Why Should Manchester Get more Money?

[Capt Christopher Jones]

On 20/10/2020 at 14:27, AVB said:

If I was Boris I would tell Burnham that it’s up to him whether to go into Tier 3 or not. If deaths rise (which they will regardless of lockdown or not imo) then he can pin all the blame on Burnham. 

How much did Boris pay out for a non existent "Garden Bridge"

[JohnfromUK]

2 hours ago, Vince Green said:

He is playing the oldest Labour trick in the book, creating a sense of injustice when there isn't one 

.... and for the second oldest "creating a sense of injustice entitlement when there isn't one"

I see a pattern.

[Dave-G]

I guess he's at least achieved an opposition parties remit to attempt to embarrass its rival party.

[yod dropper]

11 hours ago, Capt Christopher Jones said:

How much did Boris pay out for a non existent "Garden Bridge"

Do you really want to play who wastes the most money?

[Capt Christopher Jones]

28 minutes ago, yod dropper said:

Do you really want to play who wastes the most money?

Just making a point, the bridge almost 1/2 = what Manchester were originally after & Manchester would have spent in supporting its citizens in these hard times

[JohnfromUK]

11 minutes ago, Capt Christopher Jones said:

the bridge almost 1/2 = what Manchester were originally after

If I remember rightly - the bridge money was from London local funds, not central government funds, so rather different.

You can site literally hundreds of government 'mis spending' totalling billions, not millions - just one example has been this long EU withdrawal during which time we are still paying them a fortune, another has been the fraud on Covid relief measures money - but none of that helps Manchester.

[Vince Green]

14 hours ago, Capt Christopher Jones said:

How much did Boris pay out for a non existent "Garden Bridge"

It was Sadiq Khan who withdrew from the project as soon as he got into office. It was a political move on his part which left the private backers high and dry. You can't blame Boris for that

It was never Boris' project although he supported it  The Garden Bridge Trust was a private company registered as a charity. 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Vince Green

[Capt Christopher Jones]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

If I remember rightly - the bridge money was from London local funds, not central government funds, so rather different.

You can site literally hundreds of government 'mis spending' totalling billions, not millions - just one example has been this long EU withdrawal during which time we are still paying them a fortune, another has been the fraud on Covid relief measures money - but none of that helps Manchester.

 

 

The tories have paid in more into the EU, the past 4 years that the whole of the previous 47

Edited October 22, 2020 by Capt Christopher Jones

[udderlyoffroad]

11 minutes ago, Capt Christopher Jones said:

The tories have paid in more into the EU, the past 4 years that the whole of the previous 47

Have....have you got some source for that fact?  My google fu is failing me this morning?

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Have....have you got some source for that fact?

I did a quick look and suspect it is not correct, but this is getting very off topic.  If he has a doesn't like Boris and the Tories ......... fine - but that is nothing to do with the Manchester situation, which is the entirely the making of Mayor Burnham.  Sheffield, (also a Labour mayor) have agreed a good common sense deal - just as Burnham could have nad should have - but he chose to play politics.

[Vince Green]

On this subject, I can't really see beyond the question "why has Manchester got a spike in the first place?"

and I can't answer that question in my own mind without believing that non compliance has been a factor, maybe the biggest factor

So, if that is true, more money and more lockdown isn't going to work

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

I can't answer that question in my own mind without believing that non compliance has been a factor, maybe the biggest factor

So, if that is true, more money and more lockdown isn't going to work

I can't answer either, but the initial lockdown (March) did work and proved the principle worked (as it has elsewhere in the world).  If we have a lockdown in name only - then of course it won't work.  For any of these types of measures to work, they do have to be actually complied with.

So we now have;

Liverpool (and area) - agreed lockdown

Manchester (and area) - non agreed lockdown

Sheffield (and area) - agreed lockdown

[Capt Christopher Jones]

26 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Have....have you got some source for that fact?  My google fu is failing me this morning?

I should have said spent more in the past 4 years getting UK out of the EU than paid into the EU in 47 Yrs

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, Capt Christopher Jones said:

I should have said spent more in the past 4 years getting UK out of the EU than paid into the EU in 47 Yrs

Really?

