It's interesting and noteworthy that you refused to say if you thought that claimants should receive sufficient for decency.
Your opening post of this thread (my underlining)....
"Today, the High Court ruled that the benefits cap, one of the Tories’ flagship welfare policies, is unlawful, because it amounts to illegal discrimination against single parents with small children."
"Welfare reform as part of the coalition government’s austerity measures has driven thousands more people into poverty and in many tragic cases, some deaths occurred after individuals were declared fit to work. Austerity was not inevitable. It was an ideologically-motivated programme designed to force the poorest and most vulnerable in our society to shoulder the burden of a financial crisis that they had less than nothing to do with creating."
Was the financial crisis caused by huge banks gambling themselves into bankruptcy, or was it caused by families living in poverty? Where should the axe fall?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...le-parents-youth-children-cruel-a7803106.html
I was especially interested by what the Daily Mail had to say about this latest Tory scandal:
" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ."
I was only interested in your stance; capped, or uncapped.
You have eventually, in a round-a-bout way, come down on the latter.
edited typo
Last edited: