Biden should narrowly flip Duval county but strangely the real bellwether of whether Biden can narrowly flip Florida or not is if Biden can push Trump down towards 60% in Sumter county to offset potential increased Latino turnout for Trump places like Miami-Dade, Palm Beach etc
Bloomberg is really pouring in the money and it will be interesting to see if Biden can win it on the narrowly win it on the night or not if only by the same margin as 2012 or if Trump's home state advantage is too strong.
I'm leaning towards the former but I'm not so confident.
Mike here you go again, last Florida poll I saw had it tied, yesterday. Tonight Wisconsin, a tie, the problem for Biden is that |Jorgeson is picking up crucial votes. He is up to 5% there. Interestingly the pollsters Susqehana asked what do you think your neighbourts are voting. Trump ahead by 1. This is Wisconsin, absolutely crucial. I keep saying Trump is picking up where it matters. Next week he'll draw level in Pennsylvania, Iowa and Michigan. A small but crucial no of voters are going for the Libertarian Jorgeson as an alternative to Biden. 4 more years, God. PS. IBD today Trump narfrowed gap from 7 to 2.3 which is the margin Clinton was ahead in 16 and we know what happened then. I recommend we ignore those national polls, they contain the huge Democrat leads where it does not matter, the East and Werst coast states.. .
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.
There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.
I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.
There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.
I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.
I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.
There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.
I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.
I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.
I suspect that the cost of housing is more important than the cost of food or energy.
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
I'm no believer in supertaxes on the rich ... but Rashford could just about persuade me that one should be imposed on him!
Surely players are on PAYE and not paid via companies? There did used to be an issue where image rights (as opposed to salaries) were paid via companies but even that was ended in one of the Hammond budgets iirc.
No they aren't....nothing in sports finance is as it seems. They get a certain amount via PAYE, but most of it is wrapped up in image rights (paid to their company) and also a lot of is guaranteed paid in the future.
It is why you hear about during a transfer a player has demanded x for unpaid wages, its because this contract isn't say 3 years, its 3 years with the wages paid over many years into the future.
The clubs aren't depositing £500k a month into players accounts, nor do they pay £x million for a player, they arrange with a 3rd party finance company a deal again with the money spread over a very long time...and the selling club often then refinance other debt.
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.
There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.
I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.
I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.
I suspect that the cost of housing is more important than the cost of food or energy.
Absolutely, the cost of housing is risible and is a real problem. But that shouldn't stop the government from taking a relatively small amount of expense (given they've been pissing money away at boondoggles for the last six months) which can at least relieve some of that poverty.
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.
There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.
I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.
I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.
I suspect that the cost of housing is more important than the cost of food or energy.
Absolutely, the cost of housing is risible and is a real problem. But that shouldn't stop the government from taking a relatively small amount of expense (given they've been pissing money away at boondoggles for the last six months) which can at least relieve some of that poverty.
How many free school.meals can you buy for Dido's £12b?
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
I'm no believer in supertaxes on the rich ... but Rashford could just about persuade me that one should be imposed on him!
Typical Tory, they don’t like their greed and selfishness exposed by a mere footballer.
Mike here you go again, last Florida poll I saw had it tied, yesterday. Tonight Wisconsin, a tie, the problem for Biden is that |Jorgeson is picking up crucial votes. He is up to 5% there. Interestingly the pollsters Susqehana asked what do you think your neighbourts are voting. Trump ahead by 1. This is Wisconsin, absolutely crucial. I keep saying Trump is picking up where it matters. Next week he'll draw level in Pennsylvania, Iowa and Michigan. A small but crucial no of voters are going for the Libertarian Jorgeson as an alternative to Biden. 4 more years, God. PS. IBD today Trump narfrowed gap from 7 to 2.3 which is the margin Clinton was ahead in 16 and we know what happened then. I recommend we ignore those national polls, they contain the huge Democrat leads where it does not matter, the East and Werst coast states.. .
I think it's really simple.
If Biden is four points or more ahead (nationally) on the day, then he's 90% likely to be the next President.
If we assume that polling is as inaccurate as in 2012 (the worst in the last half century), and that the error is in Trump's favour (bear in mind errors tend to oscillate), then Trump needs to bring the polling average down to 7% or less by November 3.
Of course, there's no guarantee that there will be a polling error in Trump's favour - it's equally likely it could be the other way around.
But that's the bare minimum - 7% in the national polling averages - on November 3, for Trump to have a real shot. And to be favourite, Trump needs to be at 3% or less on polling day.
Today he's at - using the average of 538 and RCP - around 9.3%. That's a 2.3% - 6.3% move he needs in the next two weeks. Watch the glide path: if he's on it (and IBD Tipp is encouraging for him), then he can win. But if he gets behind it, it's incredibly hard.
Surely players are on PAYE and not paid via companies? There did used to be an issue where image rights (as opposed to salaries) were paid via companies but even that was ended in one of the Hammond budgets iirc.
No they aren't....nothing in sports finance is as it seems. They get a certain amount via PAYE, but most of it is wrapped up in image rights (paid to their company) and also a lot of is guaranteed paid in the future.
It is why you hear about during a transfer a player has demanded x for unpaid wages, its because this contract isn't say 3 years, its 3 years with the wages paid over many years into the future.
Surely players are on PAYE and not paid via companies? There did used to be an issue where image rights (as opposed to salaries) were paid via companies but even that was ended in one of the Hammond budgets iirc.
No they aren't....nothing in sports finance is as it seems. They get a certain amount via PAYE, but most of it is wrapped up in image rights (paid to their company) and also a lot of is guaranteed paid in the future.
It is why you hear about during a transfer a player has demanded x for unpaid wages, its because this contract isn't say 3 years, its 3 years with the wages paid over many years into the future.
It really depends on the player, in general the more they get paid the more likely there will be significant non paye earnings, but there are definitely Prem regulars fully on PAYE as well. Image rights have to reflect some commercial reality or HMRC will quickly come after them.
Just a thought. How likely are people who have already voted to respond to polls? If a large chunk of the Biden vote has already voted, might this have an impact?
I actually think Trump could hold Wisconsin and Michigan as Trafalgar are suggesting (albeit lose Pennsylvania and maybe Arizona to Biden) making Florida indeed again the key swing state both need to win
And have you any reason whatsoever for thinking that other than "Trafalgar are suggesting..."?
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
I'm no believer in supertaxes on the rich ... but Rashford could just about persuade me that one should be imposed on him!
Typical Tory, they don’t like their greed and selfishness exposed by a mere footballer.
FWIW, I think he was being more generous than that. At least as I read it.
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
I'm no believer in supertaxes on the rich ... but Rashford could just about persuade me that one should be imposed on him!
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.
There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.
I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.
I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.
Yes, which is why the compromise of keeping the additional support for people who are on the various jobs support schemes makes sense. Otherwise the state is taking responsibility away from parents.
The Dems keep falling into the same trap of saying "worst thing ever in history" and then whatever it is just turns out to be merely rubbish and people think "well it's not as bad as we were being told".
'My goodness some on here are going to be eating lashings of humble pie on election night if Trafalgar are right again.'
You misunderstand the criticism of Trafalgar. It isn't that they cannot or will not predict the correct outcome on the nite. It is that they are not in fact pollsters. Thanks to the excellent detective work by Robert Smithson and others we have a pretty good idea how they operate (or rather 'he', because it appears to be a one-man operation.) It is not a polling operation in any meaningful sense of the term.
If they come up with the right answer it will be for the same reason my Aunt Aggie comes up with a winner on the horses - pure luck. Nothing wrong with that, but anybody who peddles a guess as genuine poll findings is a conman.
When I was a semi-professional punter I used to give occasional racing tips on PB. Anybody who followed them consistently would have been in pocket over time because they were based on the hard work I used to put in on form study. Although they didn't all win, there was nothing deceitful or dishonest about the suggestions. That wouldn't be the case now if I started tipping horses on here again because I don't study the form and the tips would be nothing more than guesses. Not that people would mind, as long as I was open and honest about it. If however I presented such guesses as value bets based on research that would be fraudulent and I would be rightly condemned and dismissed with contempt.
