politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cameron’s first policy resignation: IDS quits
There are two easy assumptions that need dismissing about IDS’s resignation yesterday. Firstly, this is not a power gambit on Duncan Smith’s part; and secondly, his going is not to do with Europe.
@JournoStephen: In a parallel universe somewhere, @leicesterliz's poll lead just doubled to 20 points and Cameron has been forced into a Cabinet reshuffle.
A quick side question - who was the last former Party leader to subsequently resign from Cabinet ?
I can't think of a Party leader who, after leadership, served in a Cabinet and then resigned.
Does William Hague count? Bearing in mind Chamberlain would not have resigned had he not been dying at the time, likewise Macdonald. We could be looking as far back as Lansdowne and that was under rather unusual circumstances.
Alec Douglas Home I think if not Hague
Edit: Lost election rather than resigned it seems
Depends on how you define it. If it is served, then left of own volition,it's clearly Hague. If it's served until unable to do so, Home. Served until ditched for younger generation, Austen Chamberlain. Resigned on a point of policy, Lansdowne. But resigned on a point of policy from a cabinet solely composed of the party he once led, I'm pretty sure it's Hartington 130 years ago.
”The problem with that interpretation is that it doesn’t fit the facts. If IDS had wanted to do maximum damage to Cameron and Osborne – and, by extension, to Remain – he would have quit on Budget Day itself, or in fact just about any time other than a Friday evening when MPs are away from Westminster and newspapers have least time to react for tomorrow (albeit that the Sundays get a good run).”
No, that's what someone who was good at politics would have done.
I don't think it's about Europe, as such, but the wider context of the political circumstances which it has fostered probably helped him make his decision. The time is right, particularly as although he can argue why this budget is different to the others, for many people it has not been egregiously so, so invites further questioning of his motives, fairly or not (I have no reason to believe he is not sincere).
As for going after Osborne rather than the PM, what's the difference? You go through Osborne to get to Cameron, surely?
Boris thinks he's about to be PM, so while it'd be fun to see him either refuse the position or try to actually do it, I cannot see it either.
So...Osborne definitely to Foreign Secretary if Remain win? If leave win, he and Cameron gone in any case.
@JournoStephen: In a parallel universe somewhere, @leicesterliz's poll lead just doubled to 20 points and Cameron has been forced into a Cabinet reshuffle.
Why would she be doing better? IDS tacitly endorsed the current Labour entreaty that cuts have gone far enough.
Hills appear to have taken down their "In which year will Osborne cease to be Chancellor" market ..... I wonder why? I'm on for 2016 and 2017 at 10/1 in both cases - as good as home and hosed I reckon, one way or another.
If this is not, fundamentally, about destabilising the leadership ahead of the referendum then what is it about? IDS suddenly noticing, with horror, that there are spending cuts going on?
Boris can't really do it - he's still London mayor. ISTR that's why Boris was given his curious attending-political-cabinet position after the election.
Unless the Conservatives plan to throw Zac under the bus ...
"Similarly, if it was about Europe then he would have said so."
@JournoStephen: In a parallel universe somewhere, @leicesterliz's poll lead just doubled to 20 points and Cameron has been forced into a Cabinet reshuffle.
Sadly the delightful Liz will be the bridesmaid but never the bride.
I'm afraid I don't buy that Maastricht rebel Iain Duncan Smith isn't partly thinking about the EU referendum. But this is chiefly a grenade tossed at Osborne - and grenades can kill those close to the target, too.
How would you see the final two in the leadership contest now, David?
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. The impression I always got was that IDS had a vision of a complete transformation in the way welfare is dealt with that wasn't necessarily just about cuts. From his point of view it was about making benefits work properly. At the same time the Treasury has seen it as an opportunity continuously to impose cuts and save money.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has picked his time for political reasons but I do think that the underlying logic in terms of benefits is coherent and that he has long viewed Osborne and the Treasury as the enemy.
If this is not, fundamentally, about destabilising the leadership ahead of the referendum then what is it about? IDS suddenly noticing, with horror, that there are spending cuts going on?
I think what happened was this:
There was probably little trust between IDS and Osborne over the EU, but when Osborne delivered a bad and unpopular budget, and got a lot of flak, Osborne tried to pin the blame on IDS, but IDS shot first by resigning and blaming Osborne.
Why would she be doing better? IDS tacitly endorsed the current Labour entreaty that cuts have gone far enough.
Are moderate Labour supporting the disability cuts? I don't think they are.
I didn't say they were. I just don't see why when IDS is not a million miles away from the existing Labour position, the Labour politician perceived at the time at least to have had harder positions on such things would be doing better.
A quick side question - who was the last former Party leader to subsequently resign from Cabinet ?
I can't think of a Party leader who, after leadership, served in a Cabinet and then resigned.
Does William Hague count? Bearing in mind Chamberlain would not have resigned had he not been dying at the time, likewise Macdonald. We could be looking as far back as Lansdowne and that was under rather unusual circumstances.
Alec Douglas Home I think if not Hague
Edit: Lost election rather than resigned it seems
Depends on how you define it. If it is served, then left of own volition,it's clearly Hague. If it's served until unable to do so, Home. Served until ditched for younger generation, Austen Chamberlain. Resigned on a point of policy, Lansdowne. But resigned on a point of policy from a cabinet solely composed of the party he once led, I'm pretty sure it's Hartington 130 years ago.
Resigned on a point of policy would be Arthur Henderson in 1917, on the grounds that he was both the current (since 1914) and a former (1908-10) leader of Labour.
@JournoStephen: In a parallel universe somewhere, @leicesterliz's poll lead just doubled to 20 points and Cameron has been forced into a Cabinet reshuffle.
@Leicesterliz loves austerity though so no real alternative
Why would she be doing better? IDS tacitly endorsed the current Labour entreaty that cuts have gone far enough.
Are moderate Labour supporting the disability cuts? I don't think they are.
