Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Q: Paragraph: There will be 50,000 more nurses going into the NHS. The government has committed to do this by 2024/25. Not all of these nurses will be ‘new’. The government have announced the end of hospital parking charges for patients. In December it was announced that hospitals in England will have to provide free car parking to frequent hospital visitors, blue badge holders and at certain times to staff and parents of child patients. The government will build 40 new hospitals. Six hospitals in England are getting the money to upgrade their buildings within the next five years. Up to 38 hospitals are getting money to develop plans for their hospitals between 2025 and 2030, but not to actually begin any building work. The government is putting 20,000 more police on the streets. The government has committed to do this. If this happens it will take the number of police in England and Wales to almost, but not quite the same level as it was at in 2010. The government gave the police much more use of Tasers to help deal with street crime. The Home Office announced police in England and Wales can bid for part of a fund to equip their force with more Tasers. Final funding allocations will be announced in February. The government are lifting the living wage by the biggest ever amount, up to £8.72, and it will go up to £10.50. The national living wage set by the government is set to rise to £8.72 in April, the largest rise since it was put in place in 2016. It was also announced at last year’s Conservative party conference that it would rise to £10.50 within the next five years. Claim 1 of 7 Claim: The government are lifting the living wage by the biggest ever amount, up to £8.72, and it will go up to £10.50.

A: The national living wage set by the government is set to rise to £8.72 in April, the largest rise since it was put in place in 2016. It was also announced at last year’s Conservative party conference that it would rise to £10.50 within the next five years.
****
Q: Paragraph: The vote — which prompted environmental activists still in council chambers after four hours to break into applause — approved an ordinance that bans the transport, handling and storage of coal and petroleum coke at bulk material facilities or terminals in Oakland. “We want jobs that people can have, and have a long life and they don’t have to rely upon a job of desperation,” said Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney after the vote. “I just believe that we can do better in Oakland.” The ordinance requires a second vote. City leaders have wrestled with the issue for more than a year, as detractors and supporters of the proposed marine terminal argued over the environmental dangers of bringing millions of tons of coal through the area and the economic benefits of good-paying union jobs. The terminal is part of a larger makeover of an army base that closed in 1999, eliminating thousands of jobs. The proposed terminal is in West Oakland, a historically black neighborhood that’s among the poorest and most polluted in the region. The council approved the project before the coal proposal was made. It’s uncertain whether the terminal will continue without shipping coal. A lawyer for the Oregon Bulk and Oversized Terminal on Monday sent the council a letter detailing potential legal consequences. “Politically, no quantity of handling coal or petcoke under whatever extraordinary standard will be tolerated,” said David Smith. “While that may accomplish a political outcome, it is only the first steps towards an unfortunate legal outcome.” City leaders said they were confident they could overcome a legal challenge. More than 150 people on both sides rallied outside the building Monday before the evening meeting. They packed the council’s chamber, cheering and booing as speakers testified. At times, it was so hard to hear speakers that the council president had to ask security to remove some people from the room. Coal proponents railed at the council for what they saw as a pre-ordained vote. They argued that any environmental impact would be mitigated by transporting coal in covered rail cars that are unloaded underground. “We agree 1,000 percent that West Oakland is polluted,” said Ron Muhammad, a fourth-generation resident of West Oakland. “But the project has a plan to mitigate it, to address it, so since the public health portion is taken out of the picture, then it goes back to the jobs.” On the other side, coal opponents argued there was no way to keep coal dust from escaping into the air, and that rail shipment would worsen the health of children already disadvantaged by poverty and bad air. “This whole notion of coal-covered cars is rather ridiculous to say the least because it’s never been done before,” said Derrick Muhammad of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, which opposes the shipment of coal. Among the speakers were residents of Utah who were furious that their state lawmakers had pumped more than $50 million in public money to build the facility, hoping to spur investment in the state’s rural counties. Claim: Oakland council bans coal shipments, citing health risks.

