Its disgusting - he is an arrogant parasite.

You questioned where increasing SSP would come from - something which would be directly stimulative. But then you blithely suggest that it's a good idea to put £250bn into the economy. Let's play your game then: where's that money going to come from? Come on, balance the books.

Borrowing to pay businesses or borrowing to put more money into peoples pockets, who are being told by government not to work.
How long can a bloke feed his family if his wage is cut from £5/600 a week to £96 on SSP.

It will be really interesting to see just how any business bailouts work.
Firstly, any failing business will blame the Coronvirus and try to make some kind of claim and then we have travel companies who are stuffed from the get go and then come, sports clubs, gig venues etc, that have effectively been prevented from trading by the movement guidelines, then the rest of the ecconomy. The impending economic crash will make 2007 look like a bad days trade compared to the utter financial disaster that we are all starring at.
Personally, for those who would get through any infection, say the under 50's, they should still be working, unless they are carers or have vulnerable people living with them.
Halting the ecconomy, for what may be many, many months is going to cause hardship not seen in peacetime.

Why the hell international travel wasn't stopped immediately is a mystery with a cost that has too many numbers to fit on the page.

I completely agree the money needs to go direct to the individual - but if all the predictions are correct they should only be off work for 14 days not many months so the hardship should be limited. I agree we need to keep working - as an employer the only way I can save guard as many as possible is to keep generating cash. Fortunately the cash that is being collected is from December/January the crunch will come in two months if this slow down continues

At the end of 2007/08, tax receipts were worth 37.1% of GDP, and spending was 40.0%, a deficit of 2.9%.
The financial crisis hit in summer 2008 (Northern Rock was the year before so the bailout would have come in the 2007/08 figures).
By the end of 2009/10, when the Conservatives took over, tax receipts were worth 36.1% of GDP and spending was 46.3%, a deficit of 10.2%.

The measures taken to offset the banking crisis increased the budget deficit by 7.3 percentage points. This then fuelled the narrative that Labour had bankrupt the country, had no credibility on managing the public finances, and necessitated a decade of austerity.

At the end of 2019/20, tax receipts were worth 37.7% of GDP, and spending was 39.3%, a deficit of 2.1%.
Not a million miles from where we were in 2007/08 (interesting that we're being taxed more as a share of GDP now than we were under Labour).

This coronavirus shock has the potential to be an even bigger hit to the economy than the banking crisis was - that was basically a shock to one sector (admittedly with ripple effects everywhere else due to tightening of credit). This is a multi-sectoral shock.

Lots of people asking for bailout money and support, for good reason, but look at the politics of it.
We could easily be in a situation where the budget deficit shoots up to 10 per cent again, or even more.

That will cripple the Conservatives' credibility for being sound managers of public finances, just like happened to Gordon Brown.

Now in the short run that won't matter too much as they don't face an election any time soon, but when the shock is over, they will then have to sell to the public a round of savage austerity to get the deficit down again. Will the public be in the mood for austerity, when they were sold Boris' dream of 30,000 new nurses, police and so on, Britain's great future as a sovereign nation.

This is one of those random events that is not the current government's fault (although you can point the finger at predecessor governments for leaving them with deficiencies in the infrastructure to deal with it), but it has the potential to completely overturn the political narrative. It happened to John Major in 1992 when the UK fell out of the ERM - from that point the Tories didn't recapture a poll lead over Labour for 15 years.

If Labour elects Starmer they probably have stumbled on the perfect man for them to take advantage. Unlikely to make gaffes or be toxic in the way that Corbyn was, but also his lack of charisma will be less of a problem in an era of chaos and anger, where people just want to go for the default other option. There may be a similar situation in the US with Biden.

The big risk with incoming cash is if/ when your customers dont pay.
In normal times, you can adjust cashflow in line with sales and incoming monies.

However, depending on your customer base (unless you are an internet / cash trader, there could well be a domino effect of multiple failures, which unless you have a very cash rich business, could be catastrophic.

The issues for the entertainment industry are truly scary. From pubs, clubs, restaurants, hospitality - the government has effectively shut these businesses down, which is a double whammy.
Usually, in difficult times, it's good to go down to the pub and "put the world to rights" but, that "release" has now been all but taken from us.

The situation is very different and the narrative will also be very different. The banking crisis was simply abuse by rich bankers that could have been controlled if the government hadn't opened the floodgates and allowed banks to behave in such a profligate manner. This is about keeping as many citizens alive and dealing with the fall out of a situation that is not of the governments causation. The situation is very different from the ERM or bank crisis which were in a large part caused by the decisions made by the government.

What would have happened under Labour - these borrowing figures wouldn't have £300bn they would have double/treble as they effectively tried to take the whole economy into public ownership. This may have given short term relief but the long term impact would be catastrophic. They want to pay everyone's rent and wages - that is a big number on top of everything already announced.

Labour's credibility on the numbers was a major factor in their electoral obliteration in 2019 - their current pronouncements shows they have learned any lessons - select Starmer and they will be splendid isolation for a very long time.