I didn't say they were. I just don't see why when IDS is not a million miles away from the existing Labour position, the Labour politician perceived at the time at least to have had harder positions on such things would be doing better.
She would be doing better with the voting public on a number of issues, and would have a shadow cabinet of ability rather than half-wits.
@JournoStephen: In a parallel universe somewhere, @leicesterliz's poll lead just doubled to 20 points and Cameron has been forced into a Cabinet reshuffle.
@Leicesterliz loves austerity though so no real alternative
That's true, Liz Kendall is to the right of IDS at the moment. She would never have been able to attack the government over any type of cuts.
Why would she be doing better? IDS tacitly endorsed the current Labour entreaty that cuts have gone far enough.
Are moderate Labour supporting the disability cuts? I don't think they are.
I didn't say they were. I just don't see why when IDS is not a million miles away from the existing Labour position, the Labour politician perceived at the time at least to have had harder positions on such things would be doing better.
Because a more all-round credible leader would get a bigger boost from pointing out the inherent unfairness in what the Tories are proposing.
"There are two easy assumptions that need dismissing about IDS’s resignation yesterday. Firstly, this is not a power gambit on Duncan Smith’s part; and secondly, his going is not to do with Europe."
Well David, supporters of the Cameroons part of the party are saying that IDS's resignation is precisely because of the EU referendum. I also think it may have been one of the main reasons for going now.
I'm afraid I don't buy that Maastricht rebel Iain Duncan Smith isn't partly thinking about the EU referendum. But this is chiefly a grenade tossed at Osborne - and grenades can kill those close to the target, too.
How would you see the final two in the leadership contest now, David?
I certainly wouldn't see Osborne in it. Boris v Gove, perhaps?
I'm afraid I don't buy that Maastricht rebel Iain Duncan Smith isn't partly thinking about the EU referendum. But this is chiefly a grenade tossed at Osborne - and grenades can kill those close to the target, too.
How would you see the final two in the leadership contest now, David?
I certainly wouldn't see Osborne in it. Boris v Gove, perhaps?
I'm thinking May v Gove now. Osborne still shouldn't be counted out though; he has had the nominations...
I'm afraid I don't buy that Maastricht rebel Iain Duncan Smith isn't partly thinking about the EU referendum. But this is chiefly a grenade tossed at Osborne - and grenades can kill those close to the target, too.
How would you see the final two in the leadership contest now, David?
I certainly wouldn't see Osborne in it. Boris v Gove, perhaps?
OGH : " Priti Patel is the obvious candidate being already within the department"
I disagree - like most Prime Ministers, Dave is likely to opt for a safe pair of hands and whose are safer than Greg's to take the step up being from Chief Secretary to the Treasury as suggested by Yours Truly here on 22 February and still available from those nice folk at Ladbrokes at value-packed odds of 16/1. DYOR.
OGH : " Priti Patel is the obvious candidate being already within the department"
I disagree - like most Prime Ministers, Dave is likely to opt for a safe pair of hands and whose are safer than Greg's to take the step up being from Chief Secretary to the Treasury as suggested by Yours Truly here on 22 February and still available from those nice folk at Ladbrokes at value-packed odds of 16/1. DYOR.
Tricky moment to need a new Chief Secretary though?
For once you are on the ball. But why does Osborne never learn from these mistakes on relatively small amounts that have massively bad PR? Answer = Arrogance.
Boris can't really do it - he's still London mayor. ISTR that's why Boris was given his curious attending-political-cabinet position after the election.
Unless the Conservatives plan to throw Zac under the bus ...
"Similarly, if it was about Europe then he would have said so."
Why?
Boris could resign as mayor now - there wouldn't have to be a by-election unlike had he been appointed to the cabinet a year ago.
If it was about Europe, why waste all the political capital he's spent on his resignation, talking about welfare reform?
"There are two easy assumptions that need dismissing about IDS’s resignation yesterday. Firstly, this is not a power gambit on Duncan Smith’s part; and secondly, his going is not to do with Europe."
Well David, supporters the Cameroons part of the party are saying that IDS's resignation is precisely because of the EU referendum. I also think it may have been one of the main reasons for going now.
I think you're right when you say 'reasons'. It doesn't just have to be one reason, but a careful decision he's made made on the basis of a number of issues.
However, he's an intelligent chap, and he'd know very well that some would see the EU as the reason (singular), even if it is untrue.
Although personally I think it's the EU only. It's all part of the bigger game.
OGH : " Priti Patel is the obvious candidate being already within the department"
I disagree - like most Prime Ministers, Dave is likely to opt for a safe pair of hands and whose are safer than Greg's to take the step up being from Chief Secretary to the Treasury as suggested by Yours Truly here on 22 February and still available from those nice folk at Ladbrokes at value-packed odds of 16/1. DYOR.
Osborne went for the Health brief with his sugar tax land grab. Perhaps he could take on IDS's former job too, and combine it with The Treasury? The Jelly Chancellor is Brown to the core.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. The impression I always got was that IDS had a vision of a complete transformation in the way welfare is dealt with that wasn't necessarily just about cuts. From his point of view it was about making benefits work properly. At the same time the Treasury has seen it as an opportunity continuously to impose cuts and save money.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has picked his time for political reasons but I do think that the underlying logic in terms of benefits is coherent and that he has long viewed Osborne and the Treasury as the enemy.
Don't let his support for Leave blind you Richard. He has been embarrassingly incompetent for years but tolerated because it was easier to keep the party together. His ideas of a cunning plan would make Baldrick look like Einstein.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
"There are two easy assumptions that need dismissing about IDS’s resignation yesterday. Firstly, this is not a power gambit on Duncan Smith’s part; and secondly, his going is not to do with Europe."
Well David, supporters of the Cameroons part of the party are saying that IDS's resignation is precisely because of the EU referendum. I also think it may have been one of the main reasons for going now.
I'm not saying that the timing might have been a factor in his considerations but it would have been very much a secondary one.
