Here in the atlanta area, schools are closed, the malls are closed, cinemas and theatres are closed, and increasingly restaurants are closing. Several stores (Macys, Bloomingdales, Nordstrom etc) have also closed (mainly pre-dating the mall closures). As a high risk person (over 65, asthma) I am carefully watching where I go and with whom.
I do not have excessive amounts of bog roll!
What is an excessive amount of bog roll, though? Most people would probably agree that you'd be sensible to buy a bit more than usual in the current climate - after all, you don't want to run out! But if everyone buys an extra pack to be on the safe side, that in itself is probably enough to empty the shelves for weeks.
Supermarkets are supplied by a carefully managed supply chain which relies on careful prediction of and planning for future demand. This means that even a relatively small change in shopping habits is likely to cause chaos if it is both unforeseen and widespread.
I get my bog roll at Costco, so the supply chain is not threatened by my buying a single package.
1 - Suspend all longer term loan repayments. The mortgage payment for April is paused and will take effect after the crisis. Finance payment for April likewise. Loan repayment for April the same way. No interest incurred. The next accounting period for that loan is after the crisis. People and business can, if they have the capacity, continue to pay off their principal - this will help the liquidity and reduce the debt burden that we were lumbered with already. [credit card debt - short credit - will continue as is; we need contactless payments, anyway]
This will need Government to underwrite all loans. But this is liquidity - not capitalisation. The funds going in will come out automatically as payments resume after the "pause". Without this, we'll have a capitalisation crisis that will make the GFC look like a teeny tiny blip. As it's liquidity, the number involved in the support here is irrelevant - the Government can underwrite it and it will go in and out without affecting the long-term money levels.
2 - Rent is suspended as well in private and public sectors (which is why BTL mortgages are included in the above). Support to be given to Housing Associations where necessary.
3 - A basic income of £600 per month to all adults (taxable - so if you're lucky enough to retain your job, you wonn't end up getting it all). Without accommodation or loan servicing costs, this should be enough to keep people going. Cost about £30bn per month, and yes, we'll have to borrow for this. We don't have the time or bandwidth to spare working out means testing, producing a sixty page form to fill in and administer and argue about, so it's to all. We'll get some of it back in taxes under existing systems; those most in need won't pay tax on it. (The Housing Benefit bill will be less, which will slightly offset this)
4 - All business rates suspended. Of course. Businesses encouraged to furlough workers rather than lay them off; workers will at least get the basic income and not have to worry about housing costs and loan costs.
5 - Businesses that don't have to pay rent, rates, wages, and loan servicing costs have a far far better chance of "pausing" rather than dying. Given that the Government has (correctly) closed down their incomes, it has to also close down their outgoings for the duration.
Is it me, or is all that obvious? Or is it for some reason impossible?
Can't argue with any of that.
It's telling though, that you suggest £600 pm (which seems reasonable to me) whereas the current benefits system allows £317 pm (less for under 25s) and just £250pm each if you are part of a couple.
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
The loans are aimed to assist the businesses they work for and takeway workers, delivery workers, construction workers, supermarket workers, electricians, plumbers etc are even now still going to work and earning a wage.
We are not yet in full lockdown so do not yet need a temporary UBI
1 - Suspend all longer term loan repayments. The mortgage payment for April is paused and will take effect after the crisis. Finance payment for April likewise. Loan repayment for April the same way. No interest incurred. The next accounting period for that loan is after the crisis. People and business can, if they have the capacity, continue to pay off their principal - this will help the liquidity and reduce the debt burden that we were lumbered with already. [credit card debt - short credit - will continue as is; we need contactless payments, anyway]
This will need Government to underwrite all loans. But this is liquidity - not capitalisation. The funds going in will come out automatically as payments resume after the "pause". Without this, we'll have a capitalisation crisis that will make the GFC look like a teeny tiny blip. As it's liquidity, the number involved in the support here is irrelevant - the Government can underwrite it and it will go in and out without affecting the long-term money levels.
2 - Rent is suspended as well in private and public sectors (which is why BTL mortgages are included in the above). Support to be given to Housing Associations where necessary.
3 - A basic income of £600 per month to all adults (taxable - so if you're lucky enough to retain your job, you wonn't end up getting it all). Without accommodation or loan servicing costs, this should be enough to keep people going. Cost about £30bn per month, and yes, we'll have to borrow for this. We don't have the time or bandwidth to spare working out means testing, producing a sixty page form to fill in and administer and argue about, so it's to all. We'll get some of it back in taxes under existing systems; those most in need won't pay tax on it. (The Housing Benefit bill will be less, which will slightly offset this)
4 - All business rates suspended. Of course. Businesses encouraged to furlough workers rather than lay them off; workers will at least get the basic income and not have to worry about housing costs and loan costs.
5 - Businesses that don't have to pay rent, rates, wages, and loan servicing costs have a far far better chance of "pausing" rather than dying. Given that the Government has (correctly) closed down their incomes, it has to also close down their outgoings for the duration.
Is it me, or is all that obvious? Or is it for some reason impossible?
Its a big step in the right direction, obvious some thing like this will have to happen.
I would increase the rate of 3, which to an extent takes away the need for 1 and 2. An emergency law to allow companies or employees to suspend employment is probably needed in 4 with usual IANAL caveat.
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
The loans are aimed to assist the businesses they work for and takeway workers, delivery workers, construction workers, supermarket workers, electricians, plumbers etc are even now still going to work and earning a wage.
We are not yet in full lockdown so do not yet need a temporary UBI
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
Jobs are already gone for many because the government acted too late with too little
No. Any jobs that have already gone are gone because they're literally redundant right now. Hopefully those jobs will come back soonish and the priority has to be trying to keep dormant businesses on life support so they can rehire those they've regretfully had to lay off in the mean time - while ensuring those who've had to be laid off get money in the interim too.
Businesses have no responsibility to potentially pay people to not work for months or years.
1 - Suspend all longer term loan repayments. The mortgage payment for April is paused and will take effect after the crisis. Finance payment for April likewise. Loan repayment for April the same way. No interest incurred. The next accounting period for that loan is after the crisis. People and business can, if they have the capacity, continue to pay off their principal - this will help the liquidity and reduce the debt burden that we were lumbered with already. [credit card debt - short credit - will continue as is; we need contactless payments, anyway]
This will need Government to underwrite all loans. But this is liquidity - not capitalisation. The funds going in will come out automatically as payments resume after the "pause". Without this, we'll have a capitalisation crisis that will make the GFC look like a teeny tiny blip. As it's liquidity, the number involved in the support here is irrelevant - the Government can underwrite it and it will go in and out without affecting the long-term money levels.
2 - Rent is suspended as well in private and public sectors (which is why BTL mortgages are included in the above). Support to be given to Housing Associations where necessary.
3 - A basic income of £600 per month to all adults (taxable - so if you're lucky enough to retain your job, you wonn't end up getting it all). Without accommodation or loan servicing costs, this should be enough to keep people going. Cost about £30bn per month, and yes, we'll have to borrow for this. We don't have the time or bandwidth to spare working out means testing, producing a sixty page form to fill in and administer and argue about, so it's to all. We'll get some of it back in taxes under existing systems; those most in need won't pay tax on it. (The Housing Benefit bill will be less, which will slightly offset this)
4 - All business rates suspended. Of course. Businesses encouraged to furlough workers rather than lay them off; workers will at least get the basic income and not have to worry about housing costs and loan costs.
5 - Businesses that don't have to pay rent, rates, wages, and loan servicing costs have a far far better chance of "pausing" rather than dying. Given that the Government has (correctly) closed down their incomes, it has to also close down their outgoings for the duration.
Is it me, or is all that obvious? Or is it for some reason impossible?
Can't argue with any of that.
It's telling though, that you suggest £600 pm (which seems reasonable to me) whereas the current benefits system allows £317 pm (less for under 25s) and just £250pm each if you are part of a couple.
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
The loans are aimed to assist the businesses they work for and takeway workers, delivery workers, construction workers, supermarket workers, electricians, plumbers etc are even now still going to work and earning a wage.
We are not yet in full lockdown so do not yet need a temporary UBI
Great so your solution to millions of people who had steady incomes and businesses is that they become plumbers overnight!?
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
Jobs are already gone for many because the government acted too late with too little
No. Any jobs that have already gone are gone because they're literally redundant right now. Hopefully those jobs will come back soonish and the priority has to be trying to keep dormant businesses on life support so they can rehire those they've regretfully had to lay off in the mean time - while ensuring those who've had to be laid off get money in the interim too.
Businesses have no responsibility to potentially pay people to not work for months or years.
No, but as @Cyclefree says in (excellent) thread header, HMG have caused this (albeit for good reasons) but they have not put the right support in place.
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
Jobs are already gone for many because the government acted too late with too little
No. Any jobs that have already gone are gone because they're literally redundant right now. Hopefully those jobs will come back soonish and the priority has to be trying to keep dormant businesses on life support so they can rehire those they've regretfully had to lay off in the mean time - while ensuring those who've had to be laid off get money in the interim too.
Businesses have no responsibility to potentially pay people to not work for months or years.
Business have shut down not merely gone dormant because they could see no customers and the government hadnt announced any help so the owners took what they saw as sensible action and closed the business. Some may restart a business after, some won't.
Regardless it doesn't change the fact that over the last few weeks a lot have gone from having a job to being unemployed.
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
The loans are aimed to assist the businesses they work for and takeway workers, delivery workers, construction workers, supermarket workers, electricians, plumbers etc are even now still going to work and earning a wage.
