It was yet another embarrassing performance from a clearly flustered Duncan Smith as anybody who has done some basic research will know.
He continually tried to only mention working age benefits whilst forgetting that the coalition will have spent £126.1bn more on benefits and tax credits in real terms than Labour did in their final 5 years. Spending will be £6.8bn higher in real terms in 2014/15 than in 2009/10.
The IFS recently showed up his dismal failure to make the promised welfare savings of £19bn by 2014/15 (only £2.5bn was made in those areas that were targeted). This was due to a combination of typically over-optimistic forecasts and gross incompetence.
Looking at DLA/PIP as an example, spending was forecast to go down by £1.2bn but is actually up by £1.6bn in 2014/15 thanks to the disastrously incompetent and very slow implementation of PIP. Duncan Smith claimed that "All of those delays will be back on track by end of year" but the DWP's figures show that is nonsense with people waiting many months for help.
Re ESA, his failed reforms have led to the OBR increasing estimated spending by £2.1bn pa in addition to the actual spend being increased by £900m. That is again due to the huge backlogs in the assessment process and wildly inaccurate assumptions about the numbers who qualify for ESA and in particular the Support Group. The latest DWP figures still show very long delays with assessments even though repeat assessments/reviews are on hold.
Duncan Smith was callously bragging about the number of ESA appeals falling to "hardly any at all". That is due to his policies of mandatory reconsideration which can leave you with no money for several weeks and the fiscally stupid policy of scrapping legal aid for first tier welfare appeals, thus making it impossible for many to appeal. It is also highly suspicious that the DWP have still not published full statistics for mandatory reconsiderations. As for "hardly any" appeals there were still 38,788 ESA appeals in the first 6 months of 2014/15 with over 52% successful.
We all know how disastrous and slow his Universal Credit has been with substantially increased costs and a caseload that was less than 1% of that which Duncan Smith promised by April this year. Given that the latest caseload is less than half of "hardly any at all" this is yet another abject failure from Duncan Smith.
On food banks I have not seen anybody claim that the huge rise in people using them is "just to do with benefits" as Duncan Smith tried to intimate. However it is well documented that problems with benefits are by far the biggest cause. It is also well documented that the 900,000 is the tip of the iceberg and that going to a food bank is usually a last resort.
Given his appalling record of failure it is not surprising that Duncan Smith came over so poorly yet again as he gets flustered and angry with people who know the facts.
Of course he did.
# He avoided the reasons the benefits system roll-out was implemented insead of a full launch, and why the IT programme was massively over time and budget; choosing instead to take the line that a regional rollout was the way to go (years after the programme was designed for a full implementation).
# He then blamed the previous Labour government for the project (it was the Conservatives brought it in)
# DLA transfer to PIP. He once again struggled explaining why the IT programme and the rollout were not only delayed but years behind the schedule, and claimed it wasn't his fault.
# He refused to accept that the Treasury refused to sign off work costs, claiming that because they'd agreed the whole programme to 2019 in principle they had been improved. He also considered that as they'd approved what had been spent previously the fact they would not consider approving further funding until next summer was immaterial (in fact he treid to claim it had been proved last summer until pressed).
# Wouldn't accept that the PIP programme was considered a disaster by the NAU, and insisted it would be on track by the end of the year. It isn't even before he did the interview - the fact that it's curretnly dealing with less than 10% of where it should be at this stage was ignored.
# He wouldn't acept that the Incapacity Benefit review system had 600,000 appeals - that was the fault of the Labour Party too apparently.
# 15% of appeals against decisions succeeded and he considers that a triumph.
# He's done 5 reviews of his benefits programmes over 5 years, and nothing has happened other than everything is rolled out instead of launched nationally. He couldn't explain why they were neccessary if the benefits programme is running smoothly.
# He tried to say that the IT programme would produce a net profit, without accepting that it was late delivering and massively over budget. Failed to mention it will be another 10 years before it will produce the few million profit, at a cost of £12.8b (originally planned at £2b).
I gave up at that point ...
Ah, OK. I'll change my mind in that case.
So, it's back to the status quo then. Shall we get the application form for the IMF done now, or later?
It would be far, far simpler just to have Treasury cash machines installed in Jobcentres (or better, Paddy Power) and to give benefit claimants the PIN number. That would do away with all these delays and roll out problems at a stroke.
So, it's back to the status quo then. Shall we get the application form for the IMF done now, or later?
It would be far, far simpler just to have Treasury cash machines installed in Jobcentres (or better, Paddy Power) and to give benefit claimants the PIN number. That would do away with all these delays and roll out problems at a stroke.
