To be fair to Swinson continuing to deny an election after Article 50 was extended was frankly unsustainable - and that was a great polling situation for the Lib Dems. They'd consistently upticked for about a month or so now and could have made many gains.
What made Swinson lose her own seat and net seats was the hubris that followed. Especially that magazine they published introducing "Jo Swinson, Britain's Next Prime Minister" was absurd and made her look absolutely foolish.
Swinson should have been targetting about 30+ seats and having a bigger role in the next Parliament with a second referendum as policy, not acting like Icarus pledging to become Prime Minister and reverse Brexit without a further referendum.
The problem for the LIb Dems advocating a second referendum would have been answering the following questions: a) What would be the "Leave" option in that referendum? b) who do you envisage as PM while the referendum is being organised?; and c) if a second referendum on Brexit is OK, why not a second referendum on Scotland?
The LDs would have stuck with Ref2 as their policy if Labour had not adopted it. That pushed them to Revoke in order to create a difference and maximize their Remainer vote. It didn't work.
In hindsight the problem with the 2nd referendum idea is that even now nobody has a clue what Brexit is so how can you ask people to confirm their acceptance of it?
No deal / WTO doesn't work. EEA/EFTA was rejected by Theresa May. Bespoke Canada/Afghanistan deals take years to negotiate. So there was never going to be an actual Brexit proposal available to be put to people in that confirmatory referendum.
I agree. I'm a Remainer but I never thought another Referendum was a goer. To me it was a ridiculous notion that was never going to happen. It was a unicorn - and a very damaging one at that because it led to the Remain side focusing on the false and futile hope of reversing Brexit rather than coalescing around a "soft" and pragmatic one.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Can you see the odd one out
So those people working who have far less spare cash than those on UC should pay for those on UC to feed their children at lunchtimes during the 13 weeks school holidays, just because a man earning £1 million a month thinks its a good idea.
People working do not have "far less" cash. Fake news.
And in case you didn't notice, the public as a whole thinks it's a good idea.
The public may support it as they have no idea how much UC is worth. If a man earns £35,000 per year and his wife stays at home looking after their two kids and his rent/morgage is £600 per month he would be worse off than a family on UC with two kids who did not work. He would not be entitled to any benefits other than Child Benefit.
Its not fake news at all.
That is not true. For one thing the amount of housing benefit paid will depend on whatever the 30th percentile of local rents are. The last time I had to claim this was far short of the rent I was paying (and far short of the rent asked for any flat when I was looking for one, so I don't know how they came up with the figure).
This is one of the main factors that puts people into difficulty. They have to pay the rest of their rent out of the social security income intended for utilities and food.
I think the idea is that those on benefits live in cheaper accommodation than the average for people who work.
Sure that's the idea - not that I saw any of that cheaper accommodation when I was flat-hunting. But it's nonsense.
Most people will choose accommodation that they can afford when they are working, and only expect to claim social security for a while, until they get another job. They don't magically move into cheaper accommodation when they lose their job - and moving is an expensive, time-consuming thing to do, not really something to force people to do when they are looking for a job.
Sure give people not working on benefits all the best housing, what could possible go wrong?
They're *already* living there. Perhaps you advocate throwing them out onto the street when they lose their jobs? They'd have to leave behind their TV and kids Xbox of course before they get any money.
Its the same nonsense as the Bedroom Tax where people already living somewhere started losing money because they refused to move out into the smaller accommodation that didn't exist.
Anyway, Tory MPs will be reassured that their demonisation of the poor has worked on a few people. And thanks to Covid it isn't even just the poor - far too easy for comfortably off middle class people to have see their job and their industry go up in smoke this year. I blame them for taking stupid jobs like in hospitality and travel, they absolutely should have their homes and possessions taken away before they get benefits. The workshy feckless scumbags
Jon Sopel on R4 this morning was remarking that these Trump/Pence rallies are serving a purpose - they collect contact details from all attendees and ask them if they are registered to vote - and if not, ask them to register, then follow up with voting requests. While some states are (well) past voter registration deadlines, in others you can register up to election day itself.
Why would you attend a Trump rally and not be bothered to register to vote?
I'd go to a Trump rally* if I lived in the states, and you couldn't induce me to vote for him if you paid me. I went to a Corbyn rally a few years too, a Lib Dem event last year, and an All Under One Banner march in Edinburgh. They're interesting phenomena. A real chance to get talking to people who are really motivated about political beliefs that you might not share but find interesting.
*as long as I didn't have to pay. I wouldn't want to contribute to his campaign.
I surmise you may fall into the highly politically engaged camp, and therefore be registered to vote.
How much would a single mother with 2 kids on 30k get in "benefits", if any?
They would not be eligible for hb or council tax relief certainly . They may be eligible for working tax credits but have been unable to confirm or deny that as it seems to be an arcane calculation. So child benefit which the unemployed mother will also get
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids 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
Whatever rent and council tax support they get will be well short of their outgoings - so the absolute amount is meaningless (unless it takes them above the cap). They'll be using the elements paid for the children to pay the difference on rent and council tax.
As so an effective income the same as a 30k plus salary is well short of their outgoings but the same woman working in a job paying her 30k a year would be able to manage just fine.....not sure I follow your logic there
This is why we have a problem with in-work poverty.
I don't think the solution is it to drive people out of work to an even worse level of poverty so that people in work can feel relatively better.
The Economist's estimated probability of a Biden victory is up to 94% today, which I think is the highest it's ever been. They expect Biden to win 350 ECVs, lower than the 351-52 they were predicting for a few days in mid-July, but up 10 since Saturday. They give him probabilities of 96%, 95%, and 92% in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, a trio that will be sufficient to put him in the WH if no other state flips, not even Florida (77%).
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids 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
I am well aware of what UC pays. You apparently are not. You don't get your rent paid - you get *some* of it paid depending on local rent levels. It is less than she'd get working full time on minimum wage - which in itself isn't enough to pay the bills and keep people's heads above water.
Have you ever met real people? They're the ones drowning below you and Nerys in your Ivory Towers.
Prior to my current job I worked for 14 years in a Homeless Persons Unit for a Local Authority. I moved on when New Labour came to power because they said one thing in public but instructed you to do another, the Housing Act 1998 being the prime example. I have also been to prison for 3 months (for something I did not do). I live in a small 2 bedroom house. I do not have any Ivory Tower. I start work at 7 and finish at 6, my wife is a nurse. We have paid for one daughter to get through Uni and am now paying for another.
In regards to your point, if you live in Social Housing whether Council or HA, all of your rent is paid.
How much would a single mother with 2 kids on 30k get in "benefits", if any?
They would not be eligible for hb or council tax relief certainly . They may be eligible for working tax credits but have been unable to confirm or deny that as it seems to be an arcane calculation. So child benefit which the unemployed mother will also get
She'd get 25% off her Council Tax being a single adult occupier.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids 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
Whatever rent and council tax support they get will be well short of their outgoings - so the absolute amount is meaningless (unless it takes them above the cap). They'll be using the elements paid for the children to pay the difference on rent and council tax.
But if those figures are correct, the person on 30k is in the same unhappy position. Doesn't quite add up.
It didn't make sense to me, because although the marginal tax rate on Universal Credit is bad I didn't think it was above 100% - but that there is a problem with poverty for people in work is also a problem.
Jon Sopel on R4 this morning was remarking that these Trump/Pence rallies are serving a purpose - they collect contact details from all attendees and ask them if they are registered to vote - and if not, ask them to register, then follow up with voting requests. While some states are (well) past voter registration deadlines, in others you can register up to election day itself.
Why would you attend a Trump rally and not be bothered to register to vote?
Because if you register the GOVERNMENT will know where you live and the GOVERNMENT might want to come to your home and steal your guns and your womenfolk
Not sure I follow. That's a reason not to vote?
Reason isn't the primary determinant.
Reason isn't within a hundred miles of these folk.
Jon Sopel on R4 this morning was remarking that these Trump/Pence rallies are serving a purpose - they collect contact details from all attendees and ask them if they are registered to vote - and if not, ask them to register, then follow up with voting requests. While some states are (well) past voter registration deadlines, in others you can register up to election day itself.
Why would you attend a Trump rally and not be bothered to register to vote?
I'd go to a Trump rally* if I lived in the states, and you couldn't induce me to vote for him if you paid me. I went to a Corbyn rally a few years too, a Lib Dem event last year, and an All Under One Banner march in Edinburgh. They're interesting phenomena. A real chance to get talking to people who are really motivated about political beliefs that you might not share but find interesting.