A: The Oakland City Council voted unanimously Monday night to kill a plan to use a proposed marine terminal to transport Utah coal to Asia, calling such shipments public health and safety hazards. Backers argued the project would bring needed jobs to an impoverished part of town.
****
Q: Paragraph: "Liberals are getting nostalgic about the 1950s Republican agenda -- at least judging by the social media meme several readers recently sent us. The meme, created by the group Occupy Democrats, summarized a few planks from the 1956 Republican Party platform, followed by the wistful comment, ""Share if you miss the good old days!"" Here are the seven planks listed in the meme, which to today’s ear sound more like Democratic talking points: 1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities; 2. Protect Social Security; 3. Provide asylum for refugees; 4. Extend minimum wage; 5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people; 6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union; 7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex. We wondered whether the meme accurately describes these elements of the 1956 platform, and if so, whether the 1956 document contrasts sharply with the most recent party platform in 2012. So we took a closer look. What the 1956 platform said We located a copy of the official party platform from 1956, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was running (successfully, as it turned out) for his second term as president. All told, the meme is generally accurate in portraying these seven elements of the 1956 platform, with some caveats. On federal assistance to low-income communities, the 1956 platform said the party would ""promote fully the Republican-sponsored Rural Development Program to broaden the operation and increase the income of low income farm families and help tenant farmers."" On protecting Social Security, the platform touted the Eisenhower administration’s extension of Social Security to 10 million more workers and benefits hikes for 6.5 million Americans. On refugees, the platform spotlighted the administration’s work in sponsoring the Refugee Relief Act ""to provide asylum for thousands of refugees, expellees and displaced persons,"" promising its ""wholehearted support"" for additional efforts. M. Christine Anderson, a Xavier University historian, noted that many refugees were coming from communist countries in Eastern Europe, so this wasn't an especially controversial issue during the Cold War era. On the minimum wage, the platform notes that the Eisenhower administration raised the minimum wage for more than 2 million workers. It urged extending minimum-wage protections ""to as many more workers as is possible and practicable."" On improving the unemployment benefit system, the 1956 platform touted the administration’s actions to bring unemployment insurance to 4 million additional workers, and backed efforts to ""improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system."" On strengthening unions, the platform says the ""protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration."" That’s full-throated rhetoric in support of unions -- but the policy reality is a bit more nuanced, said Jennifer Delton, a Skidmore College historian and author of Rethinking the 1950s. The platform did not support unions’ key agenda item that year -- a repeal of states’ ability to pass ""right to work"" laws that would ban compulsory union membership. On equal pay for equal work regardless of sex, the platform says the Eisenhower administration will ""continue to fight … (to) assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex."" What the 2012 platform says The party’s 2012 platform is pretty different, both in tone and substance. On federal assistance to low-income communities, the 2012 platform takes a much more skeptical view. ""The federal government’s entire system of public assistance should be reformed to ensure that it promotes work,"" the 2012 platform says, arguing that the system has become overly bureaucratized and discourages work. The 2012 platform also takes a shot at federal low-income housing policy, saying the government ""has spent billions more on poorly designed and ineffective housing assistance programs."" On Social Security, the platform says current retirees or those approaching retirement should continue to receive Social Security as currently configured. However, it goes on to say that demographic and financial challenges mean that the program is ""long overdue for major change, not just another legislative stopgap that postpones a day of reckoning,"" including the possibility of ""personal investment accounts as supplements to the system."" The 2012 platform doesn’t address refugees specifically, but it does address immigration. It criticizes President Barack Obama for creating ""a backdoor amnesty program unrecognized in law (and) granting worker authorization to illegal aliens."" It also says that ""granting amnesty only rewards and encourages more law-breaking,"" and it promises to ""create humane procedures to encourage illegal aliens to return home voluntarily, while enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas."" The 2012 platform doesn’t mention the minimum wage specifically, but it does place an emphasis on free-market business practices rather than government regulation of labor markets, laying the blame for the nation’s weak economic recovery on ""unprecedented uncertainty in the American free enterprise system due to the overreaching policies of the current administration."" Even accounting for the nuances of the 1956 platform, the clearest contrast between the two platforms may be in their approach to labor unions. The 2012 platform offers no rhetorical niceties, accusing the Obama administration of ""clinging to antiquated notions of confrontation and concentrating power in the Washington offices of union elites"" and of turning the National Labor Relations Board into ""a partisan advocate for Big Labor, using threats and coercion outside the law to attack businesses."" The 2012 platform doesn’t mention two of the meme’s seven items from 1956 -- unemployment benefits and equal pay for women. The bottom line, then, is that on most of these issues, the GOP moved to the right between 1956 and 2012, though the degree of that shift has varied somewhat issue by issue. What historians say We asked scholars whether the contrast between the two platforms is noteworthy, and they generally agreed that it was. Delton noted that the Republican Party in the 1950s was divided between moderates (including Eisenhower) and conservatives. She said the moderates controlled the process of platform-writing in 1956, but they threw a few bones to conservatives in certain portions of the document. For instance, the platform said the government wouldn’t sign a treaty or enter into an international agreement in violation of individual rights -- an issue that continues to energize conservatives decades later -- and there’s a plank about a balanced budget, which was seen as a conservative position. The seven items listed in the meme were supported by moderates, Delton said. At the time, she said, ""conservatives would have focused, with horror, on the very items the meme highlights."" Eisenhower was facing a Democratic Congress in 1956 and didn’t want to try to reverse the New Deal, Anderson said. ""If the point is that Eisenhower was not as extreme as Republicans today, it is accurate."" Our ruling The meme says the 1956 Republican Party platform supported equal pay, the minimum wage, asylum for refugees, protections for unions and more. That’s generally correct. However, it’s worth noting that other elements of the 1956 platform were considered conservative for that era. Also, some of the issues have changed considerably between 1956 and 2012, such as the shift from focusing on post-war refugees to focusing on illegal immigration. The claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so" Claim: Facebook post Says the 1956 Republican Party platform supported equal pay, the minimum wage, asylum for refugees, protections for unions and more.

A:
The meme says the 1956 Republican Party platform supported equal pay, the minimum wage, asylum for refugees, protections for unions and more. That’s generally correct. However, it’s worth noting that other elements of the 1956 platform were considered conservative for that era. Also, some of the issues have changed considerably between 1956 and 2012, such as the shift from focusing on post-war refugees to focusing on illegal immigration. The claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.
****