Truth
or Dare? The Quiet Man chose both.
How can you know if
someone is telling the truth or that their motives are honourable? Whether ‘tis
a politician or some other mere mortal , in the absence of super powers all we
can do is assess the facts as they are presented and trust our instinct.
I trusted (and in general
still do) – that the Tories were the best party to manage the UK deficit. I
trusted that their budgets would be fair and that welfare reforms would be
exactly that – reform rather than a hatchet job.
My unease with this blind
faith was triggered by the cut in the welfare cap after the last election. But
Ian Duncan Smith (IDS), often referred to as the Quiet Man, was Work and
Pensions Secretary and I believed (and still do) that he is a good an
honourable man with a genuine desire to improve welfare provision through
reform. I was further disturbed by the apparent imbalance in George Osborne’s
budget. More cuts for disability benefits, juxtaposed by an easing of
corporation tax and other tax concessions. ‘Still’, I thought to myself in my
naïve bubble – ‘IDS is in charge of welfare reform so this can be as bad as it
seems’.
And then the bombshell
dropped. IDS resigned – apparently completely out of the blue two days after
the budget. The resignation letter and the Prime Minister’s response both
reveal some pretty raw emotions. IDS does not pull his punches in his letter ‘ ..the latest changes to benefits to the
disabled, and the context in which they’ve been made are a compromise too far’ . He goes on..’they are not defensible in the
way they were placed within a budget that benefits higher earning tax payers..’
The PM states he is ‘puzzled and disappointed’ at the resignation,
stating ‘we collectively agreed, you, No
10 and the Treasury – proposals which you and your department then announced a
week ago’
Then the knives were out,
gloves off or any other ‘et tu Brute?’ type expletive emanating from the blue
corner. Worst of these was Pensions Minister Ros Altman with an unpleasant
attempt at a character assassination of the Quiet Man. In an acerbic attack
which I suspect says more about her than the man she ‘found incredibly difficult to work for’, Baroness Altman accused
IDS of using this platform to promote his views against membership of the EU.
She is ‘horrified to see him abuse the
freedom to take sides….he seems to want to do maximum damage to the party
leadership in order to further his campaign to try to get Britain to leave the
EU.’ The implication of this petulant outburst is that IDS is putting his own
agenda before his responsibilities as cabinet minster
So what is the truth of
this sorry tale? Did IDS indeed comply with the cuts and if he did, why choose
the sweet spot of a Friday evening post-budget to deliver his resignation missile
– which cut right to the heart of …..well, the right.
I find this whole
situation fascinating, not just because Welfare reforms affect us all as they
shape the society in which we live, but also the ‘truth’ of the matter. I
suspect no-one is actually lying but who is being honourable?
In attempt to solve this weighty
conundrum I tuned into Andrew Marr’s programme on the BBC this morning. IDS was
to be interviewed and maybe I would have the opportunity to test my truth and
honour radar.
There were four points
that held most sway for me.
Firstly, the ‘warm up act’
– David Laws, former Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury, gave a
fascinating insight into the relationship between IDS and the Chancellor,
George Osborne. Laws reported that IDS said (to paraphrase) ‘There
was a running sore…..over welfare policy. George Osborne saw welfare as a cash
cow to be squeezed into to help to deliver deficit reduction where IDS had a
‘moral purpose of welfare reform to help people back into employment’
This ‘independent’ view (truth radar says this was a balanced
opinion) set the scene nicely for the IDS interview as it painted a clear
picture of the two main protagonists in this drama – the chancellor squeezing
the cash cow of welfare to produce cuts to repair the deficit vs the ‘moral
welfare reformer’
The second deciding factor
for me the fact that IDS stated that he wasn’t actually at the budget
presentation in the House of Commons of Wednesday (the pictures in the
newspapers were old images from a previous budget) – he was, in fact, at a
funeral. So the criticism directed at him for standing by in silence as the
budget was announced is misplaced. I suspect that saying a final goodbye to
friend or family member may have served to focus IDS’s concerns about his
conflicting views with the Chancellor.
Thirdly – IDS gave a clear
explanation as to how he reached his decision – stating timelines and facts –
giving the overall impression of a man who genuinely believed in welfare reform
as a long term process, not just a series of cuts. He said that the final blow
for him was – yes he knew about the welfare cuts but he didn’t know about the
wider tax initiatives to be used in the budget. And I believe him. He said this
was nothing about the EU. And I believe him about that too. (Although I must
concede that his support of a ‘Brexit’ must be easier from outside the cabinet)
Finally - it wasn’t just
what he said, but the way he said it. I was impressed with the manner in which
IDS responded to Marr’s questions. He started the interview with a calm, but
almost timid demeanour, clearing his throat often and choosing his words with
care. But as the questioning continued, with Marr skilfully giving IDS the time
a space to ‘speak his truth’, the voice became stronger, the passion clearer
and the ring of truth louder. This was a masterful way to counter his critics
and set the record straight. And I believe him.
Welfare reform, like the
NHS, is always going to be a poison chalice for any politician. Policy must
necessarily be about medium to long term strategy, supporting those who need
help the most and balancing those costs with encouraging those who can take
some responsibility for their own financial and physical wellbeing. Reform
should not just be about cuts, it should be about facilitating positive change.
Change to encourage the weak to become stronger and while supporting the most
vulnerable in our society. All of this should be within the context of
balancing the books, managing the deficit and implementing a robust fiscal
strategy.
I believe that Ian Duncan
Smith became frustrated and despairing of the disconnect between welfare reform
and George Osborne’s budget and resigned with honourable intent.
The Quiet Man spoke his
truth loud and clear today.