@JournoStephen: In a parallel universe somewhere, @leicesterliz's poll lead just doubled to 20 points and Cameron has been forced into a Cabinet reshuffle.
@Leicesterliz loves austerity though so no real alternative
That's true, Liz Kendall is to the right of IDS at the moment. She would never have been able to attack the government over any type of cuts.
IDS has been the most over-rated minister in government. Good riddance. Fixated on a very narrow "will someone please think of the children" agenda, laughably trivial in its execution and articulation.
More damning on Cam that he indulged it.
Not to say that there aren't sensible ex-Guards Officers out there in parliament but he was one of the more uni-dimensional.
Unless @DavidL was away with the fairies, he seemed to precis the PIP/DLA situation extremely well earlier today.
Boris can't really do it - he's still London mayor. ISTR that's why Boris was given his curious attending-political-cabinet position after the election.
Unless the Conservatives plan to throw Zac under the bus ...
"Similarly, if it was about Europe then he would have said so."
Why?
Boris could resign as mayor now - there wouldn't have to be a by-election unlike had he been appointed to the cabinet a year ago.
If it was about Europe, why waste all the political capital he's spent on his resignation, talking about welfare reform?
I agree. I think he is just sick and tired of being blamed for welfare cuts imposed by the Treasury which have seriously undermined his attempts for meaningful reform.
I'm afraid I don't buy that Maastricht rebel Iain Duncan Smith isn't partly thinking about the EU referendum. But this is chiefly a grenade tossed at Osborne - and grenades can kill those close to the target, too.
How would you see the final two in the leadership contest now, David?
I certainly wouldn't see Osborne in it. Boris v Gove, perhaps?
Put in Patel in the mix.
Goodnight.
If it's in 2018/19 then quite possibly. Not if it's in July.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. The impression I always got was that IDS had a vision of a complete transformation in the way welfare is dealt with that wasn't necessarily just about cuts. From his point of view it was about making benefits work properly. At the same time the Treasury has seen it as an opportunity continuously to impose cuts and save money.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has picked his time for political reasons but I do think that the underlying logic in terms of benefits is coherent and that he has long viewed Osborne and the Treasury as the enemy.
Don't let his support for Leave blind you Richard. He has been embarrassingly incompetent for years but tolerated because it was easier to keep the party together. His ideas of a cunning plan would make Baldrick look like Einstein.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
Its very funny how I've never heard Cameroons before say how IDS was incompetent and now he apparently was for years after he resigns on them. Osborne caused this by spending unpopular cuts on vulnerable people on the comfortably off. All the spinning in the world don't change that.
I'm afraid I don't buy that Maastricht rebel Iain Duncan Smith isn't partly thinking about the EU referendum. But this is chiefly a grenade tossed at Osborne - and grenades can kill those close to the target, too.
How would you see the final two in the leadership contest now, David?
I certainly wouldn't see Osborne in it. Boris v Gove, perhaps?
I'm thinking May v Gove now. Osborne still shouldn't be counted out though; he has had the nominations...
Not what the Tory MP I was talking to last week said.
I never really bought the 2012 Budget being an "omnishambles". A lot of froth about pasties and such. Meanwhile, the foundations were laid for the economy to move ahead.
The 2016 Budget, however? Osborne just needed to do the bare minimum, not rock the boat until the Referendum was won by Remain. To the victors, the spoils and all that. But then, he goes and does the most politically inept pairing. Tax cuts for the best off - matched with benefit cuts to the disabled. Basic political stupidity. Now THAT deserves the title Omnishambles.....
Boris can't really do it - he's still London mayor. ISTR that's why Boris was given his curious attending-political-cabinet position after the election.
Unless the Conservatives plan to throw Zac under the bus ...
"Similarly, if it was about Europe then he would have said so."
Why?
Boris could resign as mayor now - there wouldn't have to be a by-election unlike had he been appointed to the cabinet a year ago.
If it was about Europe, why waste all the political capital he's spent on his resignation, talking about welfare reform?
Because he doesn't want it to appear that it's all about the EU, and that he has an honourable reason for what he is doing? It's also a bigger story. It's easy to imagine him resigning over the EU, but the way he has done this enhances it.
By doing it this way, he damages Cameron and Osborne, one of whom is Remain's biggest asset. I'm not saying what the other is.
Boris resigning would throw Zac under the bus. Labour would have a field day. It's bad enough as it is.
Boris can't really do it - he's still London mayor. ISTR that's why Boris was given his curious attending-political-cabinet position after the election.
Unless the Conservatives plan to throw Zac under the bus ...
"Similarly, if it was about Europe then he would have said so."
Why?
Boris could resign as mayor now - there wouldn't have to be a by-election unlike had he been appointed to the cabinet a year ago.
If it was about Europe, why waste all the political capital he's spent on his resignation, talking about welfare reform?
I think he is just sick and tired of being blamed for welfare cuts imposed by the Treasury which have seriously undermined his attempts for meaningful reform.
All this excitement on the eve of a parliamentary recess. Damn! That nearly always happens; and the stupid BBC cuts out all it's political programs except QT in a recess, as if politics stops dead in it's tracks to suit them.
If it was about Europe, why waste all the political capital he's spent on his resignation, talking about welfare reform?
Because it's far more effective that way.
It sticks the knife in deeper to make it a matter of conscience concerning what he is being asked to do in his department rather a disagreement over an area of policy that isn't in his remit. Plus, this way he is able to make it an attack on Osborne rather than Cameron, which is easier and probably safer.
But the Conservative Party is consumed by Europe at present. It seems to me not realistic to view an event like this as anything other than a play in the EU drama.
Boris can't really do it - he's still London mayor. ISTR that's why Boris was given his curious attending-political-cabinet position after the election.
Unless the Conservatives plan to throw Zac under the bus ...
"Similarly, if it was about Europe then he would have said so."
Why?
Boris could resign as mayor now - there wouldn't have to be a by-election unlike had he been appointed to the cabinet a year ago.
