Originally Posted by martyh

How the hell is not fair .You and others maintain that IDS and his ilk cannot and would not survive on the money benefits give people ,so to prove the point put IDS on exactly the same money as a bloke in a bedsit on the dole what can possibly be unfair about that and how can you possibly disagree with it after everything you have had to say on the subject.

Originally Posted by Chris

Let's not forget in all of this that IDS did not stand up and make a claim about anything. He was ambushed by someone who was pretty soon afterwards discovered to be lying.

He answered a direct question and said "If I had to, I could". Within that short sentence there is room for endless interpretation, and it seems to me that a lot of people are interpreting it a little generously, making very long lists of 'essentials' and then proving with paper and pencil that you can't live that list of 'essentials' on £53.

A fairer way of looking at it would be to see IDS affirming he would be able to cope on equal terms with the man in question (terms which, as we now know, are a little less straitened than £53). Or, better still, you could take his words at naked face value. Yes, you *could* live on £53 for a week, if you *had* to, because if you *had* to, then you would simply prioritise what you need to stay alive and buy that first. Everything else, even some of the things you might class as 'essential' such as internet access, become extras that you may or may not be able to afford.

I have no doubt that someone as intelligent and resourceful as IDS, especially with his military training, *could* live on £53 if he *had* to.

---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------

Incidentally, I've been going back over our online grocery receipts (as we get everything delivered) and a fair estimate of our average weekly grocery bill, ie. all our eating and cleaning, is somewhere between £80 and £90 for a family of five.