This is starting to look like landslide territory. – politicalbetting.com
Who voters think would do a better job of handling…The Supreme Court: 47% Biden / 39% TrumpHealth care: 52% Biden / 35% TrumpCoronavirus pandemic: 53% Biden / 34% TrumpRace relations: 53% Biden / 31% Trumphttps://t.co/p7OTuH22uX pic.twitter.com/pTicL6kS5C
Comments
-
First - To allow this thread to be visible.1
-
Without leading on the economy Trump resembles a eunuch trying to be a male porn star, no matter how hard you try, it just ain’t happening, and you’re more likely to be the one who gets fornicated senseless.
I'm really proud of that.0 -
FPT. Perhaps evidence of small, rural towns swinging more Dem than usual. Katko the incumbent voted against the Trump impeachment, etc. And yes I know that this district did vote for Clinton over Trump in 2016.Gallowgate said:We also have a poll of New York's 24th congressional district by Siena College (rated "A-" on 538). This was won by the GOP in 2018 (during the "blue wave") by 5.2%.
They have it as:
Balter (D) 45%
Katko (R) 45%
Interesting.0 -
I call bullshit on the Twitter thread. Simply, where's the cell phone footage?0
-
Others have said the same - however I find it interesting that there is a 2 hour queue to vote 10 days before the election - if that's the case unless you arrive at midnight on the 3rd and wait outside for hours I suspect you won't have a chance to actually vote.rcs1000 said:I call bullshit on the Twitter thread. Simply, where's the cell phone footage?
0 -
How exactly does a bunch of Yahoo's honking horns make the average waiting-in-line voter think "Those are the kinda guys I want to associate myself with"?0
-
Those Trump supporters being all shy again.dixiedean said:How exactly does a bunch of Yahoo's honking horns make the average waiting-in-line voter think "Those are the kinda guys I want to associate myself with"?
4 -
Well quite - My incredibly obnoxious old neighbour had a vote leave sign outside his house. I was a late breaker for remain in that one.dixiedean said:How exactly does a bunch of Yahoo's honking horns make the average waiting-in-line voter think "Those are the kinda guys I want to associate myself with"?
2 -
4
-
Katko outperformed Trump by 15% in 2016 there.Gallowgate said:
FPT. Perhaps evidence of small, rural towns swinging more Dem than usual. Katko the incumbent voted against the Trump impeachment, etc. And yes I know that this district did vote for Clinton over Trump in 2016.Gallowgate said:We also have a poll of New York's 24th congressional district by Siena College (rated "A-" on 538). This was won by the GOP in 2018 (during the "blue wave") by 5.2%.
They have it as:
Balter (D) 45%
Katko (R) 45%
Interesting.1 -
I suspect McEvoy will stand on the list as well & win, even if he loses in Cardiff West. I actually think he is a trouble-maker, and it good to have a trouble-maker in the all too cosy Senedd. So, I'd vote for him.3ChordTrick said:
It is true Drakeford has a marginal seat in Cardiff West, beating McEvoy who stood for Plaid in 2016 by just over a thousand votes with the Tory candidate back in 3rd place around 6 thousand votes behind.
But regardless of Drakeford's mis-steps over this, I don't think he loses to McEvoy in May.
Why? Well it's a long time in the current world to May and this spat over essentials in supermarkets won't be much of a story then in my view.
Secondly, McEvoy was kicked out by Plaid and will be standing under his WNP banner. He's a popular politician with some in the constituency for sure, but others equally despise him, both Labour and Plaid voters.
Plaid will stand and split the nationalist vote with him which will mean an uphill battle. The electorate in many parts of the seat hasn't got more Tory either. If anything it's going more Plaid as the Welsh speaking middle class get priced out of Pontcanna and continue to move into Canton.
McEvoy will poll well in Fairwater and Ely, the less affluent parts of the constituency amongst those who vote. He won't take the seat though and as he's no longer Plaid won't get a list seat either.
He's coming to the end of his time in the Senedd.
The part of your analysis that I think is wrong is " ... others equally despise him, both Labour and Plaid voters."
He is certainly despised by the Plaid Cymru hierarchy, but most Plaid Cymru voters I know are impressed by him.
There is a campaign in Plaid Cymru not to stand in Cardiff West -- it may not work, but the fact that it exists show that he is not anathema to ordinary Plaid Cymru members, let alone voters.
1 -
-
https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1320033601224933381eek said:Others have said the same - however I find it interesting that there is a 2 hour queue to vote 10 days before the election - if that's the case unless you arrive at midnight on the 3rd and wait outside for hours I suspect you won't have a chance to actually vote.
0 -
-
I find it remarkable that Trump is still seen as a contender but (on my reading of Wiki) hasn't had a lead in a national poll since 15th Sep (Rass 47-46) and only two other leads the whole year. In 2016 he had occasional and sometimes sustained leads all through the year. It's very simplistic but I see them as crude proxies for Trump losing the NV but winning the EC. Not even a whiff of him getting a lead before polling day this time.0
-
"Yet there are suggestions in late-campaign polling that Trump could face something resembling a Carter-sized defeat after all. Dave Wasserman, a leading expert on House races, says surveys in competitive districts show a consistent swing of eight to 10 percentage points away from Trump.
Wasserman has also calculated what the national standing of Biden and Trump among key demographic groups, if it held across battleground states, would imply for the outcome. That calculation shows Biden, like Reagan 40 years ago, winning more than 400 electoral votes."
CNN.
Biden is heading for a big win and the markets are lagging the polling. It's an opportunity.
0 -
Ah but, as @MrEd says, if everyone wasn't standing 2m apart it'd actually be a really short line. Next.Scott_xP said:
twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1320033601224933381eek said:Others have said the same - however I find it interesting that there is a 2 hour queue to vote 10 days before the election - if that's the case unless you arrive at midnight on the 3rd and wait outside for hours I suspect you won't have a chance to actually vote.
0 -
Which is remarkable compared to this time last year when we walked into the Museum of the Moving Image on Halloween (so 5 days before the election) and were asked if we had come to vote as they had only had 4 voters so far that day (our English accents made it very obvious that we weren't).Scott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1320033601224933381eek said:Others have said the same - however I find it interesting that there is a 2 hour queue to vote 10 days before the election - if that's the case unless you arrive at midnight on the 3rd and wait outside for hours I suspect you won't have a chance to actually vote.
0 -
Also the fact that line is that long suggests American democracy is actually shite. What are they playing at?
