Meanwhile - ignoring the plethora of side issues the key issue remains: that if average wages are too low to allow someone to live in our cities, using this as an argument to cut benefits is absurd. If wages being too low are the problem then obviously addressing this is the solutino. Taking steps to share poverty more evenly across the poor is no answer.
Even the excesses of private landlords falls to one side around this core of the issue. Rents are too high - the government has ensured that is the case through successive policy decisions, and private landlords are exploiting those decisions as they were invited to do. The two faced demonising extremists like our Housing Minister can not say 'let housing benefit take the strain' one day then moan if rents are too high for wages to afford. His doing. His fault. His mess. His responsibility - but not caused by the poor, rather inflicted upon them.
Failing to pay people sufficiently for their work is not an indication of over-generous benefits but is an indication of low pay - otherwise the in-work benefits would compensate such that those fully employed would not be 'worse-off' in reality. Why do wages fail to 'make work pay'? Why do in-work benefits fail to 'make work pay'? How can cutting benefits without increasing pay 'make work pay'?
The illogic and untruths peddled by this government and their apologists beggars belief, yet too often gets swallowed whole without a murmour from the population. Incredible.