| Tier 2 / Tier 3 13:15 - Oct 15 with 29701 views | aleanddale |
Matt Hancock hitting a new level of incompetence today in the commons.
Press leaks prior to confirmation with local authority.... then backtracking.
Dithering over a statement on Manchester and Lancashire regarding if and when we will move to tier 3.
No doubt the whole thing is complicated beyond belief BUT there should be much clearer / decisive communication and direction from the government.
Staff on minimum wage will be getting 2/3 or just over £5 an hour on this latest job support scheme that's replacing furlough. Minimum wage is just that the minimum required to survive.
Liverpool the ONLY city on tier 3. Honestly?
Ignoring the "Science" when the science advised a NATIONAL circuit break 3 weeks ago.
My two penneth is that this is set for the long term. I read an article saying the average life expectancy is 81 and the average Covid death age is 82. It is a very very tough decision to make i do understand that but everyone knows this and the day could arrive where shielding becomes self governing and everyone makes there own choices. Maybe new Covid Laws need to be applied to allow the nation to do that and the obvious rule breakers can be hit with more severe penalty.
This is one mighty mess and the problem is that the master plan is falling well short its time for a rethink and quickly. |  | | |  |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 21:30 - Oct 20 with 1323 views | judd |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 21:24 - Oct 20 by roccydaleian |
Why not? That’s what was on the table yesterday apparently, but Burnham wanted £65 million after originally wanting £90 million. |
Zilch = nothing, doesn't it?
Doubt we've been left with fook all tbf |  |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 21:32 - Oct 20 with 1307 views | roccydaleian |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 21:30 - Oct 20 by judd |
Zilch = nothing, doesn't it?
Doubt we've been left with fook all tbf |
Hence the use of the word currently. |  | | |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 21:40 - Oct 20 with 1273 views | rochdaleriddler |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 21:29 - Oct 20 by roccydaleian |
I’m believing the facts.
Copied from the BBC
Greater Manchester was offered £60m of central government to help support businesses under the new Tier 3 limits - but in a conversation with the prime minister, Mayor Andy Burnham suggested it was not possible to accept less than £65m.
Greater Manchester leaders originally submitted a request for £90m, which had been costed by a former Treasury official. On Tuesday morning they discussed £75m with government officials, which would have covered the period until the end of the financial year.
It's understood that Boris Johnson and Mr Burnham discussed a figure of £60m but were unable to agree. Ministers were reluctant to set a precedent of giving one region more, proportionately, than another, especially given ongoing talks with several other parts of the country which could also face tougher restrictions.
It is now not clear what financial support the region will receive. After 10 days of talks (of a kind) and billions spent during this crisis, it is quite something that the deal fell over down to a gap of £5m. |
So the 60 million wasn’t agreed according to that, Burnham was consulting other leaders about it, the Jenrick withdrew it. If it was money for Dildo and co, it would have been handed over with a bonus on top. |  |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 21:48 - Oct 20 with 1246 views | roccydaleian |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 21:40 - Oct 20 by rochdaleriddler |
So the 60 million wasn’t agreed according to that, Burnham was consulting other leaders about it, the Jenrick withdrew it. If it was money for Dildo and co, it would have been handed over with a bonus on top. |
£60 million was offered, at the moment nothing is on the table, all this after ten days of negotiating. If you think that’s good negotiating, great stuff.
If Burnham does manage to get any more money I’ll doff my cap. | | | |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 21:51 - Oct 20 with 1233 views | tony_roch975 |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 21:24 - Oct 20 by roccydaleian |
Why not? That’s what was on the table yesterday apparently, but Burnham wanted £65 million after originally wanting £90 million. |
Why not - because Health Secretary Matt Hancock later told the House of Commons that a £60m offer previously made to local leaders remained "on the table". | |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 21:54 - Oct 20 with 1224 views | rochdaleriddler |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 21:48 - Oct 20 by roccydaleian |
£60 million was offered, at the moment nothing is on the table, all this after ten days of negotiating. If you think that’s good negotiating, great stuff.