*as long as I didn't have to pay. I wouldn't want to contribute to his campaign.
I surmise you may fall into the highly politically engaged camp, and therefore be registered to vote.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids 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
Whatever rent and council tax support they get will be well short of their outgoings - so the absolute amount is meaningless (unless it takes them above the cap). They'll be using the elements paid for the children to pay the difference on rent and council tax.
As so an effective income the same as a 30k plus salary is well short of their outgoings but the same woman working in a job paying her 30k a year would be able to manage just fine.....not sure I follow your logic there
This is why we have a problem with in-work poverty.
I don't think the solution is it to drive people out of work to an even worse level of poverty so that people in work can feel relatively better.
I wasnt suggesting it was this was peripheral to my point in the argument which was that I didn't believe giving them an extra 15£ a week would make an iota of difference in the number of underfed children and it was merely going to be a feel good gesture and allow the problem to be kicked into the long grass.
If the extra would make a difference then people would be able to show the difference in number of underfed children made by the 20£ a week increase back in March. No one has been able to cite any evidence it made a difference as yet
In other news, I changed my first light switch yesterday. I feel like a proper adult at the grand old age of 28 years.
Cor. I've never done that and doubt if I ever will. If I do, it'll probably be the last thing I do...
I feel I'm being intrepid when I change a light bulb.
Try hard not to make it a shocking experience.
You joke though I did shock myself once changing a switch. Was living in a flat and it had multiple circuit breaker panels, turned out I'd isolated the wrong one. Touched the cables together and I jumped backwards at the shock, burnt my fingers for days afterwards.
Make damn sure you've fully isolated the power is my advice before doing something like that. Easy enough in a home with only one panel, in a flat its not always so obvious . . .
My brother did similar, in the extension on his house. He told me he had tested the circuit wasn't live by flicking on a light switch and checking the light didn't come on; unfortunately he didn't do that with the actual switch he was working on but with another switch in the old part of the house, on a different circuit
Healthy adults get away with it generally, but I know a family (friend of a friend, I'd briefly met the boy in question) whose 5 year old did not, with dodgy wires into the plug of a table lamp (and an old fuse box with fuse wire providing no protection). Fitting a consumer unit with RCDs will be my (well, the sparky's) first job if I ever move into a house that doesn't have that. There's no reason not to have every wire in a house protected nowadays.
I had a lucky escape, long before RCDs, when I was about four years old and my brother suggested in would be interesting to see what would happen if I stuck a hairpin in a socket. Escaped with a small burn and a melted wire fuse in the old fuse box.
You will be amazed when is board is changed to one with RCD protection the number of domestic appliances that will no longer work as all they do is trip the RCD.
You might want to get your appliances looked at/replaced. Can you think of any reason why the current out of an appliance would be different to the current going in (that's what trips the RCD) that shouldn't be quite concerning to you?
Unless you're thinking of MCBs, which trip out for over-current - could be in that case that the appliances are too many/too power hungry on the circuit (fire risk if the MCBs weren't doing their job and tripping) or the wrong MCB was specified (get someone competent to put the right ones in for the cabling rating/expected load).
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids 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
Whatever rent and council tax support they get will be well short of their outgoings - so the absolute amount is meaningless (unless it takes them above the cap). They'll be using the elements paid for the children to pay the difference on rent and council tax.
As so an effective income the same as a 30k plus salary is well short of their outgoings but the same woman working in a job paying her 30k a year would be able to manage just fine.....not sure I follow your logic there
This is why we have a problem with in-work poverty.
I don't think the solution is it to drive people out of work to an even worse level of poverty so that people in work can feel relatively better.
I wasnt suggesting it was this was peripheral to my point in the argument which was that I didn't believe giving them an extra 15£ a week would make an iota of difference in the number of underfed children and it was merely going to be a feel good gesture and allow the problem to be kicked into the long grass.
If the extra would make a difference then people would be able to show the difference in number of underfed children made by the 20£ a week increase back in March. No one has been able to cite any evidence it made a difference as yet
I've not engaged with the discussion over free school meals because it seems tangential to the real issue - that social security rates are not sufficient, and we have a generalised problem with poverty because the cost of living is too high.
Robert, thanks for the header, I'm going to disagree respectfully. I will concentrate on two in particular:
1. While the Democrats still have a big lead by party registration (more on that below), the gap has been narrowing every day by around 2pp to stand at 11%. We will see what happens with "souls to the polls" but, if that has been impacted, and that narrowing continues at the same pace, then the Republicans are going to go into the final day feeling confident (the question of course is on cannibalisation of votes);
2. In NC, you have to be very careful aligning party registration with expected votes because of legacy Democrat-registered older voters who actually vote Republican. You can see that in two congressional districts, both rated Solid R, namely the 3rd and the 7th. If you looked at both for votes so far (https://twitter.com/OldNorthStPol/status/1320474545564852225/photo/1), you would think the Democrats are on for a landslide win, given they are matching Republican registration numbers. But, if you look at the explanations that Old North State Politics give for the districts (http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2020/08/lay-of-political-land-nc-congressional-districts.html), you will see that the 3rd and the 7th have a lot of older voters who are still registered Democrats but vote Republican. The 3rd is 48% rural and heavily older voter weighted and went 61% for Trump in 2016 even though party registrations for Democrats and Republicans are almost equal. The 7th went 59% for Trump, even though there is only a slight Rep lean in registrations. Again, this is probably a legacy issue.
To address your claims re NC early voting:
1. There is no narrowing in the registered Democrats' lead in early voting over registered Republicans. According to the NCSBE, the Dem lead on 25th October was 326,636. Exactly a week earlier, the gap was 309,381. So, in absolute terms, it's grown slightly. It's disingenous to focus on that as a percentage of total votes cast. If more votes are cast, and the absolute gap remains the same, that narrows the percentage gap but it still helps the Democrats because there are fewer votes left to be cast so the Republicans need to win an even bigger percentage of the votes left to be cast on election day. So the Democrats should be very encouraged by the fact that the absolute gap has grown (slightly) ever since they established an early lead.
2. Yes, some senior registered Democrats did vote for Trump in 2016. But you make the assumption that will also do so in 2020 to the same degree. That's a huge, unfounded assumption. We know that for a Democrat Biden is popular amongst seniors, in a way that Clinton was not. We also know that this is the group which is (quite rightly) most concerned at the threat of Covid, and that Biden is exploiting this to appeal to the seniors vote. It's one reason why Biden is doing well in Florida. There's also the potential that the Lincoln Project is trying to exploit in 2020, of inducing registered Republican seniors into crossing over to the Democrats.
Yes, it's possible that Trump could hang on to NC. But I think it's less than probable, judging by the early voting figures. And bear in mind also that Trump could see his 2016 lead over the Democrats fall by 3.6% and still hang on to NC by the skin of his teeth. If Trump is going to hold on to the electoral college, he'll need to reduce that erosion to less than 1% in the battleground states that are must wins for Biden.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids 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
Whatever rent and council tax support they get will be well short of their outgoings - so the absolute amount is meaningless (unless it takes them above the cap). They'll be using the elements paid for the children to pay the difference on rent and council tax.
But if those figures are correct, the person on 30k is in the same unhappy position. Doesn't quite add up.
In that situation the person on £30k would get £848.80 UC and £151.67 pm ON TOP of their take home £2003.37 pay. So the earner is £848 pm better off than the unemployed person.
We're all really just subsidising low pay and private landlords.
If the Gov't was going to u-turn then it should have done it by this point. Personally I think they'd be better off sticking right now.
Its too late to u-turn for half-term but a pre-emptive u-turn for Christmas is entirely rational. The problem is this issue won't go away and will be back with a vengeance at Christmas - is Boris really going to dig in and be the Scrooge who won't allow kids to eat at Christmas?
The u-turn for that is inevitable. They'll be trying to think a way of dressing it up with face-saving to say it isn't a u-turn, but it will be.
Going off the tone from various Tory MPs I don't think the Tories think they are doing anything wrong. That they wheel out Jenrick - Mr you scratch my back - out to defend why the country can't afford this demonstrates that they simply don't care what people think.
