The proposal is not to end benefits, because even in these rabid times our government is still humane enough to recognise that people who find themselves practically unable to work, should not be left to starve. The proposal is to stop single mothers from being automatically entitled to income support, so therefore to force them to sign on every 2 weeks for JSA.
In other words, because most single mothers on benefits are on them because they really can't in the RW find a job which is practical for them to do (a large percentage of lone mothers still end up having to give up jobs they do get after a few weeks / months because of absence due to children's sickness/ lack of childcare), they will simply be claiming JSA instead of IS.
So no money will be saved for all you resentful taxpayers.
In fact, it may have a counter-productive effect. ATM because you are entitled to IS, you can take the risk of getting a job which looks like it might not work out, as if it doesn't you can always go back on IS. If you know that might have to jump through JSA hoops, you may not take the risk at all and stick to the devil you know.
The point is, if this proposal goes through, it won't save the country any money and it won't give lone parents a better incentive to find work. Only realistic working options will do that. If any of you don't believe me, let's come back to this thread in ten years time if this proposal goes through, and see if it's made any difference to the figures, shall we?