Arguments about benefits always revolve around the same concept: fairness.

Timely questions are – who is worthy and who is not?

It provokes Tej Rai and therefore a government is the fastest among domestic political decisions at any time.

One is direct if there is no immediate results of the decision made on money in the pockets of millions of people in Westminster, including many people who have very little or probably and – trying to deal with – physical or mental health issues.

I have been told that last week either the work and the pension department is concerned about the benefits recipients and their families that they may be affected, yet without knowing the specifics of the plan by the government by the government.

This is equally a question for the government and journalists.

How responsible for ministers’ plans is that for exit for more than a week, without being clear, looking at the concentration of anxiety, was it obliged to provoke among those who feel dependent on the welfare received by them?

The government wants to determine its argument for several days and journalists want to find out what they are really planning.

But pure results are a frightening of anxiety, some of it is probably appropriate, not some of it.

Still, after the announcement, the complexity of people’s lives encounter a complex profit system, now changing again.

This may occur some time ago when people know how they can be affected and even before they are really.

Advocates of the government’s schemes argue that it is completely in mind the traditions of labor.

They indicate the start of the Trades Union Movement and Contribution Benefit Schemes, where people got roughly back what they paid.

He argues that the normalization of the creeping of efficiency for some people, many of which they believe that they can work and will benefit from working are what they want to take here.

They hope that they will protect those with the most serious health conditions, who are considered able to work anytime, they can persuade others to bring back the ability and practicalities to bring back to work.

This is an argument that they know that they need to be made, because in the labor movement others feel that it is depth for all the things they stand.

Some other things are worth indicating.

One of the main reasons is that there is still a lot that we do not know about the government’s plans that the impact has not been published yet.

How many people are expected to get less benefits? Who are they? Where are they What are their circumstances?

The minister insists that he will have to wait till the spring statement of the Chancellor in a week’s time as the independent office for the budget responsibility then excludes its number, and it is all caught in it.

But this combines a sense of uncertainty.

What is becoming clear will affect hundreds of thousands of people, and the biggest component of changes for the taxpayer will come from changing the eligibility for personal freedom payment.

And another thing is worth a mention: none of it will actually cut the profit bill – it will increase, although it is not as soon as it will be done otherwise.

Which is still another question: is the profit system durable after these changes, or is it necessary to conclude the government or future?