With its latest Tough Love proposal for dole bludgers, the Abbott Government has reached a point where many people are saying "enough already", write Peter Lewis and Jackie Woods.

Attacking the unemployed is nothing new in Australian politics. The Paxton family became the face of "job snobs" for a while, but blaming the unemployed for their jobless status has become standard fare in Australian political life.

While conservatives like to deride the "politics of envy", stoking downward envy has become a standard tactic of politicians and some sections of the media.

It's not just dole bludgers. Single mums are a perennial favourite, as are, most recently and spectacularly, asylum seekers.

Encouraging resentment of taxpayer-funded benefits flowing to people down the ladder of life's fortune can deliver political dividends - though not all attacks deliver equally.

Response to the recent Federal Budget suggests that in the voters' hierarchy of the needy (with apologies to Maslow), aged pensioners are the most worthy of public support, and recipients of overseas aid (aka the dole for foreigners) the least.

This week's Essential Report suggests that when it comes to dole bludgers, there are some limits on the political rewards of downward envy.

While it has become a truism of Australian political life that you can never be too tough on an asylum seeker, it appears there are limits on how far you can bash a dole bludger.

With the latest round of Tough Love being proposed on our welfare recipients by the Abbott Government, the Government has reached a point where many people say "enough already".

That point is not in forcing in people who receive unemployment benefits to undertake community service - 68 per cent of respondents support that.

Nor is it in taking the axe to the level of money spent on benefits - cutting welfare spending generally rates highly.

No. It is Eric Abetz's contention that an unemployed person, in between their five hours a day of community service, should also be submitting two job applications each and every day that is a bridge too far.

Not by a lot mind you, but enough to think there is some line that is capable of being crossed - and it's one that anyone who has filled out a job application or had to cull through a list would recognise as being about connection with the real world.

Of course, the real world is a long way away from where the debate around welfare exists. In the cloistered world of the billionaire, it is simply a challenge to empower Indigenous Australians whose skin colour and history of dispossession bear no connection to their disadvantage.

But the fact there appears to be a limit to our tough love is a refreshing development in a political system that has become increasingly driven by slogans like debt, boats and bludgers.

Sniff-testing the line through a consultation process on reform works for the government - it establishes parameters beyond which political blowback can be expected.

Sit tight for a review from Minister Abetz that will wind the application requirements back to 20 per month.

It also provides the Opposition with a target to fight the Government's agenda without having to confront the underlying values driving it. Forty applications becomes the battleground for the easy win, even as the debate on welfare lurches to the right.

When it comes to taking on the 'leaners' in society, the real debate shouldn't be how many applications - but in which direction we look.

The survey was conducted online from the July 31 to August 3, 2014, and is based on 1,025 respondents.

Peter Lewis is a director of Essential Media Communications. View his full profile here. Jackie Woods is a communications consultant at Essential Media Communications. View her full profile here.