UC is not intended to replace work. If someone is struggling on UC then they are not spending the £80 a week sensibly.

Really ??
Council tax, energy bills, food, clothing and potentially something towards rent etc, etc.
I absolutely agree with helping everyone who can, into employment.

However, the strategy of this government is to starve people either into work or, into the nearest food bank.

I dont doubt that there are some who can effectively "play the system" but, £80 a week is not exactly throwing cash at anyone, especially if they have kids and also if they are a single parent.

If an individual qualifies they can get help with Council Tax, a housing addition to UC, people who don't know how UC works often feel they do.

If an individual qualifies they can get help with Council Tax, a housing addition to UC, people who don't know how UC works often feel they do.

Indeed, they can get help "towards" those expenses but, the remainder still comes out of the £80 a week that you mention, hence the increasing need for food banks and lets not even get into the delays in getting payments to people who generally have nothing and are expected to survive on fresh air for a few weeks or, as one Tory candidate suggested, get a "payday loan".

We all know if they have kids they wont be getting £80 a week. UC should be short term help not an alternative to work. What would you say is a fair amount - minimum wage will be £8.75 an hour so how close to that do you set basic UC?

What would you do - borrow billions - increase UC so its the same as the minimum wage, cancel Brexit? Kids are living in poverty - there are plenty of people who live on low wages but provide very adequately for their kids - to say they are in poverty because the earn below 60% of the mean is giving a distorted view and is very disrespectful to those families that manage very happily - 60% in the north east isn't the same as 60% in London!!

Well that is indeed the $million question.
However, I was responding to the comment "If someone is struggling on UC then they are not spending the £80 a week sensibly".

It's an extremely complex issue and the lack of social housing heavily distorts the amount that some people / families can claim.
There are people claiming housing benefit who will be claiming more than many people earn ,which shouldn't be possible and is primarily due to the lack of local authority housing stock - sold under the Thatcher regime to buy votes for a second term in office, which neither the Tories or Labour have ever replaced.

I know people who are in work albeit zero hour contracts who still live on the street because they cannot get any accommodation. The one thing I really do detest are those who try to pit one part of society against another. If you want to persecute one section I would suggest you go after the tax avoiders be it companies or individuals.

There is no need at all for anyone to live on the street, the support is there, but the individuals do not want to give up spice, booze and comply to the rules.

Some people are intentionally homeless.

Why do you think the number of people choosing to live on the street has has increased over the last decade - what has made it more attractive?

Who told you that morw people are on the street because it's "attractive"?

If nobody has to be there but more are, then the implication has to be that more are choosing it and there has to be some underlying reason for that.

There are many reasons, underlying, obvious, personal, private... but this thread isn't about that.

Societal, economic?