They shouldn't, is the answer.

Because these people for the most part will be tax payers and as such are contributing to what should be a developed society where the state looks after its participants. This country spends billions defending oppressed citizens in other countries using the monies contributed by the very people you begrudge spending the money on.

ATOL are contributing c40% of the cost so the governments contribution is c£60m - you think they that is out of order?

I didn't say they shouldn't. I wondered what those who deride Government intervention, those opposed to proper funding of social services, would think about bailing out the better off. I am all in favour of the Government looking after its participants.

Because someone goes abroad on holiday they are better off? People go abroad for a variety of reasons one of which is cost i.e. its cheaper than staying in the UK.

There is a world of difference between flying relatively few people home in a time of crisis from taking a raft of commercial businesses into public ownership. Perhaps if we didn't spend so much money on foreign aid we would have more money to spend on social services - £60m is a drop in the ocean when you come to funding social services. Labour is talking about £6bn - the UK foreign aid budget is £12bn.

I know its xenophobic but I would rather spend our tax revenues on the people who actually contributed to raising those revenues

I am sure we could make a list of things we could save huge amounts of money on, but we'd be laid wide open to name calling by the left leaning members of the board.

No 10 line now confirmed: back Johnson or get death threats.

Should the government bale out other failing businesses where said business has taken deposits or payments from customers ?

In my view, no. Where would it stop?

Governments shouldn’t bale out private companies - this is not a bale out this is simply an act of common sense to help citizens in a crisis. A bit like using the emergency services when the flood defences give way.

Let’s be honest the tax revenues excluding VAT the government have received from Thomas Cook will be significantly higher than any cost it will incur in this operation.

Bloody hell, you sound like you may actually have some empathy for people in trouble

As for Thomas Cook having paid large amounts of tax to the government, historically yes but, this year, not much.

Which will be used up (and then some) paying redundancy to its staff.

Like lots of other failing businesses, they have been taking money from its customers, "knowing" that they were in serious financial difficulty.
Many, if not most of their customers will be insured, either through holiday insurance or with indemnity guarantees on their credit cards etc

Does your good will stretch to anyone who has innocently bought a stolen vehicle or lost money on other types of purchase or is it just Thomas Cook customers who you think should be helped.

You weren't too sympathetic to anyone on suicide watch a few days ago and I would have holiday makers way, way, behind them in the queue for government cash.

Even trying to compare the two is crass.

Grow up - for a start what do struggling businesses do they have to keep believing to they very end so they keep trading until they are no longer able - it’s like cancer patients who take drugs they know will only give them six months - why because they hope a cure/ saviour will be found. It is obvious you work in the public sector and have never worked in a business with its back against the wall

On the other matter you failed to address the funding in the health service and it not being a bottomless pit. Very difficult choices have to be made - do you allocate the funds to gender reassignment, abortion or do you spend the money on mental health issues. The funds are finite so you tell me where you would spend it?