Sorry to ask this again - but is the disputed £60m to be paid directly to workers by the central govt as part of the furlough scheme (whether 67% or 80%) or is it to be paid by central govt to Greater Manchester Council and therefore separate from the furlough scheme?
TIA
Given to the local authority to use "flexibly". Presumably there are constraints on the use of funds. But it won't be part of the furlough scheme.
Dom Cummings and Boris Johnson, because they are never wrong.
As you saw with the trip to Durham and Barnard Castle, they can't be wrong, everyone else has to be wrong.
But it's £5m. It's a nothing amount of money. This is a victory worthy of Pyrrhus. It just looks like ministers are blind to what's happening on the ground over paltry sums of money, I mean by this it's probably true as well.
Remember Ken Clarke, Phil Hammond, et al all voted for Brexit in the Commons more times than Boris Johnson and JRM, guess who got kicked out of the Tory party.
Boris Johnson is a manchild who doesn't like anyone who rebels against him.
That first paragraph just isn't true. The votes on May's deals weren't the only "votes for Brexit".
Since the founding of PB back in 2004, it has been common consent that Andy Burnham hasn't been very good.
It says a lot that he makes Boris Johnson look like a chump, and Burnham the competent one, looking out for the voters.
Who could forget that wonderful gaffe, repeated endlessly on Order Order, where he stood in front of an ad saying ‘Defend our NHS’ and accidentally blocked the first three letters?
Sorry to ask this again - but is the disputed £60m to be paid directly to workers by the central govt as part of the furlough scheme (whether 67% or 80%) or is it to be paid by central govt to Greater Manchester Council and therefore separate from the furlough scheme?
TIA
Given to the local authority to use "flexibly". Presumably there are constraints on the use of funds. But it won't be part of the furlough scheme.
Just listened to Sam Harris episode Nina Schick....apparently not only have the Russian out-sourced their work to Ghana, they also got a load of left wing US journalists (who were laid off do to COVID) to join a fake media outlet and produce BLM / social justice content. And they also managed to get over 5000 people to attend a BLM that they setup.
Sorry to ask this again - but is the disputed £60m to be paid directly to workers by the central govt as part of the furlough scheme (whether 67% or 80%) or is it to be paid by central govt to Greater Manchester Council and therefore separate from the furlough scheme?
TIA
Central government, as they would be the ones processing it all.
Yes but is it the payment of the furlough scheme individually to workers; or a direct grant to the council to pay the furlough scheme; or a direct grant to the Council to do whatever they want to while the central govt pays the furlough scheme aside from this?
No, it's £60m in additional furlough funding for residents within the tier 3 restrictions, it would be handled by central government when companies in those areas make their furlough claims. The government pays them at 80% instead of 67%. Don't think there would be any money going to the council.
It doesn't say it would be handled by central govt - the reports say it would be a lump sum direct to the Council.
What's the money actually for? Presumably this isn't individual support for workers or businesses, but a bung to City Hall Manchester.
Mostly workers, it is designed to ensure there's a decent furlough scheme.
So if the govt agreed, everyone else would say "Why can't we have that? Why is Manchester special?"
Manchester is special, because it is in the North, where all the good stuff is happening.
It's a fraction of the money, the billions in fact the government happily spends on Londoners, like Crossrail.
The safety of Northerners is worth less in the eyes of Boris Johnson than the cost of making commuting easier for Southern jessies.
If the gap of £5m is so tiny then the criticism of the failure to agree applies equally to both sides in the negotiation. Why on earth is Burnham risking losing out more than £5m by wanting more than the offer? it is just as good a question as the questions asked of government.
Maybe the real divide is a bigger issue somewhere.
It is difficult to imagine Trump more insufferable, but imagine what he will be like if he wins now? Euch!
Not to be given headspace, Nigel. You always get the odd rogue poll. Positivity rules at this point. I might have a slightly larger than usual glass of High Commissioner before retiring tonight but that's about all.
Sorry to ask this again - but is the disputed £60m to be paid directly to workers by the central govt as part of the furlough scheme (whether 67% or 80%) or is it to be paid by central govt to Greater Manchester Council and therefore separate from the furlough scheme?
TIA
Central government, as they would be the ones processing it all.
Yes but is it the payment of the furlough scheme individually to workers; or a direct grant to the council to pay the furlough scheme; or a direct grant to the Council to do whatever they want to while the central govt pays the furlough scheme aside from this?
No, it's £60m in additional furlough funding for residents within the tier 3 restrictions, it would be handled by central government when companies in those areas make their furlough claims. The government pays them at 80% instead of 67%. Don't think there would be any money going to the council.
