Top Tory describes Government’s benefits reform programme as ''lamentable''

Regrets: Francis Maude has a few
Getty
The Government’s flagship benefits reform programme has been “lamentable”, Tory minister Francis Maude admitted today.

Mr Maude’s blunt assessment of the Universal Credit came as he desperately tried to play down reports of a bust-up with Work Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

Mr Duncan Smith’s pet project, which rolls up a string of benefits into a single payment, has been dogged by costly blunders and delays.

And leaked documents today revealed that Mr Maude’s Cabinet Office has accelerated the withdrawal of its team of IT experts from the project.

The move followed what insiders called serious tensions over the progress of the £2.4billion overhaul.

One Whitehall official was quoted in the documents complaining that “friction between DWP (the Department for Work and Pensions) and Cabinet Office” had made things “more difficult than necessary”.

Another leaked memo made clear that the rapid withdrawal of Cabinet Office experts was one of the most serious problems facing the project.

Mr Maude admitted that the scheme, which will now miss the 2017 deadline for completion, had started badly - and regrets that so much money has been wasted on the project with the Public Accounts Committee recently putting the figure at a staggering £140million.

“The implementation was pretty lamentable,” he said. “It’s recognised there have been significant write-offs.

“There was a lot of money wasted in the very poor implementation of the project over its first two years and that is very regrettable.”

Mr Maude insisted the Cabinet Office support was always a temporary measure.

“It was always intended to be short-term resource,” he said.

The Cabinet Office minister did defend Mr Duncan Smith and insisted they are “working closely together” to fix the problems, which have included millions wasted on useless IT.

Mr Maude said: “I think he did take responsibility, in that he asked for an inquiry, a review of what was going wrong.

“If he had continued to believe what he was being told then actually it would have blundered on, wasting even more money.”

The veteran Tory was speaking at a briefing on Government plans to put motorists’ driving histories online.

Ministers claim the searchable database could cut insurance premiums by up to £15 a year by letting people and companies search for speeding points or other details.

Arrogant Mr Maude risked a diplomatic rift by comparing the coalition’s plans to Barack Obama’s “old style” approach to IT.

He claimed that the US President should have learned from Britain when putting together his health reforms – despite the fiasco of the Universal Credit.

“When the Obamacare web presence had a less than auspicious launch a few months ago there was a lot of commentary in the US press about ‘why did they do it the old way, why didn’t they do it the UK way?’,” he said.

“’The British seem to be getting this right now with the Government Digital Service (GDS), they could have learned’.”

One the Universal Credit, the Department for Work and Pensions insisted that “events have very much moved on” since the events revealed in the leaks.

But Shadow Work Secretary Rachel Reeves said: “Now we learn that Iain Duncan Smith’s officials are warning of further delays, more wasted taxpayers’ money and bickering between ministers.

“While families are facing a cost-of-living crisis, it’s completely unacceptable that millions have been wasted because of failures by David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith to get a grip of their flagship Universal Credit scheme.”



Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-minister-francis-maude-describes-3002480#ixzz2puojhKg4
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

What a shambles!   

It is in a sense. It hasn't gone nearly far enough and the systems aren't fit for purpose.

Frank Fields suggestions in his report in 1999 form a considerable part of the current reforms.

Perhaps you disagree with Beveridge and really think that those on benefits should enjoy a standard of living far higher than those in work. It's a point of view you are entitled to hold but the majority of taxpayers will disagree.

Clarkson wrote:It is in a sense. It hasn't gone nearly far enough and the systems aren't fit for purpose.

Frank Fields suggestions in his report in 1999 form a considerable part of the current reforms.

Perhaps you disagree with Beveridge and really think that those on benefits should enjoy a standard of living far higher than those in work. It's a point of view you are entitled to hold but the majority of taxpayers will disagree.

What standard of living you think is acceptable  for people unable to find a job .
Can you give some examples of things that you would deny these people ?

Korben Dallas wrote:

Clarkson wrote:It is in a sense. It hasn't gone nearly far enough and the systems aren't fit for purpose.

Frank Fields suggestions in his report in 1999 form a considerable part of the current reforms.

Perhaps you disagree with Beveridge and really think that those on benefits should enjoy a standard of living far higher than those in work. It's a point of view you are entitled to hold but the majority of taxpayers will disagree.

What standard of living you think is acceptable  for people unable to find a job .
Can you give some examples of things that you would deny these people ?

Get off their arses and do something about it like many people do daily who find and get a job!

PhilDidge wrote:

Korben Dallas wrote:
What standard of living you think is acceptable  for people unable to find a job .
Can you give some examples of things that you would deny these people ?

Get off their arses and do something about it like many people do daily who find and get a job!

So, Didge, lets just say, you dream becomes a reality and every job is taken

now, there are , actually, 8 people out of work(or there abouts...I havnt looked at the figures recently) for every job available, so when all the jobs are full you will ahve dealt with 1/7 th of the problem...then what???
What will your R/W policies do then....same as now?...demonise despise, LIE about, and generally impune the rest?....or will they get off their fat bloated obscenely over paid tax dodging collective butts and do as they should and PROVIDE jobs????

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Get off their arses and do something about it like many people do daily who find and get a job!

So, Didge, lets just say, you dream becomes a reality and every job is taken

now, there are , actually, 8 people out of work(or there abouts...I havnt looked at the figures recently)  for every job available, so when all the jobs are full you will ahve dealt with 1/7 th of the problem...then what???
What will your R/W policies do then....same as now?...demonise despise, LIE about, and generally impune the rest?....or will they get off their fat bloated obscenely over paid tax dodging collective butts and do as they should and PROVIDE jobs????