If Burnham does manage to get any more money I’ll doff my cap. |
If you think the govt withdrawing the offer is good government then I’m amazed. Just silly games by posh boys, applauded by Tory apologists supporting Tory liars. | |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 21:59 - Oct 20 with 1201 views | D_Alien |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 21:54 - Oct 20 by rochdaleriddler |
If you think the govt withdrawing the offer is good government then I’m amazed. Just silly games by posh boys, applauded by Tory apologists supporting Tory liars. |
I've marked that down because there's no apologies, it's just a lazy term |  |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 22:24 - Oct 20 with 1168 views | Ancoats_Blue |
Ignoring political bias for just a moment I fail to see how any resident of Greater Manchester would be happy about less money being made available to support our residents. This isn’t a game of red v blue. No one has “won”. It’s local people’s lives and livelihoods that will be harmed. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 22:36 - Oct 20 with 1151 views | rochdaleriddler |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 21:59 - Oct 20 by D_Alien |
I've marked that down because there's no apologies, it's just a lazy term |
Apologist is someone who defends something | |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 22:40 - Oct 20 with 1131 views | D_Alien |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 22:24 - Oct 20 by Ancoats_Blue |
Ignoring political bias for just a moment I fail to see how any resident of Greater Manchester would be happy about less money being made available to support our residents. This isn’t a game of red v blue. No one has “won”. It’s local people’s lives and livelihoods that will be harmed. |
No-one's happy, just want a mayor who can conduct a negotiation when required on behalf of us all, and not just those who, as you say, support one or other of the main parties | |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 22:41 - Oct 20 with 1120 views | D_Alien |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 22:36 - Oct 20 by rochdaleriddler |
Apologist is someone who defends something |
You've got that wrong too then. No-one needs defending | |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 22:46 - Oct 20 with 1116 views | rochdaleriddler |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 22:40 - Oct 20 by D_Alien |
No-one's happy, just want a mayor who can conduct a negotiation when required on behalf of us all, and not just those who, as you say, support one or other of the main parties |
Or a govt that acts in good faith | |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 22:48 - Oct 20 with 1109 views | tony_roch975 |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 22:41 - Oct 20 by D_Alien |
You've got that wrong too then. No-one needs defending |
"apologist noun [ C ] formal UK
a person who supports a particular belief or political system, especially an unpopular one, and speaks or writes in defence of it:"
seems you got that wrong but glad to hear you're going to stop defending Boris | |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 23:09 - Oct 20 with 1082 views | roccydaleian |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 22:48 - Oct 20 by tony_roch975 |
"apologist noun [ C ] formal UK
a person who supports a particular belief or political system, especially an unpopular one, and speaks or writes in defence of it:"
seems you got that wrong but glad to hear you're going to stop defending Boris |
Interesting. So, would you describe someone who has voted for four different political parties in general elections (last time voted Tory in 2005) , been a member of a trade union, been a trade union health and safety rep, as a Tory apologist? | | | |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 06:45 - Oct 21 with 1004 views | roccydaleian |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 22:24 - Oct 20 by Ancoats_Blue |
Ignoring political bias for just a moment I fail to see how any resident of Greater Manchester would be happy about less money being made available to support our residents. This isn’t a game of red v blue. No one has “won”. It’s local people’s lives and livelihoods that will be harmed. |
Generally agree with that, however, less money hasn’t been made available £60 million was offered and apparently is still available, but Burnham thinks that that’s not enough. I would love more, we’d all love more, but it was made pretty clear that wasn’t going to happen , so rather risk potentially less I would have taken the money.
No political bias by me btw, I quite like Burnham and think he’s done a reasonable job as mayor up to now, I just think on this he could have made a mistake, just my opinion though. | | | |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 06:53 - Oct 21 with 994 views | D_Alien |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 22:48 - Oct 20 by tony_roch975 |
"apologist noun [ C ] formal UK
a person who supports a particular belief or political system, especially an unpopular one, and speaks or writes in defence of it:"
seems you got that wrong but glad to hear you're going to stop defending Boris |
Precisely. There's nothing to defend when there's no war, except in the minds of those still stuck in mid-20th century politics. That's Burnham's problem too, trying to turn a viral pandemic into a tired class war. Counterproductive, not to say dangerous
£200 billion and counting spent by the government in protecting jobs and businesses thus far, gives the very simple lie to all this "attack on the North" shite spouted by Burnham to a dozen or so sad gets in Manchester | |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 08:00 - Oct 21 with 966 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 06:53 - Oct 21 by D_Alien |
Precisely. There's nothing to defend when there's no war, except in the minds of those still stuck in mid-20th century politics. That's Burnham's problem too, trying to turn a viral pandemic into a tired class war. Counterproductive, not to say dangerous
£200 billion and counting spent by the government in protecting jobs and businesses thus far, gives the very simple lie to all this "attack on the North" shite spouted by Burnham to a dozen or so sad gets in Manchester |
His particular concern was those working in the service, in particular hospitality, sectors. Often the worse paid sectors of the economy and often on zero hour contracts. What is mid 20th century about that?
That’s not class war, that’s recognising certain sectors will be hit by this harder.