I note that New York congressional districts are gerrymandered as f*ck as well. They are all as bad as each other. The state of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York's_7th_congressional_district0 -
Afternoon all
I remain convinced Biden will do disproportionately better in the deep Red states than in the marginals but recent polling continues to look very positive for the challenger.
A Dallas Morning News poll has Biden up 48-45 in Texas
https://www.uttyler.edu/politicalscience/files/oct2020-lv-codebook-dmn-uttyler-poll.pdf
With this and the Quinnipiac poll suggesting a Tie, I'm putting Texas back in the TCTC column on my master map.
That makes it 284-125 for Biden with 129 TCTC in the Electoral College.
Safer for Trump is South Dakota and it's a time since we had a poll from the state containing Mount Rushmore. Trump won the state by 30 in 2016 but a poll from Mason Dixon for the KELO station has Trump ahead 51-40
https://eu.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/25/argus-leader-kelo-poll-president-trump-joe-biden-south-dakota/6013387002/
I make that a 9.5% swing to the Democrats and fits in nicely with the point mentioned above. Recent polls have shown 7% swings in Kansas and Oklahoma and 11% in West Virginia.0 -
And a very straightforward explanation of why 2020 isn't 2016: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/25/opinions/the-ghost-haunting-the-2020-election-opinion-weekly-column-galant/index.html
I've bet on Biden nationally, obvs, and at many state levels including Florida and Texas. The latter remains a fantastic betting price (hat tip, Mike). There are some good EV share prices available if you're prepared to believe that Biden is going to win big. I'm also on Senate races where the Dems look certain to flip at least 3 states and probably 5 or 6.0 -
Quite fun. Very overrated book though. After the reveal it's nonsense.CarlottaVance said:FPT: Quite droll for Murdo:
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1320336033591009280?s=201 -
You also have things like this to contend with
https://twitter.com/WarOnDumb/status/1320146584697401344
Why do the US make voting so blooming difficult (don't answer I know the reasons).0 -
@TwistedFireStopper3
TWS, nice to see you posting, I was just thinking the morning I had not seen you on for a while.
I bought myself a bottle of Rumbullion yesterday and as I sipped one last night I thought of your goodself and fact I had not seen you on for some time.
Brilliant Rum and it was 12 quid off a bottle at Morrison's at £28 and I thought you would be telling me some other supermarket that had it at much better price.0 -
If Trump needs Alabama postal votes to be voided in order to win the state he is in big trouble.eek said:You also have things like this to contend with
https://twitter.com/WarOnDumb/status/1320146584697401344
Why do the US make voting so blooming difficult (don't answer I know the reasons).0 -
Bit like Murdo before and after the reveal, Britain's most failed politician , lost 7 elections but got in via backdoor list voteskle4 said:
Quite fun. Very overrated book though. After the reveal it's nonsense.CarlottaVance said:FPT: Quite droll for Murdo:
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1320336033591009280?s=200 -
Before certain individuals start nit-picking, I think @Philip_Thompson and I agreed in excess of 350 EC votes and an 8% national poll lead represented a landslide so I have created a new term - the Stompslide (sorry @Philip_Thompson)
The 2008 Obama win was a Stompslide by the former measure but not by the latter (Obama won 53-46). That makes the last Stompslide in 1996 when Clinton won 379 EC votes and beat Dole by 8.5 points in the national vote.
Before that, both 1988 and 1992 qualified in terms of EC votes but not vote shares but both Reagan wins in 1980 and 1984 were Stompslides.0 -
-
McEvoy is a "tedious" trouble maker, rather than a "get things done for the greater good" trouble maker.YBarddCwsc said:
I suspect McEvoy will stand on the list as well & win, even if he loses in Cardiff West. I actually think he is a trouble-maker, and it good to have a trouble-maker in the all too cosy Senedd. So, I'd vote for him.3ChordTrick said:
It is true Drakeford has a marginal seat in Cardiff West, beating McEvoy who stood for Plaid in 2016 by just over a thousand votes with the Tory candidate back in 3rd place around 6 thousand votes behind.
But regardless of Drakeford's mis-steps over this, I don't think he loses to McEvoy in May.
Why? Well it's a long time in the current world to May and this spat over essentials in supermarkets won't be much of a story then in my view.
Secondly, McEvoy was kicked out by Plaid and will be standing under his WNP banner. He's a popular politician with some in the constituency for sure, but others equally despise him, both Labour and Plaid voters.
Plaid will stand and split the nationalist vote with him which will mean an uphill battle. The electorate in many parts of the seat hasn't got more Tory either. If anything it's going more Plaid as the Welsh speaking middle class get priced out of Pontcanna and continue to move into Canton.
McEvoy will poll well in Fairwater and Ely, the less affluent parts of the constituency amongst those who vote. He won't take the seat though and as he's no longer Plaid won't get a list seat either.
He's coming to the end of his time in the Senedd.
The part of your analysis that I think is wrong is " ... others equally despise him, both Labour and Plaid voters."
He is certainly despised by the Plaid Cymru hierarchy, but most Plaid Cymru voters I know are impressed by him.
There is a campaign in Plaid Cymru not to stand in Cardiff West -- it may not work, but the fact that it exists show that he is not anathema to ordinary Plaid Cymru members, let alone voters.0 -
Never understood why they didn't sack Danvers immediately after the fancy dress ball. Sorted.kle4 said:
Quite fun. Very overrated book though. After the reveal it's nonsense.CarlottaVance said:FPT: Quite droll for Murdo:
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1320336033591009280?s=200 -
Yes McEvoy will carry a personal vote from Plaid but not all of it, and as you say given the party hierarchy despise him I see no way they won't stand in Cardiff West, especially as don't forget they had the opportunity to allow him back into the party.YBarddCwsc said:
I suspect McEvoy will stand on the list as well & win, even if he loses in Cardiff West. I actually think he is a trouble-maker, and it good to have a trouble-maker in the all too cosy Senedd. So, I'd vote for him.3ChordTrick said:
It is true Drakeford has a marginal seat in Cardiff West, beating McEvoy who stood for Plaid in 2016 by just over a thousand votes with the Tory candidate back in 3rd place around 6 thousand votes behind.
But regardless of Drakeford's mis-steps over this, I don't think he loses to McEvoy in May.
Why? Well it's a long time in the current world to May and this spat over essentials in supermarkets won't be much of a story then in my view.