Pathetic, condescending drivel.
Oh for the country to be populated by self-nominated superior beings like yourself, trevgo....
IDS actually handled himself very well in the interview.
The welfare system exploded under Labour and was out of control when the coalition took over. What he has attempted to do is huge, and something every previous government has bottled. It was inevitable there would be problems.
As for child benefit being restricted to 2 - I completely support this.
The main beneficiaries of Conservative Brand Welfare is the private sector.
It's likely you do not have an objection to this.
I have noticed that some people claim to be against welfare, but in reality they are against social welfare. Corporate welfare being fine.
What sort of person does not value society? A Conservative person.
Nobody has the slightest responsibility for any of their behaviour in your entitlement world, do they?
People understand what makes babies nowadays. It should not be down to me to contribute to the cost of other peoples' families.
How is the child responisble for the behaviour of being born. What the Conservatives are talking about is limiting benefits designed to be for the benefit of the child. At the same time the Conservatives intend to change how child poverty is measured. I am not infavor of more child poverty.
I am infavor of other welfare reforms for example I am infavor of workfare for the long-term able unemployed for the state or charity and for the benfit of the community or society in general. I am also infavor of reducing benefits for those that breach the social contract, like criminals with unspent criminal convictions. I would also be infavor of billing convicted prisoners for their stay in prision. And harsher punishment for those guilty of tax evasion including confiscation of most of their assets.
The main beneficiaries of Conservative Brand Welfare is the private sector.
It's likely you do not have an objection to this.
I have noticed that some people claim to be against welfare, but in reality they are against social welfare. Corporate welfare being fine.
What sort of person does not value society? A Conservative person.
No, I do not support "corporate welfare". Unfortunately, as a country, we have neither sufficient skills nor productivity to command the salaries which would provide the sort of standard of living many feel entitled to. That the government decides to give them extra money from the public purse to improve their standard of living is fair enough, but that is always going to provide a big disincentive for improvement at and around the cut-off point - no matter how they try to taper it.
As for your glib comment about "society" - it purely depends on what sort of society. I value society greatly, but I doubt my version has much in common with yours.
How is a child responsible for being born in Chelsea or Chesterfield? Somerset or Somalia?
Have children if you can afford to provide for them. Otherwise don't.
Define what is meant by afford them, saying that government policy is a couple earning £150,000 each still get state aid to look after the children, and people earning £50,000 still get child benefit. Ministers have been urged to rethink their plans to help families with the soaring cost of childcare because they will benefit couples with a joint annual income of up to £300,000 while reducing support for poorer people.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/childcare-reforms-will-help-richest-families-warn-government-advisers-9040224.html
How is a child responsible for being born in Chelsea or Chesterfield? Somerset or Somalia?
Have children if you can afford to provide for them. Otherwise don't.
As a member of society do you feel no obligation towards other people even children in need in our society? That their wellbeing is no concern of yours and should be of no concern to society.
And do you think everyone has some magic crystall ball that no pregnancies are unforseen and that everyone knows what their future financial situation will be for the next 18 years. So all pregnancies in your world are planned and all people who are reliant on state benefits have planned to be reliant on state benefits.
As a member of society do you feel no obligation towards other people even children in need in our society? That their wellbeing is no concern of yours and should be of no concern to society.
And do you think everyone has some magic crystall ball that no pregnancies are unforseen and that everyone knows what their future financial situation will be for the next 18 years. So all pregnancies in your world are planned and all people who are reliant on state benefits have planned to be reliant on state benefits.
Perhaps trevgo means that couples should only have children if they already have a stash of the cash required to feed and clothe them for the next 18 years? A highly realistic scenario, I'm sure.
He claimed £39 for his breakfast so wouldnt be surprised if he claims for his pants.
I'm guessing he had to have the breakfast out because his ministerial duties required him to be away from home at breakfast time. Are to conclude that he only wears pants when on ministerial business, and that he would otherwise go commando?
Apologies to anyone who's just had their lunch. That is NOT a pleasant thought.
As a member of society do you feel no obligation towards other people even children in need in our society? That their wellbeing is no concern of yours and should be of no concern to society.
And do you think everyone has some magic crystall ball that no pregnancies are unforseen and that everyone knows what their future financial situation will be for the next 18 years. So all pregnancies in your world are planned and all people who are reliant on state benefits have planned to be reliant on state benefits.
If they are being ill treated, then I have a duty to report it to the appropriate authorities who should act accordingly. Their education should be paid from my taxes.
Other than that, their economic welbeing has absolutely nothing to do with me.
