Any politicians who says “There is no magic money tree” is treating the electorate as children and idiots. And now Rachel Reeves is acting like a latterday snake oil saleswoman.

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 3rd April 2024)

Whenever politicians say “There is no magic money tree”, they are treating the electorate as children and idiots. And all who use this pathetic, empty phrase should forfeit the right to be regarded as serious politicians because it closes down legitimate debate on their political priorities.

The politician who most famously used the phrase was Theresa May in 2017 when attacking Jeremy Corbyn. It has subsequently been used by Rishi Sunak and, most recently, by Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner. Labour is also prone to say that the Conservatives have “maxed out the government’s credit card”, an equally stupid concept. The government does not have a credit card and government finances are not the same as those of a household, itself another simplistic and wrong concept favoured by politicians. Proof of this is that there is always money to fight wars.

The household comparison dates back to Margaret Thatcher who, as far back as the 1979 general election campaign, said: “Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country”. Running a home and running the country are not the same, but what an inspired election slogan! 

There is nothing wrong with a country borrowing for investment, even at times of financial instability. What is not right is to borrow to fund tax cuts or day-to-day spending, at least in the long term. I can think of many occasions when nations, in the wake of economic turmoil, have borrowed to fund huge public investment.  One example, in the wake of the 1929 financial crash, was President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ that promoted economic recovery and put Americans back to work through Federal activism. New Federal agencies controlled agricultural production, stabilised wages and prices, and created a vast public works programme for unemployed people. 

The post-war Labour government, at a time of huge debt, made massive investment in creating the NHS, expansion of state education, the building of council housing, and so on. There was a bipartisan approach, not least in housing. During the 1950s, Churchill’s Conservative government delivered new council housing at a rate not seen before or since. Investment in public housing through subsidising the cost of building new homes pays for itself over the years, with lower rents and less public subsidy to help people meet overblown rents. The economics of investment in housing is actually very simple. Investment in bricks and mortar retains value, whereas rent subsidies do not. This bipartisan approach was broken by Margaret Thatcher who began the dismantling of the social housing sector through the politically popular but economically disastrous Right to Buy programme. 

A new bipartisan consensus in favour of financial austerity has been created following the election of the Cameron government in 2010, and Labour front benchers have meekly performed lemming impersonations by following the Conservatives (and until 2015, the Lib Dems) over the austerity cliff. Historians will look back at this era with astonishment – that the major parties were so economically short-sighted and inept that the wellbeing of the nation was sacrificed in the pursuit of power.

If, as expected, Labour forms the next government, it will have voluntarily tied its own hands by adopting Conservatives financial rules. Labour supporters are not enthused by the wooden and lacklustre Sir Keir Starmer – “Sir Crasharooney Snoozefest, the Human Bollard” as Boris Johnson called him. They are destined to be as disappointed by the failure of Labour in government as they have been appalled by the Conservative’s demolition derby antics. 

Following the 2007-08 global financial crisis, the country needed investment but got austerity. When the country needed “strong and stable Leadership” as promised by Theresa May, we had a succession of circus clowns prime ministers unable and unwilling to invest in public services or to control the privatised monopolies. Successive Conservatives promised growth but had absolutely no idea how to achieve it. Now Rachel Reeves, acting like a latterday snake oil saleswoman, promises growth but rules out investment (not least in housing), promoting a valueless and fraudulent remedy that is destined to fail.

Labour will win the forthcoming general election, not because the electorate has any high hopes that “things can only get better” (to quote the 1997 Blairite strap line) but because voters are sick to the back teeth of the chaos of Conservative ‘rule’. And when Labour inevitably fails in government, it will be responsible for a massive swing to the right, by-passing a Conservative Party in mortal decline, to Reform UK and, even more worryingly, to parties on the extreme right.

Labour should win the next general election in spite, not because, of Sir Keir Starmer

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 12th July 2023 under the heading: ‘This is why Peter Kyle should be the Labour leader’)

Last week many of us learned a new word: ‘oracy’. Sir Keir Starmer was lecturing us at his latest yawn-a-thon on the latest of his five ‘missions’, education. Writing in the Times, he wrote that ‘an inability to articulate your thoughts fluently is a key barrier to getting on and thriving in life.’ This brings us on to ‘oracy’.

According to Wikipedia, the word ‘oracy’ was coined by Andrew Wilkinson, a British educator, in the 1960s, the purpose of which was to draw attention to the neglect of oral skills in education.