Why should you or I feed these kids? Why should we pay our taxes only to have it handed over to degenerates smackheads and prostitutes? Its THEIR fault these kids are hungry thanks to them wasting their child benefits on booze. And if the kids are starving then social services should take them away. <- this is literally what I have read someone saying on a local MP's Twitter feed. That some people have been gaslit to believe there is no hunger that isn't caused by scum parents is why the Tories feel they can act with impunity.
Don't forget, in a culture wars environment, they *cannot* concede to Burham or Rashford. These people are *wrong*.</p>
They have a point.
There is no justification for not feeding kids in this country. People already get Child Benefit, Child Tax Credits or a Child element of Universal Credit (which has had an uplift this year) etc, etc - what are they meant to go towards if not feeding kids?
That some people take the money they get from the government in Child Benefits and buy booze and fags is undeniable. What can be done about that is a very difficult question to answer though.
But this is burning the Tories badly. A u-turn of some form before Christmas is inevitable, mark my words. There is simply no possible way they will want this as a live issue at Christmas time.
Where does not enough money go? Having seen people close to me drown in debt once you slip under the water its almost impossible to resurface. As previously discussed UC / Minimum Wage isn't enough money to survive on. All you need is an unexpected bill and you're sunk. So I'm confident that a lot of the hungry kids come from families who are not scum and are mortified by the position they are in. But all the focus goes to the minority who just don't care.
I agree that it is burning the Tories. Their challenge is how to u-turn without having been seen to u-turn and without admitting that minimum wage / UC is insufficient. As there is literally no way to kill this issue by Christmas - I guarantee you that some kids will be hungry regardless of what they do - the alternative is power through and try to reframe the debate back onto the feckless workshy scum.
The problem is that people on Universal Credit aren't necessarily workshy, the benefits system traps them in penury. That's not their fault and it needs massive reform.
Someone who is working poor, claiming all benefits they are entitled to (not something that should be criticised) can be on a marginal tax rate of over 90% thanks to the benefit system. A lot of poor-income jobs eg in hospitality etc can have people working differing amounts of hours so if someone wants extra wages they ought to be able to work extra hours and be paid more for it - but the benefits system means if they work an extra hour on minimum wage then they lose benefits for that and end up taking home less than a pound an hour.
Who wants to work extra for less than a pound an hour? How are they going to pay their bills or be encouraged to earn more when 90% of what they work for goes to HMRC?
The system is buggered and it traps people in poverty. Is there anyone here who would fancy doing an extra hours work for less than one pound?
We don't always agree but I do respect that you are banging on about the outrageousness of UC - the taper is indeed insanity especially when imposed by politicians who supposedly set out to make work pay
I agree with Mr P. One of the issues with zero hours jobs is that pay fluctuates and UC etc can't keep up. Just-in-time personal finance is very, very difficult.
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
There's a picture of the aisle completely blocked off.
Yes it’s all going so well isn’t it this morning?
Now my understanding is Tesco’s relented pronto when the Welsh Govt clarified (I think that’s their preferred word).
What’s next to be tested? My money’s on toothpaste.
Personally I’m luck because I also frivolously and unnecessarily buy toothpaste regularly, so I can happily abide by Drakeford’s master plan. I usually put the tubes next to my large collection of novelty tin openers.
Of course stationery and underwear will probably be “clarified” as ok later , if only because Drakeford and Gething need a supply of underpants to stick on their heads and pencils up their nose as they get on with the serious business of steering a country of three million though and economic and health crisis.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids 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
Whatever rent and council tax support they get will be well short of their outgoings - so the absolute amount is meaningless (unless it takes them above the cap). They'll be using the elements paid for the children to pay the difference on rent and council tax.
But if those figures are correct, the person on 30k is in the same unhappy position. Doesn't quite add up.
In that situation the person on £30k would get £848.80 UC and £151.67 pm ON TOP of their take home £2003.37 pay. So the earner is £848 pm better off than the unemployed person.
We're all really just subsidising low pay and private landlords.
£850 a month extra is a lot of money. So does that mean that @NerysHughes 's claim that those who are working have "far less cash" was a load bullsh*t? Colour me shocked.
In other news, I changed my first light switch yesterday. I feel like a proper adult at the grand old age of 28 years.
Cor. I've never done that and doubt if I ever will. If I do, it'll probably be the last thing I do...
I feel I'm being intrepid when I change a light bulb.
Try hard not to make it a shocking experience.
You joke though I did shock myself once changing a switch. Was living in a flat and it had multiple circuit breaker panels, turned out I'd isolated the wrong one. Touched the cables together and I jumped backwards at the shock, burnt my fingers for days afterwards.
Make damn sure you've fully isolated the power is my advice before doing something like that. Easy enough in a home with only one panel, in a flat its not always so obvious . . .
My brother did similar, in the extension on his house. He told me he had tested the circuit wasn't live by flicking on a light switch and checking the light didn't come on; unfortunately he didn't do that with the actual switch he was working on but with another switch in the old part of the house, on a different circuit
Healthy adults get away with it generally, but I know a family (friend of a friend, I'd briefly met the boy in question) whose 5 year old did not, with dodgy wires into the plug of a table lamp (and an old fuse box with fuse wire providing no protection). Fitting a consumer unit with RCDs will be my (well, the sparky's) first job if I ever move into a house that doesn't have that. There's no reason not to have every wire in a house protected nowadays.
I had a lucky escape, long before RCDs, when I was about four years old and my brother suggested in would be interesting to see what would happen if I stuck a hairpin in a socket. Escaped with a small burn and a melted wire fuse in the old fuse box.
You will be amazed when is board is changed to one with RCD protection the number of domestic appliances that will no longer work as all they do is trip the RCD.
You might want to get your appliances looked at/replaced. Can you think of any reason why the current out of an appliance would be different to the current going in (that's what trips the RCD) that shouldn't be quite concerning to you?
Unless you're thinking of MCBs, which trip out for over-current - could be in that case that the appliances are too many/too power hungry on the circuit (fire risk if the MCBs weren't doing their job and tripping) or the wrong MCB was specified (get someone competent to put the right ones in for the cabling rating/expected load).
This - if the appliance is causing a trip, then 99% of the time it is the appliance not the board. The boards are very very reliable.
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
If it wasn't true, why would Tesco say it was?
You can ask Tesco why they got it wrong, before they corrected themselves, but get it wrong they did. And this random Twitter tosser is wrong. Sorry, that's just how it is on Twitter, people say things that aren't true. Hope this has helped you a little.
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
There's a picture of the aisle completely blocked off.
Yeah, by whom? As best I can tell, one Tesco store. That's a far fling away from something "being declared non-essential in Wales"
The issue is that we're in this ridiculous situation where it could happen in the first place. Let the supermarkets sell whatever they want and let the shops stay open.
My prediction is still a big Biden win or even a big landslide, but still with low confidence in that prediction. It would not take much to go from that to even a Trump win, which I do not count out.
But for that to happen, there would have to be another failure of the pollsters all in one direction, despite the corrections made since the 2016 debacle for education level across all other tabs.
So the challenge to PBers: If there is another major polling failure, what will be the cause(s) this time?
My candidates are: 1. Miscalculation of how the newly registered voters split between parties (GOP operatives seem confident in their efforts since 2016 to find non-voting Trump supporters and get them registered; has this biased the increase in the registered electorate in the GOP's favour in ways not detected and accounted for by pollsters?) 2. Overestimation of the youth vote. This increased from low 20%s to 30% in the 2018 mid-terms. Have pollsters assumed continued 'high' turnout of the youth, or even extrapolated continued growth in turnout? 3. Overestimation of the Democrats' share of the newly voting non-/infrequent voter.
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
There's a picture of the aisle completely blocked off.
Yeah, by whom? As best I can tell, one Tesco store. That's a far fling away from something "being declared non-essential in Wales"
The issue is that we're in this ridiculous situation where it could happen in the first place. Let the supermarkets sell whatever they want and let the shops stay open.
Ah, so that's a separate argument, and one I'm a little on the fence about. If you think it's bad to stop Tesco selling books for two weeks, I'm listening. If you think it's wrong that someone stopped Tesco selling tampons, I'm here to tell you they did not.
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
There's a picture of the aisle completely blocked off.
Doesn't mean it is the Welsh Gmt's fault, and indeed it isn't. The original was implying it was (but was corrected).
The Welsh government is in the dock of public opinion and is failing with the biggest petition ever sent into the Senedd over their prescriptive nonsense over supermarkets driving people to use Amazon
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
If it wasn't true, why would Tesco say it was?
