The opportunity to work, is not the same as being offered a reasonable job, for reasonable pay, with reasonable prospects for a future increase in pay and lifestyle. I remember a period of unemployment where, I was on benefit and I was offered a job. The job I was offered was in a factory. My job would have been working in a room in the factory where there were intense fumes. I was told when shown this room that: "The fumes where 'not dangerous' but just smell". I had my doubts, as the atmosphere felt toxic the moment I entered. Several years working in such an atmosphere couldn't be good for my health. I think a lot of people must have felt the same way about this job, as the employers couldn't find someone to fill the job. The pay was also terrible. I'd guess they were hoping to employ someone pretty desperate for a job. I did not see this as a resonable job offer, as I felt I was being asked to risk my health, in an unpleasant working environment for small amounts of pay. Luckily for me, the governmental rule by which you couldn't turn down any job offer (or you would face possible penalities for refusing) was not being enforced with this particular job. My point is, not all job opportunities are reasonable. In employment, experience is often key to being hired. Once you gain experience in one field of employment, then that is the type of job employers are most likely to employ you in again. So the type of job you accept is likely to influence what type of job you are seen as fit for, in the future. So taking an opportunity is likely to have some long term consequences on your future employment and so, pay and so future lifestyle. It is reasonable, for someone with training in the skills of a manager to "wait until the right job comes along". If s/he were to accept a job, of say purely manual work, possible future employers would wonder if he could make the step up to a managerial level. While s/he is waiting for a job that fits their skill set, it is not unreasonable for society to give the trained manager some breathing space, while s/he attends interviews for his skilled work, rather than take the first opportunity that comes along; which maybe unskilled work in a factory. I think most people have some degree of aspiration and as we feel we have the right to persue our aspirations, so we should be in favour of other people having the opportunity to persue theirs So anyone trained in a particular field should be supported by society, for a while at least, while they seek employment in that field, if employment in that field is a reasonable possibility. However, I think, if someone refuses reasonable work because they wish to become an astronaunt, (or have any aspirational job) with no hope or reasonable plan, of doing so in the definable future, then society does have the right, to say this is not reasonable and have a look at limiting or stopping support to that individual.

There are many people on the right of the political spectrum who believe that those on benefits are unmotivated and unwilling to make a better life for themselves, however this, coming from a right-winger, simply isn't a strong enough argument to deny these people money, from the state, to provide for their children, themselves and any investment money they need to get on their feet. If Aggregate demand falls in an economy, it is a commonly understood notion that a recession could loom around the corner, due to fins not being able to make sustained profits as a result of a fall in consumer spending. Therefore, by denying people who don't work benefit payouts, the state is effectively digging itself a hold where many middle-class business owners, or workers within businesses that rely on the spending of lower-class people, are going to be placed in a position where they face wage cuts, job losses or redundancy in a job market where, as I said, due to low aggregate demand, they are unlikely to find any decent job fast. And how is that an echo of the conservative mantra? I support lower taxation, however we need to invest in putting money into peoples profits. If we really want a market-led economy, then we should look at slashing taxes on the middle-upper middle classes, and privatise many social care organisations, including parts of the NHS, in order to revitalise the UK economy. There is also the moral message, if we say to those worse-off that we don't care about them, throw a few quid at them a month and let them get on with it, what are we saying to those on the verge of becoming middle-class? We are, by doing this, digging ourselves deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole of inequality and elitism, and in turn, effectively burying the prospective middle-class into a pit of inadequacy and hopelessness. I am all for low state spending, however spend the little we have on boosting AD, business investment and morale lifting.