Quote from: Will Hunt on October 20, 2020, 06:52:12 pmMy gut feeling is that Burnham has thrown a lot of people under the bus in a bid to score some political points (mayoral elections are next May).I doubt many round GM will share your gut instincts.
My gut feeling is that Burnham has thrown a lot of people under the bus in a bid to score some political points (mayoral elections are next May).
My gut feeling is that Burnham has thrown a lot of people under the bus in a bid to score some political points (mayoral elections are next May). But to really understand whether that stacks up I think we need to know what the money is intended for. Obviously it can't be to pay people who's business is affected, because £60m is less than fuck all in a place like GM. Does anybody know or have a link?What's happening in parliament on Thursday? Bill and debate to enact the restrictions?
Do some more reading Will - there’s plenty about what was on the table. About how GM came to the meeting with costed plans and the government had nothing. No reason or calculation for the govt offer - nothing ever given on paper by Westminster.
It was bleeding obvious that there was going to be a second wave combined with the usual winter pressures. It should have been planned for. It shouldn't have had to start before people started to come up with the three tier approach (which SAGE clearly don't have faith in). There should be an adequate financial provision for those whose jobs are affected or who have to temporarily close their businesses. It shouldn't be down to regional leaders to hash out an agreement such that Mancs might end up with a better or worse deal than Scousers. As more and more regions go into Tier 3 the workload will become unmanageable so the process drags out and regional inconsistency emerges. And that negotiating time is precious time lost when what we know about anti-COVID measures is that they need to be enacted rapidly. The proposed help fund seems incredibly small. £60m dropped into the Greater Manchester area is a fraction of fuck all.That much is on the government, who are not only cruel but also feckless in their cruelty. Rest assured, I vote against them at every opportunity.What's on Burnham (who I am normally a fan of, and who I haven't made up my mind out about this) is that he was asked to go into Tier 3 restrictions and it is now a week later and that still hasn't happened. He is right to challenge the government - it is his duty to protect the interests of his citizens - but by the same token he needs to consider their health and there will, without doubt, be a lot of people in Manchester who will become acutely or chronically unwell and will die because the restrictions have been delayed. What's more, this has now become (in the eyes of many) an issue of the North vs Whitehall as opposed to a public health measure. I expect there will be a lot of non-compliance in Manchester in defiance of the government (a bloke walked into the charity shop where my mother volunteers in Liverpool and said he wasn't wearing a mask because "I'm not doing anything the government tell me"). Tier 3 is of limited enough effect; who knows how ineffective it might be with poor compliance?That's why it's important to understand what exactly was on the table and what that might be used for. Without that information we can't really understand whether Burnham's demands were worth the increased risk to the population. If it were to come down to a quibble over £5m (I doubt it did) then it should end him. Even the difference of £60m is paltry. It's hard to express just how microscopic that is in the context of local spending in the area. The annual spend of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (the bit that Burnham leads) is around £1.3 billion. Then there's the Manchester City Council which has an annual spend of around £1.8 billion - that is just one of the ten councils in the Combined Authority area.
Will, Andy Burnham was presenting and negotiating for the combined costed plan put together by the individual GM councils which came to £90m. I believe £65m was their absolute bottom figure. In the context of the other "recent" deals:Liverpool: £44million, 1.5million peopleLancashire £42million, 1.5million peopleGreater Manchester: £22 million, 2.8 million people
Quote from: galpinos on October 21, 2020, 07:54:45 amWill, Andy Burnham was presenting and negotiating for the combined costed plan put together by the individual GM councils which came to £90m. I believe £65m was their absolute bottom figure. In the context of the other "recent" deals:Liverpool: £44million, 1.5million peopleLancashire £42million, 1.5million peopleGreater Manchester: £22 million, 2.8 million peopleSo, is anybody going to post the true facts about the figure offered then? It was on newsnight last night. Or is the point of this to make arguments based on incorrect assumptions?
I think part of the issue here Pete is there is nothing on paper from the govt. Jenkins says one thing, Boris then can’t answer the question (asked 5 times) in his presser and Hancock is equally opaque on ££ in parliament after. If there were a formula that the govt were using (population or breakdown of businesses/people affected) then this would be a lot clearer. But there isn’t.
Burnham did what he had to do as this argument is all about politics after all and little to do with controlling the virus.
Have a read of George Monbiot’s article in the Guardian today. There is a lot that is not new, but pulled together in one place it is uncomfortable reading. I have held his final conclusion for some time now. It’s the only rational reading of events.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/21/government-covid-contracts-britain-nhs-corporate-executives-test-and-trace
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54624575This says £22m for ‘enforcement’ and test and trace, with the offer of £60m for business support ‘still on the table’. On a brief search I couldn’t find whether the figures for Liverpool and Lance were a combined sum for these two things it just for business support.
So no-one’s interested in fact checking themselves then?TT?Teestub?Galpinos?Jonathanr?Spider?GME?No-one?