You can ask Tesco why they got it wrong, before they corrected themselves, but get it wrong they did. And this random Twitter tosser is wrong. Sorry, that's just how it is on Twitter, people say things that aren't true. Hope this has helped you a little.
Tesco’s got it wrong because they were landed in an insane position by a batshit crazy edict by WG ministers who then buggered off for the weekend and left everybody wondering exactly what to do.
Tesco’s, in this case erred, because they were trying not to break the law as they thought it applied. WG has now issued a statement saying it was wrong.
We all know where the fault lies and it’s not with Tesco’s.
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
If it wasn't true, why would Tesco say it was?
You can ask Tesco why they got it wrong, before they corrected themselves, but get it wrong they did. And this random Twitter tosser is wrong. Sorry, that's just how it is on Twitter, people say things that aren't true. Hope this has helped you a little.
Tesco’s got it wrong because they were landed in an insane position by a batshit crazy edict by WG ministers who then buggered off for the weekend and left everybody wondering exactly what to do.
Tesco’s, in this case erred, because they were trying not to break the law as they thought it applied. WG has now issued a statement saying it was wrong.
We all know where the fault lies and it’s not with Tesco’s.
Genuine question, did this happen across all Tesco stores in Wales? And what about other supermarkets?
My prediction is still a big Biden win or even a big landslide, but still with low confidence in that prediction. It would not take much to go from that to even a Trump win, which I do not count out.
But for that to happen, there would have to be another failure of the pollsters all in one direction, despite the corrections made since the 2016 debacle for education level across all other tabs.
So the challenge to PBers: If there is another major polling failure, what will be the cause(s) this time?
My candidates are: 1. Miscalculation of how the newly registered voters split between parties (GOP operatives seem confident in their efforts since 2016 to find non-voting Trump supporters and get them registered; has this biased the increase in the registered electorate in the GOP's favour in ways not detected and accounted for by pollsters?) 2. Overestimation of the youth vote. This increased from low 20%s to 30% in the 2018 mid-terms. Have pollsters assumed continued 'high' turnout of the youth, or even extrapolated continued growth in turnout? 3. Overestimation of the Democrats' share of the newly voting non-/infrequent voter.
What do you think?
1. Seems a plausible possibility. Trump's (ahem) unorthodox style might have encouraged those previously switched-off by politics to get voting.
2. Can the early vote stats tell us anything about the youth voting rates? Some states report EV's by age, I believe.
In other news, I changed my first light switch yesterday. I feel like a proper adult at the grand old age of 28 years.
Cor. I've never done that and doubt if I ever will. If I do, it'll probably be the last thing I do...
I feel I'm being intrepid when I change a light bulb.
Try hard not to make it a shocking experience.
You joke though I did shock myself once changing a switch. Was living in a flat and it had multiple circuit breaker panels, turned out I'd isolated the wrong one. Touched the cables together and I jumped backwards at the shock, burnt my fingers for days afterwards.
Make damn sure you've fully isolated the power is my advice before doing something like that. Easy enough in a home with only one panel, in a flat its not always so obvious . . .
My brother did similar, in the extension on his house. He told me he had tested the circuit wasn't live by flicking on a light switch and checking the light didn't come on; unfortunately he didn't do that with the actual switch he was working on but with another switch in the old part of the house, on a different circuit
Healthy adults get away with it generally, but I know a family (friend of a friend, I'd briefly met the boy in question) whose 5 year old did not, with dodgy wires into the plug of a table lamp (and an old fuse box with fuse wire providing no protection). Fitting a consumer unit with RCDs will be my (well, the sparky's) first job if I ever move into a house that doesn't have that. There's no reason not to have every wire in a house protected nowadays.
I had a lucky escape, long before RCDs, when I was about four years old and my brother suggested in would be interesting to see what would happen if I stuck a hairpin in a socket. Escaped with a small burn and a melted wire fuse in the old fuse box.
You will be amazed when is board is changed to one with RCD protection the number of domestic appliances that will no longer work as all they do is trip the RCD.
You might want to get your appliances looked at/replaced. Can you think of any reason why the current out of an appliance would be different to the current going in (that's what trips the RCD) that shouldn't be quite concerning to you?
Unless you're thinking of MCBs, which trip out for over-current - could be in that case that the appliances are too many/too power hungry on the circuit (fire risk if the MCBs weren't doing their job and tripping) or the wrong MCB was specified (get someone competent to put the right ones in for the cabling rating/expected load).
This - if the appliance is causing a trip, then 99% of the time it is the appliance not the board. The boards are very very reliable.
A few years ago I bought a soup maker. Every time I switched it on it tripped the electricity. Apparently it is a common problem. I now use tinned soup.
My prediction is still a big Biden win or even a big landslide, but still with low confidence in that prediction. It would not take much to go from that to even a Trump win, which I do not count out.
But for that to happen, there would have to be another failure of the pollsters all in one direction, despite the corrections made since the 2016 debacle for education level across all other tabs.
So the challenge to PBers: If there is another major polling failure, what will be the cause(s) this time?
My candidates are: 1. Miscalculation of how the newly registered voters split between parties (GOP operatives seem confident in their efforts since 2016 to find non-voting Trump supporters and get them registered; has this biased the increase in the registered electorate in the GOP's favour in ways not detected and accounted for by pollsters?) 2. Overestimation of the youth vote. This increased from low 20%s to 30% in the 2018 mid-terms. Have pollsters assumed continued 'high' turnout of the youth, or even extrapolated continued growth in turnout? 3. Overestimation of the Democrats' share of the newly voting non-/infrequent voter.
What do you think?
1. Seems a plausible possibility. Trump's (ahem) unorthodox style might have encouraged those previously switched-off by politics to get voting.
2. Can the early vote stats tell us anything about the youth voting rates? Some states report EV's by age, I believe.
Re 2., I think the youth vote is behind relatively speaking in both ballot requests and returns, but has a history of being on-the-day voters. Sorry, don't have time right now to find the references.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids 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
Whatever rent and council tax support they get will be well short of their outgoings - so the absolute amount is meaningless (unless it takes them above the cap). They'll be using the elements paid for the children to pay the difference on rent and council tax.
But if those figures are correct, the person on 30k is in the same unhappy position. Doesn't quite add up.
In that situation the person on £30k would get £848.80 UC and £151.67 pm ON TOP of their take home £2003.37 pay. So the earner is £848 pm better off than the unemployed person.
We're all really just subsidising low pay and private landlords.
If we could flick our collective fingers and see the capital and rental value of residential property fall by 30% with no blood I think we would.
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
There's a picture of the aisle completely blocked off.
Yeah, by whom? As best I can tell, one Tesco store. That's a far fling away from something "being declared non-essential in Wales"
The issue is that we're in this ridiculous situation where it could happen in the first place. Let the supermarkets sell whatever they want and let the shops stay open.
Ah, so that's a separate argument, and one I'm a little on the fence about. If you think it's bad to stop Tesco selling books for two weeks, I'm listening. If you think it's wrong that someone stopped Tesco selling tampons, I'm here to tell you they did not.
Overly officious busybodies in government leads to overly officious busybodies everywhere else. Tesco and other supermarkets are being given an impossible task.
My prediction is still a big Biden win or even a big landslide, but still with low confidence in that prediction. It would not take much to go from that to even a Trump win, which I do not count out.
But for that to happen, there would have to be another failure of the pollsters all in one direction, despite the corrections made since the 2016 debacle for education level across all other tabs.
So the challenge to PBers: If there is another major polling failure, what will be the cause(s) this time?
My candidates are: 1. Miscalculation of how the newly registered voters split between parties (GOP operatives seem confident in their efforts since 2016 to find non-voting Trump supporters and get them registered; has this biased the increase in the registered electorate in the GOP's favour in ways not detected and accounted for by pollsters?) 2. Overestimation of the youth vote. This increased from low 20%s to 30% in the 2018 mid-terms. Have pollsters assumed continued 'high' turnout of the youth, or even extrapolated continued growth in turnout? 3. Overestimation of the Democrats' share of the newly voting non-/infrequent voter.
What do you think?
1/3. I think Mr Ed's point that High School educated voters might increase on 2016 is a possibility. I've pointed out a number of times the surprising poll result that had Trump with better favourability numbers than in 2016. You could envisage a segment of the electorate that did not think he could deliver on his promises and now believes that he did.
