VERSION|0.5.1|NAME|Isabel|DATE|1372267105|CONTENT|I&#039;m inclined to agree Matt. Or maybe not personally evil, but locked into some fairly evil ideas. It&#039;s as if they feel they have to prove themselves by putting on a Thatcherian display of callousness, purely for the sake of projecting authority, whether it gains anything for anybody or no. 

So supposing one has a second bedroom, of any size, for historical reasons. On falling on hard times, is it the Chancellor&#039;s view that any honest person would immediately incur the enormous expense and physical and mental strain of moving, potentially away from existing support networks, in order to escape the drain on resources that a second bedroom surely represents? Somehow, I suspect that Osborne could see the weirdness of that argument if he ever actually tried to imagine such a situation. I find the theory that the government gains political support through their arrangement with Atos and their Daily Mail-feeding much more convincing than the theory that they believe they&#039;re doing the country long-term good by saving money. What expense-cutting programme omits to do basic cost/benefit analyses?
|EMAIL|ecrg02@gmail.com|IP-ADDRESS|134.93.181.41|MODERATIONFLAG|