I am fairly certain that the Labour manifesto had some rhetoric about how people in benefits shouldn't get more than those in work. Were they in office, I reckon their benefits policy generally would not be a million miles from the Coalition's.
I don't have a half decent Internet connection to do more research but thought I'd throw the ball into play.
For the record, I think benefits, as many other things, should be assessed according to need rather than arbitrary limits. This cap idea is pandering to the Daily Fail rhetoric.
I found the Downing Street response to the leaked letter suggesting there could be 40,000 more homeless if the cap goes ahead bizarre. Being old doesn't make the argument less valid.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Location:The Sunny Highlands
Page 2:3 of Labour's manifesto states:
ReplyDelete"Our goal is to make
responsibility the cornerstone
of our welfare state. Housing
Benefit will be reformed to
ensure that we do not subsidise
people to live in the private
sector on rents that other
ordinary working families could
not afford. And we will continue
to crack down on those who try
to cheat the benefit system."
The benefits level is done according to need due to transitional arrangement money given to London councils.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the reason why there needs to be benefit reform is that one person's `need` is another person's `requirement`. Thus, the need to change behaviour for the long-term so that people only look to the state when they are either a) working and need the extra money for something they had no reasonable control over or b) something they had no reasonable control over
The age of `predict and provide` are over - the age of responsibility has begun
i think labour propose benefit cap
ReplyDeletejust check their benefit policy