2. Low youth turnout is also possible - again as Mr Ed has suggested in part due to closed college campuses.
Set against those we have fairly good evidence that Covid had created a disproportionate swing to Biden among voters of a similar vintage to his self. In many recent elections the elder vote has won out - no particular reason to think that it won't deliver for Biden this time.
We also see evidence that the reluctant Democrat voters who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton in 2016 are voting Biden this time. HYUFD has dismissed the midterms because Trump wasn't on the ballot, but I wonder whether the crucial difference was that Clinton wasn't on the ballot. And Clinton still isn't on the ballot this year, which seems to be a big benefit to Biden.
I'm still nervous because of election integrity issues, though.
My prediction is still a big Biden win or even a big landslide, but still with low confidence in that prediction. It would not take much to go from that to even a Trump win, which I do not count out.
But for that to happen, there would have to be another failure of the pollsters all in one direction, despite the corrections made since the 2016 debacle for education level across all other tabs.
So the challenge to PBers: If there is another major polling failure, what will be the cause(s) this time?
My candidates are: 1. Miscalculation of how the newly registered voters split between parties (GOP operatives seem confident in their efforts since 2016 to find non-voting Trump supporters and get them registered; has this biased the increase in the registered electorate in the GOP's favour in ways not detected and accounted for by pollsters?) 2. Overestimation of the youth vote. This increased from low 20%s to 30% in the 2018 mid-terms. Have pollsters assumed continued 'high' turnout of the youth, or even extrapolated continued growth in turnout? 3. Overestimation of the Democrats' share of the newly voting non-/infrequent voter.
What do you think?
1. Seems a plausible possibility. Trump's (ahem) unorthodox style might have encouraged those previously switched-off by politics to get voting.
2. Can the early vote stats tell us anything about the youth voting rates? Some states report EV's by age, I believe.
Re 2., I think the youth vote is behind relatively speaking in both ballot requests and returns, but has a history of being on-the-day voters. Sorry, don't have time right now to find the references.
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
If it wasn't true, why would Tesco say it was?
You can ask Tesco why they got it wrong, before they corrected themselves, but get it wrong they did. And this random Twitter tosser is wrong. Sorry, that's just how it is on Twitter, people say things that aren't true. Hope this has helped you a little.
Tesco’s got it wrong because they were landed in an insane position by a batshit crazy edict by WG ministers who then buggered off for the weekend and left everybody wondering exactly what to do.
Tesco’s, in this case erred, because they were trying not to break the law as they thought it applied. WG has now issued a statement saying it was wrong.
We all know where the fault lies and it’s not with Tesco’s.
Genuine question, did this happen across all Tesco stores in Wales? And what about other supermarkets?
Genuine reply: I don’t know about the overall situation.
The main point is though if you declare “non essential “ can’t be sold on Thursday/Friday, and then say on Saturday/Sunday supermarkets can use “discretion” and “anomalies” will be corrected in the light of “weekend experience”, but at the same time the policy won’t be reversed what the hell do you do as a supermarket manager or worker?
Confusion reigns.
Anyway V Gething’s supposed to be on a 12.15 so we can see what he says.
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
If it wasn't true, why would Tesco say it was?
You can ask Tesco why they got it wrong, before they corrected themselves, but get it wrong they did. And this random Twitter tosser is wrong. Sorry, that's just how it is on Twitter, people say things that aren't true. Hope this has helped you a little.
You have no idea how angry people are in Wales as scores of photographs show huge sections of supermarkets taped off even preventing the sale of children's clothes and many more items
Go in any supermarket in Wales and look on in incredulity and of course it is Welsh shopper's experiences that are causing this anger
And this is not just on twitter it is featuring on all Welsh TV news programmes, local newspapers, and every day conversations
Drakeford was a virtual unknown politician until now but he has become infamous overnight
Period products clearly ought to be essential, but note that alcohol is also essential & for good reason: when you’re trying to reduce the load on your healthcare services sending every alcoholic in your region going withdrawal simultaneously would be a very bad idea. Hence the need for alcohol sales to continue.
If they are doing that, they’re reckless to the point of insanity. Favourites from this far out don’t win Tory elections. Not unless their name is Eden, and Sunak’s isn’t.
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
If it wasn't true, why would Tesco say it was?
You can ask Tesco why they got it wrong, before they corrected themselves, but get it wrong they did. And this random Twitter tosser is wrong. Sorry, that's just how it is on Twitter, people say things that aren't true. Hope this has helped you a little.
Tesco’s got it wrong because they were landed in an insane position by a batshit crazy edict by WG ministers who then buggered off for the weekend and left everybody wondering exactly what to do.
Tesco’s, in this case erred, because they were trying not to break the law as they thought it applied. WG has now issued a statement saying it was wrong.
We all know where the fault lies and it’s not with Tesco’s.
Genuine question, did this happen across all Tesco stores in Wales? And what about other supermarkets?
What an excellent ruse to sow the seeds of chaos and engineer a massive U turn by the Welsh Government. Yes, the situation was difficult and not well presented by Drakeford, but Tesco knew full well sanitary products are essential items.
Tesco couldn't sell cheap nasty Chinese tat for an entire weekend. My heart bleeds. Give Ken Murphy a pay rise. After a disappointing Christmas Tesco have had a fantastic pandemic.
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
If it wasn't true, why would Tesco say it was?
You can ask Tesco why they got it wrong, before they corrected themselves, but get it wrong they did. And this random Twitter tosser is wrong. Sorry, that's just how it is on Twitter, people say things that aren't true. Hope this has helped you a little.
Tesco’s got it wrong because they were landed in an insane position by a batshit crazy edict by WG ministers who then buggered off for the weekend and left everybody wondering exactly what to do.
Tesco’s, in this case erred, because they were trying not to break the law as they thought it applied. WG has now issued a statement saying it was wrong.
We all know where the fault lies and it’s not with Tesco’s.
Genuine question, did this happen across all Tesco stores in Wales? And what about other supermarkets?
Genuine reply: I don’t know about the overall situation.
The main point is though if you declare “non essential “ can’t be sold on Thursday/Friday, and then say on Saturday/Sunday supermarkets can use “discretion” and “anomalies” will be corrected in the light of “weekend experience”, but at the same time the policy won’t be reversed what the hell do you do as a supermarket manager or worker?
Confusion reigns.
Anyway V Gething’s supposed to be on a 12.15 so we can see what he says.
Confusion indeed by the Welsh Government, but the work of evil genius by Tesco.
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
If it wasn't true, why would Tesco say it was?
You can ask Tesco why they got it wrong, before they corrected themselves, but get it wrong they did. And this random Twitter tosser is wrong. Sorry, that's just how it is on Twitter, people say things that aren't true. Hope this has helped you a little.
You have no idea how angry people are in Wales as scores of photographs show huge sections of supermarkets taped off even preventing the sale of children's clothes and many more items
Go in any supermarket in Wales and look on in incredulity and of course it is Welsh shopper's experiences that are causing this anger
And this is not just on twitter it is featuring on all Welsh TV news programmes, local newspapers, and every day conversations
Drakeford was a virtual unknown politician until now but he has become infamous overnight
There would be a certain irony if Welsh Labour failed to come at least equal first in an election for the first time since 1918 because people could see but not buy tampons, toothpaste and socks.
At risk of raising TSE’s ire, it was sock coupons that did for the Soviet Union. Well, the coupons coupled to the fact there were no socks anyway.
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Don`t confuse the issue with facts, we`re ruled by the notorious via social media these days.
"Facts". If UC is as generous as Nerys is claiming then why are MPs awash with factual evidence that the opposite is true?
The post of mine Nerys is referring to this one it includes source url so can go check and tell me what you dispute
unemployed mother with 2 school age kids 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
Whatever rent and council tax support they get will be well short of their outgoings - so the absolute amount is meaningless (unless it takes them above the cap). They'll be using the elements paid for the children to pay the difference on rent and council tax.
But if those figures are correct, the person on 30k is in the same unhappy position. Doesn't quite add up.
In that situation the person on £30k would get £848.80 UC and £151.67 pm ON TOP of their take home £2003.37 pay. So the earner is £848 pm better off than the unemployed person.
We're all really just subsidising low pay and private landlords.
If we could flick our collective fingers and see the capital and rental value of residential property fall by 30% with no blood I think we would.
