Need I say more? Like Bill Clinton said: 'It's the economy, stupid!' Get that right, and everything else ends up right too.
Instead of requiring people who do not have a paid job to register at a Jobcentre and claim Jobseekers' Allowance, why not assign every such person to a State-sponsored job?
Where would these jobs come from? Employers, community groups, local authorities, charities, etc.
Too expensive, you say? Well, under the current system jobseekers are not required to do anything productive for the 'Dole.' If employed in a State-sponsored job of some kind they would be producing or contributing something – that's the point. While doing so, they would be achieving work-ready skills and experience or as some might say: 'Learning the habit of work.'
At the moment, many apparently workless people can conceal what their real economic activity is by 'signing on the dole.' For example, it's an ideal cover if you are a drug dealer, a burglar who needs to rest up during the daytime, a covert market trader, an 'on-the-side' decorator or some other trades-person and the like.
There is plenty of work to be done in the modern-day United Kingdom so let's employ the unemployed albeit at a reasonable social wage that would be well above the current Jobseekers' Allowance of £64.45 a week for those over 25 (it's £51.85 for those under 25 – a big incentive to commit crime in order to live).
Yes, employers won't like to lose the so-called 'reserve army of labour' that consists of the current two and a half million 'claimant count' (that's likely to increase to 5 million in the next few years). On the other hand, they would benefit (as would the country as a whole both economically and socially) by having a pool of low-cost labour to do all those menial but nonetheless essential jobs which are currently done by imported labour from the less developed economies.
Wot'cha say, Vince, to this idea?