Using a word like ‘oracy’ was not a great start by Sir Keir. He chose a word that few of us use in daily repartee, and a concept that confused.  It has caused more than a little sniggering in the classroom. (“You three at the back make a fine pair”, as my Afrikaans teacher, Mr Douglas, used to say).

Oracy is not the same as ‘oratory’ which is the art of speaking in public eloquently or effectively. Sir Keir might be eloquent. He was, after all, a barrister. But as for speaking effectively …? His mission to improve education is worthy but to do so by promoting ‘oracy’, was as inspiring as watching paint dry or, perhaps, a stage of the Tour de France with no breakaways and no category 4 climbs.

Sir Keir wasn’t helped by one of the Young Labour acolytes standing behind him who visibly yawned during the Great Leader’s speech. A lesson in oracy for Sir Keir, and an early night for Young Labour members.

He also let himself down, and possibly also a member of his team, Bridget Phillipson, by referring to her as the ‘current shadow education secretary’. Does she lack the necessary oracy to get on and thrive in his shadow cabinet? She is, after all, northern.

Perhaps Phillipson doesn’t meet the required quotient of references to ‘Keir’ in answers to every question. Here’s a made-up example. Interviewer: “What do you think about this issue?”. Interviewee:  “Keir has made it very clear that he believes in A, B and C.” It is embarrassing when adult politicians refer to Dad in every answer. A danger for Labour remains that Starmer might not,  personally, be as popular as Rishi Sunak come the election, yet Sir Keir persists with a presidential style of leadership, referring, for example in his ‘Oracy’ speech to “my Labour government.”

Labour continues to ride high in the polls and even the most staunch Conservative supporters are accepting that it is all over for Sunak (who will soon be able to spend more time with his huge wealth).  But Labour’s current popularity is as much to do with the parade of incompetent leaders who the Tories have inflicted on the country: Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and now Sunak.

At least Sunak used to come across as a charming, warm man. I used to think that I wouldn’t mind having a coffee with him (we are both teetotal).  But now he has resorted to the Johnson / Trump approach of meaningless three-word policies (“Get Brexit done”; “Take back control”; “Build the Wall; and “Make America Great”). Sunak’s version includes “Stop the Boats” but still they come in record numbers.

Sunak now has a perma-rictus smile as his government haplessly lurches from one crisis to another, incapable and unwilling to tackle the problem in hand. Where have I seen such a smile before? Yes, Sir Keir has one just the same.

I wish politicians would speak ‘human’. I recently heard a long interview on Times Radio with Peter Kyle, the MP for Hove and Portslade. Now here is someone who does talk human. He is genuinely a warm and charming person. He has a quality shared with Tony Benn – when you speak to him he isn’t looking over your shoulder for someone more important.

In the interview with him on Times Radio, he spoke about his childhood, dyslexia, and returning to school as an adult. His story is inspirational. And while many parts of his storytelling may be well-rehearsed, it is, nevertheless, authentic, compelling and sincere. He doesn’t have to do what Marx said (Groucho Marx on this occasion): “Sincerity is the key to success. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

Now if Labour had someone like Peter Kyle as its leader, then not only would the party be well ahead of the Conservatives, its Leader would be miles ahead of Sunak rather than being marginally more popular (or as a recent MORI poll had it, marginally less unpopular).

Labour will almost certainly win the next election and Sir Keir will consequentially become Prime Minister. But how long will it be before it becomes all-too-apparent that the Starmer Policy Cupboard is bare, and all he has to offer is oracy and his own rictus smile?

Donald Trump’s State Visit: Let’s not forget this part of Theresa May’s legacy

The Queen looks delighted to be hosting President Donald J. Trump

Donald Trump arrived in the UK four years ago today on a State Visit. He was just the third US President to have been given the enormous honour of a State Visit. It is to the eternal shame of Theresa May that she agreed to it.  The Evening Standard’s headline that evening was: “Duck, here comes Donald”.

State Visits are costly affairs, and some of the worlds worst leaders have been honoured. These have included the tyrant Nicolae Ceaușescu (invited by Prime Minister James Callaghan), the war criminal Vladimir Putin (Tony Blair – takes one to know one), and the crook and polygamist Jacob Zuma (Gordon Brown).

A footnote on the Ceaușescu visit: he was stripped of his honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath just the day before his execution when the Order of the Star of the Socialist Republic of Romania, bestowed upon the Queen, was also returned.

Are the Conservatives the Nasty Party and the Dodgy Party?