If it was about Europe, why waste all the political capital he's spent on his resignation, talking about welfare reform?
I think he is just sick and tired of being blamed for welfare cuts imposed by the Treasury which have seriously undermined his attempts for meaningful reform.
I think that's exactly right.
Then I truly don't know why it's taken him this long to quit! A few years in would have shown what the priority was.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. The impression I always got was that IDS had a vision of a complete transformation in the way welfare is dealt with that wasn't necessarily just about cuts. From his point of view it was about making benefits work properly. At the same time the Treasury has seen it as an opportunity continuously to impose cuts and save money.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has picked his time for political reasons but I do think that the underlying logic in terms of benefits is coherent and that he has long viewed Osborne and the Treasury as the enemy.
Don't let his support for Leave blind you Richard. He has been embarrassingly incompetent for years but tolerated because it was easier to keep the party together. His ideas of a cunning plan would make Baldrick look like Einstein.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
Its very funny how I've never heard Cameroons before say how IDS was incompetent and now he apparently was for years after he resigns on them. Osborne caused this by spending unpopular cuts on vulnerable people on the comfortably off. All the spinning in the world don't change that.
IDS was tolerated because, however crassly, he articulated an I may be a toff but I care about the underclass narrative that suited the Cons to indulge.
No one for one second thought he was competent.
And of course now that stragety has been proven to have been a huge error.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. The impression I always got was that IDS had a vision of a complete transformation in the way welfare is dealt with that wasn't necessarily just about cuts. From his point of view it was about making benefits work properly. At the same time the Treasury has seen it as an opportunity continuously to impose cuts and save money.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has picked his time for political reasons but I do think that the underlying logic in terms of benefits is coherent and that he has long viewed Osborne and the Treasury as the enemy.
Don't let his support for Leave blind you Richard. He has been embarrassingly incompetent for years but tolerated because it was easier to keep the party together. His ideas of a cunning plan would make Baldrick look like Einstein.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
I disagree absolutely and completely. I would feel exactly the same if he was the main cheerleader for Remain.
I have followed all his analysis and attempts at reform in minute detail or many years as it is the one area where I think there is truly scope for transformative change in the way we do things unlike anything that has been done for decades.
I honestly believe that he is one of the most dedicated and inspired politicians of the current Parliament, second only to Gove (apologies again for that being a Leave supporter, it is, I believe pure chance). The main problem is that neither is a very good politician - as IDS showed when Leader and Gove showed by alienating the teachers.
IDS was a better minister, in terms of actually understanding the issues of his brief and having a vision for change, than Osborne could ever be in a million years.
IDS's resignation is deeply significant in political terms of course, but it is also has profound implications for economic policy. Going forward it will be almost impossible for the Tories to impose further cuts in public expenditure - all major areas of expenditure are either protected (health, education, defence, pensions, overseas aid) or face overwhelming political obstacles from within the Tory Party (tax credits, disability benefits). It is not credible to assume that the few remaining areas (law and order, local government, culture) could deliver more than token savings on top of the large cuts that have already been made.
The age of austerity is over. Osborne, or his successor, will have to increase taxes or accept higher borrowing over the next few years.
Boris can't really do it - he's still London mayor. ISTR that's why Boris was given his curious attending-political-cabinet position after the election.
Unless the Conservatives plan to throw Zac under the bus ...
"Similarly, if it was about Europe then he would have said so."
Why?
Boris could resign as mayor now - there wouldn't have to be a by-election unlike had he been appointed to the cabinet a year ago.
If it was about Europe, why waste all the political capital he's spent on his resignation, talking about welfare reform?
I agree. I think he is just sick and tired of being blamed for welfare cuts imposed by the Treasury which have seriously undermined his attempts for meaningful reform.
Agreed. An unnecessary set of stupid budget acts by Osborne. By walking over the Cabinet, Osborne has killed his own career.
IDS's resignation is deeply significant in political terms of course, but it is also has profound implications for economic policy. Going forward it will be almost impossible for the Tories to impose further cuts in public expenditure - all major areas of expenditure are either protected (health, education, defence, pensions, overseas aid) or face overwhelming political obstacles from within the Tory Party (tax credits, disability benefits). It is not credible to assume that the few remaining areas (law and order, local government, culture) could deliver more than token savings on top of the large cuts that have already been made.
The age of austerity is over. Osborne, or his successor, will have to increase taxes or accept higher borrowing over the next few years.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit cmoney.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has pickes the enemy.
Don't let his support for Leave blind you Richard. He has been embarrassingly incompetent for years but tolerated because it was easier to keep the party together. His ideas of a cunning plan would make Baldrick look like Einstein.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
I disagree absolutely and completely. I of actually understanding the issues of his brief and having a vision for change, than Osborne could ever be in a million years.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. Thereasury as the enemy.
Don't let his support for Leave blind you Richard. He has been embarrassingly incompetent for years but tolerated because it was easier to keep the party together. His ideas of a cunning plan would make Baldrick look like Einstein.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
I disagree absolutely and completely. I would feel exactly the same if he was the main cheerleader for Remain.
I have followed all his analysis and attempts at reform in minute detail or many years as it is the one area where I think there is truly scope for transformative change in the way we do things unlike anything that has been done for decades.
I honestly believe that he is one of the most dedicated and inspired politicians of the current Parliament, second only to Gove (apologies again for that being a Leave supporter, it is, I believe pure chance). The main problem is that neither is a very good politician - as IDS showed when Leader and Gove showed by alienating the teachers.
IDS was a better minister, in terms of actually understanding the issues of his brief and having a vision for change, than Osborne could ever be in a million years.
Richard IDS was the token posho-who-has-a-heart.
He was bad at it but it didn't matter because he was allowed his playpen to indulge in and for the Cons it was a free option: either he somehow, inadvertently, made a difference, despite it being the sub-optimal solution, or he expired worthless.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. The impression I always got was that IDS had a vision of a complete transformation in the way welfare is dealt with that wasn't necessarily just about cuts. From his point of view it was about making benefits work properly. At the same time the Treasury has seen it as an opportunity continuously to impose cuts and save money.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has picked his time for political reasons but I do think that the underlying logic in terms of benefits is coherent and that he has long viewed Osborne and the Treasury as the enemy.