It doesn't say it would be handled by central govt - the reports say it would be a lump sum direct to the Council.
That doesn't make any sense, how would the council even do it? Setting up a system to pay people would cost all of the money.
What's the money actually for? Presumably this isn't individual support for workers or businesses, but a bung to City Hall Manchester.
Mostly workers, it is designed to ensure there's a decent furlough scheme.
So if the govt agreed, everyone else would say "Why can't we have that? Why is Manchester special?"
Manchester is special, because it is in the North, where all the good stuff is happening.
It's a fraction of the money, the billions in fact the government happily spends on Londoners, like Crossrail.
The safety of Northerners is worth less in the eyes of Boris Johnson than the cost of making commuting easier for Southern jessies.
If the gap of £5m is so tiny then the criticism of the failure to agree applies equally to both sides in the negotiation. Why on earth is Burnham risking losing out more than £5m by wanting more than the offer? it is just as good a question as the questions asked of government.
Maybe the real divide is a bigger issue somewhere.
The inference has been the government up until after they pulled out of talks would always pay the figure they had offered.
What's the money actually for? Presumably this isn't individual support for workers or businesses, but a bung to City Hall Manchester.
Mostly workers, it is designed to ensure there's a decent furlough scheme.
So if the govt agreed, everyone else would say "Why can't we have that? Why is Manchester special?"
Manchester is special, because it is in the North, where all the good stuff is happening.
It's a fraction of the money, the billions in fact the government happily spends on Londoners, like Crossrail.
The safety of Northerners is worth less in the eyes of Boris Johnson than the cost of making commuting easier for Southern jessies.
If the gap of £5m is so tiny then the criticism of the failure to agree applies equally to both sides in the negotiation. Why on earth is Burnham risking losing out more than £5m by wanting more than the offer? it is just as good a question as the questions asked of government.
Maybe the real divide is a bigger issue somewhere.
I think it is because he says he is going to use it for an extended furlough scheme. If people in Manchester are getting 80%, then the government are going to have to commit to everybody getting it. That would be a big U-Turn.
It is why I said from the start this idea of negotiating T3 conditions on an area by area basis was fundamentally flawed.
Why give public money to help people and businesses affected by Tier 3 lockdown in Manchester when you can give it to consultants, ministers' mates and Tory donors instead?
Long time lurker here, always follow this site for the best political analysis and comment. Thought I'd de lurk as i've been following the US election closely. I've been following 538 and RCP a lot so wanted to just clarify about how the IBD/Tipp poll thats caused some waves today works. They poll about 200 people from their 'bank' of around 1000 each day for a 5 day period then repeat the cycle. So although figures are updated daily as some have said the final figure at the end of 5 days is the actual % of ALL the 1000 or so people they are polling So as per 538 for the 5 day period 10-14 Oct the average poll was +8% for Biden (in both the 2 and 4 way) The next 5 day cycle was from 15-19 Oct (again polling 200 per day) and the average poll was +2 Biden (4 way) +3 (2 way) so their polling shows that Trump has closed the gap by +6/+5 in that week So the cycle starts again from today and runs 20/10 to 26/10 at 200 per day so what we will be looking for is the published figures on 27/10 by them for that week to see if its changed again. What I find difficult to balance is IBD have +2 Biden, Siena/NYTimes has +9 Biden, Both are rated A (or AB0 by 538, they cant both be right,,,,+7 is a big difference
Since the founding of PB back in 2004, it has been common consent that Andy Burnham hasn't been very good.
It says a lot that he makes Boris Johnson look like a chump, and Burnham the competent one, looking out for the voters.
Actually, it hasn't been. Granted, he didn't stand out in the Blair/Brown/Miliband years and he made a hash of the 2015 leadership election which he should have won. However, he has certainly shone ever since being elected to the GM Metro Mayor role, at a time when Johnson was still a sideshow act and long before Covid came on the scene.
Sorry to ask this again - but is the disputed £60m to be paid directly to workers by the central govt as part of the furlough scheme (whether 67% or 80%) or is it to be paid by central govt to Greater Manchester Council and therefore separate from the furlough scheme?
TIA
Central government, as they would be the ones processing it all.
Yes but is it the payment of the furlough scheme individually to workers; or a direct grant to the council to pay the furlough scheme; or a direct grant to the Council to do whatever they want to while the central govt pays the furlough scheme aside from this?
No, it's £60m in additional furlough funding for residents within the tier 3 restrictions, it would be handled by central government when companies in those areas make their furlough claims. The government pays them at 80% instead of 67%. Don't think there would be any money going to the council.