It doesn't need an overnight 30% fall though does it... 10 years stagnant values or slight drift would do it. Plenty of policies that could lead to that including:
- CGT on residential property gains (from the point of introduction, tapered in if necessary). - Mandate councils to build houses. - Steeper tax on land banks. - USe it or lose it planning permissions. - Punitive 2nd home council tax rates (again tapered in). - Better tenant protection (against no reason evictions). - Easier planning for property re-purposing (e.g. shops to residential).
The Welsh government could redeem its position on non-essentials by presenting evidence on the convexity or concavity of Engels curves for tampons, kettles, toothpaste etc. A few pretty pictures would suffice.
Period products clearly ought to be essential, but note that alcohol is also essential & for good reason: when you’re trying to reduce the load on your healthcare services sending every alcoholic in your region going withdrawal simultaneously would be a very bad idea. Hence the need for alcohol sales to continue.
Well pubs are shops that sell beer, so if small clothes shops can’t sell clothes and so Sainsbury’s is therefore banned from selling clothes, why can Sainsbury’s sell beer?
If I were cynical I’d think it was nothing to with the NHS being protected and more to do with WG fearing actual riots in the streets if they ban alcohol.
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
If it wasn't true, why would Tesco say it was?
You can ask Tesco why they got it wrong, before they corrected themselves, but get it wrong they did. And this random Twitter tosser is wrong. Sorry, that's just how it is on Twitter, people say things that aren't true. Hope this has helped you a little.
Tesco’s got it wrong because they were landed in an insane position by a batshit crazy edict by WG ministers who then buggered off for the weekend and left everybody wondering exactly what to do.
Tesco’s, in this case erred, because they were trying not to break the law as they thought it applied. WG has now issued a statement saying it was wrong.
We all know where the fault lies and it’s not with Tesco’s.
Genuine question, did this happen across all Tesco stores in Wales? And what about other supermarkets?
Genuine reply: I don’t know about the overall situation.
The main point is though if you declare “non essential “ can’t be sold on Thursday/Friday, and then say on Saturday/Sunday supermarkets can use “discretion” and “anomalies” will be corrected in the light of “weekend experience”, but at the same time the policy won’t be reversed what the hell do you do as a supermarket manager or worker?
Confusion reigns.
Anyway V Gething’s supposed to be on a 12.15 so we can see what he says.
Ok, it's an important question because it really helps us decide whether this really was confusing, or just one store manager being confused. I've been under the unexamined assumption that this was a single-store incident, in which case you have to say it's just some store manager who had a rush of blood to the head and got it wrong. But thanks for making me think about whether my assumption is valid or not, I'll await more data. If something is genuinely confusing, you'd expect to see the same mistake being made across the industry. If you don't see it all over the place, you have to wonder how everybody else got it right on only (a single?) Tesco got it wrong. It goes back to that 3-5% polling thing that got spoken about the other day. You can find one person in every twenty who is just so completely off the reservation about some issue that you can safely ignore it as a real "thing". Or, in slightly more scientific terms, we shouldn't extrapolate from a single data point.
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
If it wasn't true, why would Tesco say it was?
You can ask Tesco why they got it wrong, before they corrected themselves, but get it wrong they did. And this random Twitter tosser is wrong. Sorry, that's just how it is on Twitter, people say things that aren't true. Hope this has helped you a little.
You have no idea how angry people are in Wales as scores of photographs show huge sections of supermarkets taped off even preventing the sale of children's clothes and many more items
Go in any supermarket in Wales and look on in incredulity and of course it is Welsh shopper's experiences that are causing this anger
And this is not just on twitter it is featuring on all Welsh TV news programmes, local newspapers, and every day conversations
Drakeford was a virtual unknown politician until now but he has become infamous overnight
How do you know? You should be locked down like the rest of us, not galavanting around Asda. Shame!
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
If it wasn't true, why would Tesco say it was?
You can ask Tesco why they got it wrong, before they corrected themselves, but get it wrong they did. And this random Twitter tosser is wrong. Sorry, that's just how it is on Twitter, people say things that aren't true. Hope this has helped you a little.
You have no idea how angry people are in Wales as scores of photographs show huge sections of supermarkets taped off even preventing the sale of children's clothes and many more items
Go in any supermarket in Wales and look on in incredulity and of course it is Welsh shopper's experiences that are causing this anger
And this is not just on twitter it is featuring on all Welsh TV news programmes, local newspapers, and every day conversations
Drakeford was a virtual unknown politician until now but he has become infamous overnight
How do you know? You should be locked down like the rest of us, not galavanting around Asda. Shame!
I am allowed to do essential food shopping and pick up prescriptions
My prediction is still a big Biden win or even a big landslide, but still with low confidence in that prediction. It would not take much to go from that to even a Trump win, which I do not count out.
But for that to happen, there would have to be another failure of the pollsters all in one direction, despite the corrections made since the 2016 debacle for education level across all other tabs.
So the challenge to PBers: If there is another major polling failure, what will be the cause(s) this time?
My candidates are: 1. Miscalculation of how the newly registered voters split between parties (GOP operatives seem confident in their efforts since 2016 to find non-voting Trump supporters and get them registered; has this biased the increase in the registered electorate in the GOP's favour in ways not detected and accounted for by pollsters?) 2. Overestimation of the youth vote. This increased from low 20%s to 30% in the 2018 mid-terms. Have pollsters assumed continued 'high' turnout of the youth, or even extrapolated continued growth in turnout? 3. Overestimation of the Democrats' share of the newly voting non-/infrequent voter.
What do you think?
The Great Participatory Self-Gerrymander of 2020:
Covid has made people move around a lot, accelerating the demographic trends of Dems out of the rustbelt. So PA/WI are tighter than they look, while AZ/TX/NC are close. But the whole race swings to a teensy bit tighter than it looks now (say Biden +6) so he misses in the midwest but not enough to win any of the upcoming states.
This contradicts the state polling a bit, but the state polling shows the general direction of travel, and if covid shook things up a bit the pollsters may not have caught onto the scale of the trend.
It is with fear and trepidation I am about to get in the car and go for my prescription wondering if the neighbours will report me the Stasi Welsh government for having the temerity to go out
Ridiculous hyperbole from you again, and offensive to those innocent souls murdered by the actual Stasi.
Feelings are running very high in Wales just now and since when was satire banned
Fee!ings are running very high in Big_G_Northwales I think you mean.
It is with fear and trepidation I am about to get in the car and go for my prescription wondering if the neighbours will report me the Stasi Welsh government for having the temerity to go out
Ridiculous hyperbole from you again, and offensive to those innocent souls murdered by the actual Stasi.
Feelings are running very high in Wales just now and since when was satire banned
Fee!ings are running very high in Big_G_Northwales I think you mean.
You clearly have no idea how this has cut through in Wales
Some tosser on Twitter says something, doesn't mean it's true.
If it wasn't true, why would Tesco say it was?
You can ask Tesco why they got it wrong, before they corrected themselves, but get it wrong they did. And this random Twitter tosser is wrong. Sorry, that's just how it is on Twitter, people say things that aren't true. Hope this has helped you a little.
Tesco’s got it wrong because they were landed in an insane position by a batshit crazy edict by WG ministers who then buggered off for the weekend and left everybody wondering exactly what to do.
Tesco’s, in this case erred, because they were trying not to break the law as they thought it applied. WG has now issued a statement saying it was wrong.
We all know where the fault lies and it’s not with Tesco’s.
Genuine question, did this happen across all Tesco stores in Wales? And what about other supermarkets?
Genuine reply: I don’t know about the overall situation.
The main point is though if you declare “non essential “ can’t be sold on Thursday/Friday, and then say on Saturday/Sunday supermarkets can use “discretion” and “anomalies” will be corrected in the light of “weekend experience”, but at the same time the policy won’t be reversed what the hell do you do as a supermarket manager or worker?
Confusion reigns.
Anyway V Gething’s supposed to be on a 12.15 so we can see what he says.
Ok, it's an important question because it really helps us decide whether this really was confusing, or just one store manager being confused. I've been under the unexamined assumption that this was a single-store incident, in which case you have to say it's just some store manager who had a rush of blood to the head and got it wrong. But thanks for making me think about whether my assumption is valid or not, I'll await more data. If something is genuinely confusing, you'd expect to see the same mistake being made across the industry. If you don't see it all over the place, you have to wonder how everybody else got it right on only (a single?) Tesco got it wrong. It goes back to that 3-5% polling thing that got spoken about the other day. You can find one person in every twenty who is just so completely off the reservation about some issue that you can safely ignore it as a real "thing". Or, in slightly more scientific terms, we shouldn't extrapolate from a single data point.
