The ConDems' plan to cap welfare benefits for the poorest from next year, is back under the spotlight as the legislation goes through Parliament. But so far, the government has only got into minor trouble, after the Lords voted an amendment which would take child benefit out of the cap - an amendment which is certain to be ignored anyway, when the legislation returns to the Commons.

Osborne and his lot are determined to show their "toughness" against the poorest, come what may. Work and Pensions Secretary, Ian Duncan Smith, the promoter of this attack on the poor, had the nerve to claim on the BBC that far from increasing poverty, his cap would act as an enticement for the unemployed to get back into a job! What job, he didn't say. And no wonder, at a time when the government's own figures show that joblessness has just reached a 17-year high, at nearly 2.7m.

Once again the ConDems are playing politics with the livelihoods of the most vulnerable, for the sake of proving to the wealthy that they can be relied upon. And, in this respect, they won't have to fear any opposition from Labour: after Ed Balls' and Ed Milliband's recent endorsement of the public sector wage freeze, Liam Byrne, Duncan Smith's opposite number on the Labour frontbench, has now declared his support, in principle, for the welfare cap!

Manufacturing more poverty...

Of course the Tory/gutter press has been quick to revive sensational "stories" about households living on benefit, in "luxury", as they say.

However, even the government's own figures tell a different story. They show that the welfare cap (£500 a week for families, or £350 for childless single-adult households) will result in 67,000 households losing an average £83/wk overnight. A total 300,000 individuals will be affected, including over 130,000 children.

This will come on top of measures which will soon be, or already are, affecting the poorest. Like the 39% cut to social fund payments, used to meet emergency cash payments, or the obligation on Housing Associations to charge at least 80% of private market rents.

Many of these 67,000 households already live below the poverty line. But since this cap is almost exactly at the poverty line level for a family of four, this means that overnight, most of these 130,000 children who were not yet officially considered as living in poverty, will be pushed below the poverty threshold.

And both this government and the Labour opposition which supports its vicious legislation, pride themselves in their intention to enshrine into law the objective of ending child poverty! If hypocrisy could kill, the British political scene would be littered with stinking corpses.

... While propping up the wealthy

Contrast the politicians' ruthless determination to squeeze the poor, with their spinelessness in front of the wealthy. The "responsible capitalism" that both Cameron and Milliband claim to champion doesn't apply to the government's own banks. So the chief executive of state-controlled RBS stands to award himself a £1m plus bonus.

What do these rich people who already have everything, need even more money for? But for them, there is no question of any cap - not even on their greed. Because, as goes the official line, they are "indispensable" to the running of the state banks. Only the poor are "dispensable"!

Or take the case of the CEOs of Britain's 100 largest companies. Last year, they awarded themselves a 40% pay increase, to an average £4.5m. Between them, these 100 characters earned 50% more than the ConDems plan to steal from the 330,000 poor individuals who will be affected by their welfare cap!

Politicians justify their attacks on the poor by the fact that welfare payments come out of taxpayers' money. Referring to the £192bn welfare bill, Duncan Smith said on the BBC that "the state can no longer afford to pay people disproportionate amounts in benefit each week".

But what is this £192bn, if not a gigantic subsidy to the capitalists? Doesn't the welfare budget help the bosses pay inadequate wages, slash jobs and take no responsibility for pensioners? Doesn't it allow the rich landlords to charge extortionate rents and the banks to live off the life-long payments made by working class households on expensive mortgages?

What society "can no longer afford" is a system in which a parasitic capitalist class is allowed to pile up an obscene amount of wealth through its exploitation of labour and its milking of the state!