Imagine having been called stupid by George Osborne. How could such a wretch bear to live?
Nick Cohen writes:
Nick Cohen writes:
Men lie for many reasons: to boost their ego, to
hide their failings and to advance their ambitions. The sole impressive
characteristic of Iain Duncan Smith – the
winch that lifts him out of his otherwise incurable mediocrity – is his ability
to lie for every reason imaginable, even when he knows his audience must find
him out. If he told me that two plus two made four, I'd ask for a second
opinion.
Last week, the work and pensions secretary announced on his department's website that he was "very
pleased that the supreme court unanimously upheld" his programme to force
the unemployed to work without pay or lose their benefits. "Ultimately, this
judgment confirms that it is right that we expect people to take getting into
work seriously."
If the judges had Duncan Smith before them, they
could accuse him of the old misdemeanour of suppressio veri: the
suppression of a truth he was duty bound to disclose. Nowhere in the
government's propaganda did Duncan Smith admit that the supreme court had, in
fact, found against him on every ground of appeal he had
raised.
Even though he had protected his department's hard line on the
young by rushing through retrospective legislation, the supreme court still
hammered him. The government had not provided "sufficient detailed
prescribed description" of the work placement schemes on offer, the judges
said. The unemployed could not make an informed decision on how best to find
work.
Their ruling will help young people Duncan Smith's department had pushed
into quack schemes on pain of losing their benefit. As Public Interest Lawyers,
the rather inspiring firm of solicitors that took on the test case said:
"You should not believe the DWP when it says that the judgment makes no
difference. Jobseekers who have not been provided with adequate information can
now seek the repayment of their benefits."
Without a shred of hope of receiving a coherent
answer, I asked a flak-catcher in the Department for Work and Pensions press
office to explain his master's behaviour. Why had Duncan Smith just said that
the supreme court had ruled that he was not guilty of pushing the young into "forced
labour", but failed to add that it had condemned him on every other point?
The wretched man blocked, stammered, dodged and weaved. I almost felt sorry for
him. There must be better ways of making a living, even in these hard times.
If you think that such deceits are the normal
stuff of politics, consider the story's sequel. As Duncan Smith realised he was
losing the case, he went on the BBC to denounce Cait Reilly, one of the claimants who was challenging him in
court.
Despite receiving benefits, the 24-year old had refused to work for
nothing in Poundland, he claimed. She was part of "a group of people out
there who think they are too good for this kind of stuff". A "job
snob", in other words; a scrounger, who was not prepared to get off her
backside and put in the hours necessary to secure remunerative employment.
If he had checked his facts, a task that seems
beyond him, Duncan Smith would have discovered that Ms Reilly had been a
volunteer at a Birmingham museum. She worked there gratis because she hoped one
day to be taken on by a museum or gallery. Reilly objected to Duncan Smith's
minions taking her out of the museum and sending her to Poundland instead
because they were stopping her fulfilling her ambition for no reason at all.
Maybe I am over-sensitive, but I find the
spectacle of a powerful old man falsely condemning an honourable young woman
distasteful in the extreme. Duncan Smith threw out any allegation that came
into his head just to do her down. On second thoughts, that is more than
distasteful – it is disgraceful.
As I have mentioned before , Duncan Smith has form. He claimed that around a million
people have been stuck on a working-age benefit for at least three out of the
past four years, despite being judged capable of preparing or looking for work.
His claim was false. He claimed that his benefit cap had encouraged 8,000
people to find work. Not true either as the UK Statistics Authority pointed out
in a stinging reprimand.
Why doesn't he give us a break? The short answer
is that his department is falling apart and he has to spin and bluster to cover
the shambles he has presided over. His once-grand plans for a universal credit
to cover the whole country have shrunk to a pitiful pilot project.
Hailed by Duncan Smith and
rightwing London as the incentive that would propel the unemployed into work,
universal credit has become Whitehall's equivalent of a layabout yob: nothing
can make it work. His equally overhyped "reform"
of disability welfare payments looks as if it is going the same way.
There is a danger
here of seeing Duncan Smith's failures as examples of Tory dishonesty and
bureaucratic incompetence. But we should not lose sight of the human suffering
that accompanies them: the thousands driven to food banks because Duncan
Smith's department cannot pay their benefits; the cheapskate firms that, with
Duncan Smith's connivance, tell the chronically ill that they are fit for work
when they are no such thing.
In Matthew D'Ancona's history of the coalition, George Osborne says: "You see Iain
giving presentations and realise he's just not clever enough." He most
certainly is not. Yet there is no pressure from the British right to remove him
from office.
On the contrary, Tories acclaim Duncan Smith and Michael Gove as
the coalition's two heroes. As well as bellowing to hide his all-too evident
weaknesses, Duncan Smith spins to encourage his supporters, who, incredibly,
still admire him and praise him as a great reformer.
That he still wins such praise tells us much
about the British right. It cannot believe any more that Duncan Smith is ending
welfare dependency. It can no longer pretend that his tough love is helping the
unemployed into work. His great schemes are in ruins. His reputation for
probity is in tatters.
Conservatives continue to
admire Iain Duncan Smith, nevertheless, for one reason and one reason only: he
is cutting the money going to the poor, the sick, the handicapped and the
young. That's it. That's all there is to him now.
And the right loves him for
it.
No comments:
Post a Comment