Rishi Sunak is said to have been so furious with Nadhim Zahawi that he had no hesitation in sacking him as the Chairman of the Conservative Party after the PM’s Ethics Advisor, Sir Laurie Magnus, wrote to Sunak on Sunday morning saying that Zahawi’s conduct had been “a serious failure to meet ministerial standards.”

The failure included Zahawi being less than forthcoming about ‘forgetting’ to pay tax totalling millions of Pounds and laving to pay a penalty to HMRC of over £1 million.  Sir Laurie said that there had been multiple occasions for Zahawi to declare the penalty paid and that there had been delays in correcting his misleading public statements. 

Even when he was sacked Zahawi blamed the media, something he had done when legitimate and, as it turned out to be, justifiable questions had been asked. There are also reports that he threatened the journalist who originally asked these questions.

Zahawi appears to have thought, like Boris Johnson before him, that it was alright to mislead the public and that the rules did not apply to him. 

There are now questions for Rishi Sunak. Did he dig deeply enough when he was first alerted to the allegations against Zahawi? Remember, at Prime Minister’s Questions on 18th January, Sunak responded to a question on Zahawi by saying that Zahawi had “already addressed this matter in full”.

Oh, no, he hadn’t Prime Minister. Which begs the question: Is the Rishi Sunak certain that his other Cabinet members have made full and frank discloses about their tax affairs, of outside interests, and other matters that are or might be seen to be conflicts of interests. Or has he just taken them at their word, as he did with the disgraced Zahawi.

This, and other occasions when it appeared that Conservative Ministers behaved as though the rules didn’t apply to them, leaves a nasty smell.

Optics in politics is almost as important as policy and competence. And when a negative impression is created, it can be very hard to turn public opinion back in your favour.

The mini-budget of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng created the optic of economic incompetence and bias towards the very rich. The optic that those earning over £1 million a year would have been better off by tens of thousand of Pounds, and talks of cuts in benefits for the very poorest, re-established the Conservatives as the Nasty Party.

The argument had been lost and the optic of political and economic incompetence had been created. The markets lost confidence, and the opinion polls predicted a wipe-out of Conservatives at the next general election. Truss and Kwarteng were gone within days. 

Having just rid themselves and the country of Boris Johnson, the Conservatives had unleashed on us Laurel and Hardy. What incredible poor judges of character, competence and common sense the Conservatives had become. Even Theresa May’s laughable ‘Strong and Stable’ government looked credible in the face of this shower.

And now they have given us Rishi Sunak who promised he would lead with “integrity, professionalism and accountability” in an attempt to contrast himself with his predecessors. Sacking a Minister with the benefit of hindsight doesn’t meet his standard when it was obvious to most observers that Zahawi had hardly dealt with his tax affairs with integrity, professionalism and accountability. 

Sunak can no doubt see the damaging political optics created by bullying allegations against some Ministers and the non-payment of millions in income tax by his once close political ally. Nasty Party and Dodgy Party.

Other parties delight in the shambles we have experienced. Labour continues to be buoyed by its poll lead, but poll leads come and go (although there has been something exceptional about this one). 

Some Labour activists credit Sir Keir Starmer for this resurgence. The reality is that, such has been the chaos caused by the Conservatives in recent years, today even a wooden and uninspiring leader of Labour would enjoy a very healthy poll lead. Incredibly, Labour has found in Starmer the most wooden and uninspiring leader. 

One commentator has said that all Starmer needs to do to become Prime Minister is stay alive. Hillary Clinton was well ahead in the polls and was facing a candidate with strange hair, an orange complexion, and little credibility as a serious politician. We were so excited that the USA was to have its first woman President.

People facing real hardship because of the cost-of-living crisis will be looking to Labour to offer hope that things will get better. But merely presenting your party as not being the Conservatives is not enough. 

Starmer continues to row back from the progressive policies that helped him win the Labour leadership. He needs to offer a vision of hope, backed up by a real plan.  

My Political Predictions for 2023: The Return of Joker Johnson?

(This item first appeared in my Argus column on 4th January 2023)

Had I been writing this column a year ago, I could not have come close to predicting the year we have had: three prime ministers, and four chancellors. The passing of The Queen was not a surprise although it would have been unseemly to have predicted it.

I would have predicted a rather mundane year in politics. The previous few years had seen turmoil following the Brexit vote, the resignation of David Cameron, the promise of ‘strong and stable’ government by the ever-increasingly weak and feeble Theresa May, and the elevation of Joker Johnson to the office of prime minister. His 80 seat majority at the election in December 2019 should have ensured a period of relative calm and even stable government for the next five years.

