The governments new[ly reannounced] citizenship tests appear to be expecting immigrants to do more this country than is ever expected of "native" Britons.

So they have to do more than just work and pay taxes - which is itself something that way too many Britons are too lazy to do - but they also have to contribute extra towards public services through an extra levy on their visa, expected to raise a minuscule [in the scheme of public services] £15 million a year. Rather short of the £250 million needed by councils to prevent the need for council tax rises, wouldn't you say?

But not only that, now migrants are to be expected to do charity work and the like in order to show that they are "active" citizens and earn the right to be a subject of the Queen. We don't expect any "native" Britons to do this, so why should an immigrant's citizenship be reliant on doing it?

I don't think that it is all bad though. The idea that citizenship should be have to be earned is a good one, but this is hardly a new revelation. And the same goes for the requirement to speak English. Nothing new, trotted out again by a different Home Secretary and with a few slight differences to go with it.

Basically, this is a gimmick. None of it will cover citizens of other EU countries, and so is basically meaningless in reality.

I'm not exactly thrilled by the Conservatives suggestion of "a limit on the level of immigration" either. Rather, immigration is good for us, and fuelled by economic expansion and the sheer laziness of too many "native" Britons. Benefits: the cause of immigration.

This proposal by Carline Flint, he Housing minister, that unemployed people who live in council or housing association owned property should either get a job or leave their home is absurd. Making them homeless isn't going to help anyone, and is hardly likely to enable them, to get a job after being evicted.

All people on Jobseeker's Allowance should be expected to actively seek work, but not on the pain of losing their home. Rather, if they are serious about getting people into work and off state handouts, they should adopt the Conservative proposal of removing benefits from those who refuse to take or look for jobs.

Throwing them out of their homes and on to the streets demonstrates that it is Labour who are the new "nasty party". Either that, or it's all just a load of hot air, trying to make them look "tough on benefit scrounging and tough on the causes of benefit scrounging". But it won't work, and certainly not with insane ideas like this which any with half a brain would suggest. And Downing Street is already distancing themselves from Flint.

I'm all for being tough on benefit scroungers, but working, or looking for work, should not be a condition of housing. To evict anyone from their home for not looking for work would be immoral. Rather, their benefits should be cut or removed entirely. Eviction won't help them get jobs, just put more people on the streets.

The government's own welfare advisor says that less than a third - nearly two million people - of those who receive incapacity benefit deserve it. And why are they on it? Because the system is too easy - "ludicrously" easy - to cheat and benefits are set too high and thus encourage those who can work not to bother.

Thus, all those receiving incapacity benefit should be independently assessed, and those who are able to work should be moved on the the Jobseeker's Allowance - and told to go and look for a job.

There is a difference between the deserving and undeserving. Those who actually can't work should be paid Incapacity Benefits. It is our duty as a civilised country to do this. But those who can work should go and do so. Those who can't work deserve our support. Those who can work but would rather sit at home leeching off the rest of us don't deserve it. The classification of "deserving" and "undeserving" poor goes back to the Poor Laws, and much it is correct right to the present day.

Everyone deserves some support whilst they are looking for a job, so long as they will actually take one when they get it. If they don't take a job that they are offered, then they should not receive any benefits for a month, increasing by a month for each job they refuse. Those who are claiming Jobseekers Allowance should also have to actually prove that they are looking for work, each and every time they go to get their benefits.

Maybe now those who claim that those on benefits would work if they could will admit that they are wrong?

Sources: BBC, The Times, The Telegraph

It is interesting that nowhere in the Guardian has this story been mentioned, that I can find. I wonder why that is?

Chris Dillow makes an argument that Konnie Huq in her decade as a Blue Peter presenter has cost the economy around £3.9bn:

But Blue Peter doesn't start until 5pm! It's perfectly possible to work a full day and then watch Blue Peter, especially now that BBC iPlayer is up and running. Blaming Konnie Huq for the £3.9bn cost to the economy is rather unfair. She's attractive, but not that attractive!