Don't let his support for Leave blind you Richard. He has been embarrassingly incompetent for years but tolerated because it was easier to keep the party together. His ideas of a cunning plan would make Baldrick look like Einstein.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
I disagree absolutely and completely. I would feel exactly the same if he was the main cheerleader for Remain.
I have followed all his analysis and attempts at reform in minute detail or many years as it is the one area where I think there is truly scope for transformative change in the way we do things unlike anything that has been done for decades.
I honestly believe that he is one of the most dedicated and inspired politicians of the current Parliament, second only to Gove (apologies again for that being a Leave supporter, it is, I believe pure chance). The main problem is that neither is a very good politician - as IDS showed when Leader and Gove showed by alienating the teachers.
IDS was a better minister, in terms of actually understanding the issues of his brief and having a vision for change, than Osborne could ever be in a million years.
He's taken more time to bring in Universal Credit than the entire second world war. Way more. I don't doubt that he meant well, really well, but blimey.
Boris can't really do it - he's still London mayor. ISTR that's why Boris was given his curious attending-political-cabinet position after the election.
Unless the Conservatives plan to throw Zac under the bus ...
"Similarly, if it was about Europe then he would have said so."
Why?
Boris could resign as mayor now - there wouldn't have to be a by-election unlike had he been appointed to the cabinet a year ago.
If it was about Europe, why waste all the political capital he's spent on his resignation, talking about welfare reform?
I agree. I think he is just sick and tired of being blamed for welfare cuts imposed by the Treasury which have seriously undermined his attempts for meaningful reform.
Is that right though? IDS really believes (*) in the reform, and believes it will be better for the public as a whole, and the recipients in the medium and long term. Something I tend, with caveats, to agree with.
But it's possible to say one of the major things that has undermined reform has been the delays in rolling out UC: the longer it takes, the more chance there is for something to go wrong, or the opposition to the change to find a chink they can exploit. The delays also add many millions in direct cost, and much more in indirect costs.
How much can the delays in the roll-out of UC be laid at his door?
IDS's resignation is deeply significant in political terms of course, but it is also has profound implications for economic policy. Going forward it will be almost impossible for the Tories to impose further cuts in public expenditure - all major areas of expenditure are either protected (health, education, defence, pensions, overseas aid) or face overwhelming political obstacles from within the Tory Party (tax credits, disability benefits). It is not credible to assume that the few remaining areas (law and order, local government, culture) could deliver more than token savings on top of the large cuts that have already been made.
The age of austerity is over. Osborne, or his successor, will have to increase taxes or accept higher borrowing over the next few years.
Could always cut the foreign aid budget.
Don't be silly. Throwing away aid money is a favorite Cameron policy.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. The impression I always got was that IDS had a vision of a complete transformation in the way welfare is dealt with that wasn't necessarily just about cuts. From his point of view it was about making benefits work properly. At the same time the Treasury has seen it as an opportunity continuously to impose cuts and save money.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has picked his time for political reasons but I do think that the underlying logic in terms of benefits is coherent and that he has long viewed Osborne and the Treasury as the enemy.
Don't let his support for Leave blind you Richard. He has been embarrassingly incompetent for years but tolerated because it was easier to keep the party together. His ideas of a cunning plan would make Baldrick look like Einstein.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
I disagree absolutely and completely. I would feel exactly the same if he was the main cheerleader for Remain.
I have followed all his analysis and attempts at reform in minute detail or many years as it is the one area where I think there is truly scope for transformative change in the way we do things unlike anything that has been done for decades.
I honestly believe that he is one of the most dedicated and inspired politicians of the current Parliament, second only to Gove (apologies again for that being a Leave supporter, it is, I believe pure chance). The main problem is that neither is a very good politician - as IDS showed when Leader and Gove showed by alienating the teachers.
IDS was a better minister, in terms of actually understanding the issues of his brief and having a vision for change, than Osborne could ever be in a million years.
You say that he is not a very good politician but the post he has occupied is a political one. His job isn't the minutiae of policy -that's what civil servants are for. It's selling his vision within government and even more importantly to the public. He has been utterly useless at that. In fact, the Government has been carrying him with the public until now.
Listening to labour's attack on IDS they are dishing the idea it has to do with PIPs and saying it is all to do with Brexit. I do not think this is good for leave as many IDS haters will vote remain just to protest against him and it may well be the spark that motivates the remain campaigners throughout the left
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. The impression I always got was that IDS had a vision of a complete transformation in the way welfare is dealt with that wasn't necessarily just about cuts. From his point of view it was about making benefits work properly. At the same time the Treasury has seen it as an opportunity continuously to impose cuts and save money.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has picked his time for political reasons but I do think that the underlying logic in terms of benefits is coherent and that he has long viewed Osborne and the Treasury as the enemy.
Don't let his support for Leave blind you Richard. He has been embarrassingly incompetent for years but tolerated because it was easier to keep the party together. His ideas of a cunning plan would make Baldrick look like Einstein.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
I disagree absolutely and completely. I would feel exactly the same if he was the main cheerleader for Remain.
I have followed all his analysis and attempts at reform in minute detail or many years as it is the one area where I think there is truly scope for transformative change in the way we do things unlike anything that has been done for decades.
I honestly believe that he is one of the most dedicated and inspired politicians of the current Parliament, second only to Gove (apologies again for that being a Leave supporter, it is, I believe pure chance). The main problem is that neither is a very good politician - as IDS showed when Leader and Gove showed by alienating the teachers.
IDS was a better minister, in terms of actually understanding the issues of his brief and having a vision for change, than Osborne could ever be in a million years.
He's taken more time to bring in Universal Credit than the entire second world war. Way more. I don't doubt that he meant well, really well, but blimey.
