In this and other Northern areas, the number of deaths is gathering such momentum that if in the next 2 weeks the figures move at the same rate as they have in last two weeks, the death rate will be the same as it was in April when the virus was really taking hold.
JP said
Oct 20 7:40 PM, 2020
Syl wrote:
Definitely, I don't think anyone was arguing against being put into Tier three....the arguments were about the help people would be getting if they cant work now the furlough scheme is ending.
Normality for Christmas?? I think that's being overly optimistic, I can see any kind of normality arriving for some considerable time.
I think in the long run Andy made a mistake. You could argue The Government and Andy both did in their own ways. Boris maybe should have forced tier 3 days ago.
You may have heard what the science and medical guy said today how infection rates etc have increased vastly in the last 10 days during these negotiations. It stands to reason now Manchester will probably have to stay in tier 3 longer than they would have done if it was called earlier. Which will cause more damage including of the financial kind.
-- Edited by JP on Tuesday 20th of October 2020 07:41:29 PM
-- Edited by JP on Tuesday 20th of October 2020 07:42:03 PM
JP said
Oct 20 7:53 PM, 2020
And furlough is ending shortly, yes.
But other schemes are available of course. Apparently people can still get the 80% of wages covered by claiming for multiple things. In some cases some people can apparently achieve 93% of wages covered.
Sure it's not perfect. But neither is anywhere else on the planet. In fact many Countries pay their citizens a lot less overall than we do here. And that includes some other major Countries as well.
Syl said
Oct 20 7:57 PM, 2020
Yes, but Andy wasn't denying we needed the lockdown upgrade, he was trying to get a better deal over the money offered to the low paid and self employed. He has always gone along with government rules regarding lockdowns.
Boris was asked whether he had withdrawn the deal he was offering, (seems he has) he didn't give a straight answer. He was asked several times what was the actual deal...he fudged the question repeatedly.
JP said
Oct 20 7:58 PM, 2020
Syl wrote:
Yes, but Andy wasn't denying we needed the lockdown upgrade, he was trying to get a better deal over the money offered to the low paid and self employed. He has always gone along with government rules regarding lockdowns.
Boris was asked whether he had withdrawn the deal he was offering, (seems he has) he didn't give a straight answer. He was asked several times what was the actual deal...he fudged the question repeatedly.
Manchester can't have more than Liverpool etc That was the point.
These places are obviously keeping a good eye on what others are getting/have received.
JP said
Oct 20 9:54 PM, 2020
Hancock has stated in the HOC tonight that 60m is still on the table for Manchester. After Andy rejected that earlier today. Because he wanted 65m bare minimum.
Syl said
Oct 21 12:37 AM, 2020
JP wrote:
Syl wrote:
Yes, but Andy wasn't denying we needed the lockdown upgrade, he was trying to get a better deal over the money offered to the low paid and self employed. He has always gone along with government rules regarding lockdowns.
Boris was asked whether he had withdrawn the deal he was offering, (seems he has) he didn't give a straight answer. He was asked several times what was the actual deal...he fudged the question repeatedly.
Manchester can't have more than Liverpool etc That was the point.
These places are obviously keeping a good eye on what others are getting/have received.
Manchester was origionally offered less than both Liverpool and Lancashire, we have also been in Tier 2 for longer, which means many businesses and self employed people who haven't had the luxury of furlough are already on their knees.
Boris waffled on today, more than usual, quoting statistics that suited his agenda....though I have a feeling they will backtrack and cough up the money they offered, then petulantly withdrew....we will see.
John Doe said
Oct 21 1:02 AM, 2020
Syl wrote:
JP wrote:
Syl wrote:
Yes, but Andy wasn't denying we needed the lockdown upgrade, he was trying to get a better deal over the money offered to the low paid and self employed. He has always gone along with government rules regarding lockdowns.
Boris was asked whether he had withdrawn the deal he was offering, (seems he has) he didn't give a straight answer. He was asked several times what was the actual deal...he fudged the question repeatedly.
Manchester can't have more than Liverpool etc That was the point.
These places are obviously keeping a good eye on what others are getting/have received.
Manchester was origionally offered less than both Liverpool and Lancashire, we have also been in Tier 2 for longer, which means many businesses and self employed people who haven't had the luxury of furlough are already on their knees.
Boris waffled on today, more than usual, quoting statistics that suited his agenda....though I have a feeling they will backtrack and cough up the money they offered, then petulantly withdrew....we will see.
I have been very impressed with Andy Syl - a future Labour leader?
Syl said
Oct 21 1:11 AM, 2020
He cares, I know some think he is just trying make a name for himself nationwide, but believe me, he has been active for years in greater Manchester helping the underdog.
Real old Labour, and charasmatic with it.
John Doe said
Oct 21 1:41 AM, 2020
Syl wrote:
He cares, I know some think he is just trying make a name for himself nationwide, but believe me, he has been active for years in greater Manchester helping the underdog. Real old Labour, and charasmatic with it.
