There was an interview on the breakfast show this morning catching up with some mums who they apparently followed through pregnancy a couple of years ago. They were discussing assorted topics concerning the election and assorted pledged from the parties about improving things for working families and the one mum was very much in agreement that more needed doing for families.
The presenter posed the idea that the parties always promise things to "hard working families" and that single people (11 million) and those without children might feel a bit hard done by. Presenter asked the mum if she could relate to that?
Mum said she didn't agree that couples without children were hard done by (she avoided anything about single people altogether), that even more needed to be done for families, that the recent cuts had hit families most of all and that, in her opinion, couples with children are more important than those without.
AIBU to think that she's wrong in that:
a) the cuts have probably hit the disabled/permanently ill far most of all
b) couples with children are no more important than other couples, nor single people?