Churchill was a great man. Soldier; journalist; author; President of the Board of Trade; Home Secretary; First Lord of the Admiralty; Minister of Munitions; Chancellor of the Exchequer; and PM and Minister of Defence.

Without Churchill, Hitler would have won the war. It is undeniable.

The Soviet Union would have collapsed in 1941 without British assistance in terms of goods, weapons and capital.

The Soviet Union would have collapsed in 1942 without British victories in North Africa that limited German supplies of oil.

The British Empire is the only power that stood against Germany for all of the First World War and the Second World War. No nation did more over those 10 years of war.

We lost an Empire to keep Europe free. Europe is in our debt.

The key issue we face is the balancing act. How do we maintain our economy and minimise death? The simplest answer is a vaccine. If that is unavailable, then we need to be hitting at least 1 million tests each week so that we can contact and trace in an effective manner.

At the same time, the government has to do more for the economy. Sunak’s CBILLS and CLBILLS are a failure. The idea was that the government would guarantee 80 percent of the amount lent by a bank to a borrower in the business field. The idea was that banks would lend to small and medium sized business as the risk would be sovereign risk due to the government guarantee. However, banks are refusing to use CBILLS and CLBILLS. Why? Because the criteria for qualifying as a CBILL or CLBILL is vague. The banks have to reasonably determine that the loan to the business would be viable, irrespective of COViD-19, and reasonably determine that the borrower will not become insolvent over the short to medium term. If a bank lent under the CBILLS or CLBILLS, the government could later review the determinations and deem them to have been incorrectly made. In that scenario, the government guarantee does not apply. Given this risk, banks refuse to make the loans. This is a terrible failure of government policy. The contrast with America snd Germany is striking.

Then what about sterling? The strength of our currency is related to the solvency of the British government. That solvency is analysed by reviewing our debt to gdp ratio. Our debt to gdp ratio is increasing from 85 percent of gdp to 125 percent of gdp in light of the lockdown. Historically, such debts suggest a default on the debt or monetization. In that scenario, investors exit the currency of that government, and the currency collapses. What is the government doing to avoid this situation? Why isnt it hedging with gold? If sterling collapses, gold will likely rise.

A nation of 1.3 billion Chinese went into lockdown. Why? Because the Chinese knew they had a problem. China has had lockdowns before, including as recently as 2002. The Chinese do not willingly lockdown, and in turn sacrifice their economy, unless they have to do so. This simple observation reveals the reality regarding COVID-19.

The implications of COVID-19 are not exaggerated. Here are the facts: with lockdowns across Europe, we have lost in excess of 100,000 people. Projections suggest that this would reach millions across Europe without social distancing. This isnt spin. COVID-19 is the worst virus to hit us since Spanish flu. Limiting the deaths to 100,000 across Europe has been due to the lockdowns.

The key issue we face is the balancing act. How do we maintain our economy and minimise death? The simplest answer is a vaccine. If that is unavailable, then we need to be hitting at least 1 million tests each week so that we can contact and trace in an effective manner.

At the same time, the government has to do more for the economy. Sunak’s CBILLS and CLBILLS are a failure. The idea was that the government would guarantee 80 percent of the amount lent by a bank to a borrower in the business field. The idea was that banks would lend to small and medium sized business as the risk would be sovereign risk due to the government guarantee. However, banks are refusing to use CBILLS and CLBILLS. Why? Because the criteria for qualifying as a CBILL or CLBILL is vague. The banks have to reasonably determine that the loan to the business would be viable, irrespective of COViD-19, and reasonably determine that the borrower will not become insolvent over the short to medium term. If a bank lent under the CBILLS or CLBILLS, the government could later review the determinations and deem them to have been incorrectly made. In that scenario, the government guarantee does not apply. Given this risk, banks refuse to make the loans. This is a terrible failure of government policy. The contrast with America snd Germany is striking.

Then what about sterling? The strength of our currency is related to the solvency of the British government. That solvency is analysed by reviewing our debt to gdp ratio. Our debt to gdp ratio is increasing from 85 percent of gdp to 125 percent of gdp in light of the lockdown. Historically, such debts suggest a default on the debt or monetization. In that scenario, investors exit the currency of that government, and the currency collapses. What is the government doing to avoid this situation? Why isnt it hedging with gold? If sterling collapses, gold will likely rise.

Sunak’s loan guarantee proposals have failed (known as CBILS and CLBILS). As is well known, small and medium sized businesses have been severely damaged by the lockdown. Business requires new working capital on an urgent basis. Banks are unwilling to lend. Therefore, the idea was that government would guarantee the obligations of the borrower to a lender for up to 80 percent of all amounts outstanding under the finance documents. The aim was to encourage banks to lend as the payment risk would essentially be sovereign risk and not borrower risk.

Alas, the eligibility criteria for these loans are unclear. To qualify, the loan must be one which the lender would consider viable, were it not for COVID-19, and for which the lender reasonably believes will enable the business to continue for the medium term.

In short, if the above test is not met by the bank or is later disputed to have been met, the government guarantee is not applicable. Given this risk (the test is clearly open to interpretation), banks are choosing not to make the loans under CBILS or CLBILS. The litigation risk is high. The diligence required to satisfy the above test is extensive and expensive. This is Sunak’s fault. Simplify the criteria.

This is a non-comment.

The government had this in February. Still they waited. Their judgements were just profoundly wrong. Whitty provided bad advice. Hancock accepted this bad advice. Boris accepted this bad advice.

The job of a minister is to work out what advice to take and what advice to reject. Ministers should challenge their advisors. Did they? They seem to have keenly accepted the formal advice in full. The U-TURN came in mid March.

Who is “us”?

The criticism is fair and honest. Where is the dishonesty? Where is the unfairness? We are dealing in life and death here. This isnt the time for prevarication.

The facts are simple and undeniable. The Sunday Times also covered them in detail. The government had extensive notice of a calamity, and it did not prepare in a reasonable manner. The result? We are as bad if not worse than Italy, whilst this was entirely preventable.

Why?

I believe in a Britain with high wages, low taxes, low regulations, and low welfare. I believe in a Britain that leads the world in technology. I believe in a powerful military. I quote Wilson: “Britain is a world power or she is nothing”. I believe in tradition. I believe in our unwritten constitution and its conventions. I believe in overtaking German and Japanese nominal GDP in the next 10 years.

And I believe in my right to hold government to account. And this is a weak government, populated with weak men. Hancock is weak, incompetent and dishonest. He is trampling on the constitution. He is required to resign for both his incompetence and his dishonesty.

So what is the issue?

What a silly comment. Read the language used: “people like you should be disregarded”. It’s uncivilised. It’s totalitarian.

Whitty looked weak. Just ranted. He has failed.