This approach is based upon the premise that people are essentially skivers. Well, those who didn't go the right schools. As far as the Coalition is concerned, the 'working' class don't ever want to 'work'. So if they are ill, they are not ill. They are pretending. And skiving. So, unless they are actually comatose or actually dead, they can work.
The kind of 'help' that will be offered will be very simple: "Take this job or you lose your welfare income". Apart from the obvious things, such as, for example not sending people who are seriously visually impaired to drive a bus, there will be no attempt to match job to capability. That's because the assessments, being done by a French firm (good to see the Coalition doing its bit for the balance of trade - just a shame it not Britain's balance of trade they are working to improve...), are so rough and ready that short of appearing with your head missing or dragging a full-on kidney dialysis machine behind you, you will be assessed as not having any real illnesses or disabilities.
There does need to be a redefinition of work. Can I perhaps urge people to read the New Economics Foundation report, from August 2010: '21 Hours - Why a shorter working week can help us all to flourish in the 21st century' and IPPR's report from January 2009: 'Nice Work If You Can Get It: Achieving a sustainable solution to low pay and in-work poverty' as part of that debate?
We work to live, not live to work. For the likes of Ian Demento-Smith, Freaky Frank Field, Call-me-Dave, we work so they can live. That is why we need a radical re-think of the meaning of 'work'. Why? How? To what end? Then, perhaps, we might not see such horrid policies as this one becoming accepted in a so called civilised society.