Again the impression I get is that much of the delay with UC is because the Treasury has been seeing it as a way to cut costs and have been undermining the basic principles all along.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit cmoney.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has pickes the enemy.
Don't let his support for Leave blind you Richard. He has been embarrassingly incompetent for years but tolerated because it was easier to keep the party together. His ideas of a cunning plan would make Baldrick look like Einstein.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
I disagree absolutely and completely. I of actually understanding the issues of his brief and having a vision for change, than Osborne could ever be in a million years.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. Thereasury as the enemy.
Don't let his support for Leave blind you Richard. He has been embarrassingly incompetent for years but tolerated because it was easier to keep the party together. His ideas of a cunning plan would make Baldrick look like Einstein.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
I disagree absolutely and completely. I would feel exactly the same if he was the main cheerleader for Remain.
I have followed all his analysis and attempts at reform in minute detail or many years as it is the one area where I think there is truly scope for transformative change in the way we do things unlike anything that has been done for decades.
I honestly believe that he is one of the most dedicated and inspired politicians of the current Parliament, second only to Gove (apologies again for that being a Leave supporter, it is, I believe pure chance). The main problem is that neither is a very good politician - as IDS showed when Leader and Gove showed by alienating the teachers.
IDS was a better minister, in terms of actually understanding the issues of his brief and having a vision for change, than Osborne could ever be in a million years.
Richard IDS was the token posho-who-has-a-heart.
He was bad at it but it didn't matter because he was allowed his playpen to indulge in and for the Cons it was a free option: either he somehow, inadvertently, made a difference, despite it being the sub-optimal solution, or he expired worthless.
In the end, he expired worthless.
I think that is simply a load of bigoted garbage based on no evidence what so ever.
IDS's resignation is deeply significant in political terms of course, but it is also has profound implications for economic policy. Going forward it will be almost impossible for the Tories to impose further cuts in public expenditure - all major areas of expenditure are either protected (health, education, defence, pensions, overseas aid) or face overwhelming political obstacles from within the Tory Party (tax credits, disability benefits). It is not credible to assume that the few remaining areas (law and order, local government, culture) could deliver more than token savings on top of the large cuts that have already been made.
The age of austerity is over. Osborne, or his successor, will have to increase taxes or accept higher borrowing over the next few years.
I think that must be right.
It seems quite likely that the next Conservative leader will be from the right of the party and that they will preside over a higher tax, higher borrowing administration. I suppose odder things have happened in politics recently.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. The impression I always got was that IDS had a vision of a complete transformation in the way welfare is dealt with that wasn't necessarily just about cuts. From his point of view it was about making benefits work properly. At the same time the Treasury has seen it as an opportunity continuously to impose cuts and save money.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has picked his time for political reasons but I do think that the underlying logic in terms of benefits is coherent and that he has long viewed Osborne and the Treasury as the enemy.
Don't let his support for Leave blind you Richard. He has been embarrassingly incompetent for years but tolerated because it was easier to keep the party together. His ideas of a cunning plan would make Baldrick look like Einstein.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
I disagree absolutely and completely. I would feel exactly the same if he was the main cheerleader for Remain.
I have followed all his analysis and attempts at reform in minute detail or many years as it is the one area where I think there is truly scope for transformative change in the way we do things unlike anything that has been done for decades.
I honestly believe that he is one of the most dedicated and inspired politicians of the current Parliament, second only to Gove (apologies again for that being a Leave supporter, it is, I believe pure chance). The main problem is that neither is a very good politician - as IDS showed when Leader and Gove showed by alienating the teachers.
IDS was a better minister, in terms of actually understanding the issues of his brief and having a vision for change, than Osborne could ever be in a million years.
You say that he is not a very good politician but the post he has occupied is a political one. His job isn't the minutiae of policy -that's what civil servants are for. It's selling his vision within government and even more importantly to the public. He has been utterly useless at that. In fact, the Government has been carrying him with the public until now.
I’m coming round to coalition government. Osbourne, at least, had his budget stress tested by Clegg and Alexander. And we weren’t tearing ourselves apart over the EU.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. The impression I always got was that IDS had a vision of a complete transformation in the way welfare is dealt with that wasn't necessarily just about cuts. From his point of view it was about making benefits work properly. At the same time the Treasury has seen it as an opportunity continuously to impose cuts and save money.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has picked his time for political reasons but I do think that the underlying logic in terms of benefits is coherent and that he has long viewed Osborne and the Treasury as the enemy.
Don't let his support for Leave blind you Richard. He has been embarrassingly incompetent for years but tolerated because it was easier to keep the party together. His ideas of a cunning plan would make Baldrick look like Einstein.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
I disagree absolutely and completely. I would feel exactly the same if he was the main cheerleader for Remain.
I have followed all his analysis and attempts at reform in minute detail or many years as it is the one area where I think there is truly scope for transformative change in the way we do things unlike anything that has been done for decades.
I honestly believe that he is one of the most dedicated and inspired politicians of the current Parliament, second only to Gove (apologies again for that being a Leave supporter, it is, I believe pure chance). The main problem is that neither is a very good politician - as IDS showed when Leader and Gove showed by alienating the teachers.
IDS was a better minister, in terms of actually understanding the issues of his brief and having a vision for change, than Osborne could ever be in a million years.
He's taken more time to bring in Universal Credit than the entire second world war. Way more. I don't doubt that he meant well, really well, but blimey.
Again the impression I get is that much of the delay with UC is because the Treasury has been seeing it as a way to cut costs and have been undermining the basic principles all along.
The Department accepts that timescales have slipped and that value has not been secured from the £425 million invested so far. There has been a shocking absence of financial and other internal controls and we are not yet convinced that the Department has robust plans to overcome the problems that have impeded progress.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. The impression I always got was that IDS had a vision of a complete transformation in the way welfare is dealt with that wasn't necessarily just about cuts. From his point of view it was about making benefits work properly. At the same time the Treasury has seen it as an opportunity continuously to impose cuts and save money.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has picked his time for political reasons but I do think that the underlying logic in terms of benefits is coherent and that he has long viewed Osborne and the Treasury as the enemy.
