So no-one’s interested in fact checking themselves then?TT?Teestub?Galpinos?Jonathanr?Spider?GME?No-one? The figures were detailed in black and white on newsnight. Is one of you going to realise your facts are wrong?
But the media in this case have obfuscated as well - which worries me a lot that they would play the 'outcry' game with public health.
Sheffield and S Yorks going into T3 on Saturday night. https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-sheffield-city-region-gets-tougher-restrictions-as-1-8-million-people-head-for-tier-3-12109984Meanwhile Gyms can open now in Liverpool...
Last week Government imposed Tier 3 restrictions on our region – forcing our gyms to close.Since then we've been in constant dialogue to make them provide evidence for that decision - or reverse it.They have now agreed to reverse their original decision and let gyms open.
Figures are there in plain sight for anyone to see. Many are choosing not to see.There are two funding packages:1. TTTI, Enforcement. (TTI/E)2. Business Relief. (BR)Liverpool: £44million£14m TTI/E, £30m BR 1.5million people £29 per headLancashire £42million, £12m TTI/E, £30m BR1.5million people, £29 per head Greater Manchester: £22 million, £82 million£22m TTI/E, £60m BR2.8 million people, £29 per headBurnham was fighting for £90m total, but would have settled for an extra £5m on top of the £60m. To make £87m total.It really isn't difficult unless you're myopic. Sure the government are totally wank at communication, no arguments there from me. But the media in this case have obfuscated as well - which worries me a lot that they would play the 'outcry' game with public health. It's actually there in some of the news report if you really pay attention to the small print at the bottom of some BBC articles.You lot are idiots for going along with the outcry based on incorrect figures.8mins 30secs.https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000np5f/newsnight-20102020
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.
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.
You lot are idiots for going along with the outcry based on incorrect figures.
But bullshitting around incorrect figures is inexcusable.
Seriously?!'We'll take the offer' would be my suggestion...
The point is: the figures of 22m, 60m, 65m are all incorrect figures to base arguments on.
The true figure is as per the Liverpool and Lancashire figures per head. So Manchester's support is at least equitable in the context of what other areas have received. Which is exactly what the government said if you listened.
Whether or not it's a 'fair' figure is an entirely different debate..I don't actually think it is 'fair'. I think we should be supporting people to a far greater extent then what's on offer. The 80% figure for all affected by the covid legislation is closer to my idea of fair. But bullshitting around incorrect figures is inexcusable.
Quote from: Will Hunt on October 20, 2020, 10:34:13 pmIt 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.I still fundamentally disagree with your premise that quibbling over £5m somehow reflects worse on Burnham than the government. If its such a piddling amount then its the government who should have wound their neck in and stumped up for the sake of compliance and public health, rather than flouncing out and briefing the media. You're applying higher standards to local leaders than you are to government; reading between the lines your argument seems to be 'this government are shit and cruel, but instead of challenging their shitty behaviour Manchester should simply take the paltry money on the table as its all they are going to get anyway.' You might be right from a pure politics perspective (although I'm not convinced) but if a local leader doesn't stand up for their constituents then there is no point to them. By contrast, Sadiq Khan (who is obviously still the best person for the job regardless of this criticism) has rolled over and had his tummy tickled by the government, who have since doubled down and threatened to take control of TfL. It makes perfect sense to me that Burnham has stuck to his guns.Whats interesting is that there seems to be significant cut through and there is no massive backlash against Burnham, because they know he has a point. Theres a few Tory MPs briefing against him but not brave enough to go on the record because they are swimming against the political tide. https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1318805466995097600
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.
there's no reason that they couldn't have taken it to the Tories and whipped up a storm in the press at the same time that the extra restrictions went through. Nobody here seems prepared to recognise the fact that a week's delay to restrictions when the problem is growing exponentially necessarily means a higher body count (and more people with long COVID). The question I originally posed is whether the additional money was worth the delay.
Pete, I'm directly quoting your source back at you which makes the same point as others have now done a matter of seconds later.Local journalists who have been excellent throughout this have the same question. It's difficult to say something (+£60M) is still on the table when there's currently no table.Also it being equitable hasn't been the aim (from the offset) that I've seen, it's about it being sufficient and GM being more questioning than other regions after spending a significant amount of time already in T2. If the £ per head is set, then why the pretence of negotiations?Anyway, I've got to drive a long way now so over to others...
- the sum per head offered to GM is the same sum per head offered to all other tier 3 regions. This was made clear by the government if you listened to what they said, but not made clear in the media.
You seem to accept tweets from everyone else as evidence TT?
Nobody here seems prepared to recognise the fact that a week's delay to restrictions when the problem is growing exponentially necessarily means a higher body count (and more people with long COVID).