We are not yet in full lockdown so do not yet need a temporary UBI
Have you had a look outside?
Yes, takeaways and supermarkets and deliveroo and Amazon warehouses for example are busier than ever before
1 - Suspend all longer term loan repayments. The mortgage payment for April is paused and will take effect after the crisis. Finance payment for April likewise. Loan repayment for April the same way. No interest incurred. The next accounting period for that loan is after the crisis. People and business can, if they have the capacity, continue to pay off their principal - this will help the liquidity and reduce the debt burden that we were lumbered with already. [credit card debt - short credit - will continue as is; we need contactless payments, anyway]
This will need Government to underwrite all loans. But this is liquidity - not capitalisation. The funds going in will come out automatically as payments resume after the "pause". Without this, we'll have a capitalisation crisis that will make the GFC look like a teeny tiny blip. As it's liquidity, the number involved in the support here is irrelevant - the Government can underwrite it and it will go in and out without affecting the long-term money levels.
2 - Rent is suspended as well in private and public sectors (which is why BTL mortgages are included in the above). Support to be given to Housing Associations where necessary.
3 - A basic income of £600 per month to all adults (taxable - so if you're lucky enough to retain your job, you wonn't end up getting it all). Without accommodation or loan servicing costs, this should be enough to keep people going. Cost about £30bn per month, and yes, we'll have to borrow for this. We don't have the time or bandwidth to spare working out means testing, producing a sixty page form to fill in and administer and argue about, so it's to all. We'll get some of it back in taxes under existing systems; those most in need won't pay tax on it. (The Housing Benefit bill will be less, which will slightly offset this)
4 - All business rates suspended. Of course. Businesses encouraged to furlough workers rather than lay them off; workers will at least get the basic income and not have to worry about housing costs and loan costs.
5 - Businesses that don't have to pay rent, rates, wages, and loan servicing costs have a far far better chance of "pausing" rather than dying. Given that the Government has (correctly) closed down their incomes, it has to also close down their outgoings for the duration.
Is it me, or is all that obvious? Or is it for some reason impossible?
Can't argue with any of that.
It's telling though, that you suggest £600 pm (which seems reasonable to me) whereas the current benefits system allows £317 pm (less for under 25s) and just £250pm each if you are part of a couple.
This is to replace wages. Workers should get more than non-workers in general don't you think?
Those who aren't working now should get the £600 too for now, but say 3 months after life gets back to normal (give time to get people back into work) if people on the benefits system want to keep £600+ they can get a job and earn it. Right now they can't.
1 - Suspend all longer term loan repayments. The mortgage payment for April is paused and will take effect after the crisis. Finance payment for April likewise. Loan repayment for April the same way. No interest incurred. The next accounting period for that loan is after the crisis. People and business can, if they have the capacity, continue to pay off their principal - this will help the liquidity and reduce the debt burden that we were lumbered with already. [credit card debt - short credit - will continue as is; we need contactless payments, anyway]
This will need Government to underwrite all loans. But this is liquidity - not capitalisation. The funds going in will come out automatically as payments resume after the "pause". Without this, we'll have a capitalisation crisis that will make the GFC look like a teeny tiny blip. As it's liquidity, the number involved in the support here is irrelevant - the Government can underwrite it and it will go in and out without affecting the long-term money levels.
2 - Rent is suspended as well in private and public sectors (which is why BTL mortgages are included in the above). Support to be given to Housing Associations where necessary.
3 - A basic income of £600 per month to all adults (taxable - so if you're lucky enough to retain your job, you wonn't end up getting it all). Without accommodation or loan servicing costs, this should be enough to keep people going. Cost about £30bn per month, and yes, we'll have to borrow for this. We don't have the time or bandwidth to spare working out means testing, producing a sixty page form to fill in and administer and argue about, so it's to all. We'll get some of it back in taxes under existing systems; those most in need won't pay tax on it. (The Housing Benefit bill will be less, which will slightly offset this)
4 - All business rates suspended. Of course. Businesses encouraged to furlough workers rather than lay them off; workers will at least get the basic income and not have to worry about housing costs and loan costs.
5 - Businesses that don't have to pay rent, rates, wages, and loan servicing costs have a far far better chance of "pausing" rather than dying. Given that the Government has (correctly) closed down their incomes, it has to also close down their outgoings for the duration.
Is it me, or is all that obvious? Or is it for some reason impossible?
Can't argue with any of that.
It's telling though, that you suggest £600 pm (which seems reasonable to me) whereas the current benefits system allows £317 pm (less for under 25s) and just £250pm each if you are part of a couple.
The benefits system also provides housing on top?
Rent* yes. Not mortgage payments. And @Andy_Cooke's proposal of £600 was alongside rent and mortgage holidays.
(*Subject to limits which assume you only have a a set number of bedrooms for the houshold. In practice, many find not all their rent is covered.)
There is a genuine moral hazard argument in respect to this crisis that is different from the GFC bank bailouts. Even though many businesses are suffering or laying off staff or closing due to no fault of their own, once the principle is established that the government will pay all salaries / mortgages / rents / business rates etc etc etc for a indefinite period of time, it could become extremely difficult both economically and politically to return to the status quo ante, especially if this crisis drags on for 18 months or longer. The 'Chinese virus' (to use Trump's silly phrase) would have turned us permanently into a Chinese state capitalist economy.
And I write as someone who would benefit economically - at least in the short term - from that kind of gigantic big bazooka.
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
The loans are aimed to assist the businesses they work for and takeway workers, delivery workers, construction workers, supermarket workers, electricians, plumbers etc are even now still going to work and earning a wage.
We are not yet in full lockdown so do not yet need a temporary UBI
I know you love your %s so here is an industry relevant to this website.
They are talking about losing 95% of the workforce!
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
Jobs are already gone for many because the government acted too late with too little
No. Any jobs that have already gone are gone because they're literally redundant right now. Hopefully those jobs will come back soonish and the priority has to be trying to keep dormant businesses on life support so they can rehire those they've regretfully had to lay off in the mean time - while ensuring those who've had to be laid off get money in the interim too.
Businesses have no responsibility to potentially pay people to not work for months or years.
No, but as @Cyclefree says in (excellent) thread header, HMG have caused this (albeit for good reasons) but they have not put the right support in place.
I agree. I'm advocating for the government to go further - much further.
I'm hopeful they will. I'm dry as dust normally economically but I'm advocating much more to be done and I know many other Tories who are. The government is frankly making it up as they go along on a day by day basis right now (and so they should, this is a once in a century pandemic) and I'm hopeful much more will be done soon.
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
The loans are aimed to assist the businesses they work for and takeway workers, delivery workers, construction workers, supermarket workers, electricians, plumbers etc are even now still going to work and earning a wage.
We are not yet in full lockdown so do not yet need a temporary UBI
Have you had a look outside?
Yes, takeaways and supermarkets and deliveroo and Amazon warehouses for example are busier than ever before
but those who work in hospitality, non food shops such as clothing, travel industry, small firms that supply any of those etc....oh right they can be left hanging after all it will probably only be around 10 million or so of them but thats fine they don't matter in your book.
1 - Suspend all longer term loan repayments. The mortgage payment for April is paused and will take effect after the crisis. Finance payment for April likewise. Loan repayment for April the same way. No interest incurred. The next accounting period for that loan is after the crisis. People and business can, if they have the capacity, continue to pay off their principal - this will help the liquidity and reduce the debt burden that we were lumbered with already. [credit card debt - short credit - will continue as is; we need contactless payments, anyway]
This will need Government to underwrite all loans. But this is liquidity - not capitalisation. The funds going in will come out automatically as payments resume after the "pause". Without this, we'll have a capitalisation crisis that will make the GFC look like a teeny tiny blip. As it's liquidity, the number involved in the support here is irrelevant - the Government can underwrite it and it will go in and out without affecting the long-term money levels.
2 - Rent is suspended as well in private and public sectors (which is why BTL mortgages are included in the above). Support to be given to Housing Associations where necessary.
3 - A basic income of £600 per month to all adults (taxable - so if you're lucky enough to retain your job, you wonn't end up getting it all). Without accommodation or loan servicing costs, this should be enough to keep people going. Cost about £30bn per month, and yes, we'll have to borrow for this. We don't have the time or bandwidth to spare working out means testing, producing a sixty page form to fill in and administer and argue about, so it's to all. We'll get some of it back in taxes under existing systems; those most in need won't pay tax on it. (The Housing Benefit bill will be less, which will slightly offset this)
4 - All business rates suspended. Of course. Businesses encouraged to furlough workers rather than lay them off; workers will at least get the basic income and not have to worry about housing costs and loan costs.
5 - Businesses that don't have to pay rent, rates, wages, and loan servicing costs have a far far better chance of "pausing" rather than dying. Given that the Government has (correctly) closed down their incomes, it has to also close down their outgoings for the duration.
Is it me, or is all that obvious? Or is it for some reason impossible?
Can't argue with any of that.
It's telling though, that you suggest £600 pm (which seems reasonable to me) whereas the current benefits system allows £317 pm (less for under 25s) and just £250pm each if you are part of a couple.
This is to replace wages. Workers should get more than non-workers in general don't you think?
Those who aren't working now should get the £600 too for now, but say 3 months after life gets back to normal (give time to get people back into work) if people on the benefits system want to keep £600+ they can get a job and earn it. Right now they can't.
So if you lost your job or got sick last month you get £317, if you lose it this month you get £600?