If one is against the lockdown, one is against the non-essentials issue. Welsh people outraged by the locksdown are outraged by the non essentials issue.The issue has been badly managed and badly communicated by the Welsh Government, but the likes of BigG. protest too much.
It is not like BigGs boys are having an easy time of their four tier, three tier system at the moment either. Chaos abounds... everywhere.
Of course, we're in this situation because First Past The Post creates artificial coalitions of people who really shouldn't be in the same party. I'm a card-carrying Don't Know, but there are people in my party who really should form a splinter Who Cares? party. They cause a lot of trouble for us, and we really want rid of them, but without PR we will never have a Don't Know PM unless we have them on board.
Biden's lead is now 11% in today's USC Dornsife. You can see the trend, or lack of. Flat as owt.
This represents that actual polling gap on election day for the gazillions of votes already having been cast in swing states.
Also, if either campaign had an October surprise card up their sleeve, they'd have played it three weeks ago.
Wasn't the Hunter Biden emails thing supposed to be that? I still don't understand that story and it appears to have faded away.
Yes, they botched the rollout. They're trying to drip feed it out to keep it in the news, but the drips are too drippy for any of them to get traction, especially as whole setup is so hokey (probably-genuine emails but attributed to a made-up laptop revealed by someone with known Russian intelligence connections, and they won't let the media see enough of the laptop data to verify it, probably because it's made up)
If they are doing that, they’re reckless to the point of insanity. Favourites from this far out don’t win Tory elections. Not unless their name is Eden, and Sunak’s isn’t.
Pre-emptive damaging of a Sunak campaign on the basis of his policies and the emergence of a Tory leader presenting, presumably, a lesser challenge to Labour could also be seen as a good result.
Given the numbers of those who have already voted this will require a hell of a turnout on the day by the President's supporters. Maybe impossible in Penn.
It is with fear and trepidation I am about to get in the car and go for my prescription wondering if the neighbours will report me the Stasi Welsh government for having the temerity to go out
Ridiculous hyperbole from you again, and offensive to those innocent souls murdered by the actual Stasi.
Feelings are running very high in Wales just now and since when was satire banned
Fee!ings are running very high in Big_G_Northwales I think you mean.
You clearly have no idea how this has cut through in Wales
Apart from VOX pops how do you measure it? It’s not through human contact are you on other messaging sites? One would think it’s obvious but can you prove it?
Tim it's an irrelevant question. This is not simply opinion polling anymore. With up to 50% of votes cast they are virtually exit polls. Add to that not mere anecdotes but analysis of actual voting returns in states like North Carolina and Florida and there is no need to be jittery. I have never been so confident going into a betting event. The markets are skewed by normalcy bias from 2016 but, to paraphrase, this is no 2016. The reason Biden is being low key is that he is going to win. What he needs to do more than anything else is stay alive. In other words he must NOT catch covid before Nov 3rd (or Jan 20th for that matter).
The other thing I have been watching is Republicans. It's one of my biggest errors in 2019: not listening to Labour insiders who knew they had lost. The GOP know they've lost this and there's going to be a bloodbath afterwards: a battle royal for the soul of the party.
It is with fear and trepidation I am about to get in the car and go for my prescription wondering if the neighbours will report me the Stasi Welsh government for having the temerity to go out
Ridiculous hyperbole from you again, and offensive to those innocent souls murdered by the actual Stasi.
Feelings are running very high in Wales just now and since when was satire banned
Fee!ings are running very high in Big_G_Northwales I think you mean.
You clearly have no idea how this has cut through in Wales
Nobody here in the Western Vale that I have seen on my socially distanced dog walk seem as exercised as BigG. about the non-essential shopping argument, at any rate.
If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016
Are you still maintaining the fiction that you want Biden to win because the tone of every post you write on the US election suggests otherwise?
I have said I would have voted for Hillary too in 2016 and did so at the time, that does not change the fact Hillary lost, in fact the last Republican I would have voted for was George W Bush in 2000.
However it seems that unlike some on here I can distinguish between who I would vote for and who I think will win which is what this site is supposed to be about and as I showed last night Trump's vote has not disappeared and very rarely does the candidate with the most energy amongst their supporters lose
You are gleefully reporting every Trafalgar "poll" as gold dust and ignoring everything else. That does not speak to me as a man who doesn't want Trump to win.
If you were seriously only interested in who might win then you would be balancing the limited pro-Trump signs with the more numerous pro-Biden signs.
My guess is that you are a very tribal Tory and you have figured, probably correctly, that a Trump win would suit Johnson best and so that is what you secretly hoping for but are too embarrassed to admit it.
You view everything through the prism of what best suits Boris and if that means 4 more years of the odious Trump then so be it. .
Biden's lead is now 11% in today's USC Dornsife. You can see the trend, or lack of. Flat as owt.
This represents that actual polling gap on election day for the gazillions of votes already having been cast in swing states.
Also, if either campaign had an October surprise card up their sleeve, they'd have played it three weeks ago.
Wasn't the Hunter Biden emails thing supposed to be that? I still don't understand that story and it appears to have faded away.
Yes, they botched the rollout. They're trying to drip feed it out to keep it in the news, but the drips are too drippy for any of them to get traction, especially as whole setup is so hokey (probably-genuine emails but attributed to a made-up laptop revealed by someone with known Russian intelligence connections, and they can't won't let the media see enough of the laptop data to verify it, probably because it's made up)
Alister claimed it was the scandal of the millennium
What the MSM have failed to do is to actually produce figures for what being on UC means and how much someone actually gets. What Pagan2 showed yesterday is that for a family living in rented accommodation UC is actually extremely generous and there are certain situations where someone on UC would have more dispoable income than a family on an average salary with average housing costs who are not entitled to anything other than child benefit.
You really do not get it do you
Arguing against Marcus Rashford, a national treasure fighting for poor children, is just wrong on every level and I of course Boris's England is the only country doing this
Sorry which other Country provides free school meals when schools are on holiday?
Universial Credit was increased by £20 per week in March to reflect the pandemic, when is that mentioned?
We will soon be at a situation where it will be better for most people to stay at home and not work as the benefits they will be giving up are worth so much.
The situation Pagan2 described was a mum with two kids living in rented accommodation on UC. After her rent and Council Tax are paid she is left with around £250 per week. When Iwe were bringing upour kids we never had anywhere near that level of spare cash after my mortgage, Council Tax, childcare and travelling were taken off. We still live in the same 2 bedroom house. There will be millions of people in this country in similar positions who will not be aware just how generous UC is.
Honestly it is pointless using logic on these people. They are genuinely outraged that people who don't work have slightly less money than those that do.
It's getting to the point where it is a complete waste of time to work if you earn low wages. I think I might join them shortly to be honest.
Comments
Its the same nonsense as the Bedroom Tax where people already living somewhere started losing money because they refused to move out into the smaller accommodation that didn't exist.
Anyway, Tory MPs will be reassured that their demonisation of the poor has worked on a few people. And thanks to Covid it isn't even just the poor - far too easy for comfortably off middle class people to have see their job and their industry go up in smoke this year. I blame them for taking stupid jobs like in hospitality and travel, they absolutely should have their homes and possessions taken away before they get benefits. The workshy feckless scumbags
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/26/oxford-astrazeneca-coronavirus-vaccine-reportedly-triggers-immune-response-among-adults-.html
I don't think the solution is it to drive people out of work to an even worse level of poverty so that people in work can feel relatively better.
In regards to your point, if you live in Social Housing whether Council or HA, all of your rent is paid.
https://twitter.com/Paul1Singh/status/1320686658963099649?s=20
Edit - Tesco "clarify"
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1320685133662400513?s=20
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1320397787423514626
If the extra would make a difference then people would be able to show the difference in number of underfed children made by the 20£ a week increase back in March. No one has been able to cite any evidence it made a difference as yet
Unless you're thinking of MCBs, which trip out for over-current - could be in that case that the appliances are too many/too power hungry on the circuit (fire risk if the MCBs weren't doing their job and tripping) or the wrong MCB was specified (get someone competent to put the right ones in for the cabling rating/expected load).
