You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
There is something about this man and his ideas that just strike me as wrong. The thing is, I can't think of any specifics.
I know he is obsessed with welfare reform, but what sorts of specific things has he said? What policies has he proposed/supported?
Can you please help me make a factual list of all the reasons that IDS is a political blight?
Thanks!
He's rabidly pro- no deal Brexit.
He's a nasty sod.
Think of something that would screw over people in the lowest income bracket the most.
He'd have thought of it first, but he would try and persuade you that it was in their best interest.
Edit: his wiki page gives a nice run down - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Duncan_Smith#Secretary_of_State_for_Work_and_Pensions
Think of something that would screw over people in the lowest income bracket the most.
He’d have thought of it first, but he would try and persuade you that it was in their best interest.
That's, like, literally Brexit in a nutshell.
Did IDS think of it first?
I know he likes the idea.
I'm inclined to think he like a lot of the former front bench under Cameron got an unfair judgement.
If you want to implement a cost neutral welfare reform then that's going to be unpopular with the losers who by definition are among the poorest in society. You can make the lowest 5% poorer and equalise the help given the the whole bottom 10%, or the 90-95% bracket poorer and help the poorest 5% but youre still the bad guy. If you want to implement a reform but at the same time have to make a cut then whichever way you do it it's even more unpopular.
See also; Hunt as health secretary. The cuts were inevitable, the judgement should be on whether or not he managed their impact effectively. Its easy to say mental health services were cut too far or that junior Dr's deserve a paybrise. Its much harder to say you would cut oncology budgets to pay for them (people voted for no tax rises / magic money trees).
Famous person name only in a title thread, this was not what i was expecting. Feeling conflicted 😈
Topical
My personal view is always I'm in favour of anything that gives parliament a greater say. That's after all what we were elected for.
Iain Duncan Smith
ON benefit sanctions
Seventy-five per cent of all those who have been sanctioned say it helped them focus and get on.
On zero hours contracts
“People who do them are more satisfied with their work-life balance.”
On work capability assesments
I think, will help them and benefit them. We haven't introduced this to hurt or to harm disabled people. The purpose is to try to support disabled people.
He's a traditional 'family values' Tory. Just ask his former deputy, Esther McVey.
He was warned that UC would be a costly disaster
he went ahead with it anyway
edit-I forgot about him shagging esther mcvey,[shudders]
See also; Hunt as health secretary. The cuts were inevitable
Were they?
I came here to see if he had died.
Here’s a scary one… when Conservative Party members were polled to see who they thought had been the best party leader… IDS came second to Thatcher….
Also referred to as Iain Drunken Smith.....
He reportedly supports Spurs AND Villa. Must be an absolute wrong'un.
kimbers
He was warned that UC would be a costly disaster
he went ahead with it anyway
TBH, there's only 2 possible explanations for this. One is that he just chose to ignore all of the advice and recommendations- and I do mean all of it, literally nobody with any credibility thought that UC would save money and literally everyone said it'd harm the most vulnerable people in society. Or, he understood the advice and recommendations, saw what the outcomes would be, and went ahead because he didn't have any problem with those terrible outcomes.
Myself, I think he's basically evil. It just seems the simplest and most reliable explanation. He's intelligent enough and well informed enough to be fully aware of the impact of what he does, he's actually made a real effort to see it first hand, and then he goes ahead and does it. He uses "austerity" as the justification even when he knows perfectly well it'll cost money not save it- so it's clearly just the Universal Excuse, as it is for so much of what his party does. So what does that leave you with? Choosing to spend money to hurt people. So, delusional or sadistic, and I don't think he's delusional- he is too together and competent for that to be compelling.
His focus on penalising the most vulnerable in society via initiatives such as Universal Credit whilst ignoring the tax avoidance of large corporations and influential Tory supporters such as the non-domiciled owners of the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail etc. shows where his moral compass is.
I would ask people that have gone through the PIP process or basically any process that involves the government helping the less able.
Let's just say he is unpopular.
Bedroom Tax
PIP
Universal Credit
Housing Benefit
Council Tax Support
Esther Mcvey
and he is a tory.