Secondly, McEvoy was kicked out by Plaid and will be standing under his WNP banner. He's a popular politician with some in the constituency for sure, but others equally despise him, both Labour and Plaid voters.
Plaid will stand and split the nationalist vote with him which will mean an uphill battle. The electorate in many parts of the seat hasn't got more Tory either. If anything it's going more Plaid as the Welsh speaking middle class get priced out of Pontcanna and continue to move into Canton.
McEvoy will poll well in Fairwater and Ely, the less affluent parts of the constituency amongst those who vote. He won't take the seat though and as he's no longer Plaid won't get a list seat either.
He's coming to the end of his time in the Senedd.
The part of your analysis that I think is wrong is " ... others equally despise him, both Labour and Plaid voters."
He is certainly despised by the Plaid Cymru hierarchy, but most Plaid Cymru voters I know are impressed by him.
There is a campaign in Plaid Cymru not to stand in Cardiff West -- it may not work, but the fact that it exists show that he is not anathema to ordinary Plaid Cymru members, let alone voters.
I'm absolutely confident the WNP will not be taking any list seats on South Wales Central or anywhere else. No way they will get the required votes in constituencies across the region. I strongly suspect that the majority of voters have not even heard of McEvoy's Welsh National Party, and the only candidate with any profile at all is Neil McEvoy.1 -
You seem very certain about everything ... but I agree more with the sentiment in your first post that "it's a long time in the current world to May."3ChordTrick said:
Yes McEvoy will carry a personal vote from Plaid but not all of it, and as you say given the party hierarchy despise him I see no way they won't stand in Cardiff West, especially as don't forget they had the opportunity to allow him back into the party.YBarddCwsc said:
I suspect McEvoy will stand on the list as well & win, even if he loses in Cardiff West. I actually think he is a trouble-maker, and it good to have a trouble-maker in the all too cosy Senedd. So, I'd vote for him.3ChordTrick said:
It is true Drakeford has a marginal seat in Cardiff West, beating McEvoy who stood for Plaid in 2016 by just over a thousand votes with the Tory candidate back in 3rd place around 6 thousand votes behind.
But regardless of Drakeford's mis-steps over this, I don't think he loses to McEvoy in May.
Why? Well it's a long time in the current world to May and this spat over essentials in supermarkets won't be much of a story then in my view.
Secondly, McEvoy was kicked out by Plaid and will be standing under his WNP banner. He's a popular politician with some in the constituency for sure, but others equally despise him, both Labour and Plaid voters.
Plaid will stand and split the nationalist vote with him which will mean an uphill battle. The electorate in many parts of the seat hasn't got more Tory either. If anything it's going more Plaid as the Welsh speaking middle class get priced out of Pontcanna and continue to move into Canton.
McEvoy will poll well in Fairwater and Ely, the less affluent parts of the constituency amongst those who vote. He won't take the seat though and as he's no longer Plaid won't get a list seat either.
He's coming to the end of his time in the Senedd.
The part of your analysis that I think is wrong is " ... others equally despise him, both Labour and Plaid voters."
He is certainly despised by the Plaid Cymru hierarchy, but most Plaid Cymru voters I know are impressed by him.
There is a campaign in Plaid Cymru not to stand in Cardiff West -- it may not work, but the fact that it exists show that he is not anathema to ordinary Plaid Cymru members, let alone voters.
I'm absolutely confident the WNP will not be taking any list seats on South Wales Central or anywhere else. No way they will get the required votes in constituencies across the region. I strongly suspect that the majority of voters have not even heard of McEvoy's Welsh National Party, and the only candidate with any profile at all is Neil McEvoy.
It is a long & shitty time to be in government. Let's see.0 -
I think she's played by Kristen Scott Thomas in the latest offering. Not to get too letchy Jeremy Clarkson, but you can't sack Kristen.IshmaelZ said:
Never understood why they didn't sack Danvers immediately after the fancy dress ball. Sorted.kle4 said:
Quite fun. Very overrated book though. After the reveal it's nonsense.CarlottaVance said:FPT: Quite droll for Murdo:
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1320336033591009280?s=201 -
no. 10 considering new 'terrifying' Tier 4 proposals which means everything has to close apart from Wetherspoons0
-
Senate raceMexicanpete said:
If Trump needs Alabama postal votes to be voided in order to win the state he is in big trouble.eek said:You also have things like this to contend with
https://twitter.com/WarOnDumb/status/1320146584697401344
Why do the US make voting so blooming difficult (don't answer I know the reasons).0 -
Footy gone pear shaped. Missing Coleman. Godfrey isn't a right back.0
-
The answer to the quiz question was George Hamilton-Gordon, 4th Earl of Aberdeen, Peelite Prime Minister of a coalition government between 1852-55.0
-
Like cockroaches, ‘spoons can survive any human catastrophe.malcolmg said:no. 10 considering new 'terrifying' Tier 4 proposals which means everything has to close apart from Wetherspoons
0 -
The chap who posted the tweet claims the NYC Board of Elections is practicing voter suppression - slightly odd tactics in NYC...eek said:
Which is remarkable compared to this time last year when we walked into the Museum of the Moving Image on Halloween (so 5 days before the election) and were asked if we had come to vote as they had only had 4 voters so far that day (our English accents made it very obvious that we weren't).Scott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1320033601224933381eek said:Others have said the same - however I find it interesting that there is a 2 hour queue to vote 10 days before the election - if that's the case unless you arrive at midnight on the 3rd and wait outside for hours I suspect you won't have a chance to actually vote.
0 -
Even the best politicians have pedestrian tastes in literature. I recall Cameron ostentatiously taking ‘On Chesil Beach’ on holiday.kle4 said:
Quite fun. Very overrated book though. After the reveal it's nonsense.CarlottaVance said:FPT: Quite droll for Murdo:
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1320336033591009280?s=200 -
F1: mildly surprised my tip came off, hedged. Nice, though.1
-
A fair point.Alistair said:
Senate raceMexicanpete said:
If Trump needs Alabama postal votes to be voided in order to win the state he is in big trouble.eek said:You also have things like this to contend with
https://twitter.com/WarOnDumb/status/1320146584697401344
Why do the US make voting so blooming difficult (don't answer I know the reasons).0 -
See my post earlier in this thread. I suspect a lot of people will turn up to vote and find out that even after queuing for x hours the polling booths will have closed before they can vote.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Not so sure about that, they've just posted a big loss and the local one here was completely deserted when I walked past there on Friday night.ThomasNashe said:
Like cockroaches, ‘spoons can survive any human catastrophe.malcolmg said:no. 10 considering new 'terrifying' Tier 4 proposals which means everything has to close apart from Wetherspoons
0 -
Sorry to say much as I hate to agree with them I think the tories have a point here. I didn't know much about the issue and it all seems quite emotive after all how can we let kids go hungry.williamglenn said:
Personally I was quite shocked because after looking at figures it seems to me that what labour are arguing is that a single mother of two school age children earning 28,000 a year should be subsiding free school meals for the children of an unemployed single mother of two identically aged children because some how she is poorer.
