Quote ="Mild Rover"Have they done that as well? I read something about a new £200 billion, but it might have been for existing bonds... if that makes any difference? Found it: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2162KT'" Bank loans will only be government borrowing if they default - my understanding is the loans will be issued by the normal banks - although my bank was unable to be specific on Friday!!

Quote ="Mild Rover"Have they done that as well? I read something about a new £200 billion, but it might have been for existing bonds... if that makes any difference? Found it: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2162KT'" Bank loans will only be government borrowing if they default - my understanding is the loans will be issued by the normal banks - although my bank was unable to be specific on Friday!!

The comparison should be with what the numbers would be without those measures. Which we’ll never know because it isn’t be being run as a controlled experiment, but ‘worse currently’ isn’t an unreasonable leap of logic.

The Washington Post article Cronus linked to is pretty good, with the trade-offs for different scales of short-term interventions/restrictions described and explained.

Quote ="Mild Rover":vib06ol3Have they done that as well? I read something about a new £200 billion, but it might have been for existing bonds... if that makes any difference? Found it: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2162KT'" :vib06ol3 It's the same concept but what is being done now is slightly different as its for existing bonds as you say. When the Bank of England buys all those government bonds now it has two main effects The asset purchase from the BoE will both reduce the rate at which government borrows and also the rate for private sector firms that need to borrow by issuing debt. What's the catch....? The additional cash released in to the system by the BoE will wind up somewhere, which means there is more cash splashing around which is a good thing when you're at risk of recession because the last thing you want is people/businesses that want to buy, being unable to access liquid funds to make a purchase. But it is additional money in the economy, that is not backed up by additional production of goods and services, so in the long run that will wind its way out through prices just adjusting upwards. Same reason that transfer fees in football rise so much - the players today aren't better than Maradona, Baggio, they are just denominated in higher values as there's more cash in the system. So you risk getting inflation. The Bank of England has a tool to stop that because while it has those bonds in its vault it can 'unwind' the asset purchase by just selling them (in practice some of the bonds will have matured but they can get round that by taking the payment due on them and using it to buy new bonds). When it sells the bonds back you get the reverse of the original effect, it sucks cash out of the system and increases the supply of bonds, reducing their price and increasing the rate of interest on the borrowing. So this kind of bond purchase technique is useful if you think you have a short-term recession, you can do it now to tide things over, then as the economy starts to recover and you fear inflation setting in, just slowly 'unwind' it by selling the bonds back. If you have a long-term economic slump though you have a problem! Monetary policy tools like this aren't going to be effective against a long-term slump.

Quote ="Mild Rover":vib06ol3Have they done that as well? I read something about a new £200 billion, but it might have been for existing bonds... if that makes any difference? Found it: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2162KT'" :vib06ol3 It's the same concept but what is being done now is slightly different as its for existing bonds as you say. When the Bank of England buys all those government bonds now it has two main effects The asset purchase from the BoE will both reduce the rate at which government borrows and also the rate for private sector firms that need to borrow by issuing debt. What's the catch....? The additional cash released in to the system by the BoE will wind up somewhere, which means there is more cash splashing around which is a good thing when you're at risk of recession because the last thing you want is people/businesses that want to buy, being unable to access liquid funds to make a purchase. But it is additional money in the economy, that is not backed up by additional production of goods and services, so in the long run that will wind its way out through prices just adjusting upwards. Same reason that transfer fees in football rise so much - the players today aren't better than Maradona, Baggio, they are just denominated in higher values as there's more cash in the system. So you risk getting inflation. The Bank of England has a tool to stop that because while it has those bonds in its vault it can 'unwind' the asset purchase by just selling them (in practice some of the bonds will have matured but they can get round that by taking the payment due on them and using it to buy new bonds). When it sells the bonds back you get the reverse of the original effect, it sucks cash out of the system and increases the supply of bonds, reducing their price and increasing the rate of interest on the borrowing. So this kind of bond purchase technique is useful if you think you have a short-term recession, you can do it now to tide things over, then as the economy starts to recover and you fear inflation setting in, just slowly 'unwind' it by selling the bonds back. If you have a long-term economic slump though you have a problem! Monetary policy tools like this aren't going to be effective against a long-term slump.

