Failure to reach deal sparks anger from ‘red wall’ MPS
Ministers’ stand-off with mayor of Greater Manchester over support risks emboldening Labour in the North
‘Despite recognising the gravity of the situation, the mayor has been unwilling to take the action that is required to get the spread of the virus under control in Greater Manchester’
‘We are on the cusp of having Andy Burnham carried shoulderhigh through the streets of Manchester... he has demonstrated courage... and a spirit the British people can be proud of’
IN THE end, 11 days of negotiations between ministers in London and local leaders in Greater Manchester over a deal to support the city in the strictest coronavirus restrictions came down to haggling over £5 million.
The Government had stuck to its guns not to pay a penny more to the 10 councils in the area than other areas that had gone into Tier 3, such as the Liverpool city region and Lancashire.
But by holding out, and then failing to strike a deal, ministers risked handing a propaganda victory to Labour, with crucial mayoral and local council elections just seven months away.
And the Conservatives also risked opening up the first serious crack in the so-called “red wall” of Conservative seats in northern working-class areas that had propelled Boris Johnson into 10 Downing Street last December.
Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, was quick to drive home the point, sayi ng: “The Conservatives have been treating local communities, particularly in the Midlands, North West and North East, and their leaders with contempt. Labour recognises the need for stricter public health restrictions.
“However, that must be accompanied by extra financial support.”
Tory MPS with seats in the region were aghast. William Wragg, MP for Hazel Grove, said: “Leadership is required f rom everybody. Trust is placed in us all and that is the privilege of public office.” Sir Graham Brady, MP for Altrincham and Sale West and chairman of the 1922 committee of Tory MPS, said “politicians across Greater Manchester remain unconv i nced” about i mposing g r eater restrictions on the region.
The talks with Greater Manchester’s leaders had started on October 9, as Boris Johnson was gearing up to set out the new three-tier system for restrictions last Monday. England was to be divided into three tiers of “medium”, “high” and “very high”, depending on the level of severity locally.
Ministers also wanted to tie local leaders into the decision to move areas into the top two tiers, with extra cash for areas in the “very high” tier, where t housands of businesses would be forced to close.
Mr Johnson had hoped to announce that Greater Manchester was moving into the very high tier, but in the end could only confirm that the Liverpool city area had agreed to enter Tier 3 in return for a financial package. The following Thursday, Lancashire joined the very high tier, while London was moving into the “high” second tier. But talks with Greater Manchester were foundering. The row went public when Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, told a press conference that afternoon: “We will not be treated as canaries in a coalmine for an experimental regional lockdown strategy.”
Talks continued over the weekend and into this week. But Number 10 risked allying Tory MPS in the North with Mr Burnham after Conservative MPS representing southern constituencies wrote to the mayor urging him to agree a deal. One Tory said it was seen as a “declaration of war by one group of Conservative MPS on another”.
By Monday morning, the leaders in Manchester were buoyed by suggestions of a new hardship fund for the hardest-hit communities.
However, the fund was not raised by Robert Jenrick, the Housing Secretary, in an afternoon conference call.
Mr Jenrick spoke in “the most broad terms about the basis of a deal”, one
Manchester source said, and then after around 30 minutes told the leaders “there is clearly no agreement here – I am going to have to go back to the Prime Minister and report”.
Number 10 attempted to put pressure on Mr Burnham on Monday, with a statement from Mr Jenrick giving Mr Burnham and his local leaders until yesterday to agree a deal.
The Housing Secretary said: “If we cannot reach agreement by midday tomorrow then I must advise the Prime Minister that despite our best endeavours we’ve been unable to reach agreement. It’s not too late for local leaders to work with us to take action for the sake of the people of Greater Manchester.”
There was a further conference call yesterday morning. But midday came and went. In the Commons, Labour MPS vented their frustration. Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, who represents Richmond i n North Yorkshire, was asked by an i rate local Labour MP, Andrew Gwynne: “Why does this Government hate Greater Manchester?”
Mr Burnham felt he was making all the running in the talks. He said he had cut an initial request from £90 million i n business support by t he end of March to £ 75 million and t hen to £65 million “as a bare minimum to prevent a winter of real hardship”.
But senior Number 10 sources insisted they thought they had agreed a deal worth £ 55 million, but t hen offered £60 million when Mr Burnham asked for £65 million.
Mr Burnham and Mr Johnson spoke on the phone around lunchtime. One senior Number 10 source said: “Andy Burnham has behaved very badly. The call with the Prime Minister was set up to green-light the £55 million.”
The talks were over just after 2pm. Mr Jenrick said: “I’m disappointed that, despite recognising the gravity of the situation, the mayor has been unwilling to take the action that is required to get the spread of the virus under control in Greater Manchester and reach an agreement with the Government. I have therefore advised the Prime Minister that these discussions have concluded without an agreement.”
Brushing off a journalist’s question that he was “showboating” ahead of May’s local elections, Mr Burnham said at a press conference later: “Is this a Government which is committed to levelling up this country?
“That’s what they told people in this city, the people who drive those taxis, who work in the pubs, who may have voted for them. They said they would level up. What we have seen today is a deliberate act of levelling down.”
An hour later, Mr Johnson put a brave face on the failure of the talks, saying the Government had made a “generous and extensive offer to support Manchester’s business”, despite failing four times to put a value on it.
He said: “This offer was proportionate to the support we gave Merseyside and Lancashire. The mayor did not accept this unfortunately and, given the public health situation, I must now proceed with moving Greater Manchester to the very high alert level.”
Greater Manchester will now move into the highest Tier 3 lockdown at midnight on Friday, which means a ban on household mixing and closures of pubs that do not serve food.
Labour will attempt to exploit the division with a vote in the House of Commons tonight when northern red wall Tories will be tempted to rebel.
Even hardened Conservatives admired how Mr Burnham played the talks. One right-of-centre Tory MP said: “We are on the cusp of having Andy Burn ham carried shoulder-high through the streets of Manchester. The reason for it is t hat he has demonstrated courage and principle and hope and determination and a spirit that the British people can be proud of.”
One northern Tory MP blamed Number 10 for not realising that Mr Burnham would never have signed up to restrictions that risked being so damaging: “The whole approach has been completely tin-eared and shows that they don’t understand even their own people in the North.”