Harold MacMillan, when asked by a journalist to identify the greatest challenge to his administration, sagely replied: “Events, my dear boy, events.” Had Johnson been asked what he saw as his greatest challenge, he might have waffled about learning from the conspiracy led by Gaius Cassius, Decimus and Brutus in 44 BC, before ruffling his hair and referencing the Ides of March.

What Johnson might have identified was ‘events’ and his tendency to self-implode. The event was the onset of Covid-19. While his remaining cheerleaders continue to say he got all the big decisions right, he did so (to paraphrase Churchill’s view of the Americans) having exhausted all the other possibilities. Through his delays and lack of focus, especially in the early months, many more people died than might have had we had a serious prime minister.

Boris Johnson’s greatest weakness was, and remains, Boris Johnson. As Prime Minister his ability to self-implode could no longer be covered up by his self-deprecating humour, his outright denials and his shameless lying.

He rapidly became such a liability that his own party, including so-called Red Wall MPs who owed their election to the Clown at Number 10, turned on him. His humiliating downfall was as rapid as his ascension to the top job.

His parting words at his last Prime Minister’s Questions was: “Hasta la vista, baby.” Oh, how everyone laughed. The joker to the end, baby. But it wasn’t Arnold Schwarzenegger‘s Terminator 2 reference to ‘baby’ that we should note. It was what went before: Hasta la vista / See you later.

Johnson still has unfinished business. He has had a lifelong ambition to be prime minister, and to lose it, as he sees it, so unfairly and so prematurely, means that a return should not be written off. The fact that he seriously contemplated another run for the top job when Liz Truss resigned, shows the depth of his arrogance, even his delusion. 

So what will happen in 2023. The Conservatives are on course for a Poll Tax-scale defeat in May’s local elections. Parliamentary by-elections, even in the safest Conservative-held seats, will be lost. Rishi Sunak, who was chosen by the Conservative faithful because he isn’t Liz Truss and he isn’t Boris Johnson, will find his party divided against him. I predict that he will be gone by the end of 2023 or early 2024, to be replaced in the run-up to the general election by one Boris Johnson. Hasta la vista, baby, as he said.

And in the United States, don’t bet against the return of the other Blonde Bombshell, Donald J Trump. I wonder what odds you could get that in 2024 there will be, once again, a Prime Minister Johnson and a President Trump. What a nightmare scenario.

Locally, I predict that Labour will form the administration in Brighton and Hove following this May’s local elections. I would even suggest that the party will have an overall majority, even if it does have to rely on the casting vote of the Mayor-elect, Jackie O’Quinn.

It has happened before, in 1986, when another Jackie, Jackie Lythell, became the Mayor of the old Brighton Borough Council when Labour had overall control of the Council thanks to her casting vote. 

The scale of Labour’s win in the recent Wish Ward by-election defied most people’s expectations. While by-elections are not reliable pointers to what happens in normal elections, there were some worrying indicators for both the Conservatives and the Greens. Wish is a ward which has had two very active, high profile and respected Conservative councillors, but their candidate was well-and-truly hammered by Labour who polled double their votes. 

At any other point in the last twelve years, the Greens might have challenged for this seat, but they came a distant third. Some Green supporters may have ‘lent’ their votes to Labour, but such is its dominance in the polls, Labour will be looking to pick up many more votes, and seats, from the hapless Green administration in the city, and thereby gain control of the Council.

Does Rishi Sunak have what it takes to be a competent Prime Minister?

It is looking increasingly likely that Rishi Sunak will become the next Prime Minister, possibly by tomorrow if Boris Johnson and Penny Maudant fail to get 100 nominations. There is still a chance that Johnson might make it and then who knows what members of the Conservative Party will decide. Their recent judgement has been, how can I put it, not great.

Supporters of Sunak have been all over the media today advocating for their champion because of his “attention to detail”. Clearly that is the line from Team Sunak. This is something that clearly puts clear blue water between him and Johnson who has the attention span of a gnat.  But is it the stand-out quality that defines a successful prime minister. 

I can think of three recent prime ministers who were renowned for their attention to detail: Gordon Brown, Theresa May and Liz Truss. By anyone’s standard none made a great prime minister, not even an average one. On the other hand, all three were more than competent Cabinet Ministers. Brown was an exceptional Chancellor, and May and Truss had excellent reputations for their attention to detail. 