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
The loans are aimed to assist the businesses they work for and takeway workers, delivery workers, construction workers, supermarket workers, electricians, plumbers etc are even now still going to work and earning a wage.
We are not yet in full lockdown so do not yet need a temporary UBI
Great so your solution to millions of people who had steady incomes and businesses is that they become plumbers overnight!?
Get real.
No loans have been supplied to other businesses and we are not yet in full lockdown
Venice no propellers churning up the silt in canals, makes fish visible.
I suppose Ed Davey will be enjoying Layla Moran's woke look at me stupidity. If the Lib Dems have any sense keep her away from leadership.
From her Twitter a/c
Farage and Trump engaging in racial hatred by ‘pointing out’ the virus ‘started in China’. You know what else ‘started in China’? The fleet that discovered America in 1492.
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
Jobs are already gone for many because the government acted too late with too little
No. Any jobs that have already gone are gone because they're literally redundant right now. Hopefully those jobs will come back soonish and the priority has to be trying to keep dormant businesses on life support so they can rehire those they've regretfully had to lay off in the mean time - while ensuring those who've had to be laid off get money in the interim too.
Businesses have no responsibility to potentially pay people to not work for months or years.
No, but as @Cyclefree says in (excellent) thread header, HMG have caused this (albeit for good reasons) but they have not put the right support in place.
I agree. I'm advocating for the government to go further - much further.
I'm hopeful they will. I'm dry as dust normally economically but I'm advocating much more to be done and I know many other Tories who are. The government is frankly making it up as they go along on a day by day basis right now (and so they should, this is a once in a century pandemic) and I'm hopeful much more will be done soon.
Yes fair enough. And fair play to the Tory backbenchers including Greg Clark and IDS who were pushing for more thismoing in the HoC.
Even @HYUFD has just admitted a temporary UBI might be needed. Strange times indeed!
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
There is a genuine moral hazard argument in respect to this crisis that is different from the GFC bank bailouts. Even though many businesses are suffering or laying off staff or closing due to no fault of their own, once the principle is established that the government will pay all salaries / mortgages / rents / business rates etc etc etc for a indefinite period of time, it could become extremely difficult both economically and politically to return to the status quo ante, especially if this crisis drags on for 18 months or longer. The 'Chinese virus' (to use Trump's silly phrase) would have turned us permanently into a Chinese state capitalist economy.
And I write as someone who would benefit economically - at least in the short term - from that kind of gigantic big bazooka.
No there isn't. The moral hazard argument is that businesses take risks and it becomes "heads I win, tails you lose".
That is NOT the case here. Businesses aren't shut down because of their risks, their actions, their inactions or anything else like that. Businesses are shut because the Government forced them to in an unprecedented action.
So long as in the future the Government doesn't compel businesses to shut, there will be no reason to pay.
Plus as I said before, in normal circumstances if the Government closes a business it does pay anyway. Its called a compulsory purchase order normally.
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
The loans are aimed to assist the businesses they work for and takeway workers, delivery workers, construction workers, supermarket workers, electricians, plumbers etc are even now still going to work and earning a wage.
We are not yet in full lockdown so do not yet need a temporary UBI
I know you love your %s so here is an industry relevant to this website.
They are talking about losing 95% of the workforce!
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
Venice no propellers churning up the silt in canals, makes fish visible.
I suppose Ed Davey will be enjoying Layla Moran's woke look at me stupidity. If the Lib Dems have any sense keep her away from leadership.
From her Twitter a/c
Farage and Trump engaging in racial hatred by ‘pointing out’ the virus ‘started in China’. You know what else ‘started in China’? The fleet that discovered America in 1492.
1 - Suspend all longer term loan repayments. The mortgage payment for April is paused and will take effect after the crisis. Finance payment for April likewise. Loan repayment for April the same way. No interest incurred. The next accounting period for that loan is after the crisis. People and business can, if they have the capacity, continue to pay off their principal - this will help the liquidity and reduce the debt burden that we were lumbered with already. [credit card debt - short credit - will continue as is; we need contactless payments, anyway]
This will need Government to underwrite all loans. But this is liquidity - not capitalisation. The funds going in will come out automatically as payments resume after the "pause". Without this, we'll have a capitalisation crisis that will make the GFC look like a teeny tiny blip. As it's liquidity, the number involved in the support here is irrelevant - the Government can underwrite it and it will go in and out without affecting the long-term money levels.
2 - Rent is suspended as well in private and public sectors (which is why BTL mortgages are included in the above). Support to be given to Housing Associations where necessary.
3 - A basic income of £600 per month to all adults (taxable - so if you're lucky enough to retain your job, you wonn't end up getting it all). Without accommodation or loan servicing costs, this should be enough to keep people going. Cost about £30bn per month, and yes, we'll have to borrow for this. We don't have the time or bandwidth to spare working out means testing, producing a sixty page form to fill in and administer and argue about, so it's to all. We'll get some of it back in taxes under existing systems; those most in need won't pay tax on it. (The Housing Benefit bill will be less, which will slightly offset this)
4 - All business rates suspended. Of course. Businesses encouraged to furlough workers rather than lay them off; workers will at least get the basic income and not have to worry about housing costs and loan costs.
5 - Businesses that don't have to pay rent, rates, wages, and loan servicing costs have a far far better chance of "pausing" rather than dying. Given that the Government has (correctly) closed down their incomes, it has to also close down their outgoings for the duration.
Is it me, or is all that obvious? Or is it for some reason impossible?
Can't argue with any of that.
It's telling though, that you suggest £600 pm (which seems reasonable to me) whereas the current benefits system allows £317 pm (less for under 25s) and just £250pm each if you are part of a couple.
This is to replace wages. Workers should get more than non-workers in general don't you think?
Those who aren't working now should get the £600 too for now, but say 3 months after life gets back to normal (give time to get people back into work) if people on the benefits system want to keep £600+ they can get a job and earn it. Right now they can't.
So if you lost your job or got sick last month you get £317, if you lose it this month you get £600?
Yes 100%.
If you lose your job normally you get £317 and an ability to look for a new job. You could potentially have a new one within a fortnight if you're lucky.
If you lose it this month you are screwed. The entire economy is shut down and you're not even allowed to go around to businesses to hand in your CV as that would be an unnecessary social gathering. Plus other businesses in your industry are probably all just as shuttered as your old one.
The two are not comparable. For now everyone should get the £600 because the look for a job alternative has been taken away from everyone.
Venice no propellers churning up the silt in canals, makes fish visible.
I suppose Ed Davey will be enjoying Layla Moran's woke look at me stupidity. If the Lib Dems have any sense keep her away from leadership.
From her Twitter a/c
Farage and Trump engaging in racial hatred by ‘pointing out’ the virus ‘started in China’. You know what else ‘started in China’? The fleet that discovered America in 1492.
1 - Suspend all longer term loan repayments. The mortgage payment for April is paused and will take effect after the crisis. Finance payment for April likewise. Loan repayment for April the same way. No interest incurred. The next accounting period for that loan is after the crisis. People and business can, if they have the capacity, continue to pay off their principal - this will help the liquidity and reduce the debt burden that we were lumbered with already. [credit card debt - short credit - will continue as is; we need contactless payments, anyway]
This will need Government to underwrite all loans. But this is liquidity - not capitalisation. The funds going in will come out automatically as payments resume after the "pause". Without this, we'll have a capitalisation crisis that will make the GFC look like a teeny tiny blip. As it's liquidity, the number involved in the support here is irrelevant - the Government can underwrite it and it will go in and out without affecting the long-term money levels.
2 - Rent is suspended as well in private and public sectors (which is why BTL mortgages are included in the above). Support to be given to Housing Associations where necessary.
3 - A basic income of £600 per month to all adults (taxable - so if you're lucky enough to retain your job, you wonn't end up getting it all). Without accommodation or loan servicing costs, this should be enough to keep people going. Cost about £30bn per month, and yes, we'll have to borrow for this. We don't have the time or bandwidth to spare working out means testing, producing a sixty page form to fill in and administer and argue about, so it's to all. We'll get some of it back in taxes under existing systems; those most in need won't pay tax on it. (The Housing Benefit bill will be less, which will slightly offset this)
4 - All business rates suspended. Of course. Businesses encouraged to furlough workers rather than lay them off; workers will at least get the basic income and not have to worry about housing costs and loan costs.
5 - Businesses that don't have to pay rent, rates, wages, and loan servicing costs have a far far better chance of "pausing" rather than dying. Given that the Government has (correctly) closed down their incomes, it has to also close down their outgoings for the duration.
Is it me, or is all that obvious? Or is it for some reason impossible?
Can't argue with any of that.
It's telling though, that you suggest £600 pm (which seems reasonable to me) whereas the current benefits system allows £317 pm (less for under 25s) and just £250pm each if you are part of a couple.
This is to replace wages. Workers should get more than non-workers in general don't you think?
Those who aren't working now should get the £600 too for now, but say 3 months after life gets back to normal (give time to get people back into work) if people on the benefits system want to keep £600+ they can get a job and earn it. Right now they can't.
So if you lost your job or got sick last month you get £317, if you lose it this month you get £600?
Yes 100%.
If you lose your job normally you get £317 and an ability to look for a new job. You could potentially have a new one within a fortnight if you're lucky.
If you lose it this month you are screwed. The entire economy is shut down and you're not even allowed to go around to businesses to hand in your CV as that would be an unnecessary social gathering. Plus other businesses in your industry are probably all just as shuttered as your old one.
