This was not just political, IDS felt personally insulted
THE many Left-wing politicians and activists celebrating his resignation will never believe it, but Iain Duncan Smith was entirely sincere in his commitment to welfare reform. He genuinely believed that his policies were in the best interests of the poor and vulnerable they affected, seeking to help them away from degrading dependence on the state and, where possible, into the dignity and independence of work.
Given that belief, what to make of the decision to give up his job overseeing welfare reform? Of course we have Mr Duncan Smith’s letter, possibly the most bluntly worded and politically percussive resignation announcement since Geoffrey Howe fatally wounded Margaret Thatcher’s premiership with his departure.
Mr Duncan Smith’s account of “indefensible” welfare cuts made for political not economic reasons rings loudly with his sincere and passionate beliefs. But inevitably it does not tell the whole truth, alluding to some of the factors in this genuinely surprising decision to quit and omitting others.
It is quite true that almost every Budget in recent years has seen tension between Mr Duncan Smith and senior colleagues, and George Osborne in particular. His explicit reference to the Chancellor in his letter denotes what was one of the most strained relationships in the Cabinet, institutionally and personally.
The Chancellor and his Treasury have been the driving force behind cutting welfare spending, for reasons both economic and political. Seeking to cut overall spending significantly while protecting large items such as the NHS and state pension meant there was no alternative but to cut benefits. But Mr Osborne has often sought to make political virtue of that economic necessity, portraying cuts as the work of a party that supports workers and punishes shirkers. That rhetoric has long angered Mr Duncan Smith, who seeks a more compassionate attitude towards claimants and saw the Chancellor’s stance on welfare as cynical and callous.
He also felt personally insulted. Mr Osborne is a clever man with clever officials and clever aides. He thinks Mr Duncan Smith is too stupid to implement ambitious and complex projects such as the universal credit welfare simplification programme, which has again and again missed targets and deadlines. Treasury staff likewise condescend to the Department for Work and Pensions.
Such is Mr Duncan Smith’s anger (and his temper runs volcanically hot) at Mr Osborne, he has come close to quitting several times in recent years, most recently over cuts to the budget for Universal Credit. But each time he let the rage pass and stayed to get on with what he increasingly saw as his life’s work. His resignation follows an established pattern of events (cuts demanded, tension with the Treasury, IDS fury) but with a different outcome. What changed? Why quit over these cuts not earlier ones?
The answer is Europe, Mr Duncan Smith’s other great passion and one he has carried in his heart for much longer. To some, including angry No 10 insiders, Mr Duncan Smith’s resignation is nothing more than a move in the EU referendum game. He wants to leave the EU and will do anything to harm a prime minister who wants to remain in. The welfare row is just a figleaf, they suggest.
The truth is more complex and, for Conservatives, more worrying. Mr Duncan Smith’s resignation was caused by the referendum, but not directly. His decision was not as simplistic as it is painted by No 10.
The referendum has created a poisonous atmosphere within government. While David Cameron has said he will tolerate colleagues dissenting from his EU policy, ministers who back leaving feel marginalised and abused by No 10 and No 11. Many have been taken aback by the hostility shown to them by the party’s leadership over their decision to back a Brexit desired by half the party’s MPs and most of its members.
The rancour of the EU debate was central to Mr Duncan Smith’s decision. He believed that if Mr Cameron wins the referendum and keeps his job, he would quickly sack the welfare secretary who defied him on Europe. He thus saw no point in restraining his anger over welfare this time. If his departure advances the campaign to Leave by creating turmoil in the Government, so be it. And if Britain does vote to leave, perhaps our next prime minister will allow Mr Duncan Smith to resume his work at welfare.
In the meantime, where does this leave Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne?
For the Chancellor, this caps the worst week of his political career. His Budget had already done grave harm to his faltering bid to succeed Mr Cameron. MPs who were questioning his judgment over missteps such as tax credits believed a package of welfare cuts and tax cuts for the middle-class had been badly mis-sold, a major problem for a chancellor whose advocates insist he is the most politically astute and tactically competent minister of his generation.
Now, instead of looking like the grandmaster of the political chessboard, Mr Osborne risks seeing his greatest gambits turned against him. More than any other, Mr Osborne has driven the narrative that austerity in the public finances and his resultant policies were economically necessary and thus politically beneficial. Mr Duncan Smith’s attack on that judgment is an attack on the central plank of Mr Osborne’s leadership bid.
Never write off Mr Osborne, who is more resilient and persistent than is sometimes acknowledged. But to ascend from this darkest of valleys to the high peak of the premiership would be nothing short of heroic.
And Mr Cameron? The man who came to the Conservative leadership promising to end his party’s fractious obsession with Europe and the toxic perception the Tories were the party of the heartless rich now presides over a government violently split over Europe and accused by his own welfare secretary of being unnecessarily and ideologically cruel to the poor and disabled.
The Prime Minister has already done things to underpin his legacy: winning the Scottish independence referendum and the general election. But history’s verdict on his party management hangs in the balance.
There are two lessons Conservatives should draw from the seismic shock of Iain Duncan Smith’s resignation. First, never underestimate the power of Conservative history. Closing the gap between the Tories’ “nasty party” image and reality (“detoxifying the brand”) is work still far from complete.
Europe too has lost none of its destructive potential. Unless both sides in the party’s referendum battle find a way to conduct their dispute with respect, party unity will be impossible. Most important of all is a way to heal wounds after the vote. Mr Cameron’s ungracious response to Mr Duncan Smith does not bode well here.
The second lesson is, even on the darkest days, remember that things could always be worse. The last time a Tory government was tearing itself apart over Europe (Mr Duncan Smith centrally involved as a Maastricht rebel) and facing allegations of dogmatic cruelty, the Labour Party chose as its leader a telegenic young centrist and launched a crusade to win over Middle England. Tories reeling from the impact of Mr Duncan Smith’s genuinely shocking resignation should go down on their knees and give thanks for Jeremy Corbyn.
‘While David Cameron has said he will tolerate dissent, ministers who back leaving the EU feel marginalised’