Eventually god willing we will overcome this virus, the debt to the country will be massive. Companies will be bankrupt or trading with very little cash reserves. The only crumb of comfort will be all of Europe will be starting afresh with the same high debt. The exception will be Italy, potentially they will be hardest hit as they started off from a weak position. Without restarting the Brexit debate again, the eu have some massive decisions to make regarding loans to various countries. On top of which poor old Greece have the massive problem of migrants. Which certainly won’t go away and now summer is on the way will intensify. Depressing times indeed, you can’t even go to the pub for a couple of pints.

Austerity v2.0 - harder, deeper, much more savage.

I think it will be higher taxation - I doubt any government will get away with years of austerity - it will be tough enough

Want to bet? This is a global pandemic, not just bankers playing silly sods with subprime mortgages.

I can already hear the soundbites 10 years down the line - "austerity was necessary".

Austerity round 2 will be very difficult politically for this Conservative government:

Their core vote is now the north/midlands 'red wall' areas which they won in 2019. This is largely a Brexit-voting, socially conservative part of the demographic who bought in to Boris' positivity and vision of Britain's great future after Brexit. I would guess that the general consensus opinion amongst these voters is that this shut down is needless, tens of thousands of people die of flu every year and we don't shut the economy down because of it, they will be angry at the government for shutting everything down and leading to many of them losing their jobs or their businesses going to the wall. A number of right-wing commentators are also stirring them up with this viewpoint. So Boris, who was used to being the flagbearer of the populist opinion on Brexit "the establishment have tried to cheat us out of democracy", is going to have to be the one telling people what they don't want to hear - it was necessary, listen to the experts, we know better than you about what is in your best interests, blah blah, which will make him sound like "the establishment".

The public was already tired of austerity which is why Boris pivoted away from it and he had sold Brexit as something which was going to mean more money for public services. He isn't temperamentally suited to giving the public a puritanical lecture that they have lived beyond their means and now must be punished for their reckless indulgence by having their health services, transport, schools etc scaled back. Cameron and Osborne did that because they could say "don't blame us blame Labour". Boris won't have anyone to blame but himself.

Now he can say, with justification, that shutting down the economy was necessary to protect public health and save lives, and ironically the people who will agree with him on this are going to be the liberal middle class Remainer types, who hate him anyway so still won't vote for him. The problem will be, convincing the core audience that he wants to appeal to, that this decision to shut the economy down, lose their jobs and businesses, was necessary when they don't believe it is. And he will need to convince them strongly of it to get them to stomach austerity.

Boris may end up in the worst of both worlds, where he shuts down the economy a few weeks later than they did in other countries, and we still get a horrendous death toll. Then one section of the electorate will say, Boris has blood on his hands because he didn't act quickly enough and that led to excess deaths. The other section of the electorate will say, we paid with our jobs and businesses and for what - loads of people died anyway. The right wing press are also likely to push that argument too. So unlike Brexit, Boris is now in a position where he's in the impossible position of being unpopular either way. That is completely not suited to his personality, and he has also made a lot of enemies within his own party ranks due to the way he treated other Conservatives on his route to power.

Brutal but accurate.



This seems likely and there’s a part of me that wonders if his lifelong run of luck has come to sudden and spectacular end just as he has grasped the prize he wanted so badly. His reputation really is in the hands of the metaphorical gods. Along with many thousands of lives in the U.K.

My best, albeit remote, hope is the virus mutates into a less deadly but faster spreading strain that produces cross-immunity. Boris as the new Churchill in popular opinion is a puke-inducing prospect but a price I’m sure we’d all accept if we could.

I think Sunak will lead the party into the next election - he has come across very well, decisive, accurate, compassionate and intelligent.

I hope that happens too but I don't think Boris will be seen as the hero of the hour, I think even most people who voted for him probably think he's a bit out of his depth in this situation and as Sal says, Sunak will have come out of it better.