Don't let his support for Leave blind you Richard. He has been embarrassingly incompetent for years but tolerated because it was easier to keep the party together. His ideas of a cunning plan would make Baldrick look like Einstein.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
I disagree absolutely and completely. I would feel exactly the same if he was the main cheerleader for Remain.
I have followed all his analysis and attempts at reform in minute detail or many years as it is the one area where I think there is truly scope for transformative change in the way we do things unlike anything that has been done for decades.
I honestly believe that he is one of the most dedicated and inspired politicians of the current Parliament, second only to Gove (apologies again for that being a Leave supporter, it is, I believe pure chance). The main problem is that neither is a very good politician - as IDS showed when Leader and Gove showed by alienating the teachers.
IDS was a better minister, in terms of actually understanding the issues of his brief and having a vision for change, than Osborne could ever be in a million years.
He's taken more time to bring in Universal Credit than the entire second world war. Way more. I don't doubt that he meant well, really well, but blimey.
Again the impression I get is that much of the delay with UC is because the Treasury has been seeing it as a way to cut costs and have been undermining the basic principles all along.
Nah. Shortage of funds always makes reform more difficult but this has been ridiculous. His resignation is the best chance of there being a significant roll out of UC (and I agree with you that in principle that is a huge step forward in a very necessary way) before the next election.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. The impression I always got was that IDS had a vision of a complete transformation in the way welfare is dealt with that wasn't necessarily just about cuts. From his point of view it was about making benefits work properly. At the same time the Treasury has seen it as an opportunity continuously to impose cuts and save money.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has picked his time for political reasons but I do think that the underlying logic in terms of benefits is coherent and that he has long viewed Osborne and the Treasury as the enemy.
Don't let his support for Leave blind you Richard. He has been embarrassingly incompetent for years but tolerated because it was easier to keep the party together. His ideas of a cunning plan would make Baldrick look like Einstein.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
I disagree absolutely and completely. I would feel exactly the same if he was the main cheerleader for Remain.
I have followed all his analysis and attempts at reform in minute detail or many years as it is the one area where I think there is truly scope for transformative change in the way we do things unlike anything that has been done for decades.
I honestly believe that he is one of the most dedicated and inspired politicians of the current Parliament, second only to Gove (apologies again for that being a Leave supporter, it is, I believe pure chance). The main problem is that neither is a very good politician - as IDS showed when Leader and Gove showed by alienating the teachers.
IDS was a better minister, in terms of actually understanding the issues of his brief and having a vision for change, than Osborne could ever be in a million years.
You say that he is not a very good politician but the post he has occupied is a political one. His job isn't the minutiae of policy -that's what civil servants are for. It's selling his vision within government and even more importantly to the public. He has been utterly useless at that. In fact, the Government has been carrying him with the public until now.
No they really haven't.
Do you think he is well thought of by the public? I would say not. And as a politician he is responsible for his own public image.
If it was about Europe, why waste all the political capital he's spent on his resignation, talking about welfare reform?
Because it's far more effective that way.
It sticks the knife in deeper to make it a matter of conscience concerning what he is being asked to do in his department rather a disagreement over an area of policy that isn't in his remit. Plus, this way he is able to make it an attack on Osborne rather than Cameron, which is easier and probably safer.
But the Conservative Party is consumed by Europe at present. It seems to me not realistic to view an event like this as anything other than a play in the EU drama.
The way to win the referendum is to make the government unpopular, not to talk about leaving the EU. IDS has now contributed on several levels to that end.
Tim Montgomery touring the studios on behalf of IDS. When the questions get to whether he agreed with the cuts he impliented over the last six years Montgomery starts to bluster.
If it was about Europe, why waste all the political capital he's spent on his resignation, talking about welfare reform?
Because it's far more effective that way.
It sticks the knife in deeper to make it a matter of conscience concerning what he is being asked to do in his department rather a disagreement over an area of policy that isn't in his remit. Plus, this way he is able to make it an attack on Osborne rather than Cameron, which is easier and probably safer.
But the Conservative Party is consumed by Europe at present. It seems to me not realistic to view an event like this as anything other than a play in the EU drama.
If the Tories were trying to decide whether to have tea or coffee it would be viewed as a division over Europe. In their twisted world view every issue is looked at through that prism.
IDS's resignation is deeply significant in political terms of course, but it is also has profound implications for economic policy. Going forward it will be almost impossible for the Tories to impose further cuts in public expenditure - all major areas of expenditure are either protected (health, education, defence, pensions, overseas aid) or face overwhelming political obstacles from within the Tory Party (tax credits, disability benefits). It is not credible to assume that the few remaining areas (law and order, local government, culture) could deliver more than token savings on top of the large cuts that have already been made.
The age of austerity is over. Osborne, or his successor, will have to increase taxes or accept higher borrowing over the next few years.
Could always cut the foreign aid budget.
Don't be silly. Throwing away aid money is a favorite Cameron policy.
OGH : " Priti Patel is the obvious candidate being already within the department"
I disagree - like most Prime Ministers, Dave is likely to opt for a safe pair of hands and whose are safer than Greg's to take the step up being from Chief Secretary to the Treasury as suggested by Yours Truly here on 22 February and still available from those nice folk at Ladbrokes at value-packed odds of 16/1. DYOR.
Osborne went for the Health brief with his sugar tax land grab. Perhaps he could take on IDS's former job too, and combine it with The Treasury? The Jelly Chancellor is Brown to the core.
Exactly, and WTF was Osborne doing announcing education policy in his budget speech. If he just stuck to being Chancellor of the Exchequer maybe he could make a better fist of actually meeting his own targets.
