Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Speed of UC roll out
She has apologised for “inadvertently” misleading the house with her statement that the NAO report called for an acceleration of the Roll-Out process.
Exactly what part of that statement was “inadvertent”????????
It was a deliberate falsehood. If she is sorry about anything, it’s that her lies were called out.
Well, don’t forget that she lied about the outcome of the UC JR as well.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
UC the Humpty Dumpty benefit:
“All IDS’s horses and all McVey’s men couldn’t put means tested benefits back together again”
Although they claimed endlessly that they already have and no one can see a crack in Humpty anywhere - or, rather like the caucus race in Alice:
There are no rules; all of the participants run haphazardly around in no particular direction, and ‘everyone wins’ [nobody wins].
Prime Minister says the Work and Pensions Secretary will be “correcting the record” at the despatch box after PMQs ...
Transcript of Esther McVey’s apology for ‘inadvertently misleading’ the House of Commons:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/universal-credit-and-national-audit-office-report
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first (and second, and third, and fourth, etc) we practice to deceive.”
She really can’t help herself.
Today’s statement starts with:
Whilst speaking in Parliament, in answer to questions on the National Audit Office (NAO) report into Universal Credit, I mistakenly said that the NAO had asked for the rollout of Universal Credit to continue at a faster rate and to be speeded up.
In fact the NAO did not say that Mr Speaker, and I want to apologise to you and the House for inadvertently misleading you. What I had meant to say was that the NAO had said that there was ‘no practical alternative to continuing with Universal Credit’.
Last week what she actually said was:
Equally, he raises an important point about the NAO report. I am sure that Opposition Members have not read it. It does not say stop the roll-out; it says continue with the roll-out and do it faster. Please read about stuff before talking about it!
Not only does she castigate the opposition for not reading the report, she makes a completely baseless assertion apropos of nothing, which in turn indicates that it’s her who isn’t familiar with the contents of the NAO report….
As someone just commented to me, in a perfect world, the PM would sack the liars and incompetents without compunction. Unfortunately, if Mrs May were to do so, she would have no-one left with which to form a government.
Conservative Peer Lord Cormack didn’t think much of Esther McVey’s response to today’s urgent question on universal credit -
My Lords, I do not think the House can ever have heard a less clear Statement than the one repeated today. I appeal to my noble friend to ask the Secretary of State—although I am not impugning her good faith in any way—to realise that it is important that when she communicates with either House of Parliament, directly or through another Minister, she does so with clarity and in plain English. Perhaps it would be a good idea if Sir Ernest Gowers’s book on plain English was circulated to all Ministers and civil servants before we have that gobbledegook reported from the Dispatch Box ever again.
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/958ff2f8-fec4-46bf-a324-417510ba8e9d?in=11:57:25&out=11:58:00
In response to today’s urgent question in the Commons, the Secretary of State twice said that the NAO’s report said that the slow pace of roll-out is ‘regrettable’ -
‘... the report had said there was no practical alternative but to continue with universal credit and that there had been a regrettable slowing down’
‘... as the NAO said, there is no practical alternative but to continue through and the slowness with which this has gone is regrettable’
As with her comments re speed however, I can’t find any reference in the NAO’s report to it saying that the slow pace of roll-out has been regrettable ..... anyone?
Maybe not the report itself but Morse’s letter does say “While we recognise regrettable early delays to universal credit…”
Excellent ... cheers Billy
But would it not be ‘a good thing’ if the roll out were speeded up?
(a) everyone inc. DWP, (certain) MP’s & the SSWP would have incontravertible evidence that UC is a disaster (b) we would all know the scale of the disaster (c) the SSWP could claim everyone had ignored the latest evidence that it was not a disaster (d) someone, probably not the same SSWP, could begin clearing up the mess resulting from the disaster (e) does it matter that much to those about to be affected by a disaster whether it happens tommorrow or the day after?
A short but sweet letter to the Secretary of State from Chair of PAC Meg Hillier -
Further to my question to you during Thursday’s Urgent Question on Universal Credit, I would be grateful if you could confirm to me that you have full confidence in the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General?
Here’s the catch up of yesterday’s Public Accounts Committee evidence session with DWP Permanent Secretary Peter Schofield & DWP Director General of Universal Credit Neil Couling:
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/de220486-2048-4a56-bd00-fe19bfa217ca?in=15:59:10&out=18:08:17
Delighted to hear that UC is causing less hardship than legacy benefits.
I can go home reassured that tomorrow’s drop in session will be oh so quiet. We’ll probably only be plagued by the usual feckless individuals who ran out of money when they were paid fortnightly
Chris Addison has written an open letter to Esther McVey: https://twitter.com/mrchrisaddison/status/1021759873040756736