Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted October 20, 2020 Author Paid Members Posted October 20, 2020 2 hours ago, Tamura said: I hate the Tories as much, if not more, than the average person in the street, but I think Burnham is in the wrong here. If the roles were reversed would people be praising a Tory Mayor of Greater Manchester (not that there's ever likely to be such a thing) for holding out for more money, or would they be criticised for letting people die while they argue about money? I'm guessing the latter. This whole saga has been dragging on for days and days already, and as every day passes the cases in Greater Manchester increase exponentially and so will the deaths. People shouldn't spend days negotiating over how much financial aid is going to be given when people are dying. Johnson is wrong, but Burnham is absolutely wrong as well. I can't believe what I'm reading here. Really? Burnham was asking for the amount, or something approaching it, that this city needs to survive. Businesses have been dropping like flies even before this Tier 3 shit and with the pittance that was put on the table, that was not going to change. Now Johnson has essentially bankrupted hundreds more businesses just to score some political points. If it was a Tory mayor, which thankfully would never happen here, then they would have just accepted whatever Johnson handed them and bollocksed on about what a fair deal it was. Well this wasn't a fair deal - it was a load of fucking shit because the Tories fucking hate this city because we hate them and because they don't care about anywhere other than places where they get in office. Burnham was absolutely, 100% in the right and history will show that to be the case very soon indeed. Quote
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted October 20, 2020 Moderators Posted October 20, 2020 (edited) I mean, there's catastrophic damage happening to every city.. It's not like anyone's coming out of this unscathed. I don't know a lot about this particular scenario - is Manchester disproportionately negatively impacted compared to other places? Is there a breakdown of what Burnham was asking for? It's really hard to see from the outside on this one - none of the articles I've read have really got any substantive information. Is there anything out there to read or do we just make up or minds by deciding whose political posturing we like better? Edited October 20, 2020 by Chest Rockwell Quote
Keith Houchen Posted October 20, 2020 Posted October 20, 2020 39 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said: don't know a lot about this particular scenario - is Manchester disproportionately negatively impacted compared to other places? The communities secretary awarded his own Newark constituency 3 mil more than Greater Manchester got. Quote
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted October 20, 2020 Paid Members Posted October 20, 2020 27 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: The communities secretary awarded his own Newark constituency 3 mil more than Greater Manchester got. Surprise surprise. Quote
Tamura Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, Devon Malcolm said: I can't believe what I'm reading here. Really? Burnham was asking for the amount, or something approaching it, that this city needs to survive. Businesses have been dropping like flies even before this Tier 3 shit and with the pittance that was put on the table, that was not going to change. Now Johnson has essentially bankrupted hundreds more businesses just to score some political points. If it was a Tory mayor, which thankfully would never happen here, then they would have just accepted whatever Johnson handed them and bollocksed on about what a fair deal it was. Well this wasn't a fair deal - it was a load of fucking shit because the Tories fucking hate this city because we hate them and because they don't care about anywhere other than places where they get in office. Burnham was absolutely, 100% in the right and history will show that to be the case very soon indeed. You're missing the point entirely, which was made crystal clear by the last sentence of my post. It's not a binary choice of x being right therefore y is wrong. Simply because Johnson is wrong (which he probably always will be) doesn't make Burnham right. And to make it clear, I'm not suggesting Burnham is wrong for trying to get an appropriate financial package, I'm saying he's wrong for this lengthy stand-off that's going to cost lives. Edited October 21, 2020 by Tamura Quote
Members SuperBacon Posted October 21, 2020 Members Posted October 21, 2020 People are really, really angry and quite rightly but a lot of people have been using "north vs south" language and rhetoric and its distracting from the real enemy. The fucking Tory cunts. Let's not lose sight of that. It's another 'divide and conquer' strategy from these pricks. Quote
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted October 21, 2020 Paid Members Posted October 21, 2020 If the Tories had offered an appropriate financial package in the first place there wouldn't have been a lengthy standoff over money. The problem is they were too busy setting up shell corporations in Irish broom cupboards to award PPE contracts to rather than trying to protect the population from a killer virus. Quote
Paid Members stumobir Posted October 21, 2020 Paid Members Posted October 21, 2020 Exactly. First it was the pesky Browns and their Ramadan, then it was us young uns and our house parties, now it’s the bloody Northeners demanding to be allowed out for their gravy soaked chippy tea. Meanwhile Matt Hancock is pictured in the back of his chauffeur driven car, half-pissed and without a mask, having stumbled out of the Common’s Bar well after 10pm. Bent as fuck, this lot. Quote
Mr_Danger Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 This going to end up with fucking dragons and zombies isn’t it? Quote
Paid Members Dead Mike Posted October 21, 2020 Paid Members Posted October 21, 2020 If only this could've been predicted? If there was some kind of historic precedent of the Tories dry fucking the North? Turns out gifting the Conservatives an 80 seat majority was a terrible idea? Who knew? Never mind, only Brexit & (realistically) 8 more years of this to go. I'm sure all those 'new' Tories in Yorkshire & the North East have sufficient investment portfolios to see them through these lean times. Quote
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted October 21, 2020 Paid Members Posted October 21, 2020 There are some cracking hedge funds to be had on Teeside. Quote
Paid Members JNLister Posted October 21, 2020 Paid Members Posted October 21, 2020 To clarify: Burnham's request of £90 million was the amount needed to give everyone who can't work the same payments they got under the original furlough scheme. The government offer to Manchester was the same amount per head that Lancashire and Liverpool agreed to, which was the result of negotiation rather than being based on an objective criteria. Quote
Keith Houchen Posted October 21, 2020 Posted October 21, 2020 19 minutes ago, JNLister said: To clarify: Burnham's request of £90 million was the amount needed to give everyone who can't work the same payments they got under the original furlough scheme. The government offer to Manchester was the same amount per head that Lancashire and Liverpool agreed to, which was the result of negotiation rather than being based on an objective criteria. And then did they pull the 60m on the table because Burnham wouldn’t kowtow and gave 22m as a fuck you? Quote
Paid Members JNLister Posted October 21, 2020 Paid Members Posted October 21, 2020 13 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: And then did they pull the 60m on the table because Burnham wouldn’t kowtow and gave 22m as a fuck you? As far as I can tell, the £22 million is completely separate and is earmarked for councils to run a local track and trace. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.