Very few people think they're Baddies, very few people will actually be honest, even with themselves that they believe a thing, not because they think it's right, but because it suits them and they either lack the empathy or are too selfish to accept it might not be best for the majority.
IDS is all of those things, he doesn't hate poor people, he pities them. It's probably from his upbringing. He's not an old money Eton Tory like CMD or BoJo. Corbyn is far wealthier than IDS. He's the son of a Low-ish ranking RAF officer, so he was probably brought up with the unshakeable belief anything can be do with the proper determination and effort.
He honestly believes that if we let unemployed people starve, at least a bit, then they will pull their socks up, put on a suit and get a job. Lots of people think the same, because of their luck, being born to the right parents, talent or whatever else, they've never really hit rock bottom.
He's not evil, he's just driven by an arrogance than comes from ignorance. Oh he plays to his audience of course.
Were they?
"We" collectively voted for Cameron and austerity three times, so budgets were being cut irrespective of who was in charge of the departments.
Would IDS have brought in PIP and UC if he had the same role in 1998, entirely possibly. Could either have been seen as a positive thing if they were accompanied by budget increases?
Would Hunt have had a better time with Jr Dr's if the negotiations were acompanied by big payrises and increased staffing levels rather than trying to push through a reform with no net change in spending at the end of a period of cuts?
We're not Sweeden, we didnt vote for ~55% tax rates. We voted for austerity and cuts.
He honestly believes that if we let unemployed people starve, at least a bit, then they will pull their socks up, put on a suit and get a job.
This. He's has no idea of the damage he does, because in his mind, he's doing good things.
He is Dunning-Kruger writ large and should serve as an awful warning for future generations.
Did he not lie about his university?
Rightly or wrongly, I associate IDS as someone who despises the poor and people on benefits.
Horrible man, IMO.
Has he been doing The Wild Thang with McVey?
If so he's gone up in my estimations, but he's still not past Nasty Little Turd status.
As someone who works in that area, the cocking up of housing benefit began when Blair introduced Local Housing Allowance, against the advice of pretty much every group involved in the consultation/pilots. Austerity just added insult to injury.
But also disappointed with a thread title that promised so much....
This place 🙂
At least TINAS makes an attempt at a discussion, rather than the usual emotive stuff - yay baddie politicians and poor benefit claimants...wait, BAD benefit claimants, the work-shy gits....hang on, loads of us claim benefits/tax credits...errrm....down with those that don't work, except those that can't work - but really can't work, not like those that can't work but we cant see that they can't claim work. And harden the assessments on those that we, the keyboard public, determine the work-shy should go through on a whim, but when there's this particular group, do this instead....ad nauseam..
The Welfare State is complicated. Very. And never will everyone be happy with the policy.
IDS? If you want to believe he's an evil man, then go ahead. I'm not his PA. But step into his shoes and try to simplify the benefits system, reduce the administrative costs and create a single benefit, that many wanted, that reduced the complexities that many households face, having to claim multiple benefits just to have an income - more households that most realise.
Him, and his perceived personality is irrelevant. Simplification of the benefits system has been lobbied for years. And now it's happening.
The politicisation of benefits is a different question (and not one I'm getting involved in) but none of you are asking that.
His wife’s money bought him a lovely estate not far from where my parent’s live. I don’t believe he supports the local economy.
He’s in the wild-eyed-loon camp as far as I’m concerned.
Simplification of the benefits system has been lobbied for years.
Unfortunately
The politicisation of benefits
was all part of his plan.
Benefit claimants don't bother me, their lives do not affect mine (I pay taxes to ensure that they don't) and everyone deserves help if they are unable to support themselves.
Edit: Sod it, I CBA 🙂
Odious turd.
Invoked WW2 over Boris and Luxembourg, also said about Universal Credit "my daughter could be one of those people on benefits" with tears.
Utter twunt.
bearnecessities
Subscriber
Edit: Sod it, I CBA 🙂
Me too 🙂 All this hate for IDS and the Tories...Let's not forget everything IDS introduced on Welfare Reform only happened because the Lib Dems supported it...funny how everyone on here wants to vote for them now 😉