Sunday, 14 December 2014

"Hang on"

Perhaps you watched the interview with Iain Duncan Smith today on The Sunday Politics.  It was much as we have come to expect, although Andrew Neil did try, for once.  But from the moment IDS opened his mouth he lied.  Neil tried to nail him on Universal Credit.  There's no need to go over the true history of that epic failure.  IDS has rewritten history, as he always does.  He is the hero who spotted what was going wrong and got it all sorted out, and now it's all going swimmingly.  Neil confronted him with graphics to show that a normal, low-paid family in his own constituency would be worse off.  But it's pointless confronting Smith with figures; they don't register with him.  Today he was shown a graph and maintained completely different figures.  Whenever Neil tried to move on to a different point, Smith said, "Hang on," and reiterated the falsehood he was insisting on.  There was one whopping, blatant lie which stood out.  "The Treasury hasn't signed off Universal Credit," said Neil.  "Yes it has," said IDS, and nothing could move him.  Neil hates this, so after the interview he produced confirmation in the form of a direct quote from a Treasury official at the Public Accounts Committee recently.
The Feeding Britain report was brought up.  The bulk of people needing food banks were suffering benefit delays and sanctions.  No, "benefits were now being paid more quickly - from 88-89% being on time under Labour, to 96-97% now."  I have no idea whether that's true, but since IDS said it I assume it isn't; certainly the delays are much, much longer now.  And anyway, he said, food bank use "is tiny in proportion here compared to a place like Germany which has more generous benefits and in which you have a higher level of pay.  So just saying it is to do with benefits is quite wrong. What I do say is there are lots of other reasons lots of people go to food banks."  For Andrew Neil it must have felt like banging one's head against a brick wall.
There was nothing to provoke a headline until the end of the interview.  He was shown clips of various ministers saying that the "welfare" budget would have to be cut still further.  Where would those cuts fall?  Would you limit child benefit to two children, asked Neil, echoing something the hard right has been pushing lately.  IDS said he would certainly consider it.
We can rant and rage and heap abuse on this man.  But try to take a step back and consider what's going on.  Does Smith actually believe what he says?  Or does he know that he's lying and not care?  I suspect it's a bit more complicated.  We have a toxic combination of fixed ideology and grandiose self-delusion.  And it persists because his party loves it.  Who else could they find to do their dirty work for them with such enthusiasm?  Possibly Chris Grayling.  But all the other Tories who would do the job with gusto are even more stupid than Smith (think McVey, or Philip Davies or Alec Shelbrooke).  Those with ability tend to maintain a tiny morsel of compassion.  So IDS sails on.


  1. My impression of IDS is that he is unusually thick and exceptionally vain. He has no interest in anything except his own fantasies and he knows he’s in a very strong position. Cameron is frightened of him and the Tory faithful love him to bits. IDS has never had it so good and the Westminster bubble is the only ‘career’ he’s ever had. He’s too dim to realize that his fantasy bubble is totally unlike any sort of reality.

  2. I saw this interview too. The odious Smith was determined to answer the question HIS way with figures and info bearing little or no relation to the main points.

    A real pity Andrew Neill did nor mention sanctions more thoroughly. Especially with regards to their frequency, severity and duration. Not to mention the arbitrary nature with which they're administered. No doubt he'd have said sanctions are ''only given to those who refuse work'' or other such mistruths.

    Hard to say whether Smith does believe in what he says. If he does not, he is simply fooling a large section of the public for pure political gamesmanship. However, if he does, then there is something wrong within his 'internal circuitry' so to speak.

  3. Smith is being used by Cameron to push far-right policies on Social Security. When it all finally unravels he will be sacked and Cameron and the Tories will deny any knowledge of it.

  4. Polly Toynbee puts the boot into Smith here:

  5. Not much to say other than that the APPG report was quite weak in its recommendations. We have a right to food, enshrined in the UN Declaration that drew in particular from the well of the (more or less liberal) Anglosphere and other western democracies.

    The recommendations in the report might be pragmatic in a narrow sense, but do nothing to address the problem that food poverty in the UK is effectively a structural issue, and will be made worse by design once UC is rolled out. How IDS can piously bang on about processing benefits more quickly when UC involves a minimum 5 week wait for anything is beyond me.

    Frank Field involved in the APPG report, inevitably. Loathsome man; as morally faulty as anyone in government. The key point of the report for me was that its recommendations seek to mitigate rather than eliminate food poverty. It's absolutely pathetic.

    1. The key reason is probably that it was an all party group, so it was always going to be a fudge. I'm don't feel quite so angry at Frank Field as you do. In the Blair government he was a voice of sanity, and he still has moments of insight. But he has come adrift from his left-wing roots.
      The jury went out this afternoon in the fraud case in Reading.

  6. I have known that for a long time that what ever Gov't is in power and regardless of what they have signed up to,they pick and choose what they will honour,basically "We" are screwed!

  7. Just a quick Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to Historian and all those who regularly read and contribute to this blog!


Keep it clean, please. No abusive comments will be approved, so don't indulge in insults. If you wish to contact me, post a comment beginning with "not for publication".