The two are not comparable.
But... If you lost your job last month or earlier but still haven't found one your chances are no better than the person losing their job tomorrow.
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
Care to quote any analysis of the impact of covid 19 on the homeless? Would be absolutely amazed if any has been done? Mean life expectancy for homeless in UK is just 44.
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
The loans are aimed to assist the businesses they work for and takeway workers, delivery workers, construction workers, supermarket workers, electricians, plumbers etc are even now still going to work and earning a wage.
We are not yet in full lockdown so do not yet need a temporary UBI
Have you had a look outside?
Yes, takeaways and supermarkets and deliveroo and Amazon warehouses for example are busier than ever before
but those who work in hospitality, non food shops such as clothing, travel industry, small firms that supply any of those etc....oh right they can be left hanging after all it will probably only be around 10 million or so of them but thats fine they don't matter in your book.
£300 billion in loans has been offered to those firms, hardly nothing
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
There are a lot more medical issues than that which makes someone high risk, a lot of homeless suffer chest infections after winter.
I have to ask are you a labour plant because you sure seem to be living up to being a typical left wing caricature of a baby eating tory. Your lack of any compassion and empathy really is astounding
Venice no propellers churning up the silt in canals, makes fish visible.
I suppose Ed Davey will be enjoying Layla Moran's woke look at me stupidity. If the Lib Dems have any sense keep her away from leadership.
From her Twitter a/c
Farage and Trump engaging in racial hatred by ‘pointing out’ the virus ‘started in China’. You know what else ‘started in China’? The fleet that discovered America in 1492.
She thinks Columbus was Chinese?
Badly phrased but yes the fleet was sailing to find a new route to China, not to find America.
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
Can you link to the scientific evidence that economic circumstances make little difference, especially in relation to homelessness please, thanks
Venice no propellers churning up the silt in canals, makes fish visible.
I suppose Ed Davey will be enjoying Layla Moran's woke look at me stupidity. If the Lib Dems have any sense keep her away from leadership.
From her Twitter a/c
Farage and Trump engaging in racial hatred by ‘pointing out’ the virus ‘started in China’. You know what else ‘started in China’? The fleet that discovered America in 1492.
She thinks Columbus was Chinese?
Badly phrased but yes the fleet was sailing to find a new route to China, not to find America.
Also the term is rediscovered I believe as its fairly well accepted by now that the vikings discovered it earlier
"I’ve just spoken to the devastated manager of a foodbank in West Yorkshire that had more than £500 worth of food and toiletries stolen when it was broken into on Wednesday evening.
Janet Burns, who helps run the Knottingley foodbank, said four people had prized open the locks of one of its storage facilities and “ransacked” the place of essential items.
She said volunteers had taken delivery of a huge donation 24 hours before the burglary – which was all stolen in the raid. She said food, sanitary products, toilet roll and even Easter eggs that they were saving for next month had all been taken.
“It’s dire, it really is,” she said. “It’s soul-destroying for the volunteers. The people that have stolen have stolen from the general public not just the foodbank.”
Burns said demand on the foodbank had gone through the roof in the past week due to the coronavirus. She said volunteers were having to turn some people away unless they were known to them or had vouchers for free school meals."
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
The loans are aimed to assist the businesses they work for and takeway workers, delivery workers, construction workers, supermarket workers, electricians, plumbers etc are even now still going to work and earning a wage.
We are not yet in full lockdown so do not yet need a temporary UBI
Have you had a look outside?
Yes, takeaways and supermarkets and deliveroo and Amazon warehouses for example are busier than ever before
but those who work in hospitality, non food shops such as clothing, travel industry, small firms that supply any of those etc....oh right they can be left hanging after all it will probably only be around 10 million or so of them but thats fine they don't matter in your book.
£300 billion in loans has been offered to those firms, hardly nothing
They could offer £300tn in loans, but if the terms are not attractive to the firms that need it then there is no real support, and it becomes close to nothing.
1 - Suspend all longer term loan repayments. The mortgage payment for April is paused and will take effect after the crisis. Finance payment for April likewise. Loan repayment for April the same way. No interest incurred. The next accounting period for that loan is after the crisis. People and business can, if they have the capacity, continue to pay off their principal - this will help the liquidity and reduce the debt burden that we were lumbered with already. [credit card debt - short credit - will continue as is; we need contactless payments, anyway]
This will need Government to underwrite all loans. But this is liquidity - not capitalisation. The funds going in will come out automatically as payments resume after the "pause". Without this, we'll have a capitalisation crisis that will make the GFC look like a teeny tiny blip. As it's liquidity, the number involved in the support here is irrelevant - the Government can underwrite it and it will go in and out without affecting the long-term money levels.
2 - Rent is suspended as well in private and public sectors (which is why BTL mortgages are included in the above). Support to be given to Housing Associations where necessary.
3 - A basic income of £600 per month to all adults (taxable - so if you're lucky enough to retain your job, you wonn't end up getting it all). Without accommodation or loan servicing costs, this should be enough to keep people going. Cost about £30bn per month, and yes, we'll have to borrow for this. We don't have the time or bandwidth to spare working out means testing, producing a sixty page form to fill in and administer and argue about, so it's to all. We'll get some of it back in taxes under existing systems; those most in need won't pay tax on it. (The Housing Benefit bill will be less, which will slightly offset this)
4 - All business rates suspended. Of course. Businesses encouraged to furlough workers rather than lay them off; workers will at least get the basic income and not have to worry about housing costs and loan costs.
5 - Businesses that don't have to pay rent, rates, wages, and loan servicing costs have a far far better chance of "pausing" rather than dying. Given that the Government has (correctly) closed down their incomes, it has to also close down their outgoings for the duration.
Is it me, or is all that obvious? Or is it for some reason impossible?
Can't argue with any of that.
It's telling though, that you suggest £600 pm (which seems reasonable to me) whereas the current benefits system allows £317 pm (less for under 25s) and just £250pm each if you are part of a couple.
This is to replace wages. Workers should get more than non-workers in general don't you think?
Those who aren't working now should get the £600 too for now, but say 3 months after life gets back to normal (give time to get people back into work) if people on the benefits system want to keep £600+ they can get a job and earn it. Right now they can't.
So if you lost your job or got sick last month you get £317, if you lose it this month you get £600?
Yes 100%.
If you lose your job normally you get £317 and an ability to look for a new job. You could potentially have a new one within a fortnight if you're lucky.
If you lose it this month you are screwed. The entire economy is shut down and you're not even allowed to go around to businesses to hand in your CV as that would be an unnecessary social gathering. Plus other businesses in your industry are probably all just as shuttered as your old one.
The two are not comparable.
But... If you lost your job last month or earlier but still haven't found one your chances are no better than the person losing their job tomorrow.
Which is why everyone for the duration of this crisis (and I added for 3 months afterwards) should get £600 a month. Once life returns to normal, and I'm assuming that's about 3 months after restrictions are lifted, the floor can go back down to £317.
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
There are a lot more medical issues than that which makes someone high risk, a lot of homeless suffer chest infections after winter.
I have to ask are you a labour plant because you sure seem to be living up to being a typical left wing caricature of a baby eating tory. Your lack of any compassion and empathy really is astounding
Some may, many may not but factually my point remains true, a 30 year old homeless person on average will have more chance of surviving Covid 19 than an 80 year old rich person.
If being factually correct means you want to characterise me as evil so be it, rather that than make a factually inaccurate statement just so you can portray me as a fluffy bunny
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
Care to quote any analysis of the impact of covid 19 on the homeless? Would be absolutely amazed if any has been done? Mean life expectancy for homeless in UK is just 44.
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
The loans are aimed to assist the businesses they work for and takeway workers, delivery workers, construction workers, supermarket workers, electricians, plumbers etc are even now still going to work and earning a wage.
We are not yet in full lockdown so do not yet need a temporary UBI
Have you had a look outside?
Yes, takeaways and supermarkets and deliveroo and Amazon warehouses for example are busier than ever before
but those who work in hospitality, non food shops such as clothing, travel industry, small firms that supply any of those etc....oh right they can be left hanging after all it will probably only be around 10 million or so of them but thats fine they don't matter in your book.
£300 billion in loans has been offered to those firms, hardly nothing
They could offer £300tn in loans, but if the terms are not attractive to the firms that need it then there is no real support, and it becomes close to nothing.
Nor does it help staff if its merely used to keep the company ticking along as a dormant entity. I think the next unemployment stats are going to be a real shocker.
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
There are a lot more medical issues than that which makes someone high risk, a lot of homeless suffer chest infections after winter.
I have to ask are you a labour plant because you sure seem to be living up to being a typical left wing caricature of a baby eating tory. Your lack of any compassion and empathy really is astounding
Some may, many may not but factually my point remains true, a 30 year old homeless person on average will have more chance of surviving Covid 19 than an 80 year old rich person.
If being factually correct means you want to characterise me as evil so be it, rather that than make a factually inaccurate statement just so you can portray me as a fluffy bunny
You've provided no facts for that bullshit. The catchall phrase "unless there is some pre existing health condition" eliminated that claim since homeless people do have pre-existing health conditions.
"I’ve just spoken to the devastated manager of a foodbank in West Yorkshire that had more than £500 worth of food and toiletries stolen when it was broken into on Wednesday evening.
Janet Burns, who helps run the Knottingley foodbank, said four people had prized open the locks of one of its storage facilities and “ransacked” the place of essential items.