It doesn't say it would be handled by central govt - the reports say it would be a lump sum direct to the Council.
That doesn't make any sense, how would the council even do it? Setting up a system to pay people would cost all of the money.
That's what I was trying to work out. Is it a financial incentive for Councils to get more money if they are in a higher tier or does it bypass them and go directly to the workers. Or does it - nonsensically as you point out - get distributed by the council to the workers. Which is what the reports suggest they want it for.
From this press conference it is clear that Andy Burnham does expect Tier 3 will last longer than 28 days.
Anybody claiming only need 2 weeks, is either a moron or being deliberately dishonest. You need at least a month to really understand if measures are working...and in reality it will take a few days for people to really adapt to the new measures (plus bookended by people going on the piss as last chance / first chance).
From this press conference it is clear that Andy Burnham does expect Tier 3 will last longer than 28 days.
Anybody claiming only need 2 weeks, is either a moron or being deliberately dishonest. You need at least a month to really understand if measures are working.
Indeed, but it is something that Jenrick seems not to be aware of.
Why give public money to help people and businesses affected by Tier 3 lockdown in Manchester when you can give it to consultants, ministers' mates and Tory donors instead?
And £25 m to Jenrick's constituency. The blighted ghetto of Newark.
The perhaps crucial, important ruling of PA went for the Dems. There's this from Texas though...
“Though the plaintiffs will likely run into trouble in establishing that the right to vote is a liberty interest, they will have even greater difficulty showing that an alleged right to vote by mail constitutes a liberty interest,” the judges wrote.
Now it probably won't affet the election seeing as VBM in Texas is restricted to
be 65 years or older; be sick or disabled; be out of the county on election day and during the period for early voting by personal appearance; or be confined in jail, but otherwise eligible.
Which is probably likely a GOP heavy or at least even group.
Though the plaintiffs will likely run into trouble in establishing that the right to vote is a liberty interest is an utterly, utterly breathtaking piece of jurisprudence though. Literal dictatorships don't come out with that !
What's the money actually for? Presumably this isn't individual support for workers or businesses, but a bung to City Hall Manchester.
Mostly workers, it is designed to ensure there's a decent furlough scheme.
So if the govt agreed, everyone else would say "Why can't we have that? Why is Manchester special?"
Manchester is special, because it is in the North, where all the good stuff is happening.
It's a fraction of the money, the billions in fact the government happily spends on Londoners, like Crossrail.
The safety of Northerners is worth less in the eyes of Boris Johnson than the cost of making commuting easier for Southern jessies.
London is under attack from these nutters too. £15 congestion charge from the north to south circular is a loss of tens of thousands jobs, income tax, VAT, increased benefits, so that central govt can say they were tough in negotiations over TfL.
Since the founding of PB back in 2004, it has been common consent that Andy Burnham hasn't been very good.
It says a lot that he makes Boris Johnson look like a chump, and Burnham the competent one, looking out for the voters.
Actually, it hasn't been. Granted, he didn't stand out in the Blair/Brown/Miliband years and he made a hash of the 2015 leadership election which he should have won. However, he has certainly shone ever since being elected to the GM Metro Mayor role, at a time when Johnson was still a sideshow act and long before Covid came on the scene.
The man was a populist before it was popular. Observe Hillsborough.
Poker is a game where skill can make a difference.
THis lot couldn’t play anything more complicated than Snap.
Still too complex for them. This is a problem identical to the one they saw in March and they haven't spotted that it needs the same solution (or at least a very close relative of it).
Several newspapers have recently quoted Jennifer Arcuri conceding that she did indeed have an affair with Boris Johnson and was 'bombarded by passion'. The Mirror reports that "the 35-year-old businesswoman has gone on record by alleging she had an affair with the current Prime Minister between 2012 and 2016 while he was the Mayor of London" The Mirror's report continues "But the Prime Minister avoided a criminal investigation after the police watchdog found no evidence he influenced the payment of thousands of pounds of public money to her, or secured her participation in foreign trade trips he led." In the light of these disclosures, is it perhaps possible or indeed likely that investigations into his conduct at the time will be re-opened. Certainly, further embarrassment for the Prime Minister appears certain with Ms Arcuri set to produce a film about their relationship.
Why give public money to help people and businesses affected by Tier 3 lockdown in Manchester when you can give it to consultants, ministers' mates and Tory donors instead?