The role of prime minister is so vast that having attention to detail is not a critical factor. A prime minister does not have the luxury of being able to be across all the detail.  They are required to make prompt judgements on a wide range of issues, to be fleet-of-foot, to be able to communicate exceptionally well, to be able to motivate people and to inspire confidence.

While he has the ability to focus on detail, I am not sure whether Sunak has these other qualities. If he does not have them all, and in abundance, his time in No 10 is unlikely to be a successful one.

Government and media attacks on the legal profession undermine the rule of law and endangers individual lawyers. Words matter.

When Liam Byrne left office he infamously left a note that read: “I’m afraid that there is no money”.  It is joked that Chris Grayling, when standing down as the Justice Secretary in May 2015, left a similar note but this one said: “There is no more justice”.  

As part of the coalition government, Grayling had implemented the largest ever reduction in legal aid funding. Today (Tuesday) we hear that the Court system has been so badly impacted by coronavirus that it will be years before it recovers.

There is one theme that I return to regularly on this blog, and that is the erosion of the legal aid in civil matters that allow the poorest people in society to have the means to enforce their rights.

Legal aid has never been popular amongst those in power, nor has it been well funded. The value of legal aid funding was frozen for almost all of the New Labour government. As one of my colleagues said to me: “When I started as a legal aid solicitor in 1987, the hourly rate we were paid was £45.50.  Today it has increased to … £47.30!” That is a 4% increase in just over 30 years. That income isn’t the pay that legal aid practitioners earn personally, it has to cover overheads, insurance, accommodation, support staff, etc. So much for ‘fat cat’ lawyers.

I recently wrote about how modest legal aid income had helped BHT’s Advice Centres prevent 927 households from becoming homeless in 2019/20.

It is very easy, and increasingly popular, to attack lawyers. In November 2016, the Daily Mail ran a headline ‘Enemies of the People’.  It was referring to three High Court judges who had made a ruling that parliament and not the prime minister, by use of prerogative powers, would need to trigger Article 50 to start the UK’s exit from the European Union.  

The climate for the Daily Mail to attack the judiciary was set a month earlier when the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, attacked human rights lawyers, receiving one of the biggest cheers at her party conference when she referred to “activist left wing human rights lawyers”.

More recently, the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, referred to “activist lawyers”, “do-gooders” and “lefty lawyers” creating hostility particularly against immigration lawyers.  Boris Johnson followed this up two days later by saying that the criminal justice system was “being hamstrung by lefty human rights lawyers”.

These comments came even after two of their own colleagues, Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland, and Attorney General, Suella Braverman, said that the targeting of the legal profession was believed to have inspired an incident that might have left a solicitor dead. On 7th September a man entered a law firm in London armed with a “large, heavy duty knife” and embarked on a “racist, violent attack” that injured a staff member before being overwhelmed. The law firm represents immigrants and asylum seekers.

Words matter. In the last couple of weeks the words of the US President saw an attack on the US Capitol and his own Vice President had to seek refuge with his family as he was, rightly, in fear of his life. 

The Courts are the ultimate check and balance to ensure that those in power work within the law and behave properly. This government, rightly, condemns the abuse of the law to oppress and silence human rights elsewhere in the world, including against activists in Hong Kong and Russia. Yet at home, leading figures use rhetoric that not only endangers lawyers, but belittles the Great Offices of State that they hold.

Words matter. Donald Trump inspired by his words the attack on the Capitol.  Words matter as much in the UK as they do in the USA.

No matter how frustrating and annoying legal intervention is, lawyers and the Courts can only work with the Law agreed in Parliament.  Slurs aimed at the legal profession says more about the character of those politicians making them than it does about the legal profession.  However, it does undermine the rule of law and endangers individual lawyers. 

If those in power don’t like the law that my colleagues at BHT and others are upholding, they uniquely have the power to change it.

The roll out of Universal Credit is delayed yet again. It is time that the government listens and learns.

The next stage of the universal credit roll out is to be delayed for the majority of those who were due to go onto the benefit in the near future.

Ministers were due to seek Parliamentary approval to move three million existing welfare claimants onto the new benefit, but will now seek approval for just 10,000 people to be moved onto universal credit in the summer.

Theresa May said that the new benefits system would be fully rolled out by 2023, as intended, but that the government was taking its time “to get this right”.