She said volunteers had taken delivery of a huge donation 24 hours before the burglary – which was all stolen in the raid. She said food, sanitary products, toilet roll and even Easter eggs that they were saving for next month had all been taken.
“It’s dire, it really is,” she said. “It’s soul-destroying for the volunteers. The people that have stolen have stolen from the general public not just the foodbank.”
Burns said demand on the foodbank had gone through the roof in the past week due to the coronavirus. She said volunteers were having to turn some people away unless they were known to them or had vouchers for free school meals."
This background makes income measures even more urgent. The UK already had higher numbers in food hardship than the rest of northern europe, thanks to decades of economically and socially damaging benefits policies, before the onset of the crisis.
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
Can you link to the scientific evidence that economic circumstances make little difference, especially in relation to homelessness please, thanks
The key determinant of mortality in relation to Covid 19 is age, an 80 year old rich person might be slightly more likely to survive it than an 80 year old poor person but an 80 year old rich person would not be more likely to survive it than a 30 year old poor person
1 - Suspend all longer term loan repayments. The mortgage payment for April is paused and will take effect after the crisis. Finance payment for April likewise. Loan repayment for April the same way. No interest incurred. The next accounting period for that loan is after the crisis. People and business can, if they have the capacity, continue to pay off their principal - this will help the liquidity and reduce the debt burden that we were lumbered with already. [credit card debt - short credit - will continue as is; we need contactless payments, anyway]
This will need Government to underwrite all loans. But this is liquidity - not capitalisation. The funds going in will come out automatically as payments resume after the "pause". Without this, we'll have a capitalisation crisis that will make the GFC look like a teeny tiny blip. As it's liquidity, the number involved in the support here is irrelevant - the Government can underwrite it and it will go in and out without affecting the long-term money levels.
2 - Rent is suspended as well in private and public sectors (which is why BTL mortgages are included in the above). Support to be given to Housing Associations where necessary.
3 - A basic income of £600 per month to all adults (taxable - so if you're lucky enough to retain your job, you wonn't end up getting it all). Without accommodation or loan servicing costs, this should be enough to keep people going. Cost about £30bn per month, and yes, we'll have to borrow for this. We don't have the time or bandwidth to spare working out means testing, producing a sixty page form to fill in and administer and argue about, so it's to all. We'll get some of it back in taxes under existing systems; those most in need won't pay tax on it. (The Housing Benefit bill will be less, which will slightly offset this)
4 - All business rates suspended. Of course. Businesses encouraged to furlough workers rather than lay them off; workers will at least get the basic income and not have to worry about housing costs and loan costs.
5 - Businesses that don't have to pay rent, rates, wages, and loan servicing costs have a far far better chance of "pausing" rather than dying. Given that the Government has (correctly) closed down their incomes, it has to also close down their outgoings for the duration.
Is it me, or is all that obvious? Or is it for some reason impossible?
Can't argue with any of that.
It's telling though, that you suggest £600 pm (which seems reasonable to me) whereas the current benefits system allows £317 pm (less for under 25s) and just £250pm each if you are part of a couple.
This is to replace wages. Workers should get more than non-workers in general don't you think?
Those who aren't working now should get the £600 too for now, but say 3 months after life gets back to normal (give time to get people back into work) if people on the benefits system want to keep £600+ they can get a job and earn it. Right now they can't.
So if you lost your job or got sick last month you get £317, if you lose it this month you get £600?
Yes 100%.
If you lose your job normally you get £317 and an ability to look for a new job. You could potentially have a new one within a fortnight if you're lucky.
If you lose it this month you are screwed. The entire economy is shut down and you're not even allowed to go around to businesses to hand in your CV as that would be an unnecessary social gathering. Plus other businesses in your industry are probably all just as shuttered as your old one.
The two are not comparable.
But... If you lost your job last month or earlier but still haven't found one your chances are no better than the person losing their job tomorrow.
Which is why everyone for the duration of this crisis (and I added for 3 months afterwards) should get £600 a month. Once life returns to normal, and I'm assuming that's about 3 months after restrictions are lifted, the floor can go back down to £317.
Ah right, got you. And yes I broadly agree. (Though I would like to see the £317 raised in respect of those whose proven long-term health conditions preclude them getting a job.)
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
There are a lot more medical issues than that which makes someone high risk, a lot of homeless suffer chest infections after winter.
I have to ask are you a labour plant because you sure seem to be living up to being a typical left wing caricature of a baby eating tory. Your lack of any compassion and empathy really is astounding
Some may, many may not but factually my point remains true, a 30 year old homeless person on average will have more chance of surviving Covid 19 than an 80 year old rich person.
If being factually correct means you want to characterise me as evil so be it, rather that than make a factually inaccurate statement just so you can portray me as a fluffy bunny
You've provided no facts for that bullshit. The catchall phrase "unless there is some pre existing health condition" eliminated that claim since homeless people do have pre-existing health conditions.
Show me one piece of evidence economic circumstance is more important than age in determining Covid 19 mortality?
Venice no propellers churning up the silt in canals, makes fish visible.
I suppose Ed Davey will be enjoying Layla Moran's woke look at me stupidity. If the Lib Dems have any sense keep her away from leadership.
From her Twitter a/c
Farage and Trump engaging in racial hatred by ‘pointing out’ the virus ‘started in China’. You know what else ‘started in China’? The fleet that discovered America in 1492.
She thinks Columbus was Chinese?
Badly phrased but yes the fleet was sailing to find a new route to China, not to find America.
Also the term is rediscovered I believe as its fairly well accepted by now that the vikings discovered it earlier
There's some evidence, I believe, that Breton fishermen were fishing on what we now call the Newfoundland Grand Banks earlier in the 15thC.
Columbus set off from the Canaries, where there where also deep sea fishermen.
"There is "zero prospect" of restrictions on travel in and out of London over the coronavirus pandemic, Downing Street has said.
The government has moved to dampen down speculation that a full-scale lockdown of the capital could be enforced in order to combat COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson's official spokesman said: "There are no plans to close down the transport network in London and there is zero prospect of any restrictions being placed on travelling in and out of London."
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
There are a lot more medical issues than that which makes someone high risk, a lot of homeless suffer chest infections after winter.
I have to ask are you a labour plant because you sure seem to be living up to being a typical left wing caricature of a baby eating tory. Your lack of any compassion and empathy really is astounding
Some may, many may not but factually my point remains true, a 30 year old homeless person on average will have more chance of surviving Covid 19 than an 80 year old rich person.
If being factually correct means you want to characterise me as evil so be it, rather that than make a factually inaccurate statement just so you can portray me as a fluffy bunny
You've provided no facts for that bullshit. The catchall phrase "unless there is some pre existing health condition" eliminated that claim since homeless people do have pre-existing health conditions.
Show me one piece of evidence economic circumstance is more important than age in determining Covid 19 mortality?
Ill health can be both a cause and consequence of homelessness, although it is not always identified as the trigger of homelessness. For example, ill health may contribute to job loss or relationship breakdown, which in turn can result in homelessness.
The health and wellbeing of people who experience homelessness are poorer than that of the general population. They often experience the most significant health inequalities. The longer a person experiences homelessness, particularly from young adulthood, the more likely their health and wellbeing will be at risk.
Co-morbidity (2 or more diseases or disorders occurring in the same person) among the longer-term homeless population is not uncommon. Recent ONS statistics show that the mean age of death of homeless people is 32 years lower than the general population at 44 years, and even lower for homeless women, at just 42 years.
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
There are a lot more medical issues than that which makes someone high risk, a lot of homeless suffer chest infections after winter.
I have to ask are you a labour plant because you sure seem to be living up to being a typical left wing caricature of a baby eating tory. Your lack of any compassion and empathy really is astounding
Some may, many may not but factually my point remains true, a 30 year old homeless person on average will have more chance of surviving Covid 19 than an 80 year old rich person.
If being factually correct means you want to characterise me as evil so be it, rather that than make a factually inaccurate statement just so you can portray me as a fluffy bunny
You've provided no facts for that bullshit. The catchall phrase "unless there is some pre existing health condition" eliminated that claim since homeless people do have pre-existing health conditions.
Show me one piece of evidence economic circumstance is more important than age in determining Covid 19 mortality?
Homelessness is not "economic circumstance" FFS. You really are a sheltered fool and make a mockery of Tories.
"I’ve just spoken to the devastated manager of a foodbank in West Yorkshire that had more than £500 worth of food and toiletries stolen when it was broken into on Wednesday evening.
Janet Burns, who helps run the Knottingley foodbank, said four people had prized open the locks of one of its storage facilities and “ransacked” the place of essential items.
She said volunteers had taken delivery of a huge donation 24 hours before the burglary – which was all stolen in the raid. She said food, sanitary products, toilet roll and even Easter eggs that they were saving for next month had all been taken.
“It’s dire, it really is,” she said. “It’s soul-destroying for the volunteers. The people that have stolen have stolen from the general public not just the foodbank.”
Burns said demand on the foodbank had gone through the roof in the past week due to the coronavirus. She said volunteers were having to turn some people away unless they were known to them or had vouchers for free school meals."
A senior Italian healthcare professional was on CH4 news last night saying a serious problem they are having is a shortage of masks and gloves, because the public keep stealing them.
Venice no propellers churning up the silt in canals, makes fish visible.
I suppose Ed Davey will be enjoying Layla Moran's woke look at me stupidity. If the Lib Dems have any sense keep her away from leadership.
From her Twitter a/c
Farage and Trump engaging in racial hatred by ‘pointing out’ the virus ‘started in China’. You know what else ‘started in China’? The fleet that discovered America in 1492.