1. There is no narrowing in the registered Democrats' lead in early voting over registered Republicans. According to the NCSBE, the Dem lead on 25th October was 326,636. Exactly a week earlier, the gap was 309,381. So, in absolute terms, it's grown slightly. It's disingenous to focus on that as a percentage of total votes cast. If more votes are cast, and the absolute gap remains the same, that narrows the percentage gap but it still helps the Democrats because there are fewer votes left to be cast so the Republicans need to win an even bigger percentage of the votes left to be cast on election day. So the Democrats should be very encouraged by the fact that the absolute gap has grown (slightly) ever since they established an early lead.
2. Yes, some senior registered Democrats did vote for Trump in 2016. But you make the assumption that will also do so in 2020 to the same degree. That's a huge, unfounded assumption. We know that for a Democrat Biden is popular amongst seniors, in a way that Clinton was not. We also know that this is the group which is (quite rightly) most concerned at the threat of Covid, and that Biden is exploiting this to appeal to the seniors vote. It's one reason why Biden is doing well in Florida. There's also the potential that the Lincoln Project is trying to exploit in 2020, of inducing registered Republican seniors into crossing over to the Democrats.
Yes, it's possible that Trump could hang on to NC. But I think it's less than probable, judging by the early voting figures. And bear in mind also that Trump could see his 2016 lead over the Democrats fall by 3.6% and still hang on to NC by the skin of his teeth. If Trump is going to hold on to the electoral college, he'll need to reduce that erosion to less than 1% in the battleground states that are must wins for Biden.
We're all really just subsidising low pay and private landlords.
Now my understanding is Tesco’s relented pronto when the Welsh Govt clarified (I think that’s their preferred word).
What’s next to be tested? My money’s on toothpaste.
Personally I’m luck because I also frivolously and unnecessarily buy toothpaste regularly, so I can happily abide by Drakeford’s master plan. I usually put the tubes next to my large collection of novelty tin openers.
Of course stationery and underwear will probably be “clarified” as ok later , if only because Drakeford and Gething need a supply of underpants to stick on their heads and pencils up their nose as they get on with the serious business of steering a country of three million though and economic and health crisis.
And this random Twitter tosser is wrong. Sorry, that's just how it is on Twitter, people say things that aren't true. Hope this has helped you a little.
But for that to happen, there would have to be another failure of the pollsters all in one direction, despite the corrections made since the 2016 debacle for education level across all other tabs.
So the challenge to PBers: If there is another major polling failure, what will be the cause(s) this time?
My candidates are:
1. Miscalculation of how the newly registered voters split between parties (GOP operatives seem confident in their efforts since 2016 to find non-voting Trump supporters and get them registered; has this biased the increase in the registered electorate in the GOP's favour in ways not detected and accounted for by pollsters?)
2. Overestimation of the youth vote. This increased from low 20%s to 30% in the 2018 mid-terms. Have pollsters assumed continued 'high' turnout of the youth, or even extrapolated continued growth in turnout?
3. Overestimation of the Democrats' share of the newly voting non-/infrequent voter.
What do you think?
(When I read it I wondered why the BBC pronouncing on such things!)
There is no get out for Drakeford
Tesco’s, in this case erred, because they were trying not to break the law as they thought it applied. WG has now issued a statement saying it was wrong.
We all know where the fault lies and it’s not with Tesco’s.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1320694388390068224?s=20
I suspect Ministers have barely bothered because they can see the U-turn coming down the track....
And what about other supermarkets?
2. Can the early vote stats tell us anything about the youth voting rates? Some states report EV's by age, I believe.
Also, if either campaign had an October surprise card up their sleeve, they'd have played it three weeks ago.
2. Low youth turnout is also possible - again as Mr Ed has suggested in part due to closed college campuses.
Set against those we have fairly good evidence that Covid had created a disproportionate swing to Biden among voters of a similar vintage to his self. In many recent elections the elder vote has won out - no particular reason to think that it won't deliver for Biden this time.
We also see evidence that the reluctant Democrat voters who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton in 2016 are voting Biden this time. HYUFD has dismissed the midterms because Trump wasn't on the ballot, but I wonder whether the crucial difference was that Clinton wasn't on the ballot. And Clinton still isn't on the ballot this year, which seems to be a big benefit to Biden.
I'm still nervous because of election integrity issues, though.
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/GA.html
OCT 12-25, 2020 5,355 LV Biden 54% - 42% Trump Biden +11
OCT 12-25, 2020 5,355 LV Biden 54% - 42% Trump Biden +13
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
The main point is though if you declare “non essential “ can’t be sold on Thursday/Friday, and then say on Saturday/Sunday supermarkets can use “discretion” and “anomalies” will be corrected in the light of “weekend experience”, but at the same time the policy won’t be reversed what the hell do you do as a supermarket manager or worker?
Confusion reigns.
Anyway V Gething’s supposed to be on a 12.15 so we can see what he says.
Go in any supermarket in Wales and look on in incredulity and of course it is Welsh shopper's experiences that are causing this anger
And this is not just on twitter it is featuring on all Welsh TV news programmes, local newspapers, and every day conversations
Drakeford was a virtual unknown politician until now but he has become infamous overnight
Tesco couldn't sell cheap nasty Chinese tat for an entire weekend. My heart bleeds. Give Ken Murphy a pay rise. After a disappointing Christmas Tesco have had a fantastic pandemic.
I shouldn't darken their door again...
At risk of raising TSE’s ire, it was sock coupons that did for the Soviet Union. Well, the coupons coupled to the fact there were no socks anyway.
- CGT on residential property gains (from the point of introduction, tapered in if necessary).
- Mandate councils to build houses.
- Steeper tax on land banks.
- USe it or lose it planning permissions.
- Punitive 2nd home council tax rates (again tapered in).
- Better tenant protection (against no reason evictions).
- Easier planning for property re-purposing (e.g. shops to residential).
If I were cynical I’d think it was nothing to with the NHS being protected and more to do with WG fearing actual riots in the streets if they ban alcohol.
Such a moral force for good down in the Sennedd.
I've been under the unexamined assumption that this was a single-store incident, in which case you have to say it's just some store manager who had a rush of blood to the head and got it wrong. But thanks for making me think about whether my assumption is valid or not, I'll await more data.
If something is genuinely confusing, you'd expect to see the same mistake being made across the industry. If you don't see it all over the place, you have to wonder how everybody else got it right on only (a single?) Tesco got it wrong.
It goes back to that 3-5% polling thing that got spoken about the other day. You can find one person in every twenty who is just so completely off the reservation about some issue that you can safely ignore it as a real "thing". Or, in slightly more scientific terms, we shouldn't extrapolate from a single data point.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
& Ossoff is ahead of Perdue by a squeak in both Georgia Senate polls.
This is getting to the point where if you're betting on Trump you really are clutching at straws.
Covid has made people move around a lot, accelerating the demographic trends of Dems out of the rustbelt. So PA/WI are tighter than they look, while AZ/TX/NC are close. But the whole race swings to a teensy bit tighter than it looks now (say Biden +6) so he misses in the midwest but not enough to win any of the upcoming states.
This contradicts the state polling a bit, but the state polling shows the general direction of travel, and if covid shook things up a bit the pollsters may not have caught onto the scale of the trend.
It is not like BigGs boys are having an easy time of their four tier, three tier system at the moment either. Chaos abounds... everywhere.
Lots of ladders to climb down possibly, but not meeting the supermarkets till later.
The other thing I have been watching is Republicans. It's one of my biggest errors in 2019: not listening to Labour insiders who knew they had lost. The GOP know they've lost this and there's going to be a bloodbath afterwards: a battle royal for the soul of the party.
YouGov Michigan
Biden 52% (-)
Trump 42% (-4)
Changes from 10th October.
YouGov Wisconsin
Biden 53% (+2)
Trump 44% (-2)
Changes from 17th October.
YouGov Pennsylvania
Biden 52% (+1)
Trump 44% (-)
Changes from 3rd October.
If you were seriously only interested in who might win then you would be balancing the limited pro-Trump signs with the more numerous pro-Biden signs.
My guess is that you are a very tribal Tory and you have figured, probably correctly, that a Trump win would suit Johnson best and so that is what you secretly hoping for but are too embarrassed to admit it.
You view everything through the prism of what best suits Boris and if that means 4 more years of the odious Trump then so be it. .
https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/5_NFS_Report_spv_Ch4_JobsHunger.pdf
Hyperbole of the millennium, perhaps.
It's getting to the point where it is a complete waste of time to work if you earn low wages. I think I might join them shortly to be honest.