Truth or Dare? The Quiet Man chose both

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.