One thing I think this has shown though is a difference between Boris and Trump. Boris might be a blundering baffoon who has shown few scruples in taking advantage of populist rhetoric, casual racism and opportunism on his way to get the prize he wanted, but now he's there I don't think he is prioritising his own political gain in this situation. I think he would generally rather everyone was healthy and happy and in the mood to vibe with his happy banter and jokes, like when he was London mayor in the 2012 Olympics.

Trump is a much more sinister character who is continuing to use this crisis as a way of manufacturing the culture war to his political advantage, stirring up controversy over the 'Chinese virus' as he knows it will play to his base, trying to ensure blackmail the Democrats in to passing his rescue package bill which is loaded mostly to giving support to his own cronies and their favoured industries, knowing that if the Democrats block it he can then create carnage for ordinary people and say there would have been support but the Democrats blocked it.

Admittedly Boris is not facing re-election for another 4 years and Trump is up for re-election in 8 months but I still don't think Boris would have been AS bad.

The Conservative party is good at adapting to circumstances and changing its policies - and leaders - to retain power, so it could be that if Boris ends up coming out of this badly and there is a lot of anger and discontent, they need a new re-invention for compassionate Conservatism to heal the wounds of Brexit and coronavirus and their MPs may start to coalesce around Sunak, and sacrifice Boris as a necessity to win in 2019 but a liability for 2024.

Sunak was also very prominent in the last election campaign - so he understands what is needed to fight a campaign. Him against Starmer - another Labour massacre.

I think it is very premature given the current environment to predict that the next election will be a landslide for the Conservatives....

There will be a lot of anger and frustration and people whose livelihoods and living standards have taken a nose dive and that anger will be targeted (rightly or wrongly) at the government. It happened to Labour after the financial crisis.

If Starmer becomes Labour leader he is likely to attract a large proportion of the 'disaffected Remainers' who consolidated around Labour in 2017 but were disillusioned with Corbyn/Brexit strategy/anti-semitism in 2019, so Labour will have a stronger base than in 2019.

At the end of this the government will have managed a once in lifetime incident-provided they don’t screw it up too badly it will reflect positively. Starmer is suggesting Corbyn-style policies were unlucky to lose and only Brexit stopped a Labour landslide. He will be campaigning for a return to Europe - good luck with that. Yes higher taxation will be in place but given what is going on that will be more acceptable than austerity. Given the amount of debt we will have there will little scope for more borrowing for Labour’s pet projects of nationalisation, environmental etc.

It’s a long way away, and a lot will change between now and then.

The comparison your post begs, imo, is with Churchill and the Conservatives being voted out in 1945 and the creation of the welfare state and NHS by the Atlee-led Labour Government in a debt-burdened UK.

The Conservatives will have been in power (with inconsequential Lib Dem enablers for few years, admittedly, and then the DUP more recently) for 14 years by the time of the next election. They massively re-positioned themselves and ran against their own record and a labour leader very poorly suited to leadership last time. Personally I think they’ll need more than not screwing this up too badly and the post-Brexit situation merely being better than disasterous. On the other hand Labour needs to up its game massively.

All Labour will be able offer is more borrowing or much higher taxation - either way there is no other way of investing and growing the public sector?

When do we get to the stage where the long term economic impact of this virus actually causes more long term damage than the virus itself?
I'm not an expert, so I'm happy to go with the recommendations for now, I'm just curious as to what the plan is beyond the current restrictions. If the advice is for the current restrictions to remain in place until a vaccine can be created then I don't see how we come back from this.