[Capt Christopher Jones]

Just one instance

1.5 Preparing for Brexit

Making sure the UK is prepared to leave the EU on 31 October is the government’s top priority. In total, HM Treasury (HMT) has made available over £6.3 billion to prepare for Brexit, including £2.1 billion in August this year to increase no deal preparations in critical areas. This has allowed departments and the devolved administrations to step up vital operational preparations across the country, including for border and customs operations, critical medical supplies and support for UK nationals abroad. In the event the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the government has also guaranteed funding for UK organisations in receipt of money from EU programmes, if required.⁴

This Spending Round confirms £2 billion of core funding provided to departments for Brexit in 2019-20 will be continued into 2020-21. This money will be used to help pay for the costs of establishing a new relationship with the EU.

 

 

[Rewulf]

45 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I can't answer either, but the initial lockdown (March) did work and proved the principle worked (as it has elsewhere in the world).  If we have a lockdown in name only - then of course it won't work.  For any of these types of measures to work, they do have to be actually complied with.

Did lockdown 'work' ?  What did it do beside delay the inevitable 2nd wave ?
Locking down again, will that delay the 3rd ?
After that , possible viral mutation, and we are back to square one.
Except this time there will be no money to shower around.

Nearly every European country has had the same issue, some lockdowns more severe than others, it had no effect on 2nd waves, France has a far worse issue than us.
Yet Sweden has virtually achieved herd immunity with no lockdown.

India locked down before it had a case or death, then got hit with a massive case and death toll, a similar story in South and North America.

You are of course correct, its all about compliance, but the figures of *** cases/deaths dont justify in peoples minds why they have to do it, lose their jobs and businesses.
I have a pretty large network of friends , relatives and business associates, and I dont know a single person who has had a positive test/been ill with it.
Let alone know anyone who has died from it.

Im not disputing its 'real' , but are we really going to sacrifice the countries economy for this ?
In winter 2014/15 , 30,000 old and vulnerable died from H1N1 flu, no one noticed/cared ?
Around 20,000 people die on average of flu EVERY year, no masks , no social distancing.
40 , 50 , 60 ,000 people die of covid , and everyone needs to go and change their underwear and spend the next 5-10 years paying for it ?
'Things will never be the same again'  We are constantly told ??

We are still following the 'science'
Yet this science projects our current course as reaching 137,000 deaths by Jan31st 2021.
If we ease off on the restrictions, 280,000 deaths.
If we button up with lockdowns and masks tighter than a main battle tank, we can expect 90,000.

There is no evidence at present for these figures !

As a side note , the projections for Swedens strategy, were 85,000 deaths up to now !
In reality , its less than 6,000 , with virtually no daily deaths now , no masks, and no lockdown.

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, Rewulf said:

Did lockdown 'work' ?

If you accept it's purpose was to prevent swamping of the NHS, yes, I think it worked.  Look at the graphs for numbers of cases or deaths - both climbed up - peaked after lockdown (cases by a few weeks, deaths by rather longer as you would expect) - and remained low through the summer.

 

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Yet Sweden has virtually achieved herd immunity with no lockdown.

I don't believe that is correct.  I heard (radio) a Swedish scientist saying the other day that they have done well on cases (though this may be bacause they have little testing) and very poorly deaths (581 per million population compared with say Finland at 62 per million), but poorly on building herd immunity as it hasn't spread so widely there.  Data from here https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3765

The paper concludes “There is little to suggest that Sweden’s strategy is better than its Nordic neighbours (particularly Norway and Finland) and a lot to suggest that it is worse, with a much larger burden of disease over spring and summer."

Cases are also lower (per head of population) in both Finland and Norway - despite F & N having far more testing than Sweden.

14 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

In reality , its less than 6,000 , with virtually no daily deaths now , no masks, and no lockdown.

In fact Sweden's cases are rising fast (particularly in Stochholm, deaths (per million) have been higher than it's neighbours and they are in the process now of introducing local lockdowns.  https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2020/10/18/sweden-introduces-local-lockdowns-as-coronavirus-cases-rise/

So Sweden has not done spectacularly well - despite the positive image that the facts don't support very well.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

So Sweden has not done spectacularly well - despite the positive image that the facts don't support very well.