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
The loans are aimed to assist the businesses they work for and takeway workers, delivery workers, construction workers, supermarket workers, electricians, plumbers etc are even now still going to work and earning a wage.
We are not yet in full lockdown so do not yet need a temporary UBI
Have you had a look outside?
Yes, takeaways and supermarkets and deliveroo and Amazon warehouses for example are busier than ever before
but those who work in hospitality, non food shops such as clothing, travel industry, small firms that supply any of those etc....oh right they can be left hanging after all it will probably only be around 10 million or so of them but thats fine they don't matter in your book.
£300 billion in loans has been offered to those firms, hardly nothing
£300 billion in loans is a net nothing. You see, loans are only your own money moved through time. Government takes in money from you in the future and gives it to you today - all the money came from you. What the Government gave is a total of nothing.
Oh, the ability to access your own future money today is a positive, but the interest they intend to charge on that balances that out. So yes, it's not far from nothing.
Venice no propellers churning up the silt in canals, makes fish visible.
I suppose Ed Davey will be enjoying Layla Moran's woke look at me stupidity. If the Lib Dems have any sense keep her away from leadership.
From her Twitter a/c
Farage and Trump engaging in racial hatred by ‘pointing out’ the virus ‘started in China’. You know what else ‘started in China’? The fleet that discovered America in 1492.
She thinks Columbus was Chinese?
Badly phrased but yes the fleet was sailing to find a new route to China, not to find America.
Extremely badly phrased. So much so that it in fact suggests it started in China.
In such a fast moving situation, is a poll that is up to six days out of date worth anything?
And when the government do take action, we have tw@ts still saying but I am fit and healthy I am off down the pub and the bastards have closed schools, it is totally wrong.
If they lockdown London, all we will hear is wailing of how unfair it is that I can't go outside.
"There is "zero prospect" of restrictions on travel in and out of London over the coronavirus pandemic, Downing Street has said.
The government has moved to dampen down speculation that a full-scale lockdown of the capital could be enforced in order to combat COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson's official spokesman said: "There are no plans to close down the transport network in London and there is zero prospect of any restrictions being placed on travelling in and out of London."
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
There are a lot more medical issues than that which makes someone high risk, a lot of homeless suffer chest infections after winter.
I have to ask are you a labour plant because you sure seem to be living up to being a typical left wing caricature of a baby eating tory. Your lack of any compassion and empathy really is astounding
Some may, many may not but factually my point remains true, a 30 year old homeless person on average will have more chance of surviving Covid 19 than an 80 year old rich person.
If being factually correct means you want to characterise me as evil so be it, rather that than make a factually inaccurate statement just so you can portray me as a fluffy bunny
You've provided no facts for that bullshit. The catchall phrase "unless there is some pre existing health condition" eliminated that claim since homeless people do have pre-existing health conditions.
Show me one piece of evidence economic circumstance is more important than age in determining Covid 19 mortality?
Homelessness is not "economic circumstance" FFS. You really are a sheltered fool and make a mockery of Tories.
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
There are a lot more medical issues than that which makes someone high risk, a lot of homeless suffer chest infections after winter.
I have to ask are you a labour plant because you sure seem to be living up to being a typical left wing caricature of a baby eating tory. Your lack of any compassion and empathy really is astounding
Some may, many may not but factually my point remains true, a 30 year old homeless person on average will have more chance of surviving Covid 19 than an 80 year old rich person.
If being factually correct means you want to characterise me as evil so be it, rather that than make a factually inaccurate statement just so you can portray me as a fluffy bunny
You've provided no facts for that bullshit. The catchall phrase "unless there is some pre existing health condition" eliminated that claim since homeless people do have pre-existing health conditions.
Show me one piece of evidence economic circumstance is more important than age in determining Covid 19 mortality?
Homelessness is not "economic circumstance" FFS. You really are a sheltered fool and make a mockery of Tories.
Yes it is, a very difficult economic circumstance maybe but an economic circumstance nonetheless ie no housing
Mr. 1000, whilst wrong, the 1492 tweet does have a backstory.
There's a book about a 15th century Chinese fleet visiting the American continent. It turned out to be nonsense, but sold a bucketload, so that's likely the origin of the claim.
It's wrong, but only as wrong as people who claim Canute was foiled when he tried to turn back the tide.
"99% of patients killed by coronavirus in Italy had existing illnesses, study finds Research into 355 deaths found that only three (0.8%) had no other illnesses Nearly half of them - 48.5% - already had three or even more health conditions Another 25.6% had two other 'pathologies', while 25.1% had one other illness"
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
The loans are aimed to assist the businesses they work for and takeway workers, delivery workers, construction workers, supermarket workers, electricians, plumbers etc are even now still going to work and earning a wage.
We are not yet in full lockdown so do not yet need a temporary UBI
Have you had a look outside?
Yes, takeaways and supermarkets and deliveroo and Amazon warehouses for example are busier than ever before
but those who work in hospitality, non food shops such as clothing, travel industry, small firms that supply any of those etc....oh right they can be left hanging after all it will probably only be around 10 million or so of them but thats fine they don't matter in your book.
£300 billion in loans has been offered to those firms, hardly nothing
£300 billion in loans is a net nothing. You see, loans are only your own money moved through time. Government takes in money from you in the future and gives it to you today - all the money came from you. What the Government gave is a total of nothing.
Oh, the ability to access your own future money today is a positive, but the interest they intend to charge on that balances that out. So yes, it's not far from nothing.
And grants also come from you, through taxes and not just those who borrowed
In such a fast moving situation, is a poll that is up to six days out of date worth anything?
And when the government do take action, we have tw@ts still saying but I am fit and healthy I am off down the pub and the bastards have closed schools, it is totally wrong.
If they lockdown London, all we will hear is wailing of how unfair it is that I can't go outside.
I think the latest view is they aren't going to lock-down London. Generally HMG have got it about right on the health and social restrictions front.
Sadly lacking imagination and action on the economic front though - they need to correct that very quickly.
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
There are a lot more medical issues than that which makes someone high risk, a lot of homeless suffer chest infections after winter.
I have to ask are you a labour plant because you sure seem to be living up to being a typical left wing caricature of a baby eating tory. Your lack of any compassion and empathy really is astounding
Some may, many may not but factually my point remains true, a 30 year old homeless person on average will have more chance of surviving Covid 19 than an 80 year old rich person.
If being factually correct means you want to characterise me as evil so be it, rather that than make a factually inaccurate statement just so you can portray me as a fluffy bunny
You've provided no facts for that bullshit. The catchall phrase "unless there is some pre existing health condition" eliminated that claim since homeless people do have pre-existing health conditions.
Show me one piece of evidence economic circumstance is more important than age in determining Covid 19 mortality?
Homelessness is not "economic circumstance" FFS. You really are a sheltered fool and make a mockery of Tories.
Yes it is, a very difficult economic circumstance maybe but an economic circumstance nonetheless ie no housing
I posted you evidence down thread I notice you are ignoring it....to repeat the life expectancy of a homeless man is 44 years and a homeless woman 42 years and you don't think these have as many or more health problems than a multimillionaire 80 year old that has the best doctors and treatments on tap and are more likely to survive it.
You really are a joke and doing the left wings job for it they merely need to point at you and say "See....tories"
"I’ve just spoken to the devastated manager of a foodbank in West Yorkshire that had more than £500 worth of food and toiletries stolen when it was broken into on Wednesday evening.
Janet Burns, who helps run the Knottingley foodbank, said four people had prized open the locks of one of its storage facilities and “ransacked” the place of essential items.
She said volunteers had taken delivery of a huge donation 24 hours before the burglary – which was all stolen in the raid. She said food, sanitary products, toilet roll and even Easter eggs that they were saving for next month had all been taken.
“It’s dire, it really is,” she said. “It’s soul-destroying for the volunteers. The people that have stolen have stolen from the general public not just the foodbank.”
Burns said demand on the foodbank had gone through the roof in the past week due to the coronavirus. She said volunteers were having to turn some people away unless they were known to them or had vouchers for free school meals."
A senior Italian healthcare professional was on CH4 news last night saying a serious problem they are having is a shortage of masks and gloves, because the public keep stealing them.
In such a fast moving situation, is a poll that is up to six days out of date worth anything?
And when the government do take action, we have tw@ts still saying but I am fit and healthy I am off down the pub and the bastards have closed schools, it is totally wrong.
If they lockdown London, all we will hear is wailing of how unfair it is that I can't go outside.
I think the latest view is they aren't going to lock-down London. Generally HMG have got it about right on the health and social restrictions front.
Sadly lacking imagination and action on the economic front though - they need to correct that very quickly.
I am willing to give them a bit more time. I would rather a few days to try and think things through a bit than just blurt out few money all round and have to roll it back.
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
There are a lot more medical issues than that which makes someone high risk, a lot of homeless suffer chest infections after winter.
I have to ask are you a labour plant because you sure seem to be living up to being a typical left wing caricature of a baby eating tory. Your lack of any compassion and empathy really is astounding
Some may, many may not but factually my point remains true, a 30 year old homeless person on average will have more chance of surviving Covid 19 than an 80 year old rich person.
If being factually correct means you want to characterise me as evil so be it, rather that than make a factually inaccurate statement just so you can portray me as a fluffy bunny
You've provided no facts for that bullshit. The catchall phrase "unless there is some pre existing health condition" eliminated that claim since homeless people do have pre-existing health conditions.