here is why I come to that conclusion before people call me callous
take home pay of single mother on 28k is 1890£
unemployed mother gets however
409.89 personal benefit
281.25 for the first child
235.83 for the second child
1000£ housing benefit (obviously dependent on area but a low ball estimate for the south east)
100£ council tax support (again conservative estimate)
for a total of 2026.97 which equates to a salary of just over 30k
Sorry if you cant feed and clothe yourself and 2 small children on 250£ a week after housing you are doing something wrong and more money is not going to make a difference. You need to be taught how to budget.
This omits child benefit as both receive it so it cancels out it also omits the extra expense the working mother might have with work such as the daily commute and the fact her kids dont get free school meals.
Look at why these children aren't being fed and fix that. A 15£ food voucher isn't going to help as the problem is the parent(s) not the money.
I can't help feeling this is one of those situations where the public think the unemployed are poorer than they are. The benefit seems perfectly adequate to me.
Source for figures
https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-get4 -
YouGov Florida
Biden 50% (+2)
Trump 48% (+2)
Changes from 19th September.
YouGov Georgia
Biden 49% (+3)
Trump 49% (+2)
Changes from 26th September.
YouGov North Carolina
Biden 51% (+3)
Trump 47% (+1)
Changes from 26th September.0 -
I
There are more polling places on polling dayeek said:
See my post earlier in this thread. I suspect a lot of people will turn up to vote and find out that even after queuing for x hours the polling booths will have closed before they can vote.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
-
So @Pagan2 do you intend to “teach people how to budget” by starving their children? Why should children be punished by the actions (or lack of) of their parents?1
-
So a bit like queueing at Asda Dowlais Top, only to find George has been cordoned off! That scale of disappointment.eek said:
See my post earlier in this thread. I suspect a lot of people will turn up to vote and find out that even after queuing for x hours the polling booths will have closed before they can vote.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
0
-
And in many states the polling places must remain open until all those in line at the official close of poll time have voted.Alistair said:I
There are more polling places on polling dayeek said:
See my post earlier in this thread. I suspect a lot of people will turn up to vote and find out that even after queuing for x hours the polling booths will have closed before they can vote.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Re TSE's post, if you look at what is happening on the ground, it really doesn't feel like landslide territory, it feels like a tight race:
First up, North Carolina. Bitzer has an updated post (http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2020/10/nc-early-votes-10-24.html). The Republicans have knocked another 2 point lead off the Democrats in early voting in terms of party registrations, which is becoming a daily occurrence. Even that probably overstates the Democrat lead because in rural counties (19% of votes so far), the numbers are showing the Democrats in the lead - great until you realise many of these are likely to be Democrat-registered but Republican-voting older voters. Black turnout is also trending down to below its share of the electorate and the "souls to the polls" Sunday drives are likely to be less effective because of CV.
Florida. The Democrats had a big lead in mail-ins but the IPEV vote is eating heavily into that with 10 days to go. Miami-Dade IPEV is actually equal (about) Democrats / Republicans. Democrats had over a 230K (I think) lead in FL in 2016 going into election day but still lost. The trend rates suggest that the Republicans will continue to eat significantly into the vote.
Nevada. Ralston reckons the Democrats need a 80K firewall in Clark and 54K overall to be confident. At the moment, it's around 65K in Clark although there is some mail in to come. However, the question is how many more mail-ins are there because the GOP is winning the daily IPEV in both Clark and Washoe.
Minnesota / New Hampshire: Trump is planning a big ad campaign and the Senate race is now voted a toss up in the former and he is doing a rally in the latter. A bit bizarre if you think these are no-hope states. He obviously doesn't/0 -
We have a “Gravis Marketing” poll of Michigan (funnily enough they are rated slightly higher than Trafalgar on 538):
Biden 55% (+4)
Trump 42% (-)
Changes from 23rd July.0 -
0
-
Latest 538 projection for Maine 2nd district:
Biden 49.2%
Trump 49.2%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/0 -
I don't think that they should be punished however the answer is not to give the parents even more money because they will simply waste that as well. The answer is to fix the problem and if you wish to argue we should have been fixing this problem years ago then I wouldnt disagree with you.Gallowgate said:So @Pagan2 do you intend to “teach people how to budget” by starving their children? Why should children be punished by the actions (or lack of) of their parents?
If the parents won't use the money they get which I hope you agree seems adequate the answer is perhaps to run a scheme where you remove some of the money and suppy a book of vouchers that the kids can have used in council approved outlets to pay for a meal for the child these could be handed directly to the child. Shovelling more money at the parents seems more like trying to douse a fire with petrol and rewarding their bad behaviour.0 -
I blame Angela Rayner!Scott_xP said:0 -
-
0
-
I don’t really disagree with you at all.Pagan2 said:
I don't think that they should be punished however the answer is not to give the parents even more money because they will simply waste that as well. The answer is to fix the problem and if you wish to argue we should have been fixing this problem years ago then I wouldnt disagree with you.Gallowgate said:So @Pagan2 do you intend to “teach people how to budget” by starving their children? Why should children be punished by the actions (or lack of) of their parents?
If the parents won't use the money they get which I hope you agree seems adequate the answer is perhaps to run a scheme where you remove some of the money and suppy a book of vouchers that the kids can have used in council approved outlets to pay for a meal for the child these could be handed directly to the child. Shovelling more money at the parents seems more like trying to douse a fire with petrol and rewarding their bad behaviour.
However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be generous and bloody feed as many children as possible well during the middle of a global pandemic ffs.