The grotesque corruption surrounding this government should get cut through when people see that bungs to consultants, ministers' mates and Tory donors are literally given priority over helping the most disadvantaged of society get through this epidemic.
What's the money actually for? Presumably this isn't individual support for workers or businesses, but a bung to City Hall Manchester.
Mostly workers, it is designed to ensure there's a decent furlough scheme.
So if the govt agreed, everyone else would say "Why can't we have that? Why is Manchester special?"
Manchester is special, because it is in the North, where all the good stuff is happening.
It's a fraction of the money, the billions in fact the government happily spends on Londoners, like Crossrail.
The safety of Northerners is worth less in the eyes of Boris Johnson than the cost of making commuting easier for Southern jessies.
If the gap of £5m is so tiny then the criticism of the failure to agree applies equally to both sides in the negotiation. Why on earth is Burnham risking losing out more than £5m by wanting more than the offer? it is just as good a question as the questions asked of government.
Maybe the real divide is a bigger issue somewhere.
The inference has been the government up until after they pulled out of talks would always pay the figure they had offered.
The Lancashire council leader had said last week that they only accepted tier 3 as otherwise the funding would be zero.
Publicly agree with Johnson if your local citizens are to get their share of public money. Disagree and their share goes somewhere else.
When was the last time we had a more perverse government?
Sorry to ask this again - but is the disputed £60m to be paid directly to workers by the central govt as part of the furlough scheme (whether 67% or 80%) or is it to be paid by central govt to Greater Manchester Council and therefore separate from the furlough scheme?
TIA
Central government, as they would be the ones processing it all.
Yes but is it the payment of the furlough scheme individually to workers; or a direct grant to the council to pay the furlough scheme; or a direct grant to the Council to do whatever they want to while the central govt pays the furlough scheme aside from this?
No, it's £60m in additional furlough funding for residents within the tier 3 restrictions, it would be handled by central government when companies in those areas make their furlough claims. The government pays them at 80% instead of 67%. Don't think there would be any money going to the council.
It doesn't say it would be handled by central govt - the reports say it would be a lump sum direct to the Council.
That doesn't make any sense, how would the council even do it? Setting up a system to pay people would cost all of the money.
That's what I was trying to work out. Is it a financial incentive for Councils to get more money if they are in a higher tier or does it bypass them and go directly to the workers. Or does it - nonsensically as you point out - get distributed by the council to the workers. Which is what the reports suggest they want it for.
The latter, with Liverpool and Lancashire at least - probably to workers indirectly via businesses. Exact mechanisms and controls were still to be agreed between the councils and govt as of end of last week.
Dom Cummings and Boris Johnson, because they are never wrong.
As you saw with the trip to Durham and Barnard Castle, they can't be wrong, everyone else has to be wrong.
But it's £5m. It's a nothing amount of money. This is a victory worthy of Pyrrhus. It just looks like ministers are blind to what's happening on the ground over paltry sums of money, I mean by this it's probably true as well.
And yet it might make the difference between staying open and being shuttered for a couple of hundred small businesses which might receive a discretionary grant as a result.
It is difficult to imagine Trump more insufferable, but imagine what he will be like if he wins now? Euch!
I expect a modest 'This is the greatest comeback in the history of the known universe' or something similar even though he will almost certainly have lost the popular vote again.
This morning's Truman upset win over Dewey in 1948 thread looks a bit more prophetic this afternoon
Not really. It looks an outlier to the centre of gravity at +9. Like SavantaComRes in our GE19. At +5 Con with the herd in double digits. We know what happened there. Plus it's quite likely that the polls are overstating Trump this time. And there's all the early voting and intel from the camps indicating he's in trouble. And he's drifting. Out to 2.7 now. All looking good for my side of life.
Its not the £5m though is it. It would force a total U-Turn on furlough scheme and need a guarantee of 80% for everybody, which would be a lot more than that.
Sorry to ask this again - but is the disputed £60m to be paid directly to workers by the central govt as part of the furlough scheme (whether 67% or 80%) or is it to be paid by central govt to Greater Manchester Council and therefore separate from the furlough scheme?
TIA
I still don't understand the thinking behind the 67% limit, surely it would have been better to lower the maximum to £2000 and keep the 80% rate if there needed to be savings.
Sorry to ask this again - but is the disputed £60m to be paid directly to workers by the central govt as part of the furlough scheme (whether 67% or 80%) or is it to be paid by central govt to Greater Manchester Council and therefore separate from the furlough scheme?
TIA
Central government, as they would be the ones processing it all.