Given the whole world looks like they a pumping billions into supporting their populations I would suggest some form of austerity will be common place across the EU - might work to the UKs benefit when discussions with the EU - now that would an interesting externality of COVID 19

Most businesses will not have a surplus of cash - having cash is inefficient use of capital. Yes I will have customers who use my money to pay their staff - that is risk we all take in business - managing cash has been focus of my business since day one. The government needs to make changes to monthly VAT, CT in advance, PAYE etc these are the most practical cash injections they can do - arrange with banks finance companies etc to suspend loan/HP repayments for 6 months. It seems to me the loan scheme will be chaos - nice idea but a nightmare to arrange. How long will it take for the money to arrive in bank accounts

The loan scheme is actually a crazy idea.
The very thought of a business, that has run out of cash and taking on water, then borrowing to see them through an unspecified length of time, would be crazy.
Unless there was an end in sight to the virus problem, many businesses would be better placed to close their doors and liquidate and then perhaps start again when things return to normal.
If the virus issues were just going to be a few weeks then ,this would be different but, unfortunately, this thing isn't going to suddenly disappear, which will leave many businesses floating upside down It's scary, very scary.

The loan scheme would be good if the interest rates were below commercial levels e.g. 1-2% then it is almost free money - just to give 350bn to business would be crazy - all they will do is reduce headcount and reduce debt. There has to be conditions that if you access the monies headcounts have to be maintained first and foremost. Yes take measures around recruitment, overtime etc but businesses have to keep going or we will all be sunk.

The only way I get paid is if my customers can keep trading and generating cash - I understand about not mixing but life must continue - if you must isolate the elderly so be it but the rest of us need to continue life as normal - if we get it it will be life the flu which most of us have had in the past and survived.

It's not often that you and I agree but, you are absolutely right.
The vulnerable need protecting (isolating) along with their carers but, healthy under 50's need to keep working, spending and carrying on and on this issue, I believe that the government's strategy is wrong.
The most worrying aspect with the current guidelines on isolation etc is that there is no exit strategy and just as soon as movement and social gatherings is allowed to increase, we could well end up back to square one.

likewise myself with you.. I have read a number of articles pondering the idea that Covid-19 may be with us forever, it may be something we have to learn to live with.

Actually, our strategy is designed precisely to help prevent that. Anyone claiming 'Boris has cocked it up' isn't paying attention. For a start, Boris hasn't planned the strategy, experts in this field have.

Singapore, Taiwan and others - including China - have done a wonderful job of locking down and preventing the spread. That's great, well done, but exactly as you say - when thing start moving again and some bugger pops up with CV19 - they're back to square one. This is a novel virus, therefore our immune systems simply have nothing to work with until a vaccine is out there, unlike the common flu or the common cold which is familiar to our systems at a genetic level.

The UK's strategy is bold, and herd immunity plays a big part. Patrick Vallance has confirmed this in a number of interviews but the problem is our society and certainly our media cannot handle the fact some people will die who may have otherwise survived.

We are allowing the virus to spread to a certain point, monitoring the numbers and gradually tightening restrictions to manage the spread. This serves two purposes: to 'flatten the curve' and minimise the peak impact to the NHS at any single time, but also to allow the virus to penetrate to a reasonable degree. The journalists who claim measures have tightened due to 'pressure' or 'mistakes' haven't been paying attention or are politically motivated. It's part of a staged strategy and a total lockdown is next. This has been made clear several times and at press conferences: timing is everything.

If we allowed the working-age population to carry on as normal the NHS would be massively overwhelmed this time next week and death rates would surge. Remember it's not just the elderly, it's people with compromised immune systems, it's diabetics, it's those on immunosuppressants - there are many at high risk. There are also many serious and some fatal cases with no previous ailments, although at a lower rate.

It's estimated up to 60%+ of the population could become infected. Of those, probably 99ish% will survive. But 1-2% of 60%/40 million is still huge at 400-800,000 deaths. Some may have died anyway being mostly the elderly and with pre-existing conditions, but that's still a big number. Of the survivors, some will still require ICU hospital treatment and suffer terribly, some will never truly recover due to lung damage.

Now here's the key point. Let's say in 3 months we emerge into the sunlight. 40-60% have had it and are now immune, and new cases have disappeared. Then a few people fly in with CV19. Right now the R0 of CV19 is between 2-4 which leads to a rapid and escalating spread as we are seeing, but if we have around 60% of the population already immune the R0 becomes 1 or less. No rapid spread, no overwhelming pressure on the NHS. THAT is why we didn't lock down immediately, and why our strategy - although it requires short-term pain - is better in the long run.

Oh, and STAY AT HOME. I'm on day 8 of isolation. It ain't so bad.

The government have done nothing but to put out confused instructions and when they do they have no thought out the impact. I note that we appear to be reactive rather than proactive, that is why we have not done enough testing, provided enough respirators, let alone safety clothing.
I am sorry but keep saying they are trying to save the NHS appears a little hollow when for the last ten years he was part of the government trying to destroy it. I note that the list of so called vital employees include many that were previously expendable.
I also note that we do not want to be part of the EU purchasing group which has agreed deals for various supplies because we would rather stand on our own two feet and be outbid by much larger economies with greater buying power.
I have one last point how much of our current food supplies come from the EU because if this had happen next year we would have left. We have already said there would be food shortages so how bad would it have been with a pandemic.