This seems such an obvious point that it pains me to labour it but for some reason you don't seem to get it. Trafalgar are not a serious polling operation. Their (or rather his) output has nothing to offer people interested in betting on politics, or anything else much to be honest.
Take your colours down from Trafalgar's mast, Hyufd. It's doing your credibility in, which is a pity because your other contributions here are righty valued by many, including me.
I'm beginning to plan for the US election night. I'm going to be home alone in Tier 2. I'll have PB for company and I'm idly thinking about setting up a Zoom meeting for anyone interested. We'd need to rename ourselves with our PB handle in the waiting room. What do you think?
Interesting idea. Midweek is a bad time for, damn american elections being on a Tuesday.
I know I will not sleep even if I wanted to, so booked the Wednesday off
Rookie mistake, you should also take off the Tuesday.
And the rest of the week - given the possibility that nothing will be decided very quickly.
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.
There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.
I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.
I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.
Yes, which is why the compromise of keeping the additional support for people who are on the various jobs support schemes makes sense. Otherwise the state is taking responsibility away from parents.
I disagree. Help is not removing responsibility. Responsibility can only be discharged with capability. If you are incapable of supplying food for your children because you have no money, no job (or worse, a job that does not pay enough to support your family in the area where you live) then I don't hold that you can be held responsible for your children. By supplying some supplementary benefit (in this case school meals) to ameliorate that you are returning that responsibility to someone by giving them the capacity to discharge it. The only entity with the clout to do that is the state, and since children do not thrive in poverty it is contingent on the state to minimise that with short and long term measures. Therefore I believe the state should act.
Surely players are on PAYE and not paid via companies? There did used to be an issue where image rights (as opposed to salaries) were paid via companies but even that was ended in one of the Hammond budgets iirc.
No they aren't....nothing in sports finance is as it seems. They get a certain amount via PAYE, but most of it is wrapped up in image rights (paid to their company) and also a lot of is guaranteed paid in the future.
It is why you hear about during a transfer a player has demanded x for unpaid wages, its because this contract isn't say 3 years, its 3 years with the wages paid over many years into the future.
Surely players are on PAYE and not paid via companies? There did used to be an issue where image rights (as opposed to salaries) were paid via companies but even that was ended in one of the Hammond budgets iirc.
No they aren't....nothing in sports finance is as it seems. They get a certain amount via PAYE, but most of it is wrapped up in image rights (paid to their company) and also a lot of is guaranteed paid in the future.
It is why you hear about during a transfer a player has demanded x for unpaid wages, its because this contract isn't say 3 years, its 3 years with the wages paid over many years into the future.
It really depends on the player, in general the more they get paid the more likely there will be significant non paye earnings, but there are definitely Prem regulars fully on PAYE as well. Image rights have to reflect some commercial reality or HMRC will quickly come after them.
Average EPL wage is now about 1.5 million a year now. If you look at most sports who are more open how they structure the same sort of size deals, the deal are overwhelming structured so they are still getting paid on the current contract 10 years down the line.
e.g. Patrick Mahomes recently signed $500 million deal, he is getting less than $1 million actual salary this year and they will still be paying the contract in 11 years time. Yes there are performance related elements to this, but it is also structured so he doesn't get more than $1.5 million for the next 3 years, and the big payments are when he has finished playing.
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
I'm no believer in supertaxes on the rich ... but Rashford could just about persuade me that one should be imposed on him!
What an utterly ridiculous statement.
I misread it. Yep, that's actually a typically nasty statement from someone with no empathy.
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
I'm no believer in supertaxes on the rich ... but Rashford could just about persuade me that one should be imposed on him!
What an utterly ridiculous statement.
I really dont get it and am struggling to see any better motivation for it than it upsets the order of things for a very young man from a poor background to be active and influential in political society.
Having said that, its a widespread opinion amongst a section of the right, so ridiculous is unfair, everyone is entitled to an opinion, however misguided.
I'm beginning to plan for the US election night. I'm going to be home alone in Tier 2. I'll have PB for company and I'm idly thinking about setting up a Zoom meeting for anyone interested. We'd need to rename ourselves with our PB handle in the waiting room. What do you think?
Interesting idea. Midweek is a bad time for, damn american elections being on a Tuesday.
I know I will not sleep even if I wanted to, so booked the Wednesday off
Rookie mistake, you should also take off the Tuesday.
And the rest of the week - given the possibility that nothing will be decided very quickly.
From the first occupation of a state capitol to the conclusion of the civil war could take several years.
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
Is it possible to give a rational account of how in one of the world's most developed and prosperous countries which is borrowing about 200 bn a year extra cash as well it is possible for ordinary families to be going hungry when rice can be had for 40p a kilo. milk for £1 for 4 pints and loaves of bread for 50p?
Does Marcus Rashford or anyone else have an upper limit on how much we should be borrowing from our grandchildren to fund his schemes on top of everything else?
Our society after the current dreadful crisis is still far richer than we were in the foodbank free 60s 70s and 80s. How did we manage?
She played a completely straight bat in the hearings last week plus her confirmation is inevitable so no point wasting any more energy or emotion on the issue, plus if Biden were to commit to packing the court in response before the election it would simply drive disaffected Republican voters back to Trump.
I'm beginning to plan for the US election night. I'm going to be home alone in Tier 2. I'll have PB for company and I'm idly thinking about setting up a Zoom meeting for anyone interested. We'd need to rename ourselves with our PB handle in the waiting room. What do you think?
Interesting idea. Midweek is a bad time for, damn american elections being on a Tuesday.
I know I will not sleep even if I wanted to, so booked the Wednesday off
Rookie mistake, you should also take off the Tuesday.
And the rest of the week - given the possibility that nothing will be decided very quickly.
From the first occupation of a state capitol to the conclusion of the civil war could take several years.
Good job I'm retired and will be able to follow it all closely (from a distance).
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.
There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.
I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.
I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.
Yes, which is why the compromise of keeping the additional support for people who are on the various jobs support schemes makes sense. Otherwise the state is taking responsibility away from parents.
I disagree. Help is not removing responsibility. Responsibility can only be discharged with capability. If you are incapable of supplying food for your children because you have no money, no job (or worse, a job that does not pay enough to support your family in the area where you live) then I don't hold that you can be held responsible for your children. By supplying some supplementary benefit (in this case school meals) to ameliorate that you are returning that responsibility to someone by giving them the capacity to discharge it. The only entity with the clout to do that is the state, and since children do not thrive in poverty it is contingent on the state to minimise that with short and long term measures. Therefore I believe the state should act.
But people in that situation already get a whole load of child related benefits for that reason. Child tax credits, child benefit, working tax credit and other forms of income support already exist as well as housing benefit. Those benefits are also extremely generous, it's that the parents haven't got the right spending priorities. I'm sure all of them have a fairly new iPhone and Sky TV but still claim poverty when it comes to keeping their own kids fed properly.
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
Is it possible to give a rational account of how in one of the world's most developed and prosperous countries which is borrowing about 200 bn a year extra cash as well it is possible for ordinary families to be going hungry when rice can be had for 40p a kilo. milk for £1 for 4 pints and loaves of bread for 50p?
Does Marcus Rashford or anyone else have an upper limit on how much we should be borrowing from our grandchildren to fund his schemes on top of everything else?
Our society after the current dreadful crisis is still far richer than we were in the foodbank free 60s 70s and 80s. How did we manage?
You have accidentally hit the nail on the head with your first paragraph, even though your analysis is nonsense. How exactly, have we allowed our society to rot to the point where someone can work a full time job (or multiple part time jobs) and be unable to support a family? The answer isn't fecklessness as some posters here want to believe, it's that we've incentivised the creation of so many shit jobs since the financial crisis and forced so many people into them through a threadbare and cruel welfare system that it is now possible to be in work and in grinding poverty.
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.
There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.
I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.
I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.
Yes, which is why the compromise of keeping the additional support for people who are on the various jobs support schemes makes sense. Otherwise the state is taking responsibility away from parents.
