If you are looking for more arbitrary charming epithet in British politics, has alighted on the “Ian Duncan Smith the architect of Universal Credit”. It’s basically impossible to say aloud without putting “engineer” in air quotes. I know that we should not underestimate the determined quiet man. But when people say “Ian always brings home,” means that everybody gets buried under the rubble.
Do you stay in a hotel that was advertised Ian Duncan Smith as engineer? You certainly would not bother asking when breakfast was. If all goes well, you are standing outside in foil blanket at 3 in the morning, refused his requests to do 10 minutes at the top of Good Morning Britain. If all goes as expected, I won’t.
Universal Credit the new tribute. The work must lead a revolution | Owen Jones
Duncan Smith was always the most dangerous kind of politician: the kind who thinks that things are too complicated is actually very simple. Despite the global credit “engineer” I took myself from the project a while back, he still appears in the website in his pants every now and then, shouting something about the need to add escape from people. While embarrassing for all, this is probably something you should listen to it.
This week Ian was match of the Treasury urgent to inject a further £ 2bn to the benefits of a new system to replace £ 2bn cut from the planned three years ago. Will it? It is not clear at this stage. And the government is to press on with the start of universal credit, regardless of the number of their deputies to other deputies, their own former prime ministers, and other former prime ministers and countless voters ‘ actual lives it affects, explain to them what two things would, or indeed already. This week work and Pensions Secretary-Ester McAvoy, he informed Cabinet colleagues that some families or “customers”, to use the preferred term – will be £ 200 a month worse off.
Still, I’m dying to know who Esther propaganda. According to the Times, charities and companies working with Universal Credit claimants was signed on the silence clause to protect the work and Pensions Secretary’s reputation. There is a right of “publicity” requirement in the contract between them and the department, which states that the products “pay the utmost regard to the standing of” the Foreign Minister and “not do anything that might hurt [him]; and brought [him] into disrepute; attract adverse publicity to [her]; or harm public confidence in [him]”.
Is this normal? We know the Conservatives mats are the party of freedom of expression. Even so, it does seem high snowflakery the secretary of state to demand of him a sign the political equivalent of a non-disclosure agreement. You’d expect a Hollywood star, and the people they try to protect workers from questions about the fact that the occupants of the animals on crystal meth or whatever. But it doesn’t seem like something we should generally avoid in the context of a welfare state.
In many ways, though, no one is as adept at pulling McAvoy’s reputation as McAvoy itself. In July, she was officially reprimanded by the head of the National Audit Office in order to mislead Parliament about criticism of the global credit boot, issued a non-apology “unintentionally” doing so. This week – presumably vigilantly – broke the government’s plan and claimed: “I said We have taken difficult decisions and some people will be worse off.” Or Esther put him less than two weeks ago in a party conference speech: “those who say we cut budgets to promote fake news.” What we believe, and the other the worst?
As a side note, I don’t advise you to keep a paper record of all of the lifts specifically criticism with Donald Trump’s most famous phrase – from all of Trump’s winged monkeys to the Conservative Party in the Council of ministers to Jeremy Corbyn. This way you will have something to burn to pay once they get what they think they want. To those politicians who sleep categorically rejected the criticism as “fake news”, I would like to say only: if you will not use the Trump the second most famous phrase – “grab it by the pussy, “maybe think twice about legitimising the rest of the serious bullshit. Or is it simply too tempting? Don’t write, I don’t mean the pussy grab. Either way, we can divide the world into two tribes: the people who cry “fake news”, and people who don’t free pussy hands. Ester McVeigh in the former category clearly since her boyfriend quarterwitted men’s rights attorney Philip Davis, this is hardly a surprise.
At the same time, I am very much enjoying all the next-generation conservative mark this week, reminding Britain that there is a young and energetic team players out there just itching to take us once the new director finally called time on the golden generation. Take Plymouth MP Johnny Mercer who also urged cuts on the reversal system, but this week tweeted: “the biggest challenge with UC is the bad press it gets (some of the same obvs).”
Ester McVeigh to go. Not downright lies the risk | Polly Toynbee
No matter how hard love “obvs” due to the grim stories of poor crisis he gladly obvses more, it feels difficult to claim that the main problem with Universal Credit is the media. I hate to break it to Johnny, but it’s not all read The Guardian, The Mighty, which was boring and obsessed with it for years. “The media” mostly giving a shit about accurately snog this week, so the global credit cut most of them still have the “cut through” with the claimants, their lives have been cut through. That will change with the full rollout at this point every one in the Council of ministers will need to sing Strictly star to have hope in distracting from that.
Still, the D-Notice to continue until the bitter end in some circles. Let’s continue with the shoutout George Osborne, the man who cut the £ 2bn that Duncan Smith wants to return to global credit. Osborne, a former adviser, now a Potemkin newspaper editor , but more interested in posting pointless negative lists of articles questioning why, for example, London or one at work, you may resort to the use of food banks under the new system. The London Evening Standard has not bothered to cover universal credit, preferring to spend most of this week telling you of the capital’s 1000 most influential people apparently. I can’t believe the editor didn’t include in the list. I know it’s not leading mixologist or anything, but considering how many lives his policies have affected you, let’s hope he score a mention in next year’s telegrams when the left it will be more pronounced.