I have 3 points on my licence as I failed to foresee the possibility of a speed camera around the bend on my holiday. I accepted the consequences. We have to get back to an environment whereby people are responsible for their actions. It will take tough love, and there will be squealing, but it is an inevitability after so many years of dependency and entitlement culture.
The welfare system exploded under Labour and was out of control when the coalition took over. What he has attempted to do is huge, and something every previous government has bottled. It was inevitable there would be problems.
Your views, fair enough. But you don't seem to take into account the welfare bill rising substantially despite more people in work now. Or private companies such as G4S, A4E etc still receiving contracts to handle the long term unemployed despite being shown to be largely ineffective long before 2010.
Perhaps trevgo means that couples should only have children if they already have a stash of the cash required to feed and clothe them for the next 18 years? A highly realistic scenario, I'm sure.
I think people should have children if they have the realistic prospect of being able to afford to raise them. If they find themselves in a predicament through no fault of their own, then the state should provide temporary assistance.
It is unfortunate, but you will have to understand the fact that the country cannot afford to raise peoples' children for them. We have no money.
The penny will drop at some point. It's just that some of us have realised before others.
I think people should have children if they have the realistic prospect of being able to afford to raise them. If they find themselves in a predicament through no fault of their own, then the state should provide temporary assistance.
It is unfortunate, but you will have to understand the fact that the country cannot afford to raise peoples' children for them. We have no money.
The penny will drop at some point. It's just that some of us have realised before others.
But how do you discern between the deserving and undeserving child living in poverty?
It's an absolute fact that the welfare bill has increased under the Conservatives.
You have to wonder why anyone would think this an improvement over anything Labour were doing.
As ever with these people, trevgo considers that criticism of the Conservatives inevitably means support of Labour. Illogical and not helpful to a discussion.
The irony of course is that support of society is a selfish act. It is not altruistic to support other peoples children, nor to educate them. Welfare is necessary in order that capitalism can function, and vice-versa of course.
It's an absolute fact that the welfare bill has increased under the Conservatives.
You have to wonder why anyone would think this an improvement over anything Labour were doing.
As ever with these people, trevgo considers that criticism of the Conservatives inevitably means support of Labour. Illogical and not helpful to a discussion.
The irony of course is that support of society is a selfish act. It is not altruistic to support other peoples children, nor to educate them. Welfare is necessary in order that capitalism can function, and vice-versa of course.
The point is that is has increased a good deal less than it would have done. The Conservative/LD coalition has not cut as deep and as far as it should have done - in any area, welfare included.
The Conservatives are far from perfect. There's plenty I disagree with (pensioner benefits should be means tested, for a start), but they are the least worst option at the present time.
But how do you discern between the deserving and undeserving child living in poverty?
I don't understand the question.
If a child is neglected and starved, then the state has to step in and the parents prosecuted. Otherwise, the economic welbeing of a child is the responsibility of it's parents, not I nor the state.
Some people just don't care, and use poorly thought out statements to justify not caring. So they don't look heartless I suppose.
But it is not altruistic to support social need. At the beginning of the industrial revolution it was those who understood this who got seriously rich.
The very worst type of people to be in charge of a country is those who lack a social awareness. Because such people will inevitable run that country into the ground in every way. Including economically. As we are seeing with the current government.
If a child is neglected and starved, then the state has to step in and the parents prosecuted. Otherwise, the economic welbeing of a child is the responsibility of it's parents, not I nor the state.
Well spotted: it's a trick question. Surely there is no such thing as an undeserving child?
I think people should have children if they have the realistic prospect of being able to afford to raise them. If they find themselves in a predicament through no fault of their own, then the state should provide temporary assistance.
It is unfortunate, but you will have to understand the fact that the country cannot afford to raise peoples' children for them. We have no money.
The penny will drop at some point. It's just that some of us have realised before others.
Doubled edged sword or swings and roundabouts. The problem is we live in an aging population and although there has been an increase in recent years, there is still a relatively low birth rate. If you truly discourage more children you still face the issues of filling, for example, cleaning and care jobs. That means more immigration needed and it is immigrants which have accounted for a noticeably significant proportion of the babies born since 2000.
Some people just don't care, and use poorly thought out statements to justify not caring. So they don't look heartless I suppose.
But it is not altruistic to support social need. At the beginning of the industrial revolution it was those who understood this who got seriously rich.
The very worst type of people to be in charge of a country is those who lack a social awareness. Because such people will inevitable run that country into the ground in every way. Including economically. As we are seeing with the current government.