I disagree. Help is not removing responsibility. Responsibility can only be discharged with capability. If you are incapable of supplying food for your children because you have no money, no job (or worse, a job that does not pay enough to support your family in the area where you live) then I don't hold that you can be held responsible for your children. By supplying some supplementary benefit (in this case school meals) to ameliorate that you are returning that responsibility to someone by giving them the capacity to discharge it. The only entity with the clout to do that is the state, and since children do not thrive in poverty it is contingent on the state to minimise that with short and long term measures. Therefore I believe the state should act.
But people in that situation already get a whole load of child related benefits for that reason. Child tax credits, child benefit, working tax credit and other forms of income support already exist as well as housing benefit. Those benefits are also extremely generous, it's that the parents haven't got the right spending priorities. I'm sure all of them have a fairly new iPhone and Sky TV but still claim poverty when it comes to keeping their own kids fed properly.
It is why I have always had concerns about UBI...it sounds good in theory, then we will get stories from the real world of hardship and before you know it new additional benefits schemes will be setup to try to help those and the process starts again.
You know how often companies pay huge fines without admitting wrongdoing (which of course is the reason they pay the fine), well I see that Purdue, the makers of OxyContin, are paying $8.3bn and pleading guilty to at least some criminal charges.
Just how hugely guilty must they have been to pay up and actually admit some wrongdoing?
The costs associated with building HS2, the high speed railway linking northern and southern England, have risen again.
The news comes less than two months after construction officially began.
Ministers have admitted an extra £800m is needed due to more asbestos being discovered and the complexities of bringing the railway into a new hub station at London Euston.
Earlier this year the government gave HS2 a revised budget of £98bn after previous costings became unrealistic.
Not good imagery for the government and likely to be repeated whenever a local transport investment doesn't happen.
Perhaps my brain just refuses to retain it, but I really cannot recall why HS2 estimates were so out, and why rises always seem to be unforeseen. I know it is possible to estimate big projects correctly, or at least get close.
For the same reasons the WCML cost treble what it was projected to cost:
1) They had to buy landowners off by offering inflated sums for the land
2) They found people had misled them about what was there when they took possession.
It is slightly ironic though that the media are criticising HS2 for an increase in budget to £98 billion when they were glibly misquoting a report claiming it would cost at least £106 billion.
That’s not however an excuse for not putting in that rail link at Doncaster.
Mike here you go again, last Florida poll I saw had it tied, yesterday. Tonight Wisconsin, a tie, the problem for Biden is that |Jorgeson is picking up crucial votes. He is up to 5% there. Interestingly the pollsters Susqehana asked what do you think your neighbourts are voting. Trump ahead by 1. This is Wisconsin, absolutely crucial. I keep saying Trump is picking up where it matters. Next week he'll draw level in Pennsylvania, Iowa and Michigan. A small but crucial no of voters are going for the Libertarian Jorgeson as an alternative to Biden. 4 more years, God. PS. IBD today Trump narfrowed gap from 7 to 2.3 which is the margin Clinton was ahead in 16 and we know what happened then. I recommend we ignore those national polls, they contain the huge Democrat leads where it does not matter, the East and Werst coast states.. .
I think it's really simple.
If Biden is four points or more ahead (nationally) on the day, then he's 90% likely to be the next President.
If we assume that polling is as inaccurate as in 2012 (the worst in the last half century), and that the error is in Trump's favour (bear in mind errors tend to oscillate), then Trump needs to bring the polling average down to 7% or less by November 3.
Of course, there's no guarantee that there will be a polling error in Trump's favour - it's equally likely it could be the other way around.
But that's the bare minimum - 7% in the national polling averages - on November 3, for Trump to have a real shot. And to be favourite, Trump needs to be at 3% or less on polling day.
Today he's at - using the average of 538 and RCP - around 9.3%. That's a 2.3% - 6.3% move he needs in the next two weeks. Watch the glide path: if he's on it (and IBD Tipp is encouraging for him), then he can win. But if he gets behind it, it's incredibly hard.
538 line is that the National Polls are a bit out of step with the state ones and the real lead is nearer 9 than over 10. Most of the high grade polls for Biden today I think are pretty good, bar the one that got Kaboomed. 2 different A grade pollsters showing Biden ahead in Iowa! A and B grade polls showing good leads in Penn and showing Texas tied. Yesterday good grade polls showing good leads in North Carolina. BTW Arizona has more EC votes than Wisconsin.
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.
There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.
I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.
I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.
Yes, which is why the compromise of keeping the additional support for people who are on the various jobs support schemes makes sense. Otherwise the state is taking responsibility away from parents.
I disagree. Help is not removing responsibility. Responsibility can only be discharged with capability. If you are incapable of supplying food for your children because you have no money, no job (or worse, a job that does not pay enough to support your family in the area where you live) then I don't hold that you can be held responsible for your children. By supplying some supplementary benefit (in this case school meals) to ameliorate that you are returning that responsibility to someone by giving them the capacity to discharge it. The only entity with the clout to do that is the state, and since children do not thrive in poverty it is contingent on the state to minimise that with short and long term measures. Therefore I believe the state should act.
But people in that situation already get a whole load of child related benefits for that reason. Child tax credits, child benefit, working tax credit and other forms of income support already exist as well as housing benefit. Those benefits are also extremely generous, it's that the parents haven't got the right spending priorities. I'm sure all of them have a fairly new iPhone and Sky TV but still claim poverty when it comes to keeping their own kids fed properly.
The initial claim was that 1.5 million kids needed this, now the Rashford campaign is to expand it to another 900,000.
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
Is it possible to give a rational account of how in one of the world's most developed and prosperous countries which is borrowing about 200 bn a year extra cash as well it is possible for ordinary families to be going hungry when rice can be had for 40p a kilo. milk for £1 for 4 pints and loaves of bread for 50p?
Does Marcus Rashford or anyone else have an upper limit on how much we should be borrowing from our grandchildren to fund his schemes on top of everything else?
Our society after the current dreadful crisis is still far richer than we were in the foodbank free 60s 70s and 80s. How did we manage?
We're not going to be borrowing it from our Grandchildren though are we - we're going to be printing more money, writing-off/re-structuring debt, letting inflation whittle it away or some combination of all three.
Plus, where were those concerns before all the billions were spent on consultants and a broken Track and Trace system?
I'm beginning to plan for the US election night. I'm going to be home alone in Tier 2. I'll have PB for company and I'm idly thinking about setting up a Zoom meeting for anyone interested. We'd need to rename ourselves with our PB handle in the waiting room. What do you think?
Good idea
OK I'll set it up. I'll post the link here on the night.
I have a premium Zoom account so it won't run out of time.
I'll just leave it running. Come and go with your drinks and popcorn and betting tips.
Biden should narrowly flip Duval county but strangely the real bellwether of whether Biden can narrowly flip Florida or not is if Biden can push Trump down towards 60% in Sumter county to offset potential increased Latino turnout for Trump places like Miami-Dade, Palm Beach etc
Bloomberg is really pouring in the money and it will be interesting to see if Biden can win it on the narrowly win it on the night or not if only by the same margin as 2012 or if Trump's home state advantage is too strong.
I'm leaning towards the former but I'm not so confident.
Yes, that's very much my take on Florida, although I would qualify it in one important respect. It is the Cuban-Americans who are crucial. They are generally (and understandably) hostile to anything they perceive as left-wing and although Biden is no Socialist it's easy for the GoP to portray him as such to these CAs.
I wish I knew how many of them there are, what's their voting record and just how fanatically pro-Trump they are. Absent such information, I would be wary of betting on Florida, even though the current odds (about evens) look attractive.
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
Is it possible to give a rational account of how in one of the world's most developed and prosperous countries which is borrowing about 200 bn a year extra cash as well it is possible for ordinary families to be going hungry when rice can be had for 40p a kilo. milk for £1 for 4 pints and loaves of bread for 50p?
Does Marcus Rashford or anyone else have an upper limit on how much we should be borrowing from our grandchildren to fund his schemes on top of everything else?
Our society after the current dreadful crisis is still far richer than we were in the foodbank free 60s 70s and 80s. How did we manage?
We're not going to be borrowing it from our Grandchildren though are we - we're going to be printing more money, writing-off/re-structuring debt, letting inflation whittle it away or some combination of all three.
