George Osborne says welfare reforms have helped those otherwise facing a life on benefits.

Iain Duncan Smith, architect of the policies, says the proportion of workless households is at its lowest for decades.

Yet many would question the success of the strategies boasted of by Conservative ministers at their party conference in Birmingham.

It is still debatable whether a drop in the number of homes where no-one is in work is truly the sign of a move from dependency to independence, as Mr Osborne claims. Low wages, part-time and zero-hours contracts and insecure jobs are too prominent among the choices on offer to people coming off the dole queue. Those taking up the "earn or learn" offer from the Government may have made a genuine choice, or simply been bullied into it, viewing any kind of income as better than depending on food banks.

By announcing a two-year freeze on levels of a number of key benefits, Mr Osborne is keeping up the pressure on those accessing them. While clearly playing to the Tory right, he is also aiming to project an image of economic competence. The Tories will claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility and challenge their opponents to explain how they would cut the deficit.

But is it right to return yet again to target cuts at the most vulnerable in society? Already, a huge Achilles' heel for the Coalition has been the impression the poor have taken the fall for the errors of the rich after the financial crisis. It was canny of the Chancellor to yoke the announcement of a benefits freeze to a pledge to crack down on tax avoidance. The so-called "Google tax" will target those who abuse the rules to avoid paying what they are due.

It makes it appear that global multinationals are being asked to pay their share. Yet it will raise only a few hundred million pounds compared with three billion pounds the Chancellor aims to cut with a benefit freeze. If the poor continue to pay the biggest price under austerity, this will be a further source of pain for those still regretting the failure of the Yes campaign in the Scottish referendum.

So wedded was that campaign to the notion of more equitable austerity policies, and a better safety net than food banks, that the benefits freeze can be seen to run directly counter to the wishes of the 45 per cent of voters who backed independence. But Scotland was not the key audience.

The freeze and Mr Osborne's previous reform of pension rules were targeted squarely at the UK Tory party and in particular supporters - and backbenchers - leaning towards Ukip. The CBI was also delighted.

But the TUC says working families with children are on the frontline of deficit reduction. It is hard to disagree. There are signs of recovery in the economy, but the jury is still out on whether those at the bottom end of society are benefiting.

Getting people back into work is always desirable, but that work has to be properly remunerated and secure. Meanwhile, endlessly cutting support for the vulnerable should not be the only way to balance the books.