Your "social awareness" has to be paid for by other people, and can only do so with their consent. Presently, it can only be paid by borrowing and adding to the colossal national debt.
The opposite to what you say is true. The very worst people to be running any country are those who refuse to accept economic reality, and carry on blindly spending money they don't have. You can add in gerrymandering for the perfect cocktail. This is absolutely guaranteed to bankrupt the country, at which time everyone suffers.
But how do you discern between the deserving and undeserving child living in poverty?
You don't apparantly you wash your hands of any duty to support the child because you view their parents as "undeserving", while if the child has parents you deem "responsible" good people fallen on hard times then you support the child but it seems only temporarily.
Although it seems this is not just for the sake of being judgemental and callous, but also a financial necessity. Everyone else should wake up to the financial reality and get their priorities in order, and agree that we should stop supporting poor children.
Comments
He continually tried to only mention working age benefits whilst forgetting that the coalition will have spent £126.1bn more on benefits and tax credits in real terms than Labour did in their final 5 years. Spending will be £6.8bn higher in real terms in 2014/15 than in 2009/10.
The IFS recently showed up his dismal failure to make the promised welfare savings of £19bn by 2014/15 (only £2.5bn was made in those areas that were targeted). This was due to a combination of typically over-optimistic forecasts and gross incompetence.
Looking at DLA/PIP as an example, spending was forecast to go down by £1.2bn but is actually up by £1.6bn in 2014/15 thanks to the disastrously incompetent and very slow implementation of PIP. Duncan Smith claimed that "All of those delays will be back on track by end of year" but the DWP's figures show that is nonsense with people waiting many months for help.
Re ESA, his failed reforms have led to the OBR increasing estimated spending by £2.1bn pa in addition to the actual spend being increased by £900m. That is again due to the huge backlogs in the assessment process and wildly inaccurate assumptions about the numbers who qualify for ESA and in particular the Support Group. The latest DWP figures still show very long delays with assessments even though repeat assessments/reviews are on hold.
Duncan Smith was callously bragging about the number of ESA appeals falling to "hardly any at all". That is due to his policies of mandatory reconsideration which can leave you with no money for several weeks and the fiscally stupid policy of scrapping legal aid for first tier welfare appeals, thus making it impossible for many to appeal. It is also highly suspicious that the DWP have still not published full statistics for mandatory reconsiderations. As for "hardly any" appeals there were still 38,788 ESA appeals in the first 6 months of 2014/15 with over 52% successful.
We all know how disastrous and slow his Universal Credit has been with substantially increased costs and a caseload that was less than 1% of that which Duncan Smith promised by April this year. Given that the latest caseload is less than half of "hardly any at all" this is yet another abject failure from Duncan Smith.
On food banks I have not seen anybody claim that the huge rise in people using them is "just to do with benefits" as Duncan Smith tried to intimate. However it is well documented that problems with benefits are by far the biggest cause. It is also well documented that the 900,000 is the tip of the iceberg and that going to a food bank is usually a last resort.
Given his appalling record of failure it is not surprising that Duncan Smith came over so poorly yet again as he gets flustered and angry with people who know the facts.
Ah, OK. I'll change my mind in that case.
So, it's back to the status quo then. Shall we get the application form for the IMF done now, or later?
It would be far, far simpler just to have Treasury cash machines installed in Jobcentres (or better, Paddy Power) and to give benefit claimants the PIN number. That would do away with all these delays and roll out problems at a stroke.
Pathetic, condescending drivel.
Oh for the country to be populated by self-nominated superior beings like yourself, trevgo....
The main beneficiaries of Conservative Brand Welfare is the private sector.
It's likely you do not have an objection to this.
I have noticed that some people claim to be against welfare, but in reality they are against social welfare. Corporate welfare being fine.
What sort of person does not value society? A Conservative person.
I am infavor of other welfare reforms for example I am infavor of workfare for the long-term able unemployed for the state or charity and for the benfit of the community or society in general. I am also infavor of reducing benefits for those that breach the social contract, like criminals with unspent criminal convictions. I would also be infavor of billing convicted prisoners for their stay in prision. And harsher punishment for those guilty of tax evasion including confiscation of most of their assets.
I know, I know. It's high improbable, but we can only hope.
No, I do not support "corporate welfare". Unfortunately, as a country, we have neither sufficient skills nor productivity to command the salaries which would provide the sort of standard of living many feel entitled to. That the government decides to give them extra money from the public purse to improve their standard of living is fair enough, but that is always going to provide a big disincentive for improvement at and around the cut-off point - no matter how they try to taper it.