Plus, where were those concerns before all the billions were spent on consultants and a broken Track and Trace system?
Exactly the same concerns, in that case particularly about usefulness and competence.
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
I'm no believer in supertaxes on the rich ... but Rashford could just about persuade me that one should be imposed on him!
What an utterly ridiculous statement.
I really dont get it and am struggling to see any better motivation for it than it upsets the order of things for a very young man from a poor background to be active and influential in political society.
Having said that, its a widespread opinion amongst a section of the right, so ridiculous is unfair, everyone is entitled to an opinion, however misguided.
I can't understand why anyone would view Rashford's intervention as anything other than positive. Particularly when the poster in question can only see positivity in everything Johnson does. I assumed he was a glass half full kind of a guy.
I'm beginning to plan for the US election night. I'm going to be home alone in Tier 2. I'll have PB for company and I'm idly thinking about setting up a Zoom meeting for anyone interested. We'd need to rename ourselves with our PB handle in the waiting room. What do you think?
Good idea
OK I'll set it up. I'll post the link here on the night.
I have a premium Zoom account so it won't run out of time.
I'll just leave it running. Come and go with your drinks and popcorn and betting tips.
That’s frustrating. I’d love to join you but unless schools are closed that week I obviously won’t be able to.
I do hope though I wake up just as a deep Red State is called for Biden...
Surely players are on PAYE and not paid via companies? There did used to be an issue where image rights (as opposed to salaries) were paid via companies but even that was ended in one of the Hammond budgets iirc.
No they aren't....nothing in sports finance is as it seems. They get a certain amount via PAYE, but most of it is wrapped up in image rights (paid to their company) and also a lot of is guaranteed paid in the future.
It is why you hear about during a transfer a player has demanded x for unpaid wages, its because this contract isn't say 3 years, its 3 years with the wages paid over many years into the future.
Surely players are on PAYE and not paid via companies? There did used to be an issue where image rights (as opposed to salaries) were paid via companies but even that was ended in one of the Hammond budgets iirc.
No they aren't....nothing in sports finance is as it seems. They get a certain amount via PAYE, but most of it is wrapped up in image rights (paid to their company) and also a lot of is guaranteed paid in the future.
It is why you hear about during a transfer a player has demanded x for unpaid wages, its because this contract isn't say 3 years, its 3 years with the wages paid over many years into the future.
It really depends on the player, in general the more they get paid the more likely there will be significant non paye earnings, but there are definitely Prem regulars fully on PAYE as well. Image rights have to reflect some commercial reality or HMRC will quickly come after them.
Average EPL wage is now about 1.5 million a year now. If you look at most sports who are more open how they structure the same sort of size deals, the deal are overwhelming structured so they are still getting paid on the current contract 10 years down the line.
e.g. Patrick Mahomes recently signed $500 million deal, he is getting less than $1 million actual salary this year and they will still be paying the contract in 11 years time. Yes there are performance related elements to this, but it is also structured so he doesn't get more than $1.5 million for the next 3 years, and the big payments are when he has finished playing.
If you are talking starters the average is much higher than £1.5m per year. That's just a starters salary in the poorly funded bottom third clubs, average was £3m according to the guardian last year.
I guarantee that if this free holiday meals is extended while we have Covid, it will be with us for the next 10-15 years and probably expanded to basically everybody.
After covid, the reason will be high unemployment, then it will another reason and then it won't cost much more just to give to every kid
Now you might say it is a good idea anyway, but it is dishonest to claim it will just be for another couple of holidays.
We still have most of the Brown freebies despite supposed of nearly 10 years of austerity.
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
Is it possible to give a rational account of how in one of the world's most developed and prosperous countries which is borrowing about 200 bn a year extra cash as well it is possible for ordinary families to be going hungry when rice can be had for 40p a kilo. milk for £1 for 4 pints and loaves of bread for 50p?
Does Marcus Rashford or anyone else have an upper limit on how much we should be borrowing from our grandchildren to fund his schemes on top of everything else?
Our society after the current dreadful crisis is still far richer than we were in the foodbank free 60s 70s and 80s. How did we manage?
We're not going to be borrowing it from our Grandchildren though are we - we're going to be printing more money, writing-off/re-structuring debt, letting inflation whittle it away or some combination of all three.
All of which will tend to inflate the assets of the wealthy and put their grandparents further behind.
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
I'm no believer in supertaxes on the rich ... but Rashford could just about persuade me that one should be imposed on him!
What an utterly ridiculous statement.
I really dont get it and am struggling to see any better motivation for it than it upsets the order of things for a very young man from a poor background to be active and influential in political society.
Having said that, its a widespread opinion amongst a section of the right, so ridiculous is unfair, everyone is entitled to an opinion, however misguided.
The anti-Rashford operation is not imo due to a heartless Conservative Party. There is an historical precedent when the Department for Education went apeshit on Jamie Oliver's campaign for something or other to do with school meals (turkey twizzlers?). The common factor might be not the party but Dominic Cummings.
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
Is it possible to give a rational account of how in one of the world's most developed and prosperous countries which is borrowing about 200 bn a year extra cash as well it is possible for ordinary families to be going hungry when rice can be had for 40p a kilo. milk for £1 for 4 pints and loaves of bread for 50p?
Does Marcus Rashford or anyone else have an upper limit on how much we should be borrowing from our grandchildren to fund his schemes on top of everything else?
Our society after the current dreadful crisis is still far richer than we were in the foodbank free 60s 70s and 80s. How did we manage?
You have accidentally hit the nail on the head with your first paragraph, even though your analysis is nonsense. How exactly, have we allowed our society to rot to the point where someone can work a full time job (or multiple part time jobs) and be unable to support a family? The answer isn't fecklessness as some posters here want to believe, it's that we've incentivised the creation of so many shit jobs since the financial crisis and forced so many people into them through a threadbare and cruel welfare system that it is now possible to be in work and in grinding poverty.
It's almost as if the system was designed to prioritise keeping low paid jobs, low paid.
Funny that. Because it is. And this began long before the financial crisis.
As someone pointed out - mechanical car washes have been replaced by people with buckets. Why is that? Why has the mechanisation of labour stalled?
Why is it that sweat shops have made a return? - and no, they have been there for a long, long time.
I'm beginning to plan for the US election night. I'm going to be home alone in Tier 2. I'll have PB for company and I'm idly thinking about setting up a Zoom meeting for anyone interested. We'd need to rename ourselves with our PB handle in the waiting room. What do you think?
Good idea
OK I'll set it up. I'll post the link here on the night.
I have a premium Zoom account so it won't run out of time.
I'll just leave it running. Come and go with your drinks and popcorn and betting tips.
I’m planning to be absolutely hammered on election night, so this could be bad.
I guarantee that if this free holiday meals is extended while we have Covid, it will be with us for the next 10-15 years and probably expanded to basically everybody.
After covid, the reason will be high unemployment, then it will another reason and then it won't cost much more just to give to every kid
Now you might say it is a good idea anyway, but it is dishonest to claim it will just be for another couple of holidays.
We still have most of the Brown freebies despite supposed of nearly 10 years of austerity.
Yes, I'm also against introducing voucher based benefits in principle and I'm surprised that so many on the left are happy with that idea.
I guarantee that if this free holiday meals is extended while we have Covid, it will be with us for the next 10-15 years and probably expanded to basically everybody.
After covid, the reason will be high unemployment, then it will another reason and then it won't cost much more just to give to every kid
Now you might say it is a good idea anyway, but it is dishonest to claim it will just be for another couple of holidays.
We still have most of the Brown freebies despite supposed of nearly 10 years of austerity.
Free school meals for all would be a big plus. I can still remember the stigma of having free school meals back in the 60s and 70s. It would help the govt push the healthy eating agenda too.
Surely players are on PAYE and not paid via companies? There did used to be an issue where image rights (as opposed to salaries) were paid via companies but even that was ended in one of the Hammond budgets iirc.
No they aren't....nothing in sports finance is as it seems. They get a certain amount via PAYE, but most of it is wrapped up in image rights (paid to their company) and also a lot of is guaranteed paid in the future.
It is why you hear about during a transfer a player has demanded x for unpaid wages, its because this contract isn't say 3 years, its 3 years with the wages paid over many years into the future.