But not every job is taken, every time I have ever been made redundant (twice), I have found a job easily, is not difficult when you want something, you go out determined to get it and as seen you succeed..

You talk some utter shite at times, because many people do this daily, granted some people are thick as shit but even then some go through school if they work hard and can obtain qualifications. You though would no doubt excuse the lazy shit doing fuck all at school and then bemoan the government why they cannot get a job.

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

So, Didge, lets just say, you dream becomes a reality and every job is taken

now, there are , actually, 8 people out of work(or there abouts...I havnt looked at the figures recently)  for every job available, so when all the jobs are full you will ahve dealt with 1/7 th of the problem...then what???
What will your R/W policies do then....same as now?...demonise despise, LIE about, and generally impune the rest?....or will they get off their fat bloated obscenely over paid tax dodging collective butts and do as they should and PROVIDE jobs????

But not every job is taken, every time I have ever been made redundant (twice), I have found a job easily, is not difficult when you want something, you go out determined to get it and as seen you succeed..

You talk some utter shite at times, because many people do this daily, granted some people are thick as shit but even then some go through school if they work hard and can obtain qualifications. You though would no doubt excuse the lazy shit doing fuck all at school and then bemoan the government why they cannot get a job.

So you think that there are enough jobs for everyone, when even the government statistics show that there aren't enough jobs for everyone, you are the thick one!   

Catman wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


But not every job is taken, every time I have ever been made redundant (twice), I have found a job easily, is not difficult when you want something, you go out determined to get it and as seen you succeed..

You talk some utter shite at times, because many people do this daily, granted some people are thick as shit but even then some go through school if they work hard and can obtain qualifications. You though would no doubt excuse the lazy shit doing fuck all at school and then bemoan the government why they cannot get a job.

So you think that there are enough jobs for everyone, when even the government statistics show that there aren't enough jobs for everyone, you are the thick one!   

Are there job vacancies today if you wanted to search?

Yes

There are not enough jobs at the moment, but does that mean you do not try?

Now that is what I call dumb!

PhilDidge wrote:

Catman wrote:

So you think that there are enough jobs for everyone, when even the government statistics show that there aren't enough jobs for everyone, you are the thick one!   

Are there job vacancies today if you wanted to search?

Yes

There are not enough jobs at the moment, but does that mean you do not try?

Now that is what I call dumb!

There are at least seven or more people applying for each position, so that means there is no full employment.

You didn't say anything about the trying issue, you are worst that that cunt Dean for twisting things.   

Catman wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Are there job vacancies today if you wanted to search?

Yes

There are not enough jobs at the moment, but does that mean you do not try?

Now that is what I call dumb!

There are at least seven or more people applying for each position, so that means there is no full employment.

You didn't say anything about the trying issue, you are worst that that cunt Dean for twisting things.   

At least seven?

Try between 100 - 200 applicants per job, that is the reality.

That's not to say it can't be done, as I myself was chosen over 200 other applicants.

It's how you sell yourself first in your CV and then your interview, if you are lucky enough to reach that stage.

Catman wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Are there job vacancies today if you wanted to search?

Yes

There are not enough jobs at the moment, but does that mean you do not try?

Now that is what I call dumb!

There are at least seven or more people applying for each position, so that means there is no full employment.

You didn't say anything about the trying issue, you are worst that that cunt Dean for twisting things.   

Oh get over yourself, when was the last time there were more jobs than people to fill them?

Not for a very long time, no matter what party was in power.

Many people are more motivated than others but motivation is the key to obtaining a job and as seen people do it daily and thus why I agree on giving help to people to get back into work for those with confidence issues!

So take your pathetic insults and shove them where the sun don't shine you are such an irritating weasel!

Costa wrote:

Catman wrote:

There are at least seven or more people applying for each position, so that means there is no full employment.

You didn't say anything about the trying issue, you are worst that that cunt Dean for twisting things.   

At least seven?

Try between 100 - 200 applicants per job, that is the reality.

That's not to say it can't be done, as I myself was chosen over 200 other applicants.

It's how you sell yourself first in your CV and then your interview, if you are lucky enough to reach that stage.

I said at least seven, of course you are right in saying that for every position that will vary, and there will be hundreds applying for certain positions.

Of course, it's how you sell yourself, that is the key to securing a position, that and experience, employment record, and how long you've been unemployed for.

PhilDidge wrote:

Catman wrote:

There are at least seven or more people applying for each position, so that means there is no full employment.

You didn't say anything about the trying issue, you are worst that that cunt Dean for twisting things.   

Oh get over yourself, when was the last time there were more jobs than people to fill them?

Not for a very long time, no matter what party was in power.

Many people are more motivated than others but motivation is the key to obtaining a job and as seen people do it daily and thus why I agree on giving help to people to get back into work for those with confidence issues!

So take your pathetic insults and shove them where the sun  don't shine you are such an irritating weasel!  

Oh fuck off you Tory scumbag!  ::slap:: 

Oh I will be here tomorrow weasel

Clarkson wrote:It is in a sense. It hasn't gone nearly far enough and the systems aren't fit for purpose.

Frank Fields suggestions in his report in 1999 form a considerable part of the current reforms.

Perhaps you disagree with Beveridge and really think that those on benefits should enjoy a standard of living far higher than those in work. It's a point of view you are entitled to hold but the majority of taxpayers will disagree.

..the usual Daily Mail claptrap,how the hell can being on benefits be of a higher standard of living Drinky?, ffs..£70 a week,mif it's that good then go live on benefits then, oh wait....' Your pride'  

Your just towing the Tory part line by labelling those on benefits as scroungers aren't you?