As for your glib comment about "society" - it purely depends on what sort of society. I value society greatly, but I doubt my version has much in common with yours.
How is a child responsible for being born in Chelsea or Chesterfield? Somerset or Somalia?
Have children if you can afford to provide for them. Otherwise don't.
Define what is meant by afford them, saying that government policy is a couple earning £150,000 each still get state aid to look after the children, and people earning £50,000 still get child benefit. Ministers have been urged to rethink their plans to help families with the soaring cost of childcare because they will benefit couples with a joint annual income of up to £300,000 while reducing support for poorer people.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/childcare-reforms-will-help-richest-families-warn-government-advisers-9040224.html
And do you think everyone has some magic crystall ball that no pregnancies are unforseen and that everyone knows what their future financial situation will be for the next 18 years. So all pregnancies in your world are planned and all people who are reliant on state benefits have planned to be reliant on state benefits.
Perhaps trevgo means that couples should only have children if they already have a stash of the cash required to feed and clothe them for the next 18 years? A highly realistic scenario, I'm sure.
I'm guessing he had to have the breakfast out because his ministerial duties required him to be away from home at breakfast time. Are to conclude that he only wears pants when on ministerial business, and that he would otherwise go commando?
Apologies to anyone who's just had their lunch. That is NOT a pleasant thought.
If they are being ill treated, then I have a duty to report it to the appropriate authorities who should act accordingly. Their education should be paid from my taxes.
Other than that, their economic welbeing has absolutely nothing to do with me.
I have 3 points on my licence as I failed to foresee the possibility of a speed camera around the bend on my holiday. I accepted the consequences. We have to get back to an environment whereby people are responsible for their actions. It will take tough love, and there will be squealing, but it is an inevitability after so many years of dependency and entitlement culture.
Your views, fair enough. But you don't seem to take into account the welfare bill rising substantially despite more people in work now. Or private companies such as G4S, A4E etc still receiving contracts to handle the long term unemployed despite being shown to be largely ineffective long before 2010.
and there's been no other quote in history, that has been taken out of context.:D
still, it suits those who wish to keep blaming todays problems on a prime minister who left office a quarter of a century ago.
I think people should have children if they have the realistic prospect of being able to afford to raise them. If they find themselves in a predicament through no fault of their own, then the state should provide temporary assistance.
It is unfortunate, but you will have to understand the fact that the country cannot afford to raise peoples' children for them. We have no money.
The penny will drop at some point. It's just that some of us have realised before others.
But how do you discern between the deserving and undeserving child living in poverty?
You have to wonder why anyone would think this an improvement over anything Labour were doing.
As ever with these people, trevgo considers that criticism of the Conservatives inevitably means support of Labour. Illogical and not helpful to a discussion.
The irony of course is that support of society is a selfish act. It is not altruistic to support other peoples children, nor to educate them. Welfare is necessary in order that capitalism can function, and vice-versa of course.
The point is that is has increased a good deal less than it would have done. The Conservative/LD coalition has not cut as deep and as far as it should have done - in any area, welfare included.
The Conservatives are far from perfect. There's plenty I disagree with (pensioner benefits should be means tested, for a start), but they are the least worst option at the present time.
I don't understand the question.
If a child is neglected and starved, then the state has to step in and the parents prosecuted. Otherwise, the economic welbeing of a child is the responsibility of it's parents, not I nor the state.
But it is not altruistic to support social need. At the beginning of the industrial revolution it was those who understood this who got seriously rich.
The very worst type of people to be in charge of a country is those who lack a social awareness. Because such people will inevitable run that country into the ground in every way. Including economically. As we are seeing with the current government.
Well spotted: it's a trick question. Surely there is no such thing as an undeserving child?
Doubled edged sword or swings and roundabouts. The problem is we live in an aging population and although there has been an increase in recent years, there is still a relatively low birth rate. If you truly discourage more children you still face the issues of filling, for example, cleaning and care jobs. That means more immigration needed and it is immigrants which have accounted for a noticeably significant proportion of the babies born since 2000.
Your "social awareness" has to be paid for by other people, and can only do so with their consent. Presently, it can only be paid by borrowing and adding to the colossal national debt.
The opposite to what you say is true. The very worst people to be running any country are those who refuse to accept economic reality, and carry on blindly spending money they don't have. You can add in gerrymandering for the perfect cocktail. This is absolutely guaranteed to bankrupt the country, at which time everyone suffers.
Although it seems this is not just for the sake of being judgemental and callous, but also a financial necessity. Everyone else should wake up to the financial reality and get their priorities in order, and agree that we should stop supporting poor children.