Yeah he strikes me as 100% committed and not just out to make a name for himself as you have said.
Good for him.
Twizzler said
Oct 21 9:04 AM, 2020
JP wrote:
Syl wrote:
Definitely, I don't think anyone was arguing against being put into Tier three....the arguments were about the help people would be getting if they cant work now the furlough scheme is ending.
Normality for Christmas?? I think that's being overly optimistic, I can see any kind of normality arriving for some considerable time.
I think in the long run Andy made a mistake. You could argue The Government and Andy both did in their own ways. Boris maybe should have forced tier 3 days ago.
You may have heard what the science and medical guy said today how infection rates etc have increased vastly in the last 10 days during these negotiations. It stands to reason now Manchester will probably have to stay in tier 3 longer than they would have done if it was called earlier. Which will cause more damage including of the financial kind.
-- Edited by JP on Tuesday 20th of October 2020 07:41:29 PM
-- Edited by JP on Tuesday 20th of October 2020 07:42:03 PM
I actually agree with what you have said there JP. At first I did agree with everything Andy was saying. I thought this guy is really looking
out for the people of greater Manchester, then as the infections were rising and hospital
admissions were creeping up with Covid patients, I thought you wouldn’t do that to your
people.
Then when he was offered 60 million and rejected it, and said 65 million I knew then he
was just out to make a name for himself.
Syl said
Oct 21 12:32 PM, 2020
The original figure Andy Burnham along with local councils had worked out to ensure people could at least have a fair and decent proportion of their wage if Tier 3 came in was 95 million. They would have agreed to drop to 65 million but the government refused to budge from 60...then Boris and co threw their toys out when it wasn't agreed, and withdrew any offer they had previously offered.
There are 6 times more people living in greater Manchester than live in Liverpool and twice as many as live in Lancashire, and we have been in Tier 2 for longer than either.
Burnham simply tried to negotiate a deal suited to the people of Manchester, just as S Yorkshire have negotiated a deal suited for them today.
He has never been against a lockdown, he has supported the government from the start on this.
JP said
Oct 21 4:07 PM, 2020
By the way Andy went for Labour leader once and lost to Ed.
JP said
Oct 21 4:12 PM, 2020
Syl wrote:
The original figure Andy Burnham along with local councils had worked out to ensure people could at least have a fair and decent proportion of their wage if Tier 3 came in was 95 million. They would have agreed to drop to 65 million but the government refused to budge from 60...then Boris and co threw their toys out when it wasn't agreed, and withdrew any offer they had previously offered.
There are 6 times more people living in greater Manchester than live in Liverpool and twice as many as live in Lancashire, and we have been in Tier 2 for longer than either.
Burnham simply tried to negotiate a deal suited to the people of Manchester, just as S Yorkshire have negotiated a deal suited for them today. He has never been against a lockdown, he has supported the government from the start on this.
Imo Burnham has made it worse for you guys. He came across as greedy in the end. No one else discussing tier 3 restrictions or going into tier 3 has put up such a fuss. He clearly wanted to play Political games. That's my take. He's enjoyed the limelight.
60 or 65. A small difference when you are talking about those figures. That's pathetic in my view. Should have took 60. And got on with it like others have.
JP said
Oct 21 4:19 PM, 2020
Syl wrote:
JP wrote:
Syl wrote:
Yes, but Andy wasn't denying we needed the lockdown upgrade, he was trying to get a better deal over the money offered to the low paid and self employed. He has always gone along with government rules regarding lockdowns.
Boris was asked whether he had withdrawn the deal he was offering, (seems he has) he didn't give a straight answer. He was asked several times what was the actual deal...he fudged the question repeatedly.
Manchester can't have more than Liverpool etc That was the point.
These places are obviously keeping a good eye on what others are getting/have received.
Manchester was origionally offered less than both Liverpool and Lancashire, we have also been in Tier 2 for longer, which means many businesses and self employed people who haven't had the luxury of furlough are already on their knees.
Boris waffled on today, more than usual, quoting statistics that suited his agenda....though I have a feeling they will backtrack and cough up the money they offered, then petulantly withdrew....we will see.
In the house of commons Hancock said it was on the table last night. The 60m that is. My guess is they were probably still talking about what to do about the 60 while Boris was in that press conference yesterday afternoon. By they I mean Hancock and others. Bottom line last I heard late last night was that the 60m is still on the table.
Syl said
Oct 21 7:21 PM, 2020
JP wrote:
By the way Andy went for Labour leader once and lost to Ed.
Yes I know. He is very forthright about his past failures.
Since he was made Mayor here he has really stepped up to the plate, he does a lot for a lot of people, he doesn't mind a fight if he believes in something, and he admits when he gets things wrong....which is pretty refreshing for a politician.
