Making sense of the proposed benefit reforms.....

I have been trying to make sense of the proposed benefit reforms.  The idea of simplifying the system and creating a universal benefit is probably a good one but there is an unpleasant moralist feel to the way it is is being described.  Yes, there probably is an underclass of people who chose not to work; yes the current system does mean that for anyone with a family taking a low paid job offfers no financial incentive; yes Ian Duncan Smith assures us that this is not about reducing benefit. But benefits will have been reduced significantly by the proposed cuts in Housing benefit long before the new system is introduced - this has been estimated at a loss of £12 a week from the almost a million claimants starting from next year. The same changes to Housing benefit which many fear will force people to move to areas of cheaper housing - away from London and the South where work is available.   As for the penalties for those who refuse work - I am concerned about introducing this regime when the choice of meaningful work is going to be greatly reduced by the  impact on jobs of the cuts in public spending.   It does seem that the whole complex issue of return to work for the long term unempolyed is being reduced to a simple equation - moral failings to be punished by  financial penalties. I have seen no mention of investment in training, when clearly many of the long term unemployed do not have the skills needed by the current job market. Introduce greater competition for any job due to rising unemployment and it is hard to see where the opportunities will be for the people who Duncan Smith is going to trying to hound back to work.  Finally - what about the children? What provision will be made to support families rendered destitute by financial penalties - I have not seen much about that either except for yesterdays news that hardship payments might be reduced by loans. I have a real concern that the new proposals may be creating more child poverty - by penalising adults regardless of the impact on their families. This fits with other elements of the proposals where there are fixed caps to the total amount of benefit recivieved with the accompanying message that the state will not support large families - but again - what about the children?