In order to “change lives for the better” and reduce “dependency”, George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the “upfront work search” scheme. Only if the jobless arrive at the jobcentre with a CV, register for online job search, and start looking for work will they be eligible for benefit—and then they should report weekly rather than fortnightly. What could be more reasonable?

     More apparent reasonableness followed. There will now be a seven-day wait for the jobseeker’s allowance. “Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on,” he claimed. “We’re doing these things because we know they help people stay off benefits and help those on benefits get into work faster.” Help? Really? On first hearing, this was the socially concerned chancellor, trying to change lives for the better, complete with “reforms” to an obviously indulgent system that demands too little effort from the newly unemployed to find work, and subsidises laziness. What motivated him, we were to understand, was his zeal for “fundamental fairness”— protecting the taxpayer, controlling spending and ensuring that only the most deserving claimants received their benefits.

     Losing a job is hurting: you don’t skip down to the jobcentre with a song in your heart, delighted at the prospect of doubling your income from the generous state. It is financially terrifying, psychologically embarrassing and you know that support is minimal and extraordinarily hard to get. You are now not wanted; you are now excluded from the work environment that offers purpose and structure in your life. Worse, the crucial income to feed yourself and your family and pay the bills has disappeared. Ask anyone newly unemployed what they want and the answer is always: a job.

    But in Osborneland, your first instinct is to fall into dependency—permanent dependency if you can get it—supported by a state only too ready to indulge your falsehood. It is as though 20 years of ever-tougher reforms of the job search and benefit administration system never happened. The principle of British welfare is no longer that you can insure yourself against the risk of unemployment and receive unconditional payments if the disaster happens. Even the very phrase “jobseeker’s allowance” is about redefining the unemployed as a “jobseeker” who had no fundamental right to a benefit he or she has earned through making national insurance contributions. Instead, the claimant receives a time-limited “allowance,” conditional on actively seeking a job; no entitlement and no insurance, at £71.70 a week, one of the least generous in the EU.

答案精析：本题考查作者的观点态度，需要理解全文意思。作者在前两段指出财政大臣提出的新计划听起来好像是为了让失业者生活更好，但失业者领取救济金的条件尤为严苛，而这真正的目的是想保护纳税人并且节省开支。第三段描述了失业者在失去工作后的内心感受，他们最渴望的是找到工作，而不是像财政大臣说的那样依赖政府的救济金过日子。第四段作者批判了英国的福利政策再也不能保证失业者享受到应有的福利，体现了作者对此项制度的不满。由此可知作者希望失业者可以无条件地享受他们应有的权利，无条件地领取失业救济金，故正确答案为D。

错项排除：原文提到福利制度变得越来越严苛，并且A项内容是英国财政大臣的想法，并不是作者的态度，故排除。原文一直在强调如何激励失业者找工作，以及在失业后领取救济金的制度，并没有说明如何降低失业的风险，B项内容在原文中并未体现，故排除。原文中提到领取救济金的条件变得更为严苛，文章最后一句也说到救济金的金额非常少，根本不能保障失业者的生活，故C项错误，可排除。