Like any strong minded person he has people who love him and people who dont'. Personally, even though our council taxes have risen considerably since he became Mayor thanks to a couple of his schemes....I like him a lot.
-- Edited by John Doe on Wednesday 21st of October 2020 11:02:24 PM
The anon seemingly thinks the guy in the link is Neil Ferguson.
I don't particularly agree with what I think are wild predictions of the guy in the link. I recall Neil Ferguson's wild predictions back in March. Van Tam one of the DMO's certainly doesn't think a full scale national lockdown is needed at present anyway. He made that clear yesterday.
I think in the long run Andy made a mistake. You could argue The Government and Andy both did in their own ways. Boris maybe should have forced tier 3 days ago.
You may have heard what the science and medical guy said today how infection rates etc have increased vastly in the last 10 days during these negotiations. It stands to reason now Manchester will probably have to stay in tier 3 longer than they would have done if it was called earlier. Which will cause more damage including of the financial kind.
-- Edited by JP on Tuesday 20th of October 2020 07:41:29 PM
-- Edited by JP on Tuesday 20th of October 2020 07:42:03 PM
But other schemes are available of course. Apparently people can still get the 80% of wages covered by claiming for multiple things. In some cases some people can apparently achieve 93% of wages covered.
Sure it's not perfect. But neither is anywhere else on the planet. In fact many Countries pay their citizens a lot less overall than we do here. And that includes some other major Countries as well.
Yes, but Andy wasn't denying we needed the lockdown upgrade, he was trying to get a better deal over the money offered to the low paid and self employed.
He has always gone along with government rules regarding lockdowns.
Boris was asked whether he had withdrawn the deal he was offering, (seems he has) he didn't give a straight answer. He was asked several times what was the actual deal...he fudged the question repeatedly.
Manchester can't have more than Liverpool etc That was the point.
These places are obviously keeping a good eye on what others are getting/have received.
Hancock has stated in the HOC tonight that 60m is still on the table for Manchester. After Andy rejected that earlier today. Because he wanted 65m bare minimum.
Manchester was origionally offered less than both Liverpool and Lancashire, we have also been in Tier 2 for longer, which means many businesses and self employed people who haven't had the luxury of furlough are already on their knees.
Boris waffled on today, more than usual, quoting statistics that suited his agenda....though I have a feeling they will backtrack and cough up the money they offered, then petulantly withdrew....we will see.
I have been very impressed with Andy Syl - a future Labour leader?
Real old Labour, and charasmatic with it.
Yeah he strikes me as 100% committed and not just out to make a name for himself as you have said.
Good for him.
I actually agree with what you have said there JP.
At first I did agree with everything Andy was saying. I thought this guy is really looking
out for the people of greater Manchester, then as the infections were rising and hospital
admissions were creeping up with Covid patients, I thought you wouldn’t do that to your
people.
Then when he was offered 60 million and rejected it, and said 65 million I knew then he
was just out to make a name for himself.
There are 6 times more people living in greater Manchester than live in Liverpool and twice as many as live in Lancashire, and we have been in Tier 2 for longer than either.
Burnham simply tried to negotiate a deal suited to the people of Manchester, just as S Yorkshire have negotiated a deal suited for them today.
He has never been against a lockdown, he has supported the government from the start on this.
Imo Burnham has made it worse for you guys. He came across as greedy in the end. No one else discussing tier 3 restrictions or going into tier 3 has put up such a fuss. He clearly wanted to play Political games. That's my take. He's enjoyed the limelight.
60 or 65. A small difference when you are talking about those figures. That's pathetic in my view. Should have took 60. And got on with it like others have.
In the house of commons Hancock said it was on the table last night. The 60m that is. My guess is they were probably still talking about what to do about the 60 while Boris was in that press conference yesterday afternoon. By they I mean Hancock and others. Bottom line last I heard late last night was that the 60m is still on the table.
Yes I know. He is very forthright about his past failures.
Since he was made Mayor here he has really stepped up to the plate, he does a lot for a lot of people, he doesn't mind a fight if he believes in something, and he admits when he gets things wrong....which is pretty refreshing for a politician.
Like any strong minded person he has people who love him and people who dont'. Personally, even though our council taxes have risen considerably since he became Mayor thanks to a couple of his schemes....I like him a lot.
Another very positive news story...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54637106
He’s the disgraced one isn’t he?
Why what's he supposed to have done?
I don't see anything mentioned on any of the news stories that mention his analysis of the situation.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-disease-not-likely-to-be-eradicated-sage-scientist-says-12110135
-- Edited by John Doe on Wednesday 21st of October 2020 11:02:24 PM
The anon seemingly thinks the guy in the link is Neil Ferguson.
I don't particularly agree with what I think are wild predictions of the guy in the link. I recall Neil Ferguson's wild predictions back in March. Van Tam one of the DMO's certainly doesn't think a full scale national lockdown is needed at present anyway. He made that clear yesterday.