The clubs aren't depositing £500k a month into players accounts, nor do they pay £x million for a player, they arrange with a 3rd party finance company a deal again with the money spread over a very long time...and the selling club often then refinance other debt.
If nothing else, PAYE would be incredibly tax inefficient for the player. I would bet a fair amount of coin that no-one in the big money in football, player or otherwise is simply paid their wage....
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.
There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.
I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.
I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.
Yes, which is why the compromise of keeping the additional support for people who are on the various jobs support schemes makes sense. Otherwise the state is taking responsibility away from parents.
I disagree. Help is not removing responsibility. Responsibility can only be discharged with capability. If you are incapable of supplying food for your children because you have no money, no job (or worse, a job that does not pay enough to support your family in the area where you live) then I don't hold that you can be held responsible for your children. By supplying some supplementary benefit (in this case school meals) to ameliorate that you are returning that responsibility to someone by giving them the capacity to discharge it. The only entity with the clout to do that is the state, and since children do not thrive in poverty it is contingent on the state to minimise that with short and long term measures. Therefore I believe the state should act.
But people in that situation already get a whole load of child related benefits for that reason. Child tax credits, child benefit, working tax credit and other forms of income support already exist as well as housing benefit. Those benefits are also extremely generous, it's that the parents haven't got the right spending priorities. I'm sure all of them have a fairly new iPhone and Sky TV but still claim poverty when it comes to keeping their own kids fed properly.
It is why I have always had concerns about UBI...it sounds good in theory, then we will get stories from the real world of hardship and before you know it new additional benefits schemes will be setup to try to help those and the process starts again.
There are other issues with Universal Benefit as well. A little-reported fact is that UB, unlike Tax Credits, is assessed against savings. You start to lose it at £6k and completely lose entitlement at £16k.
Parents who have taken advantage of the government`s initiative to invest for children via a Child Trust Fund (now Junior ISA) find out that their child reaches 18 and becomes old enough to claim Universal Benefit (if he/she, like many, especially after Covid, starts on minimum wage) is not eligible to claim UB because their parents took out CTF/JISA for him/her which the child, perhaps, didn`t even know about.
You may argue that if that person has £16k in savings they shouldn`t get UB anyway, which is fair enough and obviously what the government thinks, but my point is that this has not been well published and shows UB to be a different beast to tax credits. It was never supposed to be, they said, a tax-saving change.
Many adults have been caught out by this wealth assessment as well - going from tax credits to UB only to realise they have fallen into a trap. They find they no longer qualify for any benefit as they have over £16k and discover, furthermore, that it is impossible to move back onto tax credits once you`ve gone on to UB. So they lose their tax credits and gain no UB even though their circumstances are identical.
Mike here you go again, last Florida poll I saw had it tied, yesterday. Tonight Wisconsin, a tie, the problem for Biden is that |Jorgeson is picking up crucial votes. He is up to 5% there. Interestingly the pollsters Susqehana asked what do you think your neighbourts are voting. Trump ahead by 1. This is Wisconsin, absolutely crucial. I keep saying Trump is picking up where it matters. Next week he'll draw level in Pennsylvania, Iowa and Michigan. A small but crucial no of voters are going for the Libertarian Jorgeson as an alternative to Biden. 4 more years, God. PS. IBD today Trump narfrowed gap from 7 to 2.3 which is the margin Clinton was ahead in 16 and we know what happened then. I recommend we ignore those national polls, they contain the huge Democrat leads where it does not matter, the East and Werst coast states.. .
I think it's really simple.
If Biden is four points or more ahead (nationally) on the day, then he's 90% likely to be the next President.
If we assume that polling is as inaccurate as in 2012 (the worst in the last half century), and that the error is in Trump's favour (bear in mind errors tend to oscillate), then Trump needs to bring the polling average down to 7% or less by November 3.
Of course, there's no guarantee that there will be a polling error in Trump's favour - it's equally likely it could be the other way around.
But that's the bare minimum - 7% in the national polling averages - on November 3, for Trump to have a real shot. And to be favourite, Trump needs to be at 3% or less on polling day.
Today he's at - using the average of 538 and RCP - around 9.3%. That's a 2.3% - 6.3% move he needs in the next two weeks. Watch the glide path: if he's on it (and IBD Tipp is encouraging for him), then he can win. But if he gets behind it, it's incredibly hard.
538 line is that the National Polls are a bit out of step with the state ones and the real lead is nearer 9 than over 10. Most of the high grade polls for Biden today I think are pretty good, bar the one that got Kaboomed. 2 different A grade pollsters showing Biden ahead in Iowa! A and B grade polls showing good leads in Penn and showing Texas tied. Yesterday good grade polls showing good leads in North Carolina. BTW Arizona has more EC votes than Wisconsin.
Over the past week or so we've seen the National and State polls falling more closely in line with each other. Biden's lead in the Nationals has dropped back a bit but in the State polls it has improved; the mismatch between Nationals and State has diminished accordingly.
Overall there is little evidence to suggest Trump might be turning things around.
She played a completely straight bat in the hearings last week plus her confirmation is inevitable so no point wasting any more energy or emotion on the issue, plus if Biden were to commit to packing the court in response before the election it would simply drive disaffected Republican voters back to Trump.
She does appear to be intelligent, articulate and have a proper respect for the law: in other words, quite unlike Trump. Hence, I’m now rather less worried about her appointment than I was when I first heard the coverage of her likely appointment.
You know how often companies pay huge fines without admitting wrongdoing (which of course is the reason they pay the fine), well I see that Purdue, the makers of OxyContin, are paying $8.3bn and pleading guilty to at least some criminal charges.
Just how hugely guilty must they have been to pay up and actually admit some wrongdoing?
My understanding is that they pushed the line that narcotics could be used for long term pain management with no fear of addiction, and paid doctors for prescribing Oxy, despite having research showing their claims to be false.
Yes - they got caught completely red handed in the style of a Hollywood movie. Absolutely no way to argue their way out of it at trial.
Other includes alcoholic drinks, tobacco and narcotics, clothing and footwear, health, communication, education, miscellaneous goods and services, and other expenditure items.
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.
There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.
I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.
I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.
Yes, which is why the compromise of keeping the additional support for people who are on the various jobs support schemes makes sense. Otherwise the state is taking responsibility away from parents.
I disagree. Help is not removing responsibility. Responsibility can only be discharged with capability. If you are incapable of supplying food for your children because you have no money, no job (or worse, a job that does not pay enough to support your family in the area where you live) then I don't hold that you can be held responsible for your children. By supplying some supplementary benefit (in this case school meals) to ameliorate that you are returning that responsibility to someone by giving them the capacity to discharge it. The only entity with the clout to do that is the state, and since children do not thrive in poverty it is contingent on the state to minimise that with short and long term measures. Therefore I believe the state should act.
But people in that situation already get a whole load of child related benefits for that reason. Child tax credits, child benefit, working tax credit and other forms of income support already exist as well as housing benefit. Those benefits are also extremely generous, it's that the parents haven't got the right spending priorities. I'm sure all of them have a fairly new iPhone and Sky TV but still claim poverty when it comes to keeping their own kids fed properly.
It is why I have always had concerns about UBI...it sounds good in theory, then we will get stories from the real world of hardship and before you know it new additional benefits schemes will be setup to try to help those and the process starts again.
There are other issues with Universal Benefit as well. A little-reported fact is that UB, unlike Tax Credits, is assessed against savings. You start to lose it at £6k and completely lose entitlement at £16k.
Parents who have taken advantage of the government`s initiative to invest for children via a Child Trust Fund (now Junior ISA) find out that their child reaches 18 and becomes old enough to claim Universal Benefit (if he/she, like many, especially after Covid, starts on minimum wage) is not eligible to claim UB because their parents took out CTF/JISA for him/her which the child, perhaps, didn`t even know about.
You may argue that if that person has £16k in savings they shouldn`t get UB anyway, which is fair enough and obviously what the government thinks, but my point is that this has not been well published and shows UB to be a different beast to tax credits. It was never supposed to be, they said, a tax-saving change.
