honestly? Yeah.
This is not remotely about disability cuts. He’s been looking for an out, he’s pro-brexit and wants to distance himself from Cameron & Gideon. This gives him the most pathetic veneer of an out, he doesn’t, and never did give a fuck about the cuts to the disabled.
Hmmm.
Somewhere in the middle for me KRG.
I think he believes himself to be a morally driven man. I really do.
I think he believes that he balances his morals between what is morally right for tax payers against what is morally right for those in need in society.
I think he believes he can no longer balance that.
But I also think he believes that he can opportunistically damage Osborne here - attempting to goose Dave’s plan of stepping down to anoint Gideon as his successor.
I think he believes that this will also damage the Remain campaign and that the beneficiary of the damage to Osborne and Remain will be Boris.
The things he’s done still make him a cunt, mind.
Employers that don’t want to give their employees benefits? That’s the only reason they were ever created. The EU had mandated that all contracted staff should start accruing rights. The solution was to come up with a contract without any hours.
If an employee is happy with this arrangement, you’ve got to figure they don’t really need the job.
For everyone else, it’s just a disgusting practice that works against them. Who really likes not knowing what their income is going to be?
I agree with this.
This is an interesting on. Whoever got the DWP brief with a background of austerity was always going to be unpopular. I wonder how much of the changes made were pushed through by the ideology of IDS and how much was done due to the constraint being placed upon it by the treasury. Giving IDS the job was a good move by DC in so far as IDS did not hold ambitions of high office and therefore did not need to worry about his future political profile.
More I think about this, the more I am inclined to think this is about the leadership, not the brexit. We could be in a leadership contest within months and this will be the just the first move by those who oppose Osbourne. I for one think it would be a catastrophe if the tories elect him as leader. He represents priviledge far more that DC does without the benefit of being personable.
Osbourne vs Corbyn. Jesus, I think I will move to Scotland and vote for independence.
It has a hint of Geoffrey Howe about it.
IDS suggests that he can no longer support attacks on the weakest in society as they are politically driven rather than to balance books.
Ouch!
Then again, he has been happy to go along with the carnage so far, so what has changed?
Has he been pressured to conform and thought ‘bollocks’, or has his own Euro stance left him at odds with the rest?
I’ve criticised the title of this thread before as being inaccurate, but developments have proved me wrong.
I like to think I punctuate my thread titles properly, Rallyboy! That’s why I never really understood Lou getting the hump over my “Is Russia about the resolve the Syrian crisis?” thread. It’s a question, as was this. Compare and contrast with Cherts evil counter thread, New Old Labour in Trouble, and I think I offer considerably more leeway (even though we probably need a new Labour thread - pls note lack of capitalisation 
).
The wheels are starting to come off now. Time will tell on IDS’s motivations. I have enjoyed the analysis. The move may well be cynical, but equally, I’ve seen people like Sayeeda Warsi, someone I once described as blunt attack dog, become entirely reasonable people when unburdened from what seems to be a cult of nastiness.
Originally posted by @pap
Originally posted by @Bucks
Except for those people who like these type of contracts. Google it mate.
Employers that don’t want to give their employees benefits? That’s the only reason they were ever created. The EU had mandated that all contracted staff should start accruing rights. The solution was to come up with a contract without any hours.
**I said people. A simple statement, not defending employers or praising this type of contract generally. **
If an employee is happy with this arrangement, you’ve got to figure they don’t really need the job.
**You dont have to figure it. I said google it. Some people like the flexibility and some have taken on these contracts more than once, for that reason. **
For everyone else, it’s just a disgusting practice that works against them.
Who really likes not knowing what their income is going to be?
The people who like these type of contracts
This is why I usually stay off the political threads.
That’s some pretty circular stuff there, Bucks. There are a million people on these contracts at the moment, and while I am certain that some of them are happy with the flexibility, perhaps happy enough to go on the Internet and write about how wonderful an arrangement it all is, I strongly doubt anything near to a majority would enjoy the flexibility they offer.
It’s a return to the bad old days of people living day to day, like dock workers not knowing if there is going to be any work for them, not knowing whether they could feed their families. Now perhaps there were some among their number that loved the flexibility of dock working. Maybe there were people with fewer responsibilities and more disposable income that loved having days off, but the reality is that most of those people needed a secure income.
It’s much the same with zero hours contracts. They should not be a universally enforced thing because _some _people happen to like them. Most people want security, want to be able to prove some steady income when applying for a mortgage. Personally, I think employers that use them deserve the scarlet letter on them.
Circular? What, like you above? I said some people like these contracts. That is all.
Well then I don’t understand the purpose of the point. I expect you could find some people that liked anything. Doesn’t validate what they like for all.
Hmm.
Stunned at IDS resignation letter. I was about to vote against ESA cuts when he sought me out - he personally and angrily begged me not to.
And again, I did not say that. The suggestion was that these type of contracts are universally shit. I just responded to point out that some people like them. Thats worth remembering before railing against them on behalf of everyone who is on them.
Ian Duncan Smith, the architect of cuts to the less well off and disabled people in society suddenly getting a social conscience 
It’s all about Brexit
No need for me to google it, as I’ve read and heard a fair few items on the subject, and they’ve always included the views of people working on zero-hour contracts who are perfectly happy. Which is all well and good.
One thing I’ve noticed, though, is that the reason cited for being happy with such a contract is invariably the flexibility of not having fixed hours of work. I’ve yet to hear anyone saying how great it is to be tied to a single employer and unable to work for any other, regardless of how many (or hoe few) hours said employer gives you. In other words, those who are happy with zero-hours contracts are those who don’t feel the downside of them.
The point is this: why do these contracts have to be on a zero-hours basis? If you want flexibility, why shouldn’t you be able to work for empoyer A when they have work for you, or for employer B, or Employer C? What happens if your zero-hours employer has no work for you for two or three weeks, and you desperately need some money?
This is why I described zero-hours contracts in the way that I did. Yes, they may work for some people but it’s in spite of the basis of their operation and not because of it.
Just watched IDS on The Andrew Marr Show.
Whatever he’s done, his position on sharing the burden between the well-off and the less well-off comes across as positively socialist.
IF we believe his re-telling of his mission on social justice over the last 8 years, then his discomfort on how the burden of reducing the deficit has been shared between the able and the less-able has been growing for some time.
IF we take his word that this isn’t about destabilising Cameron/Osborne, and IF we take his word that this isn’t about Brexit, then he has resigned on a matter of principle that those on the left should admire*.
*as long as we can look past the cuntish things he’s done.
(I’ll post a link to the interview when it’s online).
Not sure about anyone else, but I believed him.
He’s a cunt but I’m grateful for one side of his cuntish nature. Namely, royally fucking George Osborne over. Never was a fucking over more deserved.
He’s now the self annointed King of Cunt (much better ttitle than the Quiet Man, IMO)
A friend of a friend of a friend bumped into IDS a while back and wrote this blog post
@NadineDorriesMP