A Good Reply On This Blog I Read>>>>>>>

The point of that last being to facilitate the erosion of social security by denying legal aid to those suffering due to the doing away of established benefits and the introduction of new ones like UC and PIP. The reasoning was, I believe, that since all existing case law was relevant to the old benefits it was all now rendered irrelevant and long-established legal precedents would have to be fought and established through the courts all over again, this time without the benefit of legal aid to help. The longer term view presumably being if benefits could be made impossible to claim it would herd society into the gaping maw of the private insurance industry. I recall the names Duncan Smith, Grayling and Lord Freud being mentioned in this lamentable context.