Many adults have been caught out by this wealth assessment as well - going from tax credits to UB only to realise they have fallen into a trap. They find they no longer qualify for any benefit as they have over £16k and discover, furthermore, that it is impossible to move back onto tax credits once you`ve gone on to UB. So they lose their tax credits and gain no UB even though their circumstances are identical.
I'm beginning to plan for the US election night. I'm going to be home alone in Tier 2. I'll have PB for company and I'm idly thinking about setting up a Zoom meeting for anyone interested. We'd need to rename ourselves with our PB handle in the waiting room. What do you think?
Good idea
OK I'll set it up. I'll post the link here on the night.
I have a premium Zoom account so it won't run out of time.
I'll just leave it running. Come and go with your drinks and popcorn and betting tips.
That’s frustrating. I’d love to join you but unless schools are closed that week I obviously won’t be able to.
I do hope though I wake up just as a deep Red State is called for Biden...
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
On my internets I see a multi page thread calling for Rashford to get an MBE. ymmv
I guarantee that if this free holiday meals is extended while we have Covid, it will be with us for the next 10-15 years and probably expanded to basically everybody.
After covid, the reason will be high unemployment, then it will another reason and then it won't cost much more just to give to every kid
Now you might say it is a good idea anyway, but it is dishonest to claim it will just be for another couple of holidays.
We still have most of the Brown freebies despite supposed of nearly 10 years of austerity.
How about introducing food vouchers - but only to be spent on health food. Would probably pay for itself in the long term.
My own semi-educated guess is that what is happening is this:
> Target voters are robo-called and texted (likely by subcontractors) with "push-polls" and requested use phone keyboard to respond to "questions" such as, "If your neighbors knew that Joe Biden eats babies for breakfast, would you be very concerned, somewhat concerned, etc., etc."
> Responses are recorded along with basic demographic information available from public AND proprietary voter files, for example party registration (or scores), age, gender, ethnicity, education, income, etc., etc.
> Info is collected and (somewhat) weighted based on (pretty simple) demographics (such as the unchanging congressional district breakdowns mentioned by Robert & Alistair) and reported to clients who commissioned the texts and robos.
> Thus in addition to the campaign messages directed to voters - the real reason for the calls & texts - clients get a cheap, quick survey that is NOT real scientific polling BUT which is something to tout.
> Final step in process, is to re-package push-poll "results" as Trafalgar Group polls.
I'm beginning to plan for the US election night. I'm going to be home alone in Tier 2. I'll have PB for company and I'm idly thinking about setting up a Zoom meeting for anyone interested. We'd need to rename ourselves with our PB handle in the waiting room. What do you think?
Good idea
OK I'll set it up. I'll post the link here on the night.
I have a premium Zoom account so it won't run out of time.
I'll just leave it running. Come and go with your drinks and popcorn and betting tips.
That’s frustrating. I’d love to join you but unless schools are closed that week I obviously won’t be able to.
I do hope though I wake up just as a deep Red State is called for Biden...
Were you up for South Carolina?
I'd happily give up all my winnings on the nite to see Mitch McConnell get his arse kicked, but it won't happen.
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
On my internets I see a multi page thread calling for Rashford to get an MBE. ymmv
Rashford already has an MBE. He was 2/1 joint-favourite for the BBC's Sports Personality of the Year this morning but has been backed into a best-priced 7/4.
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
On my internets I see a multi page thread calling for Rashford to get an MBE. ymmv
Rashford already has an MBE. He is 2/1 joint-favourite for the BBC's Sports Personality of the Year.
Don't think they'd want to set a precedent of winners getting it for their social campaigning, most would never get a chance of winning.
Surely players are on PAYE and not paid via companies? There did used to be an issue where image rights (as opposed to salaries) were paid via companies but even that was ended in one of the Hammond budgets iirc.
No they aren't....nothing in sports finance is as it seems. They get a certain amount via PAYE, but most of it is wrapped up in image rights (paid to their company) and also a lot of is guaranteed paid in the future.
It is why you hear about during a transfer a player has demanded x for unpaid wages, its because this contract isn't say 3 years, its 3 years with the wages paid over many years into the future.
The clubs aren't depositing £500k a month into players accounts, nor do they pay £x million for a player, they arrange with a 3rd party finance company a deal again with the money spread over a very long time...and the selling club often then refinance other debt.
If nothing else, PAYE would be incredibly tax inefficient for the player. I would bet a fair amount of coin that no-one in the big money in football, player or otherwise is simply paid their wage....
From time to time we get a look behind the curtain of elite sports persons finances and they are always incredibly complex. From Ray Parlour's having half his contracted wages invested for him in a club owned overseas trust to Andre Agassi long running battle with the tax man over how much he actually earned from 2 weeks at Wimbledon.
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.
There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.
I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.
I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.
Yes, which is why the compromise of keeping the additional support for people who are on the various jobs support schemes makes sense. Otherwise the state is taking responsibility away from parents.
I disagree. Help is not removing responsibility. Responsibility can only be discharged with capability. If you are incapable of supplying food for your children because you have no money, no job (or worse, a job that does not pay enough to support your family in the area where you live) then I don't hold that you can be held responsible for your children. By supplying some supplementary benefit (in this case school meals) to ameliorate that you are returning that responsibility to someone by giving them the capacity to discharge it. The only entity with the clout to do that is the state, and since children do not thrive in poverty it is contingent on the state to minimise that with short and long term measures. Therefore I believe the state should act.
But people in that situation already get a whole load of child related benefits for that reason. Child tax credits, child benefit, working tax credit and other forms of income support already exist as well as housing benefit. Those benefits are also extremely generous, it's that the parents haven't got the right spending priorities. I'm sure all of them have a fairly new iPhone and Sky TV but still claim poverty when it comes to keeping their own kids fed properly.
It is why I have always had concerns about UBI...it sounds good in theory, then we will get stories from the real world of hardship and before you know it new additional benefits schemes will be setup to try to help those and the process starts again.
There are other issues with Universal Benefit as well. A little-reported fact is that UB, unlike Tax Credits, is assessed against savings. You start to lose it at £6k and completely lose entitlement at £16k.
Parents who have taken advantage of the government`s initiative to invest for children via a Child Trust Fund (now Junior ISA) find out that their child reaches 18 and becomes old enough to claim Universal Benefit (if he/she, like many, especially after Covid, starts on minimum wage) is not eligible to claim UB because their parents took out CTF/JISA for him/her which the child, perhaps, didn`t even know about.
You may argue that if that person has £16k in savings they shouldn`t get UB anyway, which is fair enough and obviously what the government thinks, but my point is that this has not been well published and shows UB to be a different beast to tax credits. It was never supposed to be, they said, a tax-saving change.
Many adults have been caught out by this wealth assessment as well - going from tax credits to UB only to realise they have fallen into a trap. They find they no longer qualify for any benefit as they have over £16k and discover, furthermore, that it is impossible to move back onto tax credits once you`ve gone on to UB. So they lose their tax credits and gain no UB even though their circumstances are identical.
On subject of electoral votes. I always liked this - shame about the rest of the film.....
President Robert Fowler: [during the White House correspondents dinner] My beautiful wife, Julie, is from New Jersey. 15 electoral votes... and is, as you know, half Jewish. So we'll take Florida's 25 electoral votes and divide by 2. My daughter, Jeanie, is expecting her first child. If it's a girl, she will be named Virginia. 13 electoral votes. In fact, even if it's a boy, he'll be named Virginia. She reminds me that I have publicly acknowledged that as a young Marine officer in Vietnam, I did, on a handful of occasions, smoke marijuana. [pause] President Robert Fowler: California. 54 electoral votes.
I guarantee that if this free holiday meals is extended while we have Covid, it will be with us for the next 10-15 years and probably expanded to basically everybody.
After covid, the reason will be high unemployment, then it will another reason and then it won't cost much more just to give to every kid
Now you might say it is a good idea anyway, but it is dishonest to claim it will just be for another couple of holidays.
We still have most of the Brown freebies despite supposed of nearly 10 years of austerity.
How about introducing food vouchers - but only to be spent on health food. Would probably pay for itself in the long term.