Of course, this row is really down to Cameron's complete inability to lead. But their again he did say he was the true heir to Blair and so he is proving, especially by tolerating a Chancellor becoming over mighty and overtly using his position to further his own ends rather than concentrating on his actual job.
Comments
Hillary: 8,804,065
Trump: 7,359,221
Sanders: 6,276,421
Democrats: 15,267,708
Grand Old Party: 19,787,948
No, that's what someone who was good at politics would have done.
As for going after Osborne rather than the PM, what's the difference? You go through Osborne to get to Cameron, surely?
Boris thinks he's about to be PM, so while it'd be fun to see him either refuse the position or try to actually do it, I cannot see it either.
So...Osborne definitely to Foreign Secretary if Remain win? If leave win, he and Cameron gone in any case. Why would she be doing better? IDS tacitly endorsed the current Labour entreaty that cuts have gone far enough.
Unless the Conservatives plan to throw Zac under the bus ...
"Similarly, if it was about Europe then he would have said so."
Why?
How would you see the final two in the leadership contest now, David?
That doesn't mean I don't think he has picked his time for political reasons but I do think that the underlying logic in terms of benefits is coherent and that he has long viewed Osborne and the Treasury as the enemy.
There was probably little trust between IDS and Osborne over the EU, but when Osborne delivered a bad and unpopular budget, and got a lot of flak, Osborne tried to pin the blame on IDS, but IDS shot first by resigning and blaming Osborne.
https://t.co/DrmB8LsNln https://t.co/Os3pbrKnQq
She would never have been able to attack the government over any type of cuts.
Well David, supporters of the Cameroons part of the party are saying that IDS's resignation is precisely because of the EU referendum. I also think it may have been one of the main reasons for going now.
Anyway early start tomorrow so goodnight.
Goodnight.
I disagree - like most Prime Ministers, Dave is likely to opt for a safe pair of hands and whose are safer than Greg's to take the step up being from Chief Secretary to the Treasury as suggested by Yours Truly here on 22 February and still available from those nice folk at Ladbrokes at value-packed odds of 16/1.
DYOR.
Plus IDS has fecking ruined my Sunday thread, the tosser.
If it was about Europe, why waste all the political capital he's spent on his resignation, talking about welfare reform?
However, he's an intelligent chap, and he'd know very well that some would see the EU as the reason (singular), even if it is untrue.
Although personally I think it's the EU only. It's all part of the bigger game.
I fear this will not go well for Leave, I really do.
https://twitter.com/leicesterliz/status/710908451023675393
More damning on Cam that he indulged it.
Not to say that there aren't sensible ex-Guards Officers out there in parliament but he was one of the more uni-dimensional.
Unless @DavidL was away with the fairies, he seemed to precis the PIP/DLA situation extremely well earlier today.
The 2016 Budget, however? Osborne just needed to do the bare minimum, not rock the boat until the Referendum was won by Remain. To the victors, the spoils and all that. But then, he goes and does the most politically inept pairing. Tax cuts for the best off - matched with benefit cuts to the disabled. Basic political stupidity. Now THAT deserves the title Omnishambles.....
By doing it this way, he damages Cameron and Osborne, one of whom is Remain's biggest asset. I'm not saying what the other is.
Boris resigning would throw Zac under the bus. Labour would have a field day. It's bad enough as it is.
Entirely predictable FUBAR from the Europhiles - hubris then downfall.
Pasty tax to patsy's tax - good on IDS for not putting up with it.
Q: How the Republicans can stop someone like Trump getting this close again
A: AV
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/03/voting-systems
It sticks the knife in deeper to make it a matter of conscience concerning what he is being asked to do in his department rather a disagreement over an area of policy that isn't in his remit. Plus, this way he is able to make it an attack on Osborne rather than Cameron, which is easier and probably safer.
But the Conservative Party is consumed by Europe at present. It seems to me not realistic to view an event like this as anything other than a play in the EU drama.
Edit: I see it's been done already...
No one for one second thought he was competent.
And of course now that stragety has been proven to have been a huge error.
We learn, we move on.
I have followed all his analysis and attempts at reform in minute detail or many years as it is the one area where I think there is truly scope for transformative change in the way we do things unlike anything that has been done for decades.
I honestly believe that he is one of the most dedicated and inspired politicians of the current Parliament, second only to Gove (apologies again for that being a Leave supporter, it is, I believe pure chance). The main problem is that neither is a very good politician - as IDS showed when Leader and Gove showed by alienating the teachers.
IDS was a better minister, in terms of actually understanding the issues of his brief and having a vision for change, than Osborne could ever be in a million years.
The age of austerity is over. Osborne, or his successor, will have to increase taxes or accept higher borrowing over the next few years.
The joys of publishing/editing a PB thread on a phone.
He was bad at it but it didn't matter because he was allowed his playpen to indulge in and for the Cons it was a free option: either he somehow, inadvertently, made a difference, despite it being the sub-optimal solution, or he expired worthless.
In the end, he expired worthless.
But it's possible to say one of the major things that has undermined reform has been the delays in rolling out UC: the longer it takes, the more chance there is for something to go wrong, or the opposition to the change to find a chink they can exploit. The delays also add many millions in direct cost, and much more in indirect costs.
How much can the delays in the roll-out of UC be laid at his door?
(*) Note present tense
It seems quite likely that the next Conservative leader will be from the right of the party and that they will preside over a higher tax, higher borrowing administration. I suppose odder things have happened in politics recently.
Holyrood List
SNP 42% (-3)
LAB 18% (=)
CON 18% (+3)
GR 10% (+1)
LD 6% (=)
Constituency
SNP 54% (+1); LAB 20% (-3); CON 16% (NC); LD 7% (+1); OTH 4% (+1)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/619/61903.htm
I do share your admiration of Gove though.
At least they are not the Lib Dems.
Of course, this row is really down to Cameron's complete inability to lead. But their again he did say he was the true heir to Blair and so he is proving, especially by tolerating a Chancellor becoming over mighty and overtly using his position to further his own ends rather than concentrating on his actual job.