Yes but is it the payment of the furlough scheme individually to workers; or a direct grant to the council to pay the furlough scheme; or a direct grant to the Council to do whatever they want to while the central govt pays the furlough scheme aside from this?
No, it's £60m in additional furlough funding for residents within the tier 3 restrictions, it would be handled by central government when companies in those areas make their furlough claims. The government pays them at 80% instead of 67%. Don't think there would be any money going to the council.
It doesn't say it would be handled by central govt - the reports say it would be a lump sum direct to the Council.
That doesn't make any sense, how would the council even do it? Setting up a system to pay people would cost all of the money.
That's what I was trying to work out. Is it a financial incentive for Councils to get more money if they are in a higher tier or does it bypass them and go directly to the workers. Or does it - nonsensically as you point out - get distributed by the council to the workers. Which is what the reports suggest they want it for.
The latter, with Liverpool and Lancashire at least - probably to workers indirectly via businesses. Exact mechanisms and controls were still to be agreed between the councils and govt as of end of last week.
I wonder how much will end up with those workers...
Dom Cummings and Boris Johnson, because they are never wrong.
As you saw with the trip to Durham and Barnard Castle, they can't be wrong, everyone else has to be wrong.
But it's £5m. It's a nothing amount of money. This is a victory worthy of Pyrrhus. It just looks like ministers are blind to what's happening on the ground over paltry sums of money, I mean by this it's probably true as well.
And yet it might make the difference between staying open and being shuttered for a couple of hundred small businesses which might receive a discretionary grant as a result.
This all stems from rubbish thinking from Rishi. The furlough should never have been bumped down to 67%, it should have had the limit reduced to £2000 to make savings. People like me benefit from the higher limit, people who have low paid jobs benefit from a higher proportion. The government has moved it into the wrong direction.
The Manchester stand-off is another indication that Rishi Sunak really isn't as politically savvy as he should be - and that he may not be the saviour some Tories think he is.
Long time lurker here, always follow this site for the best political analysis and comment. Thought I'd de lurk as i've been following the US election closely. I've been following 538 and RCP a lot so wanted to just clarify about how the IBD/Tipp poll thats caused some waves today works. They poll about 200 people from their 'bank' of around 1000 each day for a 5 day period then repeat the cycle. So although figures are updated daily as some have said the final figure at the end of 5 days is the actual % of ALL the 1000 or so people they are polling So as per 538 for the 5 day period 10-14 Oct the average poll was +8% for Biden (in both the 2 and 4 way) The next 5 day cycle was from 15-19 Oct (again polling 200 per day) and the average poll was +2 Biden (4 way) +3 (2 way) so their polling shows that Trump has closed the gap by +6/+5 in that week So the cycle starts again from today and runs 20/10 to 26/10 at 200 per day so what we will be looking for is the published figures on 27/10 by them for that week to see if its changed again. What I find difficult to balance is IBD have +2 Biden, Siena/NYTimes has +9 Biden, Both are rated A (or AB0 by 538, they cant both be right,,,,+7 is a big difference
They're not both right
What we - as professional poll watchers - need to do is to watch other polls. Do they show the same directionality (not the lead per se) as IBD/TIPP? If they do, then that's really interesting, and suggests something is happening. If they do not... then we probably shouldn't get too excited.
I am somewhat unsure of Burnham's demands for 75 million but listening to him it seems he is costing this over a six month period.
If so no wonder the government said no because that gives them a blank cheque irrespective of how covid and the tiering proceeds. I can understand Rishi saying help is constantly reviewed but Burnham seems to accept covid is going to continue in crisis for six months
To my mind he may be the toast of Manchester but HMG has a wider responsibility to the nation and be flexible on support
I am interested if anyone else things seeking a six month settlement is unreasonable and has huge implications
I can't comprehend what Sunak and Johnson are playing at. It is very disappointing.
Expect all six questions at PMQs to be on this issue tomorrow. If Starmer can't score off this subject he really should resign and get Burnham as LOTO.
Why give public money to help people and businesses affected by Tier 3 lockdown in Manchester when you can give it to consultants, ministers' mates and Tory donors instead?
And £25 m to Jenrick's constituency. The blighted ghetto of Newark.
£45 million of public money gifted by Jenrick to property developer, pornographer and Tory Party donor Richard Desmond
Sorry to ask this again - but is the disputed £60m to be paid directly to workers by the central govt as part of the furlough scheme (whether 67% or 80%) or is it to be paid by central govt to Greater Manchester Council and therefore separate from the furlough scheme?
TIA
Central government, as they would be the ones processing it all.