Vouchers have already been used in the past - for asylum seekers IIRC. Challenged and got rid of as inhumane....
The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.
Is it possible to give a rational account of how in one of the world's most developed and prosperous countries which is borrowing about 200 bn a year extra cash as well it is possible for ordinary families to be going hungry when rice can be had for 40p a kilo. milk for £1 for 4 pints and loaves of bread for 50p?
Does Marcus Rashford or anyone else have an upper limit on how much we should be borrowing from our grandchildren to fund his schemes on top of everything else?
Our society after the current dreadful crisis is still far richer than we were in the foodbank free 60s 70s and 80s. How did we manage?
The key problem is the money being extracted from the economy by rent-seekers.
Rents have increased by far too much over the last couple of decades. Housing benefit now, by design, does not cover all of people's rent. So people reliant on social security have to use the payments intended for food to pay rent.
Fix the housing situation and you can reduce social security costs and leave people with enough money to buy their own food.
Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.
I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.
There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.
I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.
I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.
Yes, which is why the compromise of keeping the additional support for people who are on the various jobs support schemes makes sense. Otherwise the state is taking responsibility away from parents.
I disagree. Help is not removing responsibility. Responsibility can only be discharged with capability. If you are incapable of supplying food for your children because you have no money, no job (or worse, a job that does not pay enough to support your family in the area where you live) then I don't hold that you can be held responsible for your children. By supplying some supplementary benefit (in this case school meals) to ameliorate that you are returning that responsibility to someone by giving them the capacity to discharge it. The only entity with the clout to do that is the state, and since children do not thrive in poverty it is contingent on the state to minimise that with short and long term measures. Therefore I believe the state should act.
But people in that situation already get a whole load of child related benefits for that reason. Child tax credits, child benefit, working tax credit and other forms of income support already exist as well as housing benefit. Those benefits are also extremely generous, it's that the parents haven't got the right spending priorities. I'm sure all of them have a fairly new iPhone and Sky TV but still claim poverty when it comes to keeping their own kids fed properly.
It is why I have always had concerns about UBI...it sounds good in theory, then we will get stories from the real world of hardship and before you know it new additional benefits schemes will be setup to try to help those and the process starts again.
There are other issues with Universal Benefit as well. A little-reported fact is that UB, unlike Tax Credits, is assessed against savings. You start to lose it at £6k and completely lose entitlement at £16k.
Parents who have taken advantage of the government`s initiative to invest for children via a Child Trust Fund (now Junior ISA) find out that their child reaches 18 and becomes old enough to claim Universal Benefit (if he/she, like many, especially after Covid, starts on minimum wage) is not eligible to claim UB because their parents took out CTF/JISA for him/her which the child, perhaps, didn`t even know about.
You may argue that if that person has £16k in savings they shouldn`t get UB anyway, which is fair enough and obviously what the government thinks, but my point is that this has not been well published and shows UB to be a different beast to tax credits. It was never supposed to be, they said, a tax-saving change.
Many adults have been caught out by this wealth assessment as well - going from tax credits to UB only to realise they have fallen into a trap. They find they no longer qualify for any benefit as they have over £16k and discover, furthermore, that it is impossible to move back onto tax credits once you`ve gone on to UB. So they lose their tax credits and gain no UB even though their circumstances are identical.
You mean UC not UB I assume?
The above is the entire reason to move to a UBI.
The problem comes when an army of people arrive with "Yes, but we need a special x to deal with y"
Before you know it, you have the complexity, inefficiency, stupidity and general waste of time equal to the American income tax system multiple by American health care.
The problem comes when an army of people arrive with "Yes, but we need a special x to deal with y"
Before you know it, you have the complexity, inefficiency, stupidity and general waste of time equal to the American income tax system multiple by American health care.
I would love to believe that a move to UBI would eliminate this, but this school meals is a great example of what would happen. You give everybody their £1000 a month, and then there are still claims of kids going hungry, so then the pressure will be on to come up with a scheme to target help to them, and then another deserving group will be identified and repeat the cycle.
It is what happened with Brown's approach to trying to eliminate child poverty, he would keep finding groups not covered well enough by tax credits (or another scheme), then add extra support and then before you know there are people on £50k a year getting them.
Oh, he claims to care about homelessness, yet he lives in a house???1? #Hypocrite #ChampagneSocialist
Burnham is playing the tax system to increase the donation to charity. I hope that his chosen charity is good at distributing a large sum to help the homeless in Manchester.
Biden should narrowly flip Duval county but strangely the real bellwether of whether Biden can narrowly flip Florida or not is if Biden can push Trump down towards 60% in Sumter county to offset potential increased Latino turnout for Trump places like Miami-Dade, Palm Beach etc
Bloomberg is really pouring in the money and it will be interesting to see if Biden can win it on the narrowly win it on the night or not if only by the same margin as 2012 or if Trump's home state advantage is too strong.
I'm leaning towards the former but I'm not so confident.
Yes, that's very much my take on Florida, although I would qualify it in one important respect. It is the Cuban-Americans who are crucial. They are generally (and understandably) hostile to anything they perceive as left-wing and although Biden is no Socialist it's easy for the GoP to portray him as such to these CAs.
I wish I knew how many of them there are, what's their voting record and just how fanatically pro-Trump they are. Absent such information, I would be wary of betting on Florida, even though the current odds (about evens) look attractive.
I think in Florida about 30% of Hispanics are Cuban, and notoriously right wing. There is also a Venezuelan group that is much the same. Against that 30% are Puerto Ricans not impressed by Trump after Hurricane Maria.
I think it pretty much evens out, and Latinos cancel out.
I think Trump will scrape Florida, but it will be tight.
I guarantee that if this free holiday meals is extended while we have Covid, it will be with us for the next 10-15 years and probably expanded to basically everybody.
After covid, the reason will be high unemployment, then it will another reason and then it won't cost much more just to give to every kid
Now you might say it is a good idea anyway, but it is dishonest to claim it will just be for another couple of holidays.
We still have most of the Brown freebies despite supposed of nearly 10 years of austerity.
How about introducing food vouchers - but only to be spent on health food. Would probably pay for itself in the long term.
Vouchers have already been used in the past - for asylum seekers IIRC. Challenged and got rid of as inhumane....
There's a difference though, isn't there? Food vouchers in this case would be a bonus. For asylum seekers it's their only way to obtain food because they're not allowed to earn money.
Comments
Biden should narrowly flip Duval county but strangely the real bellwether of whether Biden can narrowly flip Florida or not is if Biden can push Trump down towards 60% in Sumter county to offset potential increased Latino turnout for Trump places like Miami-Dade, Palm Beach etc
Bloomberg is really pouring in the money and it will be interesting to see if Biden can win it on the narrowly win it on the night or not if only by the same margin as 2012 or if Trump's home state advantage is too strong.
I'm leaning towards the former but I'm not so confident.
PS. IBD today Trump narfrowed gap from 7 to 2.3 which is the margin Clinton was ahead in 16 and we know what happened then. I recommend we ignore those national polls, they contain the huge Democrat leads where it does not matter, the East and Werst coast states.. .
Hopefully he'll be looking for a sub-post office to manage come summer 2024.
https://morningconsult.com/2020/10/21/supreme-court-hearings-barrett-confirmation-polling/
It is why you hear about during a transfer a player has demanded x for unpaid wages, its because this contract isn't say 3 years, its 3 years with the wages paid over many years into the future.
The clubs aren't depositing £500k a month into players accounts, nor do they pay £x million for a player, they arrange with a 3rd party finance company a deal again with the money spread over a very long time...and the selling club often then refinance other debt.
Did mike pick the image with that Chyron on purpose?
If Biden is four points or more ahead (nationally) on the day, then he's 90% likely to be the next President.
If we assume that polling is as inaccurate as in 2012 (the worst in the last half century), and that the error is in Trump's favour (bear in mind errors tend to oscillate), then Trump needs to bring the polling average down to 7% or less by November 3.
Of course, there's no guarantee that there will be a polling error in Trump's favour - it's equally likely it could be the other way around.
But that's the bare minimum - 7% in the national polling averages - on November 3, for Trump to have a real shot. And to be favourite, Trump needs to be at 3% or less on polling day.
