John Morley - you will find the figures readily available if you do a search. You do get more in work, because although it is possible for basic benefits plus housing benefit to add up to more than the minimum wage, you can get housing benefit if you are on the minimum wage, so you will always get more money if you are in work.

Sue, Birmingham, UK

Sorry if I misunderstand the reference, but if it's to the U.S. State, the name is "Wisconsin", not "Winconsin".

James Stevens, St. Paul, Minnesota,

Nobody except the truly unemployable gains from being on benefits, so we should welcome any fair and humane scheme that will get SOME people off benefits without worrying that it might not fit everybody. The liberal/socialist state government of Wisconsin had great success with its scheme and large numbers who started with menial jobs progressed to better ones. There's no reason to suppose it wouldn't work here, even if our government administration is less effective than Wisconsin's.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

Diddly Do, Liverpool,

If your disruptive at work, your fired.
If you dont work, you dont eat, incentive enough?

Dominic, Manchester, UK

This is pure politics at its worst. The tories would do better offering training and skills development or business grants.
But that doesent scratch the political itch does it. The unemployed are smeared as wrong doing wasters.
So imagine this; You are fifty something your company made you redundant as so often happens. You have made a significant contribution to society all your life including paying your taxes. You cant get another job easily because fifty year olds are expensive in terms of wages and pension contributions. Younger guys are just cheaper to employ.
Then the government disrespectfully labels you as a waster.
The tories seem to believe that all unemplyed people are from a council maintained netherworld of promiscuous young mothers, drugies and car thieves. This of course is not the case. This really does highlight the fact the folks with Camerons background really are out of touch with the people.

Audi Driver, kelso, borders

"Every family is different and has a different set of circumstances"? Oh, right, so we, the taxpayer, have to tailor a program for every one? Get real, benefits should be there as a short term buffer and to offer a basic level of support to individuals between jobs, they are not there to provide a family's main income or to allow people to do jobs they "want" to do or consider it "worth" them doing. An individual on long term benefit is in a gilded cage and is unlikely to want to break free themselves, if you remove their benefits people will find the motivation to work and society, as well as the individuals, will be better off as a result.

Doug Bates, St. Albans,

When the Tories are elected, and mass unemployment returns, they propose to spend hundreds of millions providing attendance centres for those out of work.
Those who prove unable to meet the requirements of employers will be starved on the streets and their lives and prospects will be destroyed.
Instead of having to pay, via contractors, to have parks maintained and toilets cleaned, they will sack the existing workers, forcing them onto the dole, and replace them with an army of unpaid, coerced poor people.
How will they find tasks for all the criminals sentenced to perform unpaid community service?
Oh, and isn't there something in the European Convention on Human Rights banning forced or compulsory labour, and discrimination on the grounds of property?
But then, the 'savings' might help rich people to pay the increased fuel costs that seem inevitable, and there will be substantial economic growth generated by the demand for new prisons.
Compassionate and progressive!

John McAllister, Bristol, England

I take it, therefore, that Mr Linklater is advocating either a 'do nothing' approach because it's too painful, or an approach that offers infinite customisation, even down to a family by family level, which we all know could never be implemented before the UK ran out of the money to fund the programme.
It's worth everyone who has the job of reporting on the Winconsin-style plan to read what the state of Winconsin actually implemented and achieved before writing it off in this off-hand cynical way. Unless Mr Linklater actually wants Easterhouse to remain as-is for the forseeable future.

bobby tran, enfield,

One might have hoped that forcing people to do some sort of work in return for benefits might make a numbe of claimants realise that, rather than doing the drab boring tasks they have been assigned, they coudl put in some effort and get a salsried job which would be more enjoyable and (hopefully) better paid. This being the case, there is an argument that the jobs should include demeaning or low scaled activities.

Of course we need to decide if the "community schemes" are meant to be the carrot or an aspect of the stick. If they are meant to be the sweetner, then th schemes need to provide jobs of work which will both reflect roles available in the local employment market and develop skills to help an applicant win such a job.

Bob, Reading,

I am unsure of the exact figures, however, I am fairly confident that the minimum benefits (JSA, Housing, Council Tax)received by a person who is out of work equate to more than the minimum wage. As some people work for the minimum wage, we cannot possibly call the system fair when some work for the minimum wage and others take more than this for doing nothing.

If you are out of work for a long period then you have either given up on finding work and so being given tasks to do (even if demeaning) will give a sense of purpose back to you, and thus improve your self esteem. Or you were never actually intent on looking for work, in which case being forecd to earn your keep, may make you decide to get a job and stop taking from others.

I do no proport to know the exact policy that should be adopted. However, I do beleive this sort of scheme has to be the only fair way to go forward, I hope the government, local and central will do what we pay them for and develop such schemes.

John Morley, Manchester, UK

The tories started such schemes of forcing the long term unemployed into work under Thatcher. One of these schemes was called Restart, I think. The fact that nobody seems to remember these schemes perhaps shows how successful they were.

ER, Croydon, England

The one thing about these make work schemes or training that does not apeal to the unemployed is the fact that they are de facto compulsorary. Despite everything one might think about being unemployed, this condition, like everything else in life can become something the individual becomes used to and personal coping strategies emerge to enable people to fill their time in adequately. Like a warm blanket this regime encompasses their life and after a time and they resent being forced to change. Just like trying to give up drinking or smoking, the individual really has to want to give up. When the long term unemployed are made to do a job or training then the amount of disruption they cause often undermines these initiatives. Until these problems are tackled imaginatively then the future for these 'community work' schemes or compulsorary training will be bleak indeed.

Diddly Do, Liverpool,

There will always be work that some will consider "demeaning". The question therefore is who should perform the demeaning work? Should the taxpayer be required to pay someone to do it, while at the same time paying someone NOT to work? Do not those who have been on benefits for years owe the taxpayer something in return?

Issues such as this would better be framed as "the people" or "the taxpayers" demanding something in return for their caring, rather that "the Government". Payments to many of those in need are now seen as an entitled beneficence without obligations or reciprocity .

Bob Evans, Anaheim, California