The Mexican Stand Off

TimperleyTangerine said:
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.
Click to expand...

What has the Manchester economy got to do with whether the South is put under restriction? What about the London economy? If anywhere should get more money it's Blackpool and Fylde, where the lockdown affects a far higher percentage of businesses than Manchester in an already poverty stricken area.
 
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...

What on earth are you talking about?
The poor ? The poor are the ones on benefits or laid in doorways. We are probably looking at boozers shut for 4 ish weeks. And are you saying we have been pissing about for 10 days over 67% wages compared to 80%.
Most of the pubs have probably laid of the bar staff and glass collectors.
Tell you what mate, you and the like on here might call BJ all the names under the sun, but I will be forever grateful for my furlough payment and banks easing my mortgage payment.

Get some perspective and save lives.
 
Last edited:
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...
Bigger population with more industry?
 
Wizaard said:
Bigger population with more industry?
Click to expand...

Per capita the same offer as Liverpool, i.e. more in absolute terms.

Industry isn't locking down so that might be an argument for them getting less.

The £60m is still on the table BTW so they're not being made an example of, it's just that Burnham doesn't get the victory over the government that he so dearly wanted.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Per capita the same offer as Liverpool, i.e. more in absolute terms.

Industry isn't locking down so that might be an argument for them getting less.

The £60m is still on the table BTW so they're not being made an example of, it's just that Burnham doesn't get the victory over the government that he so dearly wanted.
Click to expand...
Bigger tax revenues so bigger cost per head.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Again you try to make it party political when it clearly isn’t. He was supported by lots of Tories who are representing their constituents.
Click to expand...

Had he stayed quiet he might well have got the £75m he wanted, or at least the £65 he would have settled for.

This whole episode has been about Burnham trying to raise his own profile for his own self interest, everything else is just been cover for him doing that.

And a handful of Conservative MP's with an eye on their own majorities doesn't change a thing.
 
No1_club said:
What on earth are you talking about?
The poor ? The poor are the ones on benefits or laid in doorways. We are probably looking at boozers shut for 4 ish weeks. And are you saying we have been pissing about for 10 days over 67% wages compared to 80%.
Most of the pubs have probably laid of the bar staff and glass collectors.
Tell you what mate, you and the like on here might call BJ all the names under the sun, but I will be forever grateful for my furlough payment and banks easing my mortgage payment.

Get some perspective and save lives.
Click to expand...
So you’re forever grateful for the furlough (and I’d agree) but you’re now against the same being done for people in Manchester.

That makes absolutely zero sense.
 
Wizaard said:
There's wages contributions to be paid by employers and the wages are higher in Manchester. It's not just bars either
Click to expand...

That's changed, the government is now supporting 2/3 of wages for businesses forced to close, there's no employers contribution now.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Had he stayed quiet he might well have got the £75m he wanted, or at least the £65 he would have settled for.

This whole episode has been about Burnham trying to raise his own profile for his own self interest, everything else is just been cover for him doing that.

And a handful of Conservative MP's with an eye on their own majorities doesn't change a thing.
Click to expand...
If you actually believe that you must be able to juggle soot and platt jam!

Burnham is a thousand times more principled than 2 faced Boris.
 
So... Bozo fails to come to agreement with AB and Greater Manchester over a mere £5 million over the next three months and uses that as a pretext to shaft the city’s people?

While spunking away £12 BILLION to his mates’ companies, such as Serco, for the inadequate and failing Test/Track/Trace system run by the useless, unqualified Dame Dido? Yes, that makes sense to a Tory. No doubt, Bozo will be expecting many a backhander and directorships from them as payback when he quits in a few months.
www.expressandstar.com

Serco profits set to soar after test and trace contract extension

Outsourcing giant Serco has said it expects profits to exceed expectations in 2020 as a result of the uptick in work since the global pandemic.
www.expressandstar.com www.expressandstar.com
 
Last edited:
Lost Seasider said:
The 80% was arguably a bit too generous in the first place, the new scheme applies to the whole country, why should Manchester be treated as a special case.




And you're not playing party politics?
Click to expand...
Nope. As I keep saying, and you pretend isn’t the case, Burnham has cross party support. That’s why the Manchester Young Conservatives tweeted:

“Boris has lied about helping us in the north. It’s time for him to go. He’s not a conservative. He’s got no backbone or genuine deals. He’s incompetent. He has now lost all the seats we worked so hard in Greater Manchester to win.”

And that’s from Tories.
 
Both sides behaving appallingly. Difference is AB is a better at politicking than BJ and his mates.
 
This government has blown £175m on private consultants alone during the pandemic, but they’ve screwed over the folks of Manchester for £5m. The Chumocracy of the Johnson administration only cares about how much it can enrich friends and donors in the private sector. It doesn’t give a fig about the public.

Government spending on Covid consultancy contracts rises to £175m | Conservative leadership | The Guardian

Chair of parliamentary committee expresses ‘shock’ and announces investigation
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Who? The forelock tuggers?

They don’t like it when someone stands up to “their betters”. They know their place and they are quite happy there - thank you very much!!!
Click to expand...
I'm just staggered at how some on here are so quick to turn on those who seek to defend the most vulnerable or the lowest paid in society. When they believe that it's all about Burnham furthering his political career or for self ego, I can't help but think they're simply projecting their own questionable morals onto someone else.
 
southshorepool said:
I'm just staggered at how some on here are so quick to turn on those who seek to defend the most vulnerable or the lowest paid in society. When they believe that it's all about Burnham furthering his political career or for self ego, I can't help but think they're simply projecting their own questionable morals onto someone else.
Click to expand...

