I've been avoiding it. All that publicity for IDS's speech made me want to head for the hills. He compared himself to Wilberforce and Shaftesbury. Well, not quite, but close enough that the journalists made that the story. And we can be sure that he actually believes it.
I've pinched this brilliant bit of photoshopping from Twitter - Iain Duncan Smith as William Wilberforce. Let's be clear what Wilberforce really did. He was an MP who became the parliamentary voice for the movement to abolish the slave trade, and he succeeded in getting that through into law in 1807. The abolition of slavery itself didn't come until 1833. As for Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper 7th Earl of Shaftesbury); he was the driving force behind reforms to the laws which allowed child labour and appalling working conditions, and he was involved with many other reforms benefiting the working class. Both men were evangelical Christians, believing that you couldn't save men's souls until they had decent lives. IDS really does see himself in that tradition. (The full text of his speech is
here.) Whenever people bring up evidence that, in so many cases, he is causing huge distress, he and his party literally don't want to know. They never answer specifics, just repeat the generalities, because specific cases would destroy the picture they have of themselves.
Enough of IDS. One piece of encouraging news did emerge this week. Labour has said that it will axe the Work Programme if it gets elected. (See the
Northern Echo story.) But only when the contracts come to an end. It would cost far too much to terminate the contracts. Labour plans to channel the money through local councils and Local Enterprise Partnerships - something I've advocated for a long time. This will scare the likes of A4e, and will no doubt generate a great deal of lobbying.
And finally, the fall-out from
Benefits Street goes on. A number of people who have featured in the "show" have been arrested on charges of possessing drugs. I can't, and shouldn't, comment on particular cases. Anyone who is dealing drugs deserves all they get. But I have many a time argued with people who bring up the supposedly luxurious lifestyles of those on benefits that anyone who can afford huge TVs, smartphones and foreign holidays must be either up to their eyes in debt or involved in criminality. Sadly, this doesn't help to vindicate the vast majority of claimants. I don't think we've heard the end of this noxious production.
