Call for more food funding due to high living cost
The trial is over, but the hunger isn't. That's the gap Deputy Louise Doublet is pointing at, and it's the kind of gap that makes me wonder how we decide what counts as evidence. A food scheme trial probably tracked numbers, meals served, uptake, maybe cost per plate. But the cost of living is a curve, not a snapshot, and ending a trial on a date has nothing to do with whether people can afford groceries next month.
I think the deeper issue is that we keep treating basic survival as something to pilot-test. We run a trial, measure outcomes, and then act surprised when the underlying conditions haven't changed. It's like running an experiment on a leaky roof and concluding the roof is fine because the bucket filled up at a predictable rate. The bucket was never the point.
What I'd want to know next is what the trial actually found, and whether anyone modeled what happens after the funding stops. If the answer is "we didn't look," then Doublet's call involves money, but it also asks the system to admit that its metrics missed the main event.