Politics

Are there going to be more welfare cuts or not? In an afternoon in which the government tried to calm the row following the resignation of Iain Duncan Smith, the key line that stood out was Stephen Crabb telling the Commons that ‘we have no further plans to make welfare savings beyond the very substantial savings legislated for by parliament two weeks ago’. The new Work and Pensions Secretary’s language was qualified by the Treasury, which clarified that this didn’t mean no more cuts in this parliament – just that the government didn’t have any planned. But it has become the big takeaway story from yesterday’s medley of statements. George

Our leaders, of course, love democracy – until it comes up with an answer different to the one they were expecting. Last week, the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) announced an online poll for the public to vote for the name of a new Arctic and Antarctic-going vessel to replace my ageing near-namesake the RRS James Clark Ross. The outcome will tell us volumes about what public bodies really think of public opinion. While a few members of the public favoured suggestions such as the RRS (royal research ship) David Attenborough and the RRS Henry Worsley, after the explorer who died in January after coming very close to the end

‘Why this sudden restlessness, this confusion?’ asked C.P. Cavafy in his poem ‘Waiting for the Barbarians’: Because night has fallen and the barbarians have not come. And some who have just returned from the border say there are no barbarians any longer. And now, what’s going to happen to us without barbarians? They were, those people, a kind of solution. All through your and my life the Labour party have been at the gates of Downing Street, and often enough stormed them, only to be beaten back at a subsequent election. What might happen to the Conservative party if those barbarians disappear? At first, Tories rejoiced at the Labour leadership

I am extremely shocked by the news of Iain Duncan Smith’s resignation and the way he has behaved. Having worked alongside him as a minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, I have seen that he championed the very package of reforms to disability benefits he now says is the reason he has resigned. I simply cannot understand why he suddenly chose to quit like this when it was clear that Number 10 and the Treasury had told him they were going to pause and rethink these measures. I’m particularly saddened that this really seems to be about the European referendum campaign rather than about DWP policy. From a personal

Imagine how different politics would be now if George Osborne had moved to the Foreign Office after the election. He would have left the Treasury with his economic and political strategy vindicated by the election result and wouldn’t be involved in this deeply damaging row with Iain Duncan Smith. For Osborne to have a former leader, and one of the most respected figures among the party activists, attacking his whole approach to deficit reduction and his conception of fairness is politically disastrous, to put it mildly. The problem for Osborne is that with no fiscal wriggle room and his opponents on the Tory benches determined to cause him trouble at every

Well, that was quick. In his letter responding to Iain Duncan Smith’s resignation, the Prime Minister has this to say:- “We collectively agreed – you, No10 and the Treasury – proposals which you and your Department then announced a week ago. Today, we agreed not to proceed with the policies in their current form and instead to work together to get these policies right over the coming months.” It was the disability benefit cuts that triggered the IDS resignation (or, rather, their being used in the Budget to help finance cuts to the higher rate of tax). The £1.3 billion cut was stated as a fact in the Budget, and the money banked. Then it