Felt the need to comment on this as a fellow UK citizen.
IDS doesn't know what he is talking about, and I mostly agree with martynthewolf's rant. The benefits cuts are ideologically driven rather than forced by budgetary constraints. On the same day that millions of the most vulnerable in society became poorer, those earning over £150,000 a year got a 5% tax cut: a saving of on average £100,000 a year in tax for the 13,000 individuals who earn over £1 million per annum.
There is a definite attempt to get back to distinguishing between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor, and they are trying to paint the majority of those on benefits as scroungers/ workshy/ fraudsters, even though the rate of fraud is actually very small and the Government has put 600,000 public sector workers on the dole since they came into power. The jobs just are not there in some parts of the country and for some individuals due to the mismatch between their skills and the skills required for the types of jobs actually available.
Regarding the £53/ $80 per week, you might be able to scrape by on that in some parts of the country, if you are young and single and have no dependents and share a house with others (which is problematic due to the way housing benefit works here). Electricity and gas are much more expensive here than in the US, and food also costs more. The £53 has to pay for your food, electricity, phone, internet, clothing (important for job interviews) and any emergencies that come up. I remember the last time I was on a very limited income: £95 per week back in the year 2000. My rent was half of that so I was living on about £45 a week for everything else. To survive, I couldn't afford to heat the water in my house and boiled the kettle once a day to wash dishes. I ate cheap foods with little fresh vegetables and no meat. And I couldn't afford to buy curtains or an ironing board. Luckily I was only in that situation for a few months, but it is really tough and I can't imagine what it would be like if you didn't know it was only temporary and knew you had a good chance of getting a better job soon.
I fully agree with the point by kt that choosing to live on a limited amount is very different to having to live on that limited amount. A decade or so ago I bought my first apartment, in a down-at-heel area of the city I was then based in. I ended up being elected onto a committee which decided how to spend regeneration funds in our area. At one event I attended due to this role, I ended up in a group with social workers and politicians who did not live in these types of areas, and I thought they were a bit patronising about the impact of living in such an area and how it affects the life chances of the individuals who live there, and said so. They told me that even though I lived there I still didn't understand what it was like, because I had the option to get out, and most people living there did not. I was a bit insulted by that at first, but later realised that they did have a valid point. I was choosing to stay as it made financial sense, and even though I could not afford to buy an apartment in a nicer part of town, I could have rented out that apartment and rented myself an apartment in a nicer area, so I did have options that were not available to many of my neighbours. I was also a grad student with a low current income but good future prospects. And I was saving a reasonable chunk of my income even then, which gave me a safety net and widened my future options. If you have always been poor and never known anything else, and never been able to get a job that pays enough to enable you to save, I can't imagine how mentally exhausting that must be.