They are children! We are throwing money at dodgy PPE suppliers and consultants left right and centre and yet you are quibbling over next to nothing, to feed children!0 -
F1; post-race ramble:
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2020/10/portugal-post-race-analysis-2020.html1 -
-
I offered an alternative solution which means the kids still get fed. The parents cant be trusted so take a portion out of the money and ensure it can only be used on feeding the child. You give the parents a 15£ food voucher all they are going to do is increase their wasting by 15£ a week and the child still wont get fed.Gallowgate said:
I don’t really disagree with you at all.Pagan2 said:
I don't think that they should be punished however the answer is not to give the parents even more money because they will simply waste that as well. The answer is to fix the problem and if you wish to argue we should have been fixing this problem years ago then I wouldnt disagree with you.Gallowgate said:So @Pagan2 do you intend to “teach people how to budget” by starving their children? Why should children be punished by the actions (or lack of) of their parents?
If the parents won't use the money they get which I hope you agree seems adequate the answer is perhaps to run a scheme where you remove some of the money and suppy a book of vouchers that the kids can have used in council approved outlets to pay for a meal for the child these could be handed directly to the child. Shovelling more money at the parents seems more like trying to douse a fire with petrol and rewarding their bad behaviour.
However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be generous and bloody feed as many children as possible well during the middle of a global pandemic ffs.
They are children! We are throwing money at dodgy PPE suppliers and consultants left right and centre and yet you are quibbling over next to nothing, to feed children!0 -
williamglenn said:
This county went 50.5%/46% for Trump over Hillary.
Can't say offhand whether higher turnout here is good for Trump or Biden, although in general, you'd have to think that higher voting favours Biden.0 -
"Nobody expected a pandemic" D.J.TrumpNigelb said:0 -
Who cares if you give feckless parents an extra £15 a week, during a global pandemic? It’s nothing in the grand scheme of things!Pagan2 said:
I offered an alternative solution which means the kids still get fed. The parents cant be trusted so take a portion out of the money and ensure it can only be used on feeding the child. You give the parents a 15£ food voucher all they are going to do is increase their wasting by 15£ a week and the child still wont get fed.Gallowgate said:
I don’t really disagree with you at all.Pagan2 said:
I don't think that they should be punished however the answer is not to give the parents even more money because they will simply waste that as well. The answer is to fix the problem and if you wish to argue we should have been fixing this problem years ago then I wouldnt disagree with you.Gallowgate said:So @Pagan2 do you intend to “teach people how to budget” by starving their children? Why should children be punished by the actions (or lack of) of their parents?
If the parents won't use the money they get which I hope you agree seems adequate the answer is perhaps to run a scheme where you remove some of the money and suppy a book of vouchers that the kids can have used in council approved outlets to pay for a meal for the child these could be handed directly to the child. Shovelling more money at the parents seems more like trying to douse a fire with petrol and rewarding their bad behaviour.
However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be generous and bloody feed as many children as possible well during the middle of a global pandemic ffs.
They are children! We are throwing money at dodgy PPE suppliers and consultants left right and centre and yet you are quibbling over next to nothing, to feed children!0 -
Just local, i.e. municipal, not even state, races on the ballot in NYS last year. Also, that was the very first year NYS had early voting and not so many people knew about it.eek said:
Which is remarkable compared to this time last year when we walked into the Museum of the Moving Image on Halloween (so 5 days before the election) and were asked if we had come to vote as they had only had 4 voters so far that day (our English accents made it very obvious that we weren't).Scott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1320033601224933381eek said:Others have said the same - however I find it interesting that there is a 2 hour queue to vote 10 days before the election - if that's the case unless you arrive at midnight on the 3rd and wait outside for hours I suspect you won't have a chance to actually vote.
0 -
Tories 2nd best choice is to make them go and wait in queues at soup kitchens , run by their chums , probably in striped suits so they are totally shamed.Gallowgate said:
Who cares if you give feckless parents an extra £15 a week, during a global pandemic? It’s nothing in the grand scheme of things!Pagan2 said:
I offered an alternative solution which means the kids still get fed. The parents cant be trusted so take a portion out of the money and ensure it can only be used on feeding the child. You give the parents a 15£ food voucher all they are going to do is increase their wasting by 15£ a week and the child still wont get fed.Gallowgate said:
I don’t really disagree with you at all.Pagan2 said:
I don't think that they should be punished however the answer is not to give the parents even more money because they will simply waste that as well. The answer is to fix the problem and if you wish to argue we should have been fixing this problem years ago then I wouldnt disagree with you.Gallowgate said:So @Pagan2 do you intend to “teach people how to budget” by starving their children? Why should children be punished by the actions (or lack of) of their parents?
If the parents won't use the money they get which I hope you agree seems adequate the answer is perhaps to run a scheme where you remove some of the money and suppy a book of vouchers that the kids can have used in council approved outlets to pay for a meal for the child these could be handed directly to the child. Shovelling more money at the parents seems more like trying to douse a fire with petrol and rewarding their bad behaviour.
However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be generous and bloody feed as many children as possible well during the middle of a global pandemic ffs.
They are children! We are throwing money at dodgy PPE suppliers and consultants left right and centre and yet you are quibbling over next to nothing, to feed children!0 -
And the answer to my point that they will just waste the 15£ extra and the kid still likely wont get fed? None at all what a surpriseGallowgate said:
Who cares if you give feckless parents an extra £15 a week, during a global pandemic? It’s nothing in the grand scheme of things!Pagan2 said:
I offered an alternative solution which means the kids still get fed. The parents cant be trusted so take a portion out of the money and ensure it can only be used on feeding the child. You give the parents a 15£ food voucher all they are going to do is increase their wasting by 15£ a week and the child still wont get fed.Gallowgate said:
I don’t really disagree with you at all.Pagan2 said:
I don't think that they should be punished however the answer is not to give the parents even more money because they will simply waste that as well. The answer is to fix the problem and if you wish to argue we should have been fixing this problem years ago then I wouldnt disagree with you.Gallowgate said:So @Pagan2 do you intend to “teach people how to budget” by starving their children? Why should children be punished by the actions (or lack of) of their parents?
If the parents won't use the money they get which I hope you agree seems adequate the answer is perhaps to run a scheme where you remove some of the money and suppy a book of vouchers that the kids can have used in council approved outlets to pay for a meal for the child these could be handed directly to the child. Shovelling more money at the parents seems more like trying to douse a fire with petrol and rewarding their bad behaviour.
However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be generous and bloody feed as many children as possible well during the middle of a global pandemic ffs.
