Alex1Powell Categories Government
SPOT THE DIFFERENCE
1. What PM wrongly claimed on child poverty in 2019, earning @StatsRegulation rebuke
2. What PM claimed on child poverty at PMQs on 18 Nov 20

In the first statement, the PM used 2010 as a baseline. At the time, relative poverty was rising and absolute poverty was historically weak - we could not see where the 400,000 claim had come from.
An earlier thread on the PM's past claims
THREAD:
— Imran (@imran_1) July 30, 2020
How can PM level up the country if he cannot level with the public about how many children are in poverty?
That's the question we should be asking ourselves after the @StatsRegulation ruled the PM incorrectly used child poverty statistics.
In the PMQs claim he talks about the last 10 yrs.
If he means since 2010, he'd be repeating his incorrect claim.
Does he mean the last 10 years for which we have statistics?
That would be starting at 2009/10 - under LAB & well before benefit cuts started to bite from 2012
Let's take a look, first, at the relative child poverty measure
Looking at the last 10 years, child poverty has RISEN by 200,000 (BHC) or 300,000 (BHC)

Can the PM's 400,000 claim be borne out by the absolute child poverty stats? Remember, we normally expect this figure to fall, as society gets richer
No, absolute child poverty fell by 100,000 on both BHC/AHC - a historically weak performance

The police in the Philippines is not the product of democracy. The Philippine Constabulary (PC), from which the Integrated National Police (INP) and later the Philippine National Police (PNP, as a merger of PC and INP) was created, is a gendarmerie created by US colonists. 1/
— James Miraflor (@futilityfunc) December 21, 2020
The 2 examples I know are Licerio Geronimo and Juan Cailles. *I wouldn't know these if I hadn't done research for my chapter in this book here: 2/11

Gen. Licerio Geronimo is credited w/ the death of Major Gen. Henry Lawton, the highest ranking American officer to be killed in the Philippine-American War, during the Battle of San Mateo. But after surrendering in 1901 he joined the PC & was instrumental in the defeat ... 3/11
...of his former comrades, most notably Gen. Luciano San Miguel, a veteran of the 1896 revolution who continued to battle the Americans until his death in 1903. He had been routed by Geronimo's troops but San Miguel preferred to die on the battlefield than be taken alive. 4/11
Juan Cailles, like Geronimo, was a Katipunan commander who surrendered to the Americans in 1901. He was then appointed governor of Laguna and enjoyed several years of being a local politician. But in the 1930s, in the midst of landlessness and social unrest... 5/11
So, if the government has accepted that the bills had these flaws where do those people stand who were defending them as perfect?
— smg (@sialmirzagoraya) December 9, 2020
The eyewash that the proposal is aimed to put better clauses in place. A very nice example is contract farming column itself. GOI proposal suggests that ‘PAN card registration will continue but state govt can register the trader if it WANTS to- literally shifting onus to state.
Another example is that onus is shifted on farmer himself to go to the higher court with his expenses. The trader can choose to go to SDM at primary level. Both the options are kept open. This amendment proposal is literally a joke.
Regarding the MSP, govt proposal nowhere cites that it will be assured at C2+50 formula. It is indicated that a written assurance will be given. This is very ambiguous for govt with legal battery of dozens. And disappointing too.
There are concerns on payment systems that haven’t been addressed in the proposal and have been kept as ‘as per understanding between trader and farmer’. This is ambiguous again. Why isn’t DBT assured at govt agency procurement?
The entire CIA, FBI, and AG have been outworked by a private attorney.
The 2020 Election is a cyber Pearl Harbor:
— Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) December 10, 2020
The leftwing establishment have aligned their forces to overthrow the United States government #MAGA #AmericaFirst #Dobbs pic.twitter.com/v1hOAPMqGY
And let me add it is the job of the CIA and FBI to PREVENT this from occuring, not investigate after the fact. That mandate was changed after 9/11. Congress needs to ask how did this voter fraud occur and how was it able to operate unimpeded with no disruption from said agencies.
The FBI was mandated to create a Directorate of Intelligence whose main function is to identify emerging threats to the US: terrorism, foreign intelligence service operations, transnational criminal enterprises, and other things on a grand scale like election interference.
The new mandate is to disrupt, deter and dismantle. How did the FBI fail on such a massive scale? The FBI has analytical units in each field division whose sole job is to identify emerging threats in their area of responsibility.
POTUS even identified the threat for the FBI regarding mail in ballot fraud and potential foreign interference. The FBI has something they use to legally collect intelligence in their AOR to prove or disprove if certain activities are occurring.
THREAD.
(Spoiler: It makes the notion even more ridiculous)
Income support doesn't cause overdose. Income support doesn't cause overdose. Income support doesn't cause overdose. Income support doesn't cause overdose. Income support doesn't cause overdose. Income support doesn't cause overdose.
— Hakique Virani (@hakique) December 18, 2020
Income
support
doesn't
cause
overdose.
Temporality?
If CERB caused an increase in fatal ODs, the program had to come *before* the increase. The surge clearly started in *March*.
Compared to Feb:
AB: 43%⬆️
BC: 53%⬆️
ON: 19%⬆️
You couldn't even apply for CERB till *April 6*, and payments didn't come till mid-April.

Dose-response?
In causal relationships, there's⬆️incidence where there's⬆️exposure.
In April when people started getting CERB OD deaths went up in:
AB by 26%
BC by 4.3%
ON by 29%
But the proportion of people getting CERB was statistically *the same* (~23.5%) in each province.

Coherence with established evidence?
The literature shows financial *insecurity*, not financial support, contributes to higher risk substance use and poorer health outcomes. The "CERB made ODs go up" narrative isn't just inconsistent with the science. It's *opposite* to it.

More plausible than other explanations?
The mechanism suggested for the "CERB effect" is that when you give extra money to people previously living on less than we need to survive (that's the *actual* problem), they buy a bunch of drugs and die. So fatality rates go up.