Show me one piece of evidence economic circumstance is more important than age in determining Covid 19 mortality?
Ill health can be both a cause and consequence of homelessness, although it is not always identified as the trigger of homelessness. For example, ill health may contribute to job loss or relationship breakdown, which in turn can result in homelessness.
The health and wellbeing of people who experience homelessness are poorer than that of the general population. They often experience the most significant health inequalities. The longer a person experiences homelessness, particularly from young adulthood, the more likely their health and wellbeing will be at risk.
Co-morbidity (2 or more diseases or disorders occurring in the same person) among the longer-term homeless population is not uncommon. Recent ONS statistics show that the mean age of death of homeless people is 32 years lower than the general population at 44 years, and even lower for homeless women, at just 42 years.
please note life expectancy for the homeless 44 years and 42 years
So again no evidence whatsoever a 30 year old homeless person is more likely to die from Covid 19 than an 80 year old rich person, even if there are not many 80 year old homeless people to compare to an 80 year old rich person might live longer than them but not a 30 year old homeless person
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
There are a lot more medical issues than that which makes someone high risk, a lot of homeless suffer chest infections after winter.
I have to ask are you a labour plant because you sure seem to be living up to being a typical left wing caricature of a baby eating tory. Your lack of any compassion and empathy really is astounding
Some may, many may not but factually my point remains true, a 30 year old homeless person on average will have more chance of surviving Covid 19 than an 80 year old rich person.
If being factually correct means you want to characterise me as evil so be it, rather that than make a factually inaccurate statement just so you can portray me as a fluffy bunny
You've provided no facts for that bullshit. The catchall phrase "unless there is some pre existing health condition" eliminated that claim since homeless people do have pre-existing health conditions.
Show me one piece of evidence economic circumstance is more important than age in determining Covid 19 mortality?
Ill health can be both a cause and consequence of homelessness, although it is not always identified as the trigger of homelessness. For example, ill health may contribute to job loss or relationship breakdown, which in turn can result in homelessness.
The health and wellbeing of people who experience homelessness are poorer than that of the general population. They often experience the most significant health inequalities. The longer a person experiences homelessness, particularly from young adulthood, the more likely their health and wellbeing will be at risk.
Co-morbidity (2 or more diseases or disorders occurring in the same person) among the longer-term homeless population is not uncommon. Recent ONS statistics show that the mean age of death of homeless people is 32 years lower than the general population at 44 years, and even lower for homeless women, at just 42 years.
please note life expectancy for the homeless 44 years and 42 years
So again no evidence whatsoever a 30 year old homeless person is more likely to die from Covid 19 than an 80 year old rich person, even if there are not many 80 year old homeless people to compare to an 80 year old rich person might live longer than them but not a 30 year old homeless person
"99% of patients killed by coronavirus in Italy had existing illnesses, study finds Research into 355 deaths found that only three (0.8%) had no other illnesses Nearly half of them - 48.5% - already had three or even more health conditions Another 25.6% had two other 'pathologies', while 25.1% had one other illness"
I don't think there are many old people without at least one of what they are calling an existing illness. But interesting (if that is the right word) that half have 3 or more.
Mr. 1000, whilst wrong, the 1492 tweet does have a backstory.
There's a book about a 15th century Chinese fleet visiting the American continent. It turned out to be nonsense, but sold a bucketload, so that's likely the origin of the claim.
It's wrong, but only as wrong as people who claim Canute was foiled when he tried to turn back the tide.
But that false book claimed a 15th century Chinese fleet visited America earlier in the 15th century, not in 1492. There's no claim to my knowledge the Chinese did it in 1492.
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
There are a lot more medical issues than that which makes someone high risk, a lot of homeless suffer chest infections after winter.
I have to ask are you a labour plant because you sure seem to be living up to being a typical left wing caricature of a baby eating tory. Your lack of any compassion and empathy really is astounding
Some may, many may not but factually my point remains true, a 30 year old homeless person on average will have more chance of surviving Covid 19 than an 80 year old rich person.
If being factually correct means you want to characterise me as evil so be it, rather that than make a factually inaccurate statement just so you can portray me as a fluffy bunny
You've provided no facts for that bullshit. The catchall phrase "unless there is some pre existing health condition" eliminated that claim since homeless people do have pre-existing health conditions.
Show me one piece of evidence economic circumstance is more important than age in determining Covid 19 mortality?
Homelessness is not "economic circumstance" FFS. You really are a sheltered fool and make a mockery of Tories.
Yes it is, a very difficult economic circumstance maybe but an economic circumstance nonetheless ie no housing
I posted you evidence down thread I notice you are ignoring it....to repeat the life expectancy of a homeless man is 44 years and a homeless woman 42 years and you don't think these have as many or more health problems than a multimillionaire 80 year old that has the best doctors and treatments on tap and are more likely to survive it.
You really are a joke and doing the left wings job for it they merely need to point at you and say "See....tories"
I said 30 year old homeless person not 44 year old homeless person.
Hi @Big_G_NorthWales. I cannot see a message from you via Vanilla, but I am not very good at working the software. I am looking at my inbox and I can see my message to you but no message to me @James_M
Mr. 1000, whilst wrong, the 1492 tweet does have a backstory.
There's a book about a 15th century Chinese fleet visiting the American continent. It turned out to be nonsense, but sold a bucketload, so that's likely the origin of the claim.
It's wrong, but only as wrong as people who claim Canute was foiled when he tried to turn back the tide.
Didn't Chinese get to the Pacific coasts of what is now the USA? I'm somewhat surprised, as they had the resources. Pretty sure they got as far as Australia, but didn't like the bit they got to. Incidentally I'm sure I was reading the other day that there's some evidence of Australasian ancestry in ancient South American populations.
In such a fast moving situation, is a poll that is up to six days out of date worth anything?
And when the government do take action, we have tw@ts still saying but I am fit and healthy I am off down the pub and the bastards have closed schools, it is totally wrong.
If they lockdown London, all we will hear is wailing of how unfair it is that I can't go outside.
I think the latest view is they aren't going to lock-down London. Generally HMG have got it about right on the health and social restrictions front.
Sadly lacking imagination and action on the economic front though - they need to correct that very quickly.
I am willing to give them a bit more time. I would rather a few days to try and think things through a bit than just blurt out few money all round and have to roll it back.
They need to make it clear they are going to do something. Tell business not to lay anyone off this week.
Then announce the plan by Monday next week. That gives them 4 days which has to be plenty in the circumstances.
If the government replaces loans with grants and replaces sick pay and benefits with an effective UBI the money for that will not come from the trees. It will require a huge tax bill for every household and business in the country once this crisis is over, not just repayment of loans by borrowers, with a huge consequent further negative impact on growth
True. And I'm fairly economically on the right. But if you as the government take away the right of people to work, I think you have to provide support. And loans don't work because they will never be paid back.
Now isnt really the time to worry about the long term.
If we go into full lockdown and nobody is allowed to go to work bar key emergency services workers unless they can work at home then that would be the time for a temporary UBI but we are not there yet
Yes we are. Most people can't work from home.
For millions of people who work in hospitality, travel, tourism, retail or a plethora of other jobs we are there NOW.
The loans are aimed to assist the businesses they work for and takeway workers, delivery workers, construction workers, supermarket workers, electricians, plumbers etc are even now still going to work and earning a wage.
We are not yet in full lockdown so do not yet need a temporary UBI
Have you had a look outside?
Yes, takeaways and supermarkets and deliveroo and Amazon warehouses for example are busier than ever before
but those who work in hospitality, non food shops such as clothing, travel industry, small firms that supply any of those etc....oh right they can be left hanging after all it will probably only be around 10 million or so of them but thats fine they don't matter in your book.
£300 billion in loans has been offered to those firms, hardly nothing
£300 billion in loans is a net nothing. You see, loans are only your own money moved through time. Government takes in money from you in the future and gives it to you today - all the money came from you. What the Government gave is a total of nothing.
Oh, the ability to access your own future money today is a positive, but the interest they intend to charge on that balances that out. So yes, it's not far from nothing.
And grants also come from you, through taxes and not just those who borrowed
Yes. Pooled risk. It's part of the entire point of having a State. One with an economy that's shared by all of us.
The government should help those whose businesses collapse as a result of COVID-19, certainly. The cost does need to be spread out across society, and it's not realistic to expect them to recoup most of their lost earnings, but the government should do what is necessary to prevent their lives falling apart.
But the people who will be hit hardest by this will be the homeless, as usual. They have little opportunity to follow guidance on social distancing and hygiene, and if they catch the disease, their outlook is very poor. Even if they don't, the reduced footfall and the prioritisation of other matters will mean the difference between life and death for many. Do spare a thought for them and show them kindness if you can.
Yes we need to help the homeless but you are more likely to survive Covid 19 as a 30 year old homeless person living under a bridge in Kensington than an 80 year old multi millionaire living in a mansion down the road
total and utter piffle.....I suspect most 80 year old multi millionaires are in far better physical condition than 30 year olds who have been sleeping under a bridge through the winter and in addition will get far better care if they do get it.
Physically they won't be, the ageing process means an 80 year old will always be more decrepit than a 30 year old unless there is some other pre existing health condition. A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
The homeless are proverbial for having severe health issues get a grip you are bringing tories into disrepute the more you spout
Unless a homeless person has a pre existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or a heart condition then medically and factually my point is correct, Covid 19 has close to a 20% death rate for over 80s but less than 1% for 30 year olds and economic circumstance makes little difference to that
There are a lot more medical issues than that which makes someone high risk, a lot of homeless suffer chest infections after winter.