They are children! We are throwing money at dodgy PPE suppliers and consultants left right and centre and yet you are quibbling over next to nothing, to feed children!0 -
Correct me if I’m wrong, but all these private businesses offering to step-in where the Government has so badly failed require the children to actually turn up and eat in order to receive the benefit. Likewise with going to a school.Pagan2 said:
And the answer to my point that they will just waste the 15£ extra and the kid still likely wont get fed? None at all what a surpriseGallowgate said:
Who cares if you give feckless parents an extra £15 a week, during a global pandemic? It’s nothing in the grand scheme of things!Pagan2 said:
I offered an alternative solution which means the kids still get fed. The parents cant be trusted so take a portion out of the money and ensure it can only be used on feeding the child. You give the parents a 15£ food voucher all they are going to do is increase their wasting by 15£ a week and the child still wont get fed.Gallowgate said:
I don’t really disagree with you at all.Pagan2 said:
I don't think that they should be punished however the answer is not to give the parents even more money because they will simply waste that as well. The answer is to fix the problem and if you wish to argue we should have been fixing this problem years ago then I wouldnt disagree with you.Gallowgate said:So @Pagan2 do you intend to “teach people how to budget” by starving their children? Why should children be punished by the actions (or lack of) of their parents?
If the parents won't use the money they get which I hope you agree seems adequate the answer is perhaps to run a scheme where you remove some of the money and suppy a book of vouchers that the kids can have used in council approved outlets to pay for a meal for the child these could be handed directly to the child. Shovelling more money at the parents seems more like trying to douse a fire with petrol and rewarding their bad behaviour.
However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be generous and bloody feed as many children as possible well during the middle of a global pandemic ffs.
They are children! We are throwing money at dodgy PPE suppliers and consultants left right and centre and yet you are quibbling over next to nothing, to feed children!0 -
#notafunctioningdemocracy.Scott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1320033601224933381eek said:Others have said the same - however I find it interesting that there is a 2 hour queue to vote 10 days before the election - if that's the case unless you arrive at midnight on the 3rd and wait outside for hours I suspect you won't have a chance to actually vote.
1 -
Fun term. I think we're definitely looking at a Stompslide this year.stodge said:Before certain individuals start nit-picking, I think @Philip_Thompson and I agreed in excess of 350 EC votes and an 8% national poll lead represented a landslide so I have created a new term - the Stompslide (sorry @Philip_Thompson)
The 2008 Obama win was a Stompslide by the former measure but not by the latter (Obama won 53-46). That makes the last Stompslide in 1996 when Clinton won 379 EC votes and beat Dole by 8.5 points in the national vote.
Before that, both 1988 and 1992 qualified in terms of EC votes but not vote shares but both Reagan wins in 1980 and 1984 were Stompslides.0 -
And your solution to give parents that don't give a damn obviously about feeding their children properly of giving them more money actually requires them to spend that money on feeding their children. A thing they have already shown themselves unwilling to do. Correct me if I am wrong.Gallowgate said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but all these private businesses offering to step-in where the Government has so badly failed require the children to actually turn up and eat in order to receive the benefit. Likewise with going to a school.Pagan2 said:
And the answer to my point that they will just waste the 15£ extra and the kid still likely wont get fed? None at all what a surpriseGallowgate said:
Who cares if you give feckless parents an extra £15 a week, during a global pandemic? It’s nothing in the grand scheme of things!Pagan2 said:
I offered an alternative solution which means the kids still get fed. The parents cant be trusted so take a portion out of the money and ensure it can only be used on feeding the child. You give the parents a 15£ food voucher all they are going to do is increase their wasting by 15£ a week and the child still wont get fed.Gallowgate said:
I don’t really disagree with you at all.Pagan2 said:
I don't think that they should be punished however the answer is not to give the parents even more money because they will simply waste that as well. The answer is to fix the problem and if you wish to argue we should have been fixing this problem years ago then I wouldnt disagree with you.Gallowgate said:So @Pagan2 do you intend to “teach people how to budget” by starving their children? Why should children be punished by the actions (or lack of) of their parents?
If the parents won't use the money they get which I hope you agree seems adequate the answer is perhaps to run a scheme where you remove some of the money and suppy a book of vouchers that the kids can have used in council approved outlets to pay for a meal for the child these could be handed directly to the child. Shovelling more money at the parents seems more like trying to douse a fire with petrol and rewarding their bad behaviour.
However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be generous and bloody feed as many children as possible well during the middle of a global pandemic ffs.
They are children! We are throwing money at dodgy PPE suppliers and consultants left right and centre and yet you are quibbling over next to nothing, to feed children!0 -
The issues numbers merely reflect the national polling ie 46% to 51% Biden, Biden is only over 50% on immigration, foreign policy, healthcare and Covid though0
-
This is the ToriesGallowgate said:
I don’t really disagree with you at all.Pagan2 said:
I don't think that they should be punished however the answer is not to give the parents even more money because they will simply waste that as well. The answer is to fix the problem and if you wish to argue we should have been fixing this problem years ago then I wouldnt disagree with you.Gallowgate said:So @Pagan2 do you intend to “teach people how to budget” by starving their children? Why should children be punished by the actions (or lack of) of their parents?
If the parents won't use the money they get which I hope you agree seems adequate the answer is perhaps to run a scheme where you remove some of the money and suppy a book of vouchers that the kids can have used in council approved outlets to pay for a meal for the child these could be handed directly to the child. Shovelling more money at the parents seems more like trying to douse a fire with petrol and rewarding their bad behaviour.
However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be generous and bloody feed as many children as possible well during the middle of a global pandemic ffs.
They are children! We are throwing money at dodgy PPE suppliers and consultants left right and centre and yet you are quibbling over next to nothing, to feed children!
Why You Should Join the Tory Party
Go from a flaky claims business boss to millionairess overnight. A firm that was set up by Baroness Mone has been awarded a £122 million contract to supply 25 million gowns the NHS – just 44 days after it was set up.
https://twitter.com/Grouse_Beater/status/13200996879998771231 -
Are these not provided as vouchers for Aldi, Lidl etc. that can only be spent on food ?Pagan2 said:
And the answer to my point that they will just waste the 15£ extra and the kid still likely wont get fed? None at all what a surpriseGallowgate said:
Who cares if you give feckless parents an extra £15 a week, during a global pandemic? It’s nothing in the grand scheme of things!Pagan2 said:
I offered an alternative solution which means the kids still get fed. The parents cant be trusted so take a portion out of the money and ensure it can only be used on feeding the child. You give the parents a 15£ food voucher all they are going to do is increase their wasting by 15£ a week and the child still wont get fed.Gallowgate said:
I don’t really disagree with you at all.Pagan2 said:
I don't think that they should be punished however the answer is not to give the parents even more money because they will simply waste that as well. The answer is to fix the problem and if you wish to argue we should have been fixing this problem years ago then I wouldnt disagree with you.Gallowgate said:So @Pagan2 do you intend to “teach people how to budget” by starving their children? Why should children be punished by the actions (or lack of) of their parents?