Many of the people on benefits could work if they wanted to. How else can so many immigrants find work? Because so many Britons aren't doing them, preferring to sit on the dole. That premise is by no means wonky. The idea that Konnie Huq and Blue Peter persuaded them not to go to work is, though. That reason is down to benefits being too high.

UPDATE: Matt Sinclair also responds to Chris' post.

Usually I can but agree with most of Chris Dillow's posts. But with this one, he is totally wrong. In his response to the Tories proposals to crack down on incapacity benefit fraud, he asks:

The very simple answer answer is that we have a duty as a civilised nation to support those who cannot support themselves. His proposal of a "flat rate payment to all, a citizens basic income" means that the very people who really need help won't get it, whilst those who could work if they could be bothered to get off their arse will get paid just as much. That is absolutely immoral. Those who can't work deserve support because they can't improve their own situation themselves. They can't work and earn money.

Those who can't work deserve our support. Those who can work but would rather sit at home leeching off the rest of us don't deserve it. They deserve some support whilst they are looking for a job, so long as they will actually take one when they get it. The classification of "deserving" and "undeserving" poor goes back to the Poor Laws, and much it is correct right to the present day.

And this is the reason why I support the removal of benefits from those who refuse to take jobs, where "[b]enefit claimants will lose a month's worth of state handouts for the first job they turn down, three months' of payments for the second "reasonable offer" and a third employment refusal will be punished with a bar on unemployment benefits for up to three years." Those who refuse to take jobs shouldn't be paid Jobseeker's Allowance, since surely the whole point of something with that sort of name is to get people into work, so why should those who won't work get paid it?

Why are immigrants still flooding into Britain and getting jobs despite rising unemployment amongst unskilled Brits? Because unemployment benefits are too high, and act as a disincentive for actually getting paid work. The report from Migrationwatch shows that:

• A family with two children is just £30 a week better off working on the minimum wage than not working.
• A single person under 25 on the minimum wage of £193 per week is only £10 a day better off than a non-working person.
• A family with two children and one working member receives £79.50 a week of Working Tax Credit. However, after means testing he keeps only £6.77.
• Working families with children and one working member on the minimum wage are slightly worse off than the same family receiving the maximum Incapacity Benefit.
• A single person on the minimum wage would be £3 a week better off than a single person on the highest level of Incapacity Benefit.

No wonder they don't bother to get a job when it makes bugger all difference to their income, but takes a lot of time and effort! That's why they are just lazy - because be hard working isn't worth their while! What kind of society is being fostered by this? A fat, lazy, unproductive one - that's what.

What we need to do to cut immigration and to produce great benefits for Britain - such as huge savings on the social security budget, an increase in GDP per head, less pressure on our infrastructure, less downward pressure on low wages, and a reduction in the non working underclass - is very simple: Cut unemployment benefits. Make it worth their while to get off their arse and get a job, otherwise they just won't bother.

What this Labour government has done over the past decade is foster a society in which living on the dole is both possible and nigh-on acceptable. Unemployment benefit should exist simply to tide them over between jobs, not as a substitute for a job in itself.

I would far rather than working immigrants than lazy-arse Britons in this country.

More than half of new jobs created in the last decade have gone to immigrants. I have no problem with the immigrants coming in and working. They are coming here and doing the jobs which are available, helping our economy expand.

But I do have a problem with the millions of Britons who just sit on the dole, rather than taking these jobs for themselves. Get off your lazy arses and work! I can't see how it is not possible for any of these people to get any sort of job at all. They may have no skills, but there are always supermarkets or construction sites that need workers! It may not be nice work, but every job has to be done by someone, from cleaning the toilet, to sweeping the road, building houses, all the way up to running the country!

Every job has to be done, and I can't see how low-skilled immigrants can come and get a job so easily and yet so many "indigenous" people are unable to. It doesn't make any sense. Get off your arse and get a job. It may not be a great job or for great pay, but why should us who do work pay for those who literally just can't be bothered?

If you actually have real medical problems, fine. If you are actually unable to get a job - and actually continue to try to get a job - any job - then fine. But you're just lazy, tough. No more dole money for you.