I have to ask are you a labour plant because you sure seem to be living up to being a typical left wing caricature of a baby eating tory. Your lack of any compassion and empathy really is astounding
Some may, many may not but factually my point remains true, a 30 year old homeless person on average will have more chance of surviving Covid 19 than an 80 year old rich person.
If being factually correct means you want to characterise me as evil so be it, rather that than make a factually inaccurate statement just so you can portray me as a fluffy bunny
You've provided no facts for that bullshit. The catchall phrase "unless there is some pre existing health condition" eliminated that claim since homeless people do have pre-existing health conditions.
Show me one piece of evidence economic circumstance is more important than age in determining Covid 19 mortality?
Homelessness is not "economic circumstance" FFS. You really are a sheltered fool and make a mockery of Tories.
Yes it is, a very difficult economic circumstance maybe but an economic circumstance nonetheless ie no housing
I posted you evidence down thread I notice you are ignoring it....to repeat the life expectancy of a homeless man is 44 years and a homeless woman 42 years and you don't think these have as many or more health problems than a multimillionaire 80 year old that has the best doctors and treatments on tap and are more likely to survive it.
You really are a joke and doing the left wings job for it they merely need to point at you and say "See....tories"
I said 30 year old homeless person not 44 year old homeless person.
In the old days it would have been deemed an act of God in response to the damage we have done to his world. Maybe the future will see it recorded that way!
Any environmentalists who oppose mass immigration and globalism must be feeling a strange mixture of pretty smug and extreme concern
I wasn't previously aware that you were such a keen green/environmentalist but your points on this element of the crisis have been challenging and interesting. The Venice canals story is a straw in the wind (or a fish in the water?)
Cheers Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten, as Balzac apparently didn’t say.
In such a fast moving situation, is a poll that is up to six days out of date worth anything?
And when the government do take action, we have tw@ts still saying but I am fit and healthy I am off down the pub and the bastards have closed schools, it is totally wrong.
If they lockdown London, all we will hear is wailing of how unfair it is that I can't go outside.
I think the latest view is they aren't going to lock-down London. Generally HMG have got it about right on the health and social restrictions front.
Sadly lacking imagination and action on the economic front though - they need to correct that very quickly.
I am willing to give them a bit more time. I would rather a few days to try and think things through a bit than just blurt out few money all round and have to roll it back.
They need to make it clear they are going to do something. Tell business not to lay anyone off this week.
Then announce the plan by Monday next week. That gives them 4 days which has to be plenty in the circumstances.
Well that is exactly what Mr Yorkshire Tea said 2 days ago.
But yes, I think they need to communicate things better. Said before they need a pledge card set of talking points and just repeat over and over again.
Comments
It's telling though, that you suggest £600 pm (which seems reasonable to me) whereas the current benefits system allows £317 pm (less for under 25s) and just £250pm each if you are part of a couple.
https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/1240570343816867851?s=20
We are not yet in full lockdown so do not yet need a temporary UBI
I would increase the rate of 3, which to an extent takes away the need for 1 and 2. An emergency law to allow companies or employees to suspend employment is probably needed in 4 with usual IANAL caveat.
Businesses have no responsibility to potentially pay people to not work for months or years.
Get real.
Regardless it doesn't change the fact that over the last few weeks a lot have gone from having a job to being unemployed.
Those who aren't working now should get the £600 too for now, but say 3 months after life gets back to normal (give time to get people back into work) if people on the benefits system want to keep £600+ they can get a job and earn it. Right now they can't.
(*Subject to limits which assume you only have a a set number of bedrooms for the houshold. In practice, many find not all their rent is covered.)
And I write as someone who would benefit economically - at least in the short term - from that kind of gigantic big bazooka.
They are talking about losing 95% of the workforce!
https://www.cdcgamingreports.com/the-tally-94-of-the-u-s-casino-market-96-of-the-gaming-workforce-sidelined-by-coronavirus-pandemic/
A homeless person can still get NHS treatment
I'm hopeful they will. I'm dry as dust normally economically but I'm advocating much more to be done and I know many other Tories who are. The government is frankly making it up as they go along on a day by day basis right now (and so they should, this is a once in a century pandemic) and I'm hopeful much more will be done soon.
I suppose Ed Davey will be enjoying Layla Moran's woke look at me stupidity. If the Lib Dems have any sense keep her away from leadership.
From her Twitter a/c
Farage and Trump engaging in racial hatred by ‘pointing out’ the virus ‘started in China’. You know what else ‘started in China’? The fleet that discovered America in 1492.
Even @HYUFD has just admitted a temporary UBI might be needed. Strange times indeed!
That is NOT the case here. Businesses aren't shut down because of their risks, their actions, their inactions or anything else like that. Businesses are shut because the Government forced them to in an unprecedented action.
So long as in the future the Government doesn't compel businesses to shut, there will be no reason to pay.
Plus as I said before, in normal circumstances if the Government closes a business it does pay anyway. Its called a compulsory purchase order normally.
If you lose your job normally you get £317 and an ability to look for a new job. You could potentially have a new one within a fortnight if you're lucky.
If you lose it this month you are screwed. The entire economy is shut down and you're not even allowed to go around to businesses to hand in your CV as that would be an unnecessary social gathering. Plus other businesses in your industry are probably all just as shuttered as your old one.
The two are not comparable. For now everyone should get the £600 because the look for a job alternative has been taken away from everyone.
I have to ask are you a labour plant because you sure seem to be living up to being a typical left wing caricature of a baby eating tory. Your lack of any compassion and empathy really is astounding
"I’ve just spoken to the devastated manager of a foodbank in West Yorkshire that had more than £500 worth of food and toiletries stolen when it was broken into on Wednesday evening.
Janet Burns, who helps run the Knottingley foodbank, said four people had prized open the locks of one of its storage facilities and “ransacked” the place of essential items.
She said volunteers had taken delivery of a huge donation 24 hours before the burglary – which was all stolen in the raid. She said food, sanitary products, toilet roll and even Easter eggs that they were saving for next month had all been taken.
“It’s dire, it really is,” she said. “It’s soul-destroying for the volunteers. The people that have stolen have stolen from the general public not just the foodbank.”
Burns said demand on the foodbank had gone through the roof in the past week due to the coronavirus. She said volunteers were having to turn some people away unless they were known to them or had vouchers for free school meals."
If being factually correct means you want to characterise me as evil so be it, rather that than make a factually inaccurate statement just so you can portray me as a fluffy bunny
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/18/self-isolate-at-home-they-say-but-what-if-you-are-homeless
Columbus set off from the Canaries, where there where also deep sea fishermen.
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1240636294012850176
Not sure when the verdict will be delivered.
The government has moved to dampen down speculation that a full-scale lockdown of the capital could be enforced in order to combat COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson's official spokesman said: "There are no plans to close down the transport network in London and there is zero prospect of any restrictions being placed on travelling in and out of London."
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-zero-prospect-of-restrictions-on-travel-in-and-out-of-london-downing-street-11960212
The health and wellbeing of people who experience homelessness are poorer than that of the general population. They often experience the most significant health inequalities. The longer a person experiences homelessness, particularly from young adulthood, the more likely their health and wellbeing will be at risk.
Co-morbidity (2 or more diseases or disorders occurring in the same person) among the longer-term homeless population is not uncommon. Recent ONS statistics show that the mean age of death of homeless people is 32 years lower than the general population at 44 years, and even lower for homeless women, at just 42 years.
source
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/homelessness-applying-all-our-health/homelessness-applying-all-our-health
please note life expectancy for the homeless 44 years and 42 years
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1240635850226106368
You see, loans are only your own money moved through time. Government takes in money from you in the future and gives it to you today - all the money came from you. What the Government gave is a total of nothing.
Oh, the ability to access your own future money today is a positive, but the interest they intend to charge on that balances that out. So yes, it's not far from nothing.
If they lockdown London, all we will hear is wailing of how unfair it is that I can't go outside.
https://twitter.com/BrentfordFC/status/1240609045045805058?s=20
https://twitter.com/LaylaMoran/status/1240371946367352833
There's a book about a 15th century Chinese fleet visiting the American continent. It turned out to be nonsense, but sold a bucketload, so that's likely the origin of the claim.
It's wrong, but only as wrong as people who claim Canute was foiled when he tried to turn back the tide.
Research into 355 deaths found that only three (0.8%) had no other illnesses
Nearly half of them - 48.5% - already had three or even more health conditions
Another 25.6% had two other 'pathologies', while 25.1% had one other illness"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8130479/99-patients-killed-coronavirus-Italy-existing-illnesses-study-finds.html
Sadly lacking imagination and action on the economic front though - they need to correct that very quickly.
EDIT: Actually, it will probably shift so that the government has it about right has a plurality over the other two options.
You really are a joke and doing the left wings job for it they merely need to point at you and say "See....tories"
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1240639703931662337
Considering that this should be an event of national unity, these are rubbish polling numbers for both the government and the Prime Minister.
For comparison, Giuseppe Conte in Italy has a 71% approval rating at present:
https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1240622447323463680
Incidentally I'm sure I was reading the other day that there's some evidence of Australasian ancestry in ancient South American populations.
Then announce the plan by Monday next week. That gives them 4 days which has to be plenty in the circumstances.
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten, as Balzac apparently didn’t say.
But yes, I think they need to communicate things better. Said before they need a pledge card set of talking points and just repeat over and over again.