If the parents won't use the money they get which I hope you agree seems adequate the answer is perhaps to run a scheme where you remove some of the money and suppy a book of vouchers that the kids can have used in council approved outlets to pay for a meal for the child these could be handed directly to the child. Shovelling more money at the parents seems more like trying to douse a fire with petrol and rewarding their bad behaviour.
However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be generous and bloody feed as many children as possible well during the middle of a global pandemic ffs.
They are children! We are throwing money at dodgy PPE suppliers and consultants left right and centre and yet you are quibbling over next to nothing, to feed children!
Not sure how that won't end up with kids being fed better than today.
Some posts on here show some on here are totally isolated from a huge part of society, no doubt neither they nor any of the people they deal with were on free school meals and they certainly do not have friends who are genuinely suffering economically as they'd be far better informed about the reasons and would not post such nonsense they do so.
Think on the FSM discussion people should declare what % of their friends at school were on FSM and what % of families they know today have kids on FSM.
Would give a very interesting insight as to how badly dislocated those people are from this part of society.
FWIW I reckon about a third of the kids on my road are on FSM and a similar number of my friends at school 30 years ago were.0 -
NYTimes has a nice interactive graphic on states and EVC needed to win:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/election-states-biden-trump.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage0 -
In 1996 and 1980 there were major third party candidates in Perot and Anderson so the headline poll lead was larger than it seemed and that filtered through to the EC, if Biden was going to get a 1984, 1972 or 1964 style landslide he should at least be polling 55-60% in most polls nowstodge said:Before certain individuals start nit-picking, I think @Philip_Thompson and I agreed in excess of 350 EC votes and an 8% national poll lead represented a landslide so I have created a new term - the Stompslide (sorry @Philip_Thompson)
The 2008 Obama win was a Stompslide by the former measure but not by the latter (Obama won 53-46). That makes the last Stompslide in 1996 when Clinton won 379 EC votes and beat Dole by 8.5 points in the national vote.
Before that, both 1988 and 1992 qualified in terms of EC votes but not vote shares but both Reagan wins in 1980 and 1984 were Stompslides.0 -
Yes they are however of the almost 1000 a month that parent I quoted has in cash in hand they just spend an extra 60£ a month of wasteful stuff and use the voucher to fill in that hole. They obviously spend some on food even if they are only feeding themselves properlyManchesterKurt said:
Are these not provided as vouchers for Aldi, Lidl etc. that can only be spent on food ?Pagan2 said:
And the answer to my point that they will just waste the 15£ extra and the kid still likely wont get fed? None at all what a surpriseGallowgate said:
Who cares if you give feckless parents an extra £15 a week, during a global pandemic? It’s nothing in the grand scheme of things!Pagan2 said:
I offered an alternative solution which means the kids still get fed. The parents cant be trusted so take a portion out of the money and ensure it can only be used on feeding the child. You give the parents a 15£ food voucher all they are going to do is increase their wasting by 15£ a week and the child still wont get fed.Gallowgate said:
I don’t really disagree with you at all.Pagan2 said:
I don't think that they should be punished however the answer is not to give the parents even more money because they will simply waste that as well. The answer is to fix the problem and if you wish to argue we should have been fixing this problem years ago then I wouldnt disagree with you.Gallowgate said:So @Pagan2 do you intend to “teach people how to budget” by starving their children? Why should children be punished by the actions (or lack of) of their parents?
If the parents won't use the money they get which I hope you agree seems adequate the answer is perhaps to run a scheme where you remove some of the money and suppy a book of vouchers that the kids can have used in council approved outlets to pay for a meal for the child these could be handed directly to the child. Shovelling more money at the parents seems more like trying to douse a fire with petrol and rewarding their bad behaviour.
However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be generous and bloody feed as many children as possible well during the middle of a global pandemic ffs.
They are children! We are throwing money at dodgy PPE suppliers and consultants left right and centre and yet you are quibbling over next to nothing, to feed children!
Not sure how that won't end up with kids being fed better than today.
Some posts on here show some on here are totally isolated from a huge part of society, no doubt neither they nor any of the people they deal with were on free school meals and they certainly do not have friends who are genuinely suffering economically as they'd be far better informed about the reasons and would not post such nonsense they do so.
Think on the FSM discussion people should declare what % of their friends at school were on FSM and what % of families they know today have kids on FSM.
Would give a very interesting insight as to how badly dislocated those people are from this part of society.0 -
Well done Tao Geoghegan Hart - a grand tour winner from London - Boris's bike schemes pay off!
And a great name to boot.1 -
Out of interest, do you have any dealings with real people that are on FSM ?Pagan2 said:
Yes they are however of the almost 1000 a month that parent I quoted has in cash in hand they just spend an extra 60£ a month of wasteful stuff and use the voucher to fill in that hole. They obviously spend some on food even if they are only feeding themselves properlyManchesterKurt said:
Are these not provided as vouchers for Aldi, Lidl etc. that can only be spent on food ?Pagan2 said:
And the answer to my point that they will just waste the 15£ extra and the kid still likely wont get fed? None at all what a surpriseGallowgate said:
Who cares if you give feckless parents an extra £15 a week, during a global pandemic? It’s nothing in the grand scheme of things!Pagan2 said:
I offered an alternative solution which means the kids still get fed. The parents cant be trusted so take a portion out of the money and ensure it can only be used on feeding the child. You give the parents a 15£ food voucher all they are going to do is increase their wasting by 15£ a week and the child still wont get fed.Gallowgate said:
I don’t really disagree with you at all.Pagan2 said:
I don't think that they should be punished however the answer is not to give the parents even more money because they will simply waste that as well. The answer is to fix the problem and if you wish to argue we should have been fixing this problem years ago then I wouldnt disagree with you.Gallowgate said:So @Pagan2 do you intend to “teach people how to budget” by starving their children? Why should children be punished by the actions (or lack of) of their parents?
If the parents won't use the money they get which I hope you agree seems adequate the answer is perhaps to run a scheme where you remove some of the money and suppy a book of vouchers that the kids can have used in council approved outlets to pay for a meal for the child these could be handed directly to the child. Shovelling more money at the parents seems more like trying to douse a fire with petrol and rewarding their bad behaviour.
