Watching Iain Duncan Smith outline his rationale for quitting the government front benches on the Andrew Marr show, it was a little disturbing to discover a creeping respect developing for the man so beloved by the left as a poster boy for all that was wrong with this government and its demonisation of the poor – this was after all a man whose policies had been denounced and ridiculed by the left leaning commentators and writers with whom it’s my natural inclination, in the broadest sense, to agree.
As we watch the fallout from the resignation and the rush to ‘explain’ his decision (the explanations largely depending on what particular faction of the Tory party the explainer happens to sit), it seemed, improbably, that IDS actually believed in the explanations he put forward on Marr’s show. Call me naive, but you could tell from the tone and style of his answers, as well as the content, that this was a genuine resignation based on principle. It might seem a little late, it might even be considered ironic, but the individual who many see as the architect of sweeping welfare cuts that penalise the most vulnerable in society actually believes that his own government was pushing the balance too far in favour of the well off.
This would (and will) be considered perverse if you adhere to the left wing stereotype of Duncan Smith as the devil incarnate solely determined to penalise and demonise the poor. But this of course was never the case; he spent considerably more time than most Tory politicians actually trying to understand the causes of poverty and was committed to supporting people back into work. Universal Credit and the other policies he introduced (e.g. the ‘bedroom tax’) weren’t in themselves the pernicious attacks on the weak and vulnerable they were made out to be and, let’s be honest, the welfare system needed reform, not least because it had become so needlessly complex and in itself divisive. His problem was execution – the implementation of the bedroom tax was a classic example of unintelligent delivery without any of the checks and balances that would have avoided most of the all too real personal horror stories caused by the many awful decisions taken, some of which were only overturned by recourse to the Courts.
But it was clear in the interview and by the emotional nature of his responses that he was genuinely interested in improving the lot of the marginalised. Many will say his department’s policies were designed to do the opposite. Some will say his own ideas are wrong-headed and ill-conceived. But what we heard today shows the complexity of cabinet government, collective responsibility and the battle between Departments and the all powerful Exchequer. At least in the end he did the right thing. Set against a Chancellor who introduces policy and then pulls them at the slightest hint of a political fallout that threatens his career and a Downing Street machine whose only response was to instruct its lackey ministers to brief against him, I think the bête noire of the left can clearly lay claim to the moral high ground on this one. Who knew!