First Frank Field. Then IDS. Who’ll be the next sensible head to be disappointed as the cycle turns?

When IDS himself says he had to argue with the Treasury to stop a freeze on all welfare payments, the signs are terminal.

But the in article to which you link he says:
“But freezing benefits just puts a disproportionate amount of the burden of this deficit reduction programme on actually the poorest. And so we came to an agreement, George Osborne, he was very good about that, we discussed it, I made the case about it, he agreed with that and that was taken off the agenda.”

Doesn’t exactly sound “terminal” from his POV, does it?

@1 denmark

Since when did IDS suddenly emerge from the chrysalis of right wing nutterdom into the butterfly of sensible headed-ness?

cjcjc (I think I got that right….)

It does when you consider that the key to IDS’s plans are an _increase_ in the (short to medium) term Welfare budget.

Set that against what Osborne said in the Budget about the level of future spending cuts being dependant on the saving in the welfare budget, and you can see how the other shoe is going to drop.

It’s probably worth recalling again the assessment Osborne’s budget in the Telegraph:

“Pensioners came out as one of its biggest losers in George Osborne’s emergency Budget”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/how-budget-affect-me/7847875/Budget-2010-Pensioners-are-the-biggest-losers.html

Evidently, IDS didn’t have much influence on Osborne and the Treasury when it came to defending the wellbeing of pensioners. But then, why does it matter? The political calculation by the government was probably that some pensioners won’t be alive to vote at the next general election and others will become senile or demented before then so they don’t matter.

“Since when did IDS suddenly emerge from the chrysalis of right wing nutterdom into the butterfly of sensible headed-ness?”

Believe it or not, there’s actually a specific answer. The scales fell from his eyes (I actually found this link by typing “Duncan Smith Damascus” into Google) on a visit to Easterhouse council estate in Glasgow:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20020324/ai_n12574553/

as denmark says, its Frank Field all over again. Only when FF was around, there was some dosh in the kitty.

And of course it was the Guardianistas wot got him sacked. Don’t be surprised when you get something worse.

As Churchill put it “we ought to set the life and endurance of the British Empire and the greatness of this Island very high in our duty, and not be led astray by illusions about an ideal world, which only mean that other and worse controls will step into our place, and that the future direction will belong to them”.

Liberal illusions about an ideal world got Frank Field the push. And now you’ve got George Osborne.

4. Hopi Sen

‘ cjcjc (I think I got that right….)

It does when you consider that the key to IDS’s plans are an _increase_ in the (short to medium) term Welfare budget.

Set that against what Osborne said in the Budget about the level of future spending cuts being dependant on the saving in the welfare budget, and you can see how the other shoe is going to drop.

Whether some on the left accept it or not we do have a welfare-dependent underclass in this country. The problem IDS will run into in trying to break this dependency is that it costs a lot in the short-term but provides long-term gains. Therefore, the government who incur the costs will not be the same government who get the gains. A classic incentive problem of why incur costs when someone else gets the gains? The Treasury will never accept models that show gains on the total managed government expenditure long-term if the effect is to increase the short-term departmental budgets. Especially during a period when the Treasury are trying to contract. What can break the cycle and incentive problem is political commitment and that has been lacking in British politics for the last 30 years, it is unlikely that this government will be any different imo.