Yes but is it the payment of the furlough scheme individually to workers; or a direct grant to the council to pay the furlough scheme; or a direct grant to the Council to do whatever they want to while the central govt pays the furlough scheme aside from this?
No, it's £60m in additional furlough funding for residents within the tier 3 restrictions, it would be handled by central government when companies in those areas make their furlough claims. The government pays them at 80% instead of 67%. Don't think there would be any money going to the council.
It doesn't say it would be handled by central govt - the reports say it would be a lump sum direct to the Council.
That doesn't make any sense, how would the council even do it? Setting up a system to pay people would cost all of the money.
That's what I was trying to work out. Is it a financial incentive for Councils to get more money if they are in a higher tier or does it bypass them and go directly to the workers. Or does it - nonsensically as you point out - get distributed by the council to the workers. Which is what the reports suggest they want it for.
The latter, with Liverpool and Lancashire at least - probably to workers indirectly via businesses. Exact mechanisms and controls were still to be agreed between the councils and govt as of end of last week.
I wonder how much will end up with those workers...
The small business grant fund was administrated through councils back in April and went pretty smoothly to be fair. I'd expect it to be similar but sectoral criteria used to establish eligibility.
Long time lurker here, always follow this site for the best political analysis and comment. Thought I'd de lurk as i've been following the US election closely. I've been following 538 and RCP a lot so wanted to just clarify about how the IBD/Tipp poll thats caused some waves today works. They poll about 200 people from their 'bank' of around 1000 each day for a 5 day period then repeat the cycle. So although figures are updated daily as some have said the final figure at the end of 5 days is the actual % of ALL the 1000 or so people they are polling So as per 538 for the 5 day period 10-14 Oct the average poll was +8% for Biden (in both the 2 and 4 way) The next 5 day cycle was from 15-19 Oct (again polling 200 per day) and the average poll was +2 Biden (4 way) +3 (2 way) so their polling shows that Trump has closed the gap by +6/+5 in that week So the cycle starts again from today and runs 20/10 to 26/10 at 200 per day so what we will be looking for is the published figures on 27/10 by them for that week to see if its changed again. What I find difficult to balance is IBD have +2 Biden, Siena/NYTimes has +9 Biden, Both are rated A (or AB0 by 538, they cant both be right,,,,+7 is a big difference
They're not both right
What we - as professional poll watchers - need to do is to watch other polls. Do they show the same directionality (not the lead per se) as IBD/TIPP? If they do, then that's really interesting, and suggests something is happening. If they do not... then we probably shouldn't get too excited.
And then ramp the alternative viewpoint so you can lay it off on Betfair ;-)
Its not the £5m though is it. It would force a total U-Turn on furlough scheme and need a guarantee of 80% for everybody, which would be a lot more than that.
Only for those put into Tier 3.
And for the lowest paid why shouldn't it be 80% if they're forbidden by law from working?
Just listened to Sam Harris episode Nina Schick....apparently not only have the Russian out-sourced their work to Ghana, they also got a load of left wing US journalists (who were laid off do to COVID) to join a fake media outlet and produce BLM / social justice content. And they also managed to get over 5000 people to attend a BLM that they setup.
The winners of each election or referendum assure us that voters do not fall for this malarkey and that they'd have won anyway. Makes you wonder why the Russians bother.
Its not the £5m though is it. It would force a total U-Turn on furlough scheme and need a guarantee of 80% for everybody, which would be a lot more than that.
Only for those put into Tier 3.
And for the lowest paid why shouldn't it be 80% if they're forbidden by law from working?
I am not arguing for or against, I am saying why it isn't in reality £5m.
What was the mortality figure when we locked down in March?
Excellent question. 23. (March 16)
So it’s ten times as bad now.
And yet we’re in this horrible muddle.
TBF we were following the dreadful trajectory of Italy back in March. We understand the virus and what interventions can and cannot do a lot better now. This should be easier, not more difficult.
Why give public money to help people and businesses affected by Tier 3 lockdown in Manchester when you can give it to consultants, ministers' mates and Tory donors instead?
And £25 m to Jenrick's constituency. The blighted ghetto of Newark.
£45 million of public money gifted by Jenrick to property developer, pornographer and Tory Party donor Richard Desmond
Sorry to ask this again - but is the disputed £60m to be paid directly to workers by the central govt as part of the furlough scheme (whether 67% or 80%) or is it to be paid by central govt to Greater Manchester Council and therefore separate from the furlough scheme?
TIA
Central government, as they would be the ones processing it all.