I am relieved that the rollout has been further delayed.  The Department for Works and Pensions clearly has not been able to administer its own system.  I just hope that the new Secretary of State, Amber Rudd, will sort out this dysfunctional department.  A simple test she could apply to see whether UC has been properly reformed and humanely implemented would be a change in the judgement of the former Conservative Prime Minister, Sir John Major, who has described universal credit as ““operationally messy, socially unfair and unforgiving”.

I find it impossible not to mention that the architect of this change, Iain Duncan-Smith repeatedly assured the country that universal credit would be rolled out on time and within budget (i.e. by 2018…..).

One legitimate reason for the ongoing delays in the rollout is the expressed wish of the DWP and its ministers to “get it right”.  But to get it right they must listen to all those who have highlighted the fundamental shortcomings of the system, including making payments for housing costs direct to tenants and no longer to landlords.  This has resulted in spiraling rent arrears, including by those who have never been in arrears before.

There is no purpose in delaying the roll out in order to pilot and test the sustem if the DWP fails to listen and learn, and then carries on regardless.

Another predictable let down by Theresa May on housing

In January I wrote of the appointment of Dominic Raab, the 16th Housing Minister since 1997, “that he is tipped to go places in government and is likely to be moved long before he will be able to bring his enormous ability to bear on the housing crisis.”

The ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ Housing Minister’ Dominic Raab

I urged him to “tell the Prime Minister that he will not accept any promotion or (ministerial portfolio) move this side of the 2022 general election so that he can make a difference.”

I said that I wouldn’t “hold my breath” and that I wouldn’t “bother reading the inevitable profile and interview with the new minister that will appear in Inside Housing magazine because he will be gone before I have reached the end of the third paragraph.”

Today Dominic Raab became the latest “here today, gone tomorrow” Housing Minister as he replaces David Davis as Brexit Secretary.

Please, Mrs. May, you promised “strong and stable” government. That would be a joke if it wasn’t so tragic, not least for housing. 

Please give us a Housing Minister who will do something positive for the poorest of the poor, who will ensure that council homes with social rents are built, and ensure that “the operationally messy, socially unfair and unforgiving” universal credit (as described by former PM, John Major) does not continue to wreck the private rented sector and lead tenants into unprecedented levels of rent arrears and debt.

I didn’t hold my breath with Dominic Raab, nor will I with Number 17.

David Gauke says that all that is wrong with Universal Credit is that criticisms go without challenge

David Gauke, the Work and Pensions Secretary, has denied that the introduction of Universal Credit is causing hardship. He said: “I strongly believe we have got a really good policy with this that will transform lives, but there is almost a sort of knee-jerk criticism and a temptation in particular with universal credit that you can almost say anything critical about it and it goes without challenge.”

That’s alright, then.  Just the same as when Iain Duncan Smith repeatedly claimed that Universal Credit would be delivered “on time and within budget”. The massive overspend, the wasted millions on a failed IT system, and the massive overrun on its delivery must be Fake News.

And what about the hardship being caused to those claiming Universal Credit. Fake News, Fake News, Fake News.  It just goes without challenge.

What about the excellent and well-researched article by Heather Spurr, once with Inside Housing and now with Shelter.

And what about this item by the Resolution Foundation, or this from the Institute for Government, or this from Citizens Advice, or BHT’s own research following the roll out of Universal Credit in Hastings.

I know I have had a word or two to say about Universal Credit, such as the blog post entitled “Universal Credit is a disgrace, and those who have advocated it and continue to defend it should hang their heads in shame” or this one “Another day, another report on the disaster that is Universal Credit” or this one “More evidence of the disaster zone that is known as Universal Credit” or this “Should the roll out of Universal Credit continue at this time? Watch the evidence to Parliament’s Work and Pensions Committee”.

Noi doubt it is all Fake News that has gone without challenge.

The problem, Mr Gauke, is not that criticism goes unchallenged.  The problem, in the words of the former Conservative Prime Minister, John Major, is that Universal Credit is “operationally messy, socially unfair and unforgiving” (see here).

The problem, Mr Gauke, is that you, Mr Duncan Smith, the DWP and the government as a whole carry on regardless, in spite of the evidence.  The most modest reforms imaginable announced in the autumn won’t resolve the fundamental flaws inherent in Universal Credit. A lick of paint would not have saved the Titanic after it brushed up against an iceberg.

Universal Credit has become Mrs May’s poll tax. (I vlogged on this recently).  No matter how well Mr Gauke defends the indefensible, Universal Credit remains flawed, it remains operationally messy, it remains socially unfair, and it remains unforgiving.