Who needs pay rises when you've got all that weekly applause to feed your family?
It was the furlough scheme that was being discussed, rather than nationalising businesses.
Book in at a Garden Centre
Who is expected to stop passengers getting on the bus when x is reached? the driver? If the bus is half empty or even three-quarters empty and he/she tries to stop passengers getting on and filling those seats there will be aggro. Some people will accept the logic of it and wait though I suspect after waiting at the bus stop watching the third half empty bus drive away even the most patient of commuters are going to be getting wound up. Commuting in London is stressful even without the Rona and if I were a bus driver, I don't think I'd be that keen on getting my head kicked in for £10 a hour (or whatever they get). Mostly I suspect they will pull up their mask, open the window and drive on.Has there not been instructions that only x number of people are to be let on the bus?We've spent enough time talking about the tube logistics. Or is it just bus passengers are even more lowly.
I am not in Central London either, and the buses are teeming with people in my area.
From what I've seen the whole front third of the bus, up to the stairs, is taped off so any driver would have difficulty communicating with the passengers in the first place.
Route and time will make a lot of difference obviously but it's shocking that the above scene happened once.
That's right, the front of the buses is taped off, so an area that could fit 10-12 people is cordoned off. I first saw it 3 weeks ago.
Just their libertarian, freedom loving solid British common sense I suppose. One can easily say: despite the govt's advice that it's safe to go work, I'll just skip work today, eat air and be totally fine.
Its lack of comparability isn't quite what you think, though. This time, instead of printing money and giving it to banks, who then lend it out (main effect of which was to push up house prices and stock values to record levels), they're giving the money directly to people to spend as they wish. A far more direct and effective use of printed/borrowed money wrt stimulating an economy and not just allowing the rich to get richer off the back of that stimulus. Putting the money in at the bottom rather than the top.
Of course he'll say that.
Hard to prove conclusively perhaps, but if they've been isolating except when working it will be most likely that's where they've caught it.
If we're going to start nationalising companies we want to nationalise some that can make a profit, Nationalising airlines at the moment is a bit like putting a dumpster on the runway at Heathrow filling it with £50's and setting it ablaze.
I'm not arguing against the furlough scheme; I agree it's better putting the money in at the "bottom" - I just think that the argument "we could afford the bank bailout which cost X therefore we can afford this which will cost Y" isn't a very good one because you are comparing apples with oranges.
www.bankofengland.co.uk
www.nao.org.uk