Yes but is it the payment of the furlough scheme individually to workers; or a direct grant to the council to pay the furlough scheme; or a direct grant to the Council to do whatever they want to while the central govt pays the furlough scheme aside from this?
No, it's £60m in additional furlough funding for residents within the tier 3 restrictions, it would be handled by central government when companies in those areas make their furlough claims. The government pays them at 80% instead of 67%. Don't think there would be any money going to the council.
It doesn't say it would be handled by central govt - the reports say it would be a lump sum direct to the Council.
That doesn't make any sense, how would the council even do it? Setting up a system to pay people would cost all of the money.
That's what I was trying to work out. Is it a financial incentive for Councils to get more money if they are in a higher tier or does it bypass them and go directly to the workers. Or does it - nonsensically as you point out - get distributed by the council to the workers. Which is what the reports suggest they want it for.
The latter, with Liverpool and Lancashire at least - probably to workers indirectly via businesses. Exact mechanisms and controls were still to be agreed between the councils and govt as of end of last week.
I wonder how much will end up with those workers...
The small business grant fund was administrated through councils back in April and went pretty smoothly to be fair. I'd expect it to be similar but sectoral criteria used to establish eligibility.
I am somewhat unsure of Burnham's demands for 75 million but listening to him it seems he is costing this over a six month period.
If so no wonder the government said no because that gives them a blank cheque irrespective of how covid and the tiering proceeds. I can understand Rishi saying help is constantly reviewed but Burnham seems to accept covid is going to continue in crisis for six months
To my mind he may be the toast of Manchester but HMG has a wider responsibility to the nation and be flexible on support
I am interested if anyone else things seeking a six month settlement is unreasonable and has huge implications
Life is not returning to the normal in the next six months. By the time it does we will have forgotten what normal was.
There's something specific to the Nordic countries in the dynamics of the Covid outbreak there. If you compare the current trajectory of cases across European countries, there are really just four which are not seeing exponential growth in new cases right now: Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. (Perhaps Spain too, after implementing new measures, although signs that cases are going up there too). I'm not sure what it is, although given the well-established link between the spread of the disease and poverty and poor housing, I would imagine that their relatively egalitarian societies are one important factor. Given the commonalities across the four I am rather sceptical about explanations that focus on Sweden's particular policy approach.
I just told my (Finnish) wife about Finns and Swedes being least anxious about CV-19 and she immediately said 'It's because they trust their governments'. I think there's something in that. There is a greater homogeneity of opinion there which allows that kind of generalisation. Compare the Greater Mancs situation here.
Why give public money to help people and businesses affected by Tier 3 lockdown in Manchester when you can give it to consultants, ministers' mates and Tory donors instead?
And £25 m to Jenrick's constituency. The blighted ghetto of Newark.
£45 million of public money gifted by Jenrick to property developer, pornographer and Tory Party donor Richard Desmond
Alleged surely
Nope.
Robert Jenrick admits deliberately helping Tory donor avoid £45m tax bill by rushing through housing development
Housing minister says his actions on the Westferry scheme were consistent with ‘natural justice’
I can't comprehend what Sunak and Johnson are playing at. It is very disappointing.
Expect all six questions at PMQs to be on this issue tomorrow. If Starmer can't score off this subject he really should resign and get Burnham as LOTO.
He could be genuinely worried at the extent to which the govt is spending.
No one otherwise rationally sits down and decides to blow up their own popularity and cause a huge shitstorm.
They must have forecast that by now the virus would be in retreat and that it (the furlough) could sensibly be tapered down.
a) so much for scenario analysis; and b) expect a u-turn shortly.
Comments
The problem is, once you do this for Manchester, everybody will demand it. I can see how is it problematic.
"local leaders are understood to have agreed to ask for the £75m lump sum, which could be used to top up the wages of the lowest paid over winter."
And: "It would have cost £15m per month, he says. This was support to top up the furlough, because people cannot live on two thirds of their wages."
So can be used for anything including top up the furlough scheme which is what it sounds like they wanted to do.
234 deaths.
Maybe the real divide is a bigger issue somewhere.
Otherwise remove the restrictions and let people work.
It is why I said from the start this idea of negotiating T3 conditions on an area by area basis was fundamentally flawed.
I've been following 538 and RCP a lot so wanted to just clarify about how the IBD/Tipp poll thats caused some waves today works.
They poll about 200 people from their 'bank' of around 1000 each day for a 5 day period then repeat the cycle.
