Then why did Natalie Bennett make it a key policy for discussion on her Daily Politics? Why did she allow Neil to describe it as a "key policy" and why didn't she just bat aside this first question by saying "it's merely an aspiration and we'll come to that bridge when we come to it"?
LOL, you believe it was "never part of their manifesto" despite Bennett happily taking questions on it in early April?
They ditched it because it was shown their version was intrinsically flawed, not because it was never a major policy....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-citizens-income-from-election-manifesto.htmlCitizens income is nothing new, the Liberal Democrats had the same idea in their actual manifesto before.b And it has been popular idea in other western countries. A Citizens income can work and has a strong support form leading economists.
If you actually bothered reading the research that criticized the £72 it actually details quite clearly how a lower CI with additional means-tested benefits has many advantages, which is huglighted in teh link you gave if you bothered to read it:
And there we have it, exactly what I said. A Citizen income that incorporates a reduced amount of benefits testing such that non of the poor are worse off but will be better off and we still save a large amount of overheads. So i was right after all, because I actually look in detail at what the Green's say rather than read outdated newspaper headlines.
Strawman.
I never claimed a citizens' income was a bad idea in principle and explicitly stated this in the post you quoted. I merely pointed out that the Green version of it, coupled with their other policies, would make poorer people worse off.
.
.