Quote ="Charlie Sheen"When do we get to the stage where the long term economic impact of this virus actually causes more long term damage than the virus itself? I'm not an expert, so I'm happy to go with the recommendations for now, I'm just curious as to what the plan is beyond the current restrictions. If the advice is for the current restrictions to remain in place until a vaccine can be created then I don't see how we come back from this.'" Don't know, but this will probably save more lives than stopping covid-19. popularlogistics.com/wp-content/ ... _China.jpg https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/worl ... -year.html https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... oronavirus

Quote ="Charlie Sheen"When do we get to the stage where the long term economic impact of this virus actually causes more long term damage than the virus itself? I'm not an expert, so I'm happy to go with the recommendations for now, I'm just curious as to what the plan is beyond the current restrictions. If the advice is for the current restrictions to remain in place until a vaccine can be created then I don't see how we come back from this.'" Don't know, but this will probably save more lives than stopping covid-19. popularlogistics.com/wp-content/ ... _China.jpg https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/worl ... -year.html https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... oronavirus

If the Tories don't get these support packages available soonest there really will be some very unhappy people. It is OK saying they will pay 80% but what is the mechanism - does the employer pay and claim back or does the government pay direct to the employee? The rumour is no monies until the end of April!!

People who have been put on universal credit get huge delays in receiving their payments, especially if they take short-term work and then the contract finishes, this has been an issue for a while. The DWP/HMRC systems aren't suddenly going to have become blue chip now this new scheme is around. Remember as well that HMRC will be down on workforce due to staff sickness, and also they have little spare capacity left from the projects to set the customs systems up for dealing with the end of the Brexit transition period: that deadline won't move, and if those aren't set up we really will have chaos in January.

The measures the government announced were all good ones and popular but the true test will be on the capacity of the state to administer it. There will be some Tory ministers now who wonder whether it was wise to have spent all these years slashing headcounts, outsourcing functions to dodgy private companies, and attacking the civil service as part of the "culture war".

The next 2 years at least as going to see this government face a number of very challenging problems for which they will be reliant on a super-effective government machine to deal with: first the virus, then the disruption that will come from the end of the transition. This could easily see the same or worse shortages in shops because if it's not super-smooth at the borders we'll have gridlocked roads, disruption to supply chains and we've already seen how vulnerable our supply chains are to panic buying when there isn't a supply shock. The additional bureaucracy to administer the extra trade costs will be huge and this hasn't sunk in to a lot of people. Business representative groups have been raising concerns with the government for a while but the ones who shouted the loudest got sidelined by government for not being positive enough about Brexit. Before Brexit happened, they could dismiss these business groups as Remoaners who wanted to overturn the result but the problems they raised will become reality next year.

After a while, people will become tired of living in perma-disruption. They will know the virus isn't the government's fault but if disruption continues next year after the end of the transition when the rest of the world is returning to normality they will be angry and their anger will be focused on the competence of the government. At first they might be able to divert blame to the civil service/EU but the question is, ok, how are you going to sort it out. Just culling a few Permanent Secretaries and appointing your own yes-men won't solve problems of this huge complexity, you really needed to invest in the government machine before. If they go on more culling of headcounts in the civil service it might cheer the base but it won't solve the problems and in the end it comes down to people expecting a level of competence from the government.

Boris probably thought once Brexit "got done" he could be throwing around all this extra money saved from not paying in to the EU to improve the NHS and do all his "levelling up" of the regions, and offer some tax cuts to keep middle England happy, whilst pointing at Starmer and saying this guy will lead us to having a second Scottish referendum! Instead he's going to be consumed with firefights. I bet with hindsight he would have not launched his leadership bid last summer. Would have been better to have sat this out as a personality carping from the sidelines at Hunt/Javid/Gove instead.

He could have been doing interviews now saying "of course we need to do something about the virus...but taking away the essential freedoms of our great citizens is not the way!"

I seriously doubt that.

[url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2020/bbc-entertains-the-nation-in-time-of-needThe lunatic left BBC have a cunning plan to make us all go out and get fined[/url

seriously, since when has The One Show been 'part of daily life'

You did not read that article at all did you.













You are hilarious. I thought the other drivel you posted was serious. Now I know you are just a comedian . You really brighten up the forum with your posts please keep it up

Oh I read it all, all very rightepus and woke broadcasting, I am sure people are waiting, holding their breath, to see what smug self righteous stuff Packham comes out with and to watch the annoying Irish bloke 'interview' his fellow luvvies.

Keep triggering the liberals and sticking it to the lefties. That's what it's all about.