So although figures are updated daily as some have said the final figure at the end of 5 days is the actual % of ALL the 1000 or so people they are polling
So as per 538 for the 5 day period 10-14 Oct the average poll was +8% for Biden (in both the 2 and 4 way)
The next 5 day cycle was from 15-19 Oct (again polling 200 per day) and the average poll was +2 Biden (4 way) +3 (2 way) so their polling shows that Trump has closed the gap by +6/+5 in that week
So the cycle starts again from today and runs 20/10 to 26/10 at 200 per day so what we will be looking for is the published figures on 27/10 by them for that week to see if its changed again.
What I find difficult to balance is IBD have +2 Biden, Siena/NYTimes has +9 Biden, Both are rated A (or AB0 by 538, they cant both be right,,,,+7 is a big difference
Good question.
Poker is a game where skill can make a difference.
THis lot couldn’t play anything more complicated than Snap.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1318575186032103424?s=20
“Though the plaintiffs will likely run into trouble in establishing that the right to vote is a liberty interest, they will have even greater difficulty showing that an alleged right to vote by mail constitutes a liberty interest,” the judges wrote.
Now it probably won't affet the election seeing as VBM in Texas is restricted to
be 65 years or older;
be sick or disabled;
be out of the county on election day and during the period for early voting by personal appearance; or
be confined in jail, but otherwise eligible.
Which is probably likely a GOP heavy or at least even group.
Though the plaintiffs will likely run into trouble in establishing that the right to vote is a liberty interest is an utterly, utterly breathtaking piece of jurisprudence though.
Literal dictatorships don't come out with that !
Won't matter if Biden holds his 50%+ share but makes a landslide harder.
Observe Hillsborough.
Several newspapers have recently quoted Jennifer Arcuri conceding that she did indeed have an affair with Boris Johnson and was 'bombarded by passion'.
The Mirror reports that "the 35-year-old businesswoman has gone on record by alleging she had an affair with the current Prime Minister between 2012 and 2016 while he was the Mayor of London"
The Mirror's report continues "But the Prime Minister avoided a criminal investigation after the police watchdog found no evidence he influenced the payment of thousands of pounds of public money to her, or secured her participation in foreign trade trips he led."
In the light of these disclosures, is it perhaps possible or indeed likely that investigations into his conduct at the time will be re-opened.
Certainly, further embarrassment for the Prime Minister appears certain with Ms Arcuri set to produce a film about their relationship.
EDIT Oh it wasn't the chancellor who left that note actually was it? You get the gist hopefully
Publicly agree with Johnson if your local citizens are to get their share of public money. Disagree and their share goes somewhere else.
When was the last time we had a more perverse government?
But the Monarchy will fight this because a big part of the justification for the Monarchy is the Church of England bit.
Remember the Queen was appointed by God(!)
And yet we’re in this horrible muddle.
What we - as professional poll watchers - need to do is to watch other polls. Do they show the same directionality (not the lead per se) as IBD/TIPP? If they do, then that's really interesting, and suggests something is happening. If they do not... then we probably shouldn't get too excited.
Not that that’s exactly a great parallel, of course.
Andorra has a clergyman as co-head of State.
If so no wonder the government said no because that gives them a blank cheque irrespective of how covid and the tiering proceeds. I can understand Rishi saying help is constantly reviewed but Burnham seems to accept covid is going to continue in crisis for six months
To my mind he may be the toast of Manchester but HMG has a wider responsibility to the nation and be flexible on support
I am interested if anyone else things seeking a six month settlement is unreasonable and has huge implications
Only thing I can think of is the NYT GA poll has leaked – it's out at 1800 BST I think.
Expect all six questions at PMQs to be on this issue tomorrow. If Starmer can't score off this subject he really should resign and get Burnham as LOTO.
Stop the Islamification of the UK.
And for the lowest paid why shouldn't it be 80% if they're forbidden by law from working?
I think there's something in that. There is a greater homogeneity of opinion there which allows that kind of generalisation. Compare the Greater Mancs situation here.
What Red wall..?
Robert Jenrick admits deliberately helping Tory donor avoid £45m tax bill by rushing through housing development
Housing minister says his actions on the Westferry scheme were consistent with ‘natural justice’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/robert-jenrick-richard-desmond-housing-tory-donor-westferry-a9631876.html
No one otherwise rationally sits down and decides to blow up their own popularity and cause a huge shitstorm.
They must have forecast that by now the virus would be in retreat and that it (the furlough) could sensibly be tapered down.
a) so much for scenario analysis; and
b) expect a u-turn shortly.
Quick scan of the data - it’s Murder Tuesday. And yet people get all Daily Mirror/Mail about it. After 6 months... Sigh.....
By specimen date looks flat (ish) now for cases.