It probably depends where those facts are coming from ?

To say that they havent done particularly well, considering they didnt take the measures of other developed countries, who ALSO didnt do particularly well either, goes some way toward mitigating the decision to preserve their economy.

https://www.rt.com/news/503351-sweden-no-lockdown-public-anger/

https://www.euronews.com/2020/10/19/has-sweden-s-coronavirus-strategy-helped-it-avoid-pandemic-fatigue

[discobob]

22 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The paper concludes “There is little to suggest that Sweden’s strategy is better than its Nordic neighbours (particularly Norway and Finland) and a lot to suggest that it is worse, with a much larger burden of disease over spring and summer."

Ideally the best time to have it considering every year we get banged with how the hospitals are struggling in the winter time!! Now as we go into winter we will have the standard ailments for the season also flooding the NHS - It would have been better as a short term pain for a long term gain - rather than a long term pain for a short term gain

[JohnfromUK]

25 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

It probably depends where those facts are coming from ?

Agreed

26 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

To say that they havent done particularly well, considering they didnt take the measures of other developed countries, who ALSO didnt do particularly well either, goes some way toward mitigating the decision to preserve their economy.

They chose a different way - which has had different  (and very interesting and educational) outcomes, BUT it has been quite tough for them as well, and they are not yet through it.  The goal of herd immunity (if indeed that was their goal) is still some way off.

16 minutes ago, discobob said:

Ideally the best time to have it considering every year we get banged with how the hospitals are struggling in the winter time!! Now as we go into winter we will have the standard ailments for the season also flooding the NHS - It would have been better as a short term pain for a long term gain - rather than a long term pain for a short term gain

That is true - and maybe we should have 'eased off sooner' to allow a continuous low(ish) level to continue through the summer.  However - with Sweden, who did go that way - things are not looking all that good and they are now looking at local lockdowns.

I don't know the answer - or even if there is one, but I don't believe a 'free for all' and accept 50,000, 100,000, 200,000, 500,000 casualties - whatever it is is the right way to go.

[JohnfromUK]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

I dont know a single person who has had a positive test/been ill with it.

In contrast - despite being fairly 'locked down' myself (as a retired person this is quite easy), I do know a couple just up the road who had it (in September - confirmed by test - got in a restaurant that had several cases traced to two non symptomatic staff) - both were quite ill, one briefly hospitalised.  I know of another who 'may have had it' very early on before testing was widely available.  Hospital visit after very slow recovery process confirmed lung damage consistent with Covid.  Again he is better, but was seriously ill for a time, and not yet 'back to normal' 6+ months on.

[timps]

The chancellor has just announced extra money to help businesses in the leisure industry that are now in tier 2 as they can’t survive under the new restrictions, it has also been made retrospective to cover regions that where in enhanced restrictions before the tier system came out.  

Manchester has been in these tier 2 restrictions for 3 months and it had already decimated businesses and employees pay so it was one of Andy Burnham’s main points of argument for the extra money over other areas that hadn’t been in enhanced restrictions.

Therefore, Manchester has now got the extra money if not more than was asked for just not trough Andy Burnham.

As you can imagine this is going to be political gold for him, I can hear him now, there was no money available for Manchester businesses to help with the 3 months of enhanced restrictions when we asked but London goes into tier 2 and the same restrictions for 7 days and the money is found. He is also going to say if they had told him of this new package he would have accepted the deal.

I’m not a big fan of Mr Burnham but this government is doing itself no favours at all up north.

[Vince Green]

We have to remember Sweden has a much smaller population spread over a very big land mass. It also doesnt have several international hub airports and the biggest financial capital in the world.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Makes a pleasant change not to have bloody Andy Burnham EVERYWHERE!

[Mice!]

4 hours ago, timps said:

I’m not a big fan of Mr Burnham but this government is doing itself no favours at all up north.

 

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Makes a pleasant change not to have bloody Andy Burnham EVERYWHERE!

He's just been on the news, looking quite down beat, I didn't catch everything that was said(kids) but he was moaning about decisions being made 200 miles away affecting peoples lives?? Well that's where the capital is,  I really hope this isn't a play for a northern capital, that's more money being wasted, more snouts in the trough.