Odd how the likes of Dan Jarvis, Joe Anderson and the leaders of other regions can all reach agreements without a 10 day public spat but Burnham can't.

Is it the government being awkward of is it Burnham? The evidence would seem to point to the latter.
 
L S, are you related to 20Togo or maybe you are him, under a different guise? You always want the last word and your posts are becoming increasingly boring.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Odd how the likes of Dan Jarvis, Joe Anderson and the leaders of other regions can all reach agreements without a 10 day public spat but Burnham can't.

Is it the government being awkward of is it Burnham? The evidence would seem to point to the latter.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they should have fought harder.
 
southshorepool said:
Perhaps they should have fought harder.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they did.

The moment Burnham went public the government's room for maneouver was extremely limited; they cannot set a precedent that trying to drag out talks and hold the government to ransom yields results, if they did then every future change in status would go the same way.

Burnham might be spinning it as "standing up for the people of Manchester", the reality is that he's actively working against their interests.
 
Interesting snippet on the TV this morning.

One of the reasons they were asking for more help was because of the longer term damage done with some areas in GM being under restrictions since the end of July, whereas much of Liverpool and Lancashire weren't.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Please let us know which of the connections, figures or contracts he has got wrong, I'm sure we will be interested.

I won't hold my breath because it was a meticulously researched article
Click to expand...

It's a leftist rant twisting facts to suit his agenda.

The centralised system is there for the bulk processing of simple cases, 90,000 infected persons plus 200,000 or so contacts per week and the work is done online or by telephone.

The local system is reserved for "complex" cases, generally involving hospitals, care homes or vital national infrastructure, it is vastly more time consuming and vastly more expensive.

It is not surprising that the local system traces a much higher proportion of contacts, that is what it is there for.

It is entirely appropriate that the bulk cases are processed centrally, there is no way the local teams could cope with the volume, it is an inevitable fact that telephone/online tracing will be less successful than boots on the ground, this applies whether it is handled locally of centrally.
 
That is al your opinion, and fair enough as that.

However, local public health tracking could have been expanded rapidly and hugely competently by health professionals, for a fraction of the £12 billion spunked to Serco.

Does it really not concern you the government is spending billions of our money on organisations with no proven track record, with a dearth of professionals at executive level and no penalties for poor performance?
 
Tangerinemoss said:
However, local public health tracking could have been expanded rapidly and hugely competently by health professionals, for a fraction of the £12 billion spunked to Serco.
Click to expand...

You have evidence for this, because PHE has definately struggled to step up to the plate in other areas.

Also note that the problem with local is that you'll end up with over-capacity in some areas and a shortage in others, by centralising you get to spread the capacity over the whole country.
 
Lost Seasider said:
You have evidence for this, because PHE has definately struggled to step up to the plate in other areas.

Also note that the problem with local is that you'll end up with over-capacity in some areas and a shortage in others, by centralising you get to spread the capacity over the whole country.
Click to expand...
Your first line, because they have not had funding increased, their track and trace is exemplary. The only reason people are complaining about PHE England is that they are being made a scapegoat for the Government's decisions. And for the failure that is Dido Harding to be given control of the repalcement organisation is stupendously crazy, even by Boris's standards. A board full of ex supermarket executives, are you serious??

Your second line, T&T is not working nationally, figures from high 50's to low 60's is dreadful. Maybe they could run it the same way as Police call centres, if one is overwhelmed, another area helps pick up the slack.

You see, there are, and always have been, solutions which do not include giving billions to incompetent inexperienced poorly managed and lead organisations for political reasons.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Your first line, because they have not had funding increased, their track and trace is exemplary. The only reason people are complaining about PHE England is that they are being made a scapegoat for the Government's decisions. And for the failure that is Dido Harding to be given control of the repalcement organisation is stupendously crazy, even by Boris's standards. A board full of ex supermarket executives, are you serious??
Click to expand...

This paragraph makes little to no sense to me.


Tangerinemoss said:
Your second line, T&T is not working nationally, figures from high 50's to low 60's is dreadful. Maybe they could run it the same way as Police call centres, if one is overwhelmed, another area helps pick up the slack.

You see, there are, and always have been, solutions which do not include giving billions to incompetent inexperienced poorly managed and lead organisations for political reasons.
Click to expand...

Well the problem isn't the system, the problem is that about 20% of contacts don't have contact details so are fundamentally untraceable.

Monbiot's article, and labour's tweet got fact checked by the way: https://fullfact.org/health/labour-serco-tweet/, read it for balance.
 
Again, thanks for the reply

I am sorry you can't understand my English, maybe try again

And the fact check has been answered by myself and others elsewhere.

Genuine question, are you really happy with this web of, at best, nepotism, and at worst corruption?The Dido and husband, the racing industry, the "Think tanks", the chair of Serco??
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Genuine question, are you really happy with this web of, at best, nepotism, and at worst corruption?The Dido and husband, the racing industry, the "Think tanks", the chair of Serco??
Click to expand...

Okay, let's knock on the head this idea that Boris et al are handing out contracts at all.

The ministers will have final approval of the larger contracts, but by the time it reaches them the details will have been agreed by civil servants, presumably already signed off by the department's permanent secretary, so this idea that they're chanelling money to their cronies is absurd.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Gov't now set a noon deadline tomorrow to reach a deal

Will be interesting to see how they seek to enforce the restrictions if the City Council refuse to cooperate
Click to expand...
I think a City v Government clash is due soon and Manchester will be the battle ground. Above all else its clear the current situation has exacerbated the North/South divide and in the longer term that is a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top