like the Gov are now trying to put the wind up them, I suspect what was posted by Mex will happen. Otherwise there will be trouble.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Exactly. That’s why they needed 65m from central government to bring it to 80%.
Click to expand...

Do they even have the infrastructure to do that? I seriously doubt they do.

It looks to me like there's a lot of disinformation and spin coming out of the mayor's office; this money looks to me like a direct grant to the mayors office to be spent on whatever he likes and I'm pretty sure none of it would've ended up being used to top up the job support scheme.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Do they even have the infrastructure to do that? I seriously doubt they do.

It looks to me like there's a lot of disinformation and spin coming out of the mayor's office; this money looks to me like a direct grant to the mayors office to be spent on whatever he likes and I'm pretty sure none of it would've ended up being used to top up the job support scheme.
Click to expand...
Bollocks. There’s no way Graham Brady would have agreed to that. You keep trying to make it Party Political when it’s cross party.
 
Sooty59 said:
No he hasn't he stood up for Manchester & it sounds like the Gov are now trying to put the wind up them, I suspect what was posted by Mex will happen. Otherwise there will be trouble.
Click to expand...

He stood up for Manchester and ended up harming it. He needs to shut up, take the money and crack on protecting people's health and businesses instead of playing celebrity mayor games.
 
Sooty59 said:
No he hasn't he stood up for Manchester & it sounds like the Gov are now trying to put the wind up them, I suspect what was posted by Mex will happen. Otherwise there will be trouble.
Click to expand...
Macseasider said:
Andy Burnham's inflexibility and political game playing has done Greater Manchester a huge disservice. He should have taken 60 million then asked for more at a later date. Poor form Andy. Took the PM on and lost. In fact Bonzo has punished Manchester it would seem with a lower figure of £22 million being paid.

Both parties have behaved appallingly.
Click to expand...
Burnham talks a lot of sense. The biggest political game player, by a street, is the Blonde two faced fuckwit, Johnson.
 
Matesrates said:
Yes, really, not all of them obviously, but if you watched the press conference just now you would see how bad it is in Manchester. Why should Manchester get more money than Liverpool or Lancashire?
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what Johnson and Cummings wanted. Set Northerner against Northerner. Divide and conquer.

Tier 3 will never happen in the Home Counties whatever the infection rate. The Tory backbenchers wouldn’t stand for it. He’d go national lockdown before then. And reintroduce the 80% furlough which is what this row is all about.
 
Macseasider said:
He stood up for Manchester and ended up harming it. He needs to shut up, take the money and crack on protecting people's health and businesses instead of playing celebrity mayor games.
Click to expand...
Sorry Mac on this one you are wrong. The poor can’t manage of two thirds of the pittance they get. It should be 80%. That’s what the row is really about.
 
Giro said:
Burnham talks a lot of sense. The biggest political game player, by a street, is the Blonde two faced fuckwit, Johnson.
Click to expand...

I cannot stand Bonzo full stop. I always rated Burnham as an MP and thought he could have been a viable Labour leader.

But he's tried to play games too much. Take the £65mill then go back asking for more once it's secured.
 
Take the £60m Andy and then go back and ask for more when it runs out! Play the buffoon at his own game!
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Sorry Mac on this one you are wrong. The poor can’t manage of two thirds of the pittance they get. It should be 80%. That’s what the row is really about.
Click to expand...

So take the 65 million and when it runs out go banging his drum back to the well. Don't just refuse the initial sum just try and take Bozo on and act the big celebrity mayor.
 
The job support scheme is replacing furlough for every region, including Lancs and Merseyside and stands at 67% of wages paid for by central government.
A second support package for Merseyside and Lancs came after the initial package was awarded and will happen with Manchester too.
You can’t provide extra funds for one region to receive 80% salary top ups when all other regions will receive 67% and paid directly from the government not from the local authority and on top of the funding offered to each region.
The extra funds for all regions are for other services and support affected by tier 3 restrictions.
 
Macseasider said:
I cannot stand Bonzo full stop. I always rated Burnham as an MP and thought he could have been a viable Labour leader.

But he's tried to play games too much. Take the £65mill then go back asking for more once it's secured.
Click to expand...
He wanted 65m but it wasn’t offered. And that was down on 75m.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Exactly. That’s why they needed 65m from central government to bring it to 80%. But they’ve been fobbed off with 22m.

Much less than paid to Liverpool and Lancashire (60m would have been proportionate). And far, far less than would be paid to Home Counties if they were ever moved to tier 3 (not that they ever will be of course).
Click to expand...

Here in Cambridge we are in Tier 1 but because we are well off Southerners we have been offered £180 million already just so we can get 200% of our wages because we aren't a load of whinging, whippet breeding, flat cap wearing Northern Barstards! 🧐
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Sorry Mac on this one you are wrong. The poor can’t manage of two thirds of the pittance they get. It should be 80%. That’s what the row is really about.
Click to expand...

Taxation makes up much of the difference between 2/3 and 80%; you also need to factor in costs associated with working such as travel to/from, potentially cost of food/drink etc.

Quite a lot of people actually ended up quids in under the 80% furlough scheme.
 
hertfordseasider said:
Here in Cambridge we are in Tier 1 but because we are well off Southerners we have been offered £180 million already just so we can get 200% of our wages because we aren't a load of whinging, whippet breeding, flat cap wearing Northern Barstards! 🧐
Click to expand...
Lol. I was going to post something similar about Bedfordshire but things are getting a bit heated.

Let’s face it, there’s no way we’ll ever be put in tier 3. And if we were, as you say, we’d be in clover.

Still the Northerners seem to be happy to “squabble over peanuts” (copyright Dominic Cummings) so we should probably leave them to it.
 
Why would anyone believe Johnson, when he wouldn't put anything in writing. The main problem is that all the other areas didn't stand with Andy, they took their 30 pieces of silver.
 
Matesrates said:
Yes, really, not all of them obviously, but if you watched the press conference just now you would see how bad it is in Manchester. Why should Manchester get more money than Liverpool or Lancashire?
Click to expand...
Because the economy in Manchester contributes significantly more to GDP than Merseyside and Lancashire. When businesses fail this impacts our national economy. Support them now, properly, and as a nation, we will come out of this stronger.

Consider this - BJ says it’s wrong / unfair to put low infection areas under tougher restrictions - many of these areas contribute a very small amount to GDP in contrast to say Manchester - yet these same areas benefit from the economy generated by the likes of Manchester e.g. health and taxes.

The nerve of BJ to quote universities as a positive, when he allowed thousands of students to migrate to the areas now covered by the most serious restrictions.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Taxation makes up much of the difference between 2/3 and 80%; you also need to factor in costs associated with working such as travel to/from, potentially cost of food/drink etc.

Quite a lot of people actually ended up quids in under the 80% furlough scheme.
Click to expand...
Yeah. That’s right. You need to post a graph. That’ll convince people struggling to pay their rent.
 
People on Furlough still paid tax.

A young person on minimum wage £8.20 an hour will now be on £5.50 an hour due to the Government closing down their place of work.
None of this affects me or my family but I can recognise injustice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top