It 'sounds' like a clever idea. Don't worry about 20 different welfare types, just have 1 for all situations. But then you think, does that really improve things? The claimants are still claiming for exactly the same reasons so that has to be assessed, granted or refused and paid exactly as before, in every case and for every type of claim. None of the rules for receipt of the different welfare types are the same and these rules aren't changing to unify assessment. In fact, all that's happening is a vastly (and I mean vastly) complex set of changes both in administration and IT to achieve what exactly? 

It's as though somebody decided that all car types must have the same name. Don't have all the complexity of Fords, Fiats, Toyotas and so on, we'll call them all Unicars. That'll be so much easier.


Edited to (hopefully) make the point clearer

The other thing is raising minimum wage and making sure that employers aren't dodging labour standards with e.g. contract and part-time employees filling what are really permanent, full-time positions.

You have a point, but are there really 20 different kinds? Here we basically have two: unemployment and disability.

Oh yes, job-seekers (formerly unemployment), carers, disability, attendance, bereavement, child benefit and so on...up to about fifty*

There's no denying that it could be simplified. Like many systems in this great nation, benefits have proliferated and grown as did the proverbial African American child in the story by Mrs. Beecher Stowe.

However, the jump from many to one is plain ridiculous.

*that may be an exaggeration

It all boils down to the same thing: needs income support.