Today he's at - using the average of 538 and RCP - around 9.3%. That's a 2.3% - 6.3% move he needs in the next two weeks. Watch the glide path: if he's on it (and IBD Tipp is encouraging for him), then he can win. But if he gets behind it, it's incredibly hard.
'My goodness some on here are going to be eating lashings of humble pie on election night if Trafalgar are right again.'
You misunderstand the criticism of Trafalgar. It isn't that they cannot or will not predict the correct outcome on the nite. It is that they are not in fact pollsters. Thanks to the excellent detective work by Robert Smithson and others we have a pretty good idea how they operate (or rather 'he', because it appears to be a one-man operation.) It is not a polling operation in any meaningful sense of the term.
If they come up with the right answer it will be for the same reason my Aunt Aggie comes up with a winner on the horses - pure luck. Nothing wrong with that, but anybody who peddles a guess as genuine poll findings is a conman.
When I was a semi-professional punter I used to give occasional racing tips on PB. Anybody who followed them consistently would have been in pocket over time because they were based on the hard work I used to put in on form study. Although they didn't all win, there was nothing deceitful or dishonest about the suggestions. That wouldn't be the case now if I started tipping horses on here again because I don't study the form and the tips would be nothing more than guesses. Not that people would mind, as long as I was open and honest about it. If however I presented such guesses as value bets based on research that would be fraudulent and I would be rightly condemned and dismissed with contempt.
This seems such an obvious point that it pains me to labour it but for some reason you don't seem to get it. Trafalgar are not a serious polling operation. Their (or rather his) output has nothing to offer people interested in betting on politics, or anything else much to be honest.
Take your colours down from Trafalgar's mast, Hyufd. It's doing your credibility in, which is a pity because your other contributions here are righty valued by many, including me.
e.g. Patrick Mahomes recently signed $500 million deal, he is getting less than $1 million actual salary this year and they will still be paying the contract in 11 years time. Yes there are performance related elements to this, but it is also structured so he doesn't get more than $1.5 million for the next 3 years, and the big payments are when he has finished playing.
Having said that, its a widespread opinion amongst a section of the right, so ridiculous is unfair, everyone is entitled to an opinion, however misguided.
Does Marcus Rashford or anyone else have an upper limit on how much we should be borrowing from our grandchildren to fund his schemes on top of everything else?
Our society after the current dreadful crisis is still far richer than we were in the foodbank free 60s 70s and 80s. How did we manage?
Still both of us above the population of the state so there's certainly something off about either our calculations or the poll.
1) They had to buy landowners off by offering inflated sums for the land
2) They found people had misled them about what was there when they took possession.
It is slightly ironic though that the media are criticising HS2 for an increase in budget to £98 billion when they were glibly misquoting a report claiming it would cost at least £106 billion.
That’s not however an excuse for not putting in that rail link at Doncaster.
Plus, where were those concerns before all the billions were spent on consultants and a broken Track and Trace system?
I have a premium Zoom account so it won't run out of time.
I'll just leave it running. Come and go with your drinks and popcorn and betting tips.
I wish I knew how many of them there are, what's their voting record and just how fanatically pro-Trump they are. Absent such information, I would be wary of betting on Florida, even though the current odds (about evens) look attractive.
I do hope though I wake up just as a deep Red State is called for Biden...
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/dec/23/premier-league-salaries-manchester-city-nba-barcelona
After covid, the reason will be high unemployment, then it will another reason and then it won't cost much more just to give to every kid
Now you might say it is a good idea anyway, but it is dishonest to claim it will just be for another couple of holidays.
We still have most of the Brown freebies despite supposed of nearly 10 years of austerity.
I suspected the poll was just an outlier but now I know it's a load of crap.
Funny that. Because it is. And this began long before the financial crisis.
As someone pointed out - mechanical car washes have been replaced by people with buckets. Why is that? Why has the mechanisation of labour stalled?
Why is it that sweat shops have made a return? - and no, they have been there for a long, long time.
Parents who have taken advantage of the government`s initiative to invest for children via a Child Trust Fund (now Junior ISA) find out that their child reaches 18 and becomes old enough to claim Universal Benefit (if he/she, like many, especially after Covid, starts on minimum wage) is not eligible to claim UB because their parents took out CTF/JISA for him/her which the child, perhaps, didn`t even know about.
You may argue that if that person has £16k in savings they shouldn`t get UB anyway, which is fair enough and obviously what the government thinks, but my point is that this has not been well published and shows UB to be a different beast to tax credits. It was never supposed to be, they said, a tax-saving change.
Many adults have been caught out by this wealth assessment as well - going from tax credits to UB only to realise they have fallen into a trap. They find they no longer qualify for any benefit as they have over £16k and discover, furthermore, that it is impossible to move back onto tax credits once you`ve gone on to UB. So they lose their tax credits and gain no UB even though their circumstances are identical.
Overall there is little evidence to suggest Trump might be turning things around.
Housing 28.3%
Food & non-alcoholic drinks 14.0%
Transport 10.8%
Recreation & culture 9.8%
Restaurants & hotels 6.9%
Household goods & services 6.5%
Other 23.5%
Other includes alcoholic drinks, tobacco and narcotics, clothing and footwear, health, communication, education, miscellaneous goods and services, and other expenditure items.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/expenditure/bulletins/familyspendingintheuk/april2018tomarch2019#:~:text=Spending on food and housing,those in the richest 10%.
Plus Trump campaign is totally skint, but managed to spend $100K on Trump Jr's new book.
https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/trump-got-scammed-by-his-own-campaign?r=1emko&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=twitter
What IS the method behind the madness?
My own semi-educated guess is that what is happening is this:
> Target voters are robo-called and texted (likely by subcontractors) with "push-polls" and requested use phone keyboard to respond to "questions" such as, "If your neighbors knew that Joe Biden eats babies for breakfast, would you be very concerned, somewhat concerned, etc., etc."
> Responses are recorded along with basic demographic information available from public AND proprietary voter files, for example party registration (or scores), age, gender, ethnicity, education, income, etc., etc.
> Info is collected and (somewhat) weighted based on (pretty simple) demographics (such as the unchanging congressional district breakdowns mentioned by Robert & Alistair) and reported to clients who commissioned the texts and robos.
> Thus in addition to the campaign messages directed to voters - the real reason for the calls & texts - clients get a cheap, quick survey that is NOT real scientific polling BUT which is something to tout.
> Final step in process, is to re-package push-poll "results" as Trafalgar Group polls.
Whereas Hilary Clinton's sleaze involved the pervert Anthony Weiner.
https://twitter.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/1319004247258783744
President Robert Fowler: [during the White House correspondents dinner] My beautiful wife, Julie, is from New Jersey. 15 electoral votes... and is, as you know, half Jewish. So we'll take Florida's 25 electoral votes and divide by 2. My daughter, Jeanie, is expecting her first child. If it's a girl, she will be named Virginia. 13 electoral votes. In fact, even if it's a boy, he'll be named Virginia. She reminds me that I have publicly acknowledged that as a young Marine officer in Vietnam, I did, on a handful of occasions, smoke marijuana.
[pause]
President Robert Fowler: California. 54 electoral votes.
#Hypocrite #ChampagneSocialist
Andy Burnham claims £17,000 a year in rent for London flat – despite owning another that's walking distance from Westminster
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-burnham-claims-rent-flat-moments-away-another-he-already-owns-10273311.html
Rents have increased by far too much over the last couple of decades. Housing benefit now, by design, does not cover all of people's rent. So people reliant on social security have to use the payments intended for food to pay rent.
Fix the housing situation and you can reduce social security costs and leave people with enough money to buy their own food.
The problem comes when an army of people arrive with "Yes, but we need a special x to deal with y"
Before you know it, you have the complexity, inefficiency, stupidity and general waste of time equal to the American income tax system multiple by American health care.
It is what happened with Brown's approach to trying to eliminate child poverty, he would keep finding groups not covered well enough by tax credits (or another scheme), then add extra support and then before you know there are people on £50k a year getting them.
I think it pretty much evens out, and Latinos cancel out.
I think Trump will scrape Florida, but it will be tight.