However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be generous and bloody feed as many children as possible well during the middle of a global pandemic ffs.
They are children! We are throwing money at dodgy PPE suppliers and consultants left right and centre and yet you are quibbling over next to nothing, to feed children!
Not sure how that won't end up with kids being fed better than today.
Some posts on here show some on here are totally isolated from a huge part of society, no doubt neither they nor any of the people they deal with were on free school meals and they certainly do not have friends who are genuinely suffering economically as they'd be far better informed about the reasons and would not post such nonsense they do so.
Think on the FSM discussion people should declare what % of their friends at school were on FSM and what % of families they know today have kids on FSM.
Would give a very interesting insight as to how badly dislocated those people are from this part of society.
Honest question as I strongly suspect the answer is no.0 -
Dirty, dirty Everton.
They are the new Leeds.0 -
I was expecting when I went to look at the figures to see the money was wholly inadequate and that I could see how people would be struggling to make ends meet. Instead I saw a figure that seemed more than adequate to me. I certainly had a lot less when I brought up my son and that was before things like working tax credits and on a single wage below the average wage. We managed and my son never went hungryManchesterKurt said:
Are these not provided as vouchers for Aldi, Lidl etc. that can only be spent on food ?Pagan2 said:
And the answer to my point that they will just waste the 15£ extra and the kid still likely wont get fed? None at all what a surpriseGallowgate said:
Who cares if you give feckless parents an extra £15 a week, during a global pandemic? It’s nothing in the grand scheme of things!Pagan2 said:
I offered an alternative solution which means the kids still get fed. The parents cant be trusted so take a portion out of the money and ensure it can only be used on feeding the child. You give the parents a 15£ food voucher all they are going to do is increase their wasting by 15£ a week and the child still wont get fed.Gallowgate said:
I don’t really disagree with you at all.Pagan2 said:
I don't think that they should be punished however the answer is not to give the parents even more money because they will simply waste that as well. The answer is to fix the problem and if you wish to argue we should have been fixing this problem years ago then I wouldnt disagree with you.Gallowgate said:So @Pagan2 do you intend to “teach people how to budget” by starving their children? Why should children be punished by the actions (or lack of) of their parents?
If the parents won't use the money they get which I hope you agree seems adequate the answer is perhaps to run a scheme where you remove some of the money and suppy a book of vouchers that the kids can have used in council approved outlets to pay for a meal for the child these could be handed directly to the child. Shovelling more money at the parents seems more like trying to douse a fire with petrol and rewarding their bad behaviour.
However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be generous and bloody feed as many children as possible well during the middle of a global pandemic ffs.
They are children! We are throwing money at dodgy PPE suppliers and consultants left right and centre and yet you are quibbling over next to nothing, to feed children!
Not sure how that won't end up with kids being fed better than today.
Some posts on here show some on here are totally isolated from a huge part of society, no doubt neither they nor any of the people they deal with were on free school meals and they certainly do not have friends who are genuinely suffering economically as they'd be far better informed about the reasons and would not post such nonsense they do so.
Think on the FSM discussion people should declare what % of their friends at school were on FSM and what % of families they know today have kids on FSM.
Would give a very interesting insight as to how badly dislocated those people are from this part of society.
FWIW I reckon about a third of the kids on my road are on FSM and a similar number of my friends at school 30 years ago were.0 -
Which means lots of petitions to the court for them to stay open and exit polls delayed interminably for UK observers wanting their bed because they have court in the morning. Sigh.eek said:
See my post earlier in this thread. I suspect a lot of people will turn up to vote and find out that even after queuing for x hours the polling booths will have closed before they can vote.TheScreamingEagles said:
My main hope for the night is that it becomes reasonably obvious that Trump has lost Florida fairly early. I don't really see how he wins without it. I mean, I know its mathematically possible, I just don't think it is at all likely.0 -
They are provided as vouchers for Asda, and the parents drive up to the school in Range Rovers and ask can they have ones for Marks and Spencer instead - this is according to my girlfriend, who grew up receiving FSM, at the school she works atManchesterKurt said:
Are these not provided as vouchers for Aldi, Lidl etc. that can only be spent on food ?Pagan2 said:
And the answer to my point that they will just waste the 15£ extra and the kid still likely wont get fed? None at all what a surpriseGallowgate said:
Who cares if you give feckless parents an extra £15 a week, during a global pandemic? It’s nothing in the grand scheme of things!Pagan2 said:
I offered an alternative solution which means the kids still get fed. The parents cant be trusted so take a portion out of the money and ensure it can only be used on feeding the child. You give the parents a 15£ food voucher all they are going to do is increase their wasting by 15£ a week and the child still wont get fed.Gallowgate said:
I don’t really disagree with you at all.Pagan2 said:
I don't think that they should be punished however the answer is not to give the parents even more money because they will simply waste that as well. The answer is to fix the problem and if you wish to argue we should have been fixing this problem years ago then I wouldnt disagree with you.Gallowgate said:So @Pagan2 do you intend to “teach people how to budget” by starving their children? Why should children be punished by the actions (or lack of) of their parents?
If the parents won't use the money they get which I hope you agree seems adequate the answer is perhaps to run a scheme where you remove some of the money and suppy a book of vouchers that the kids can have used in council approved outlets to pay for a meal for the child these could be handed directly to the child. Shovelling more money at the parents seems more like trying to douse a fire with petrol and rewarding their bad behaviour.
However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be generous and bloody feed as many children as possible well during the middle of a global pandemic ffs.
They are children! We are throwing money at dodgy PPE suppliers and consultants left right and centre and yet you are quibbling over next to nothing, to feed children!
Not sure how that won't end up with kids being fed better than today.
Some posts on here show some on here are totally isolated from a huge part of society, no doubt neither they nor any of the people they deal with were on free school meals and they certainly do not have friends who are genuinely suffering economically as they'd be far better informed about the reasons and would not post such nonsense they do so.
Think on the FSM discussion people should declare what % of their friends at school were on FSM and what % of families they know today have kids on FSM.
Would give a very interesting insight as to how badly dislocated those people are from this part of society.
FWIW I reckon about a third of the kids on my road are on FSM and a similar number of my friends at school 30 years ago were.0 -
I’m amazed.
TSE referred to castrati porn stars but didn’t once mention dockside hookers.0