This is not just some sad gets in Manchester, it’s a lot of people’s livelihoods. [Post edited 21 Oct 2020 8:32]
| |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 08:31 - Oct 21 with 929 views | rochdaleriddler |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 06:53 - Oct 21 by D_Alien |
Precisely. There's nothing to defend when there's no war, except in the minds of those still stuck in mid-20th century politics. That's Burnham's problem too, trying to turn a viral pandemic into a tired class war. Counterproductive, not to say dangerous
£200 billion and counting spent by the government in protecting jobs and businesses thus far, gives the very simple lie to all this "attack on the North" shite spouted by Burnham to a dozen or so sad gets in Manchester |
‘Class war’ from a run of the mill centrist labourite. Yeah right. Oh and £200 billion hasn’t all been spent in the manner you describe, much went on lining the pockets of friends. You know that as well as me, Jenrick the developers friend is much more of a class warrior, apologists can’t see it | |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 08:57 - Oct 21 with 904 views | todmordendale |
Anachronistic belligerent jargon reminiscent of 1970’s political point scoring .
I think we may have moved on a little.
I like Burnham but think he may have misread this one.
Taking the whippet out now. | | | |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 09:10 - Oct 21 with 891 views | mingthemerciless |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 23:09 - Oct 20 by roccydaleian |
Interesting. So, would you describe someone who has voted for four different political parties in general elections (last time voted Tory in 2005) , been a member of a trade union, been a trade union health and safety rep, as a Tory apologist? |
I'd describe someone who's voted for four different parties as " confused ". | | | |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 09:29 - Oct 21 with 881 views | roccydaleian |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 09:10 - Oct 21 by mingthemerciless |
I'd describe someone who's voted for four different parties as " confused ". |
Very funny and you could be correct. So are you one of them narrow minded people who just vote for one particular party, no matter what they offer or what their policies are? | | | |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 09:33 - Oct 21 with 875 views | ChaffRAFC |
£60m for 2.8m people (Greater Manchester) = £21.42 per person
£44m for 1.5m (Liverpool) = £29.33 per person
£42m for 1.2m people (Lancashire) = £35 per person
£22.4m for 2.8m people (Greater Manchester) = £8 (eight) per person
The cost of an 80% furlough is £90million according to Andy Burnham.
Because AB won't lie down and take whatever is offered when it's not enough, he's wrong? Not having that.
The government said, repeatedly, they would do "whatever it takes". That's exactly what Rishi said, over and over. Andy Burnham outlined exactly what it would take and what is needed. The government said no.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 09:46 - Oct 21 with 858 views | rochdaleriddler |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 09:33 - Oct 21 by ChaffRAFC |
£60m for 2.8m people (Greater Manchester) = £21.42 per person
£44m for 1.5m (Liverpool) = £29.33 per person
£42m for 1.2m people (Lancashire) = £35 per person
£22.4m for 2.8m people (Greater Manchester) = £8 (eight) per person
The cost of an 80% furlough is £90million according to Andy Burnham.
Because AB won't lie down and take whatever is offered when it's not enough, he's wrong? Not having that.
The government said, repeatedly, they would do "whatever it takes". That's exactly what Rishi said, over and over. Andy Burnham outlined exactly what it would take and what is needed. The government said no.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Well said | |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 09:47 - Oct 21 with 855 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 08:57 - Oct 21 by todmordendale |
Anachronistic belligerent jargon reminiscent of 1970’s political point scoring .
I think we may have moved on a little.
I like Burnham but think he may have misread this one.
Taking the whippet out now. |
Most businesses in Manchester appear to be supporting him. A strange ‘class warrior’ or ‘anachronistic belligerent’ if that is the case.
Trump does the same thing. ‘Radical left’ and ‘radical democrats’ etc. [Post edited 21 Oct 2020 9:48]
| |
| |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 09:48 - Oct 21 with 855 views | roccydaleian |
| Tier 2 / Tier 3 on 09:33 - Oct 21 by ChaffRAFC |
£60m for 2.8m people (Greater Manchester) = £21.42 per person
£44m for 1.5m (Liverpool) = £29.33 per person
£42m for 1.2m people (Lancashire) = £35 per person
£22.4m for 2.8m people (Greater Manchester) = £8 (eight) per person
The cost of an 80% furlough is £90million according to Andy Burnham.
Because AB won't lie down and take whatever is offered when it's not enough, he's wrong? Not having that.
The government said, repeatedly, they would do "whatever it takes". That's exactly what Rishi said, over and over. Andy Burnham outlined exactly what it would take and what is needed. The government said no.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
So is that actually £82.4 million making it £29. 42 per person? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
