It is always unwise to read too much into a particular event, especially when the event involves someone as unwise as Iain Duncan Smith, but his resignation does seem to indicate deep rifts in the Conservative Party.
it can , of course, be argued that such rifts have been apparent ever since the rise of Thatcher. After all, technically even John Major had to resign as party leader once to try to reclaim some authority over this own rebels. So what's the deal now? The EU referendum, of course.
For forty years the Conservatives have sought to avoid the moment when they could tear at each other. And wisely they succeeded until David Cameron, in all his weakness, could do so no longer and relented to demands from those seeking to end his reign to grant a referendum if they would offer him in turn support for a second term in office in the meantime.
He got the support. Whether he gets a second term is a harder question to answer. It is impossible to think that IDS's resignation solely relates to disability payments. I simply do not think him that principled, and if he was the point he sought to make had very obviously already been conceded by the time he quit. In that case his resignation was personal, political and based on what seems like little better than loathing for another part of his own Party.
I confess that as a student I saw how when engaged in politics those you could trust the least were always on your own side. That heavily informed my decision to observe but stay out of party politics. I suspect the rise of single issues campaigning has been the consequence of many others making the same observation. But some chose the political path knowing that risk, and today they govern this country. Except one has to wonder for how much longer that might be the case.
It is apparent that Labour is not a happy place.
Now it is more than apparent that the same is true in the Conservatives.
The LibDems look life expired and the time will come when the SNP will fight internally: it is inevitable.
But that means we need a political system that reflects the reality of division within the country. The politics we have can longer support the uniformity of opinion that first part the post demands.
Why, oh why, can't we now liberate debate with a proportional representation system? Its time has come.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Proportional representation would be an important start in preventing the drift to a one-party state. In the general election: Green Party 1,157,613 votes (1 seat); UKip 3,881,099 (1). Maybe there will be a reversal of Cameron’s luck and his party does implode round Europe, so long as we have more examples of “moral” judgments such as IDS’s resignation. We can’t afford to wait until 2020.
First thing I thought when I read of the IDS of March was “I wonder what job Boris has offered him?”
In one very specific regard, PR runs counter to democracy. A party like the SNP or Plaid which runs only in a set number of constituencies will be massively disadvantaged: the same would be true of any English region seeking to improve its lot.
But I appear to be alone in believing that the day of the larger unitary nation state (meaning France, Germany, UK etc) is past, and that a two-tier system of Europe for what needs a single approach and regional government for everything done better at a local level is what we should be aiming for.
There are voting systems that combine the advantages of the current system with the advantages of proportional presentation, such as single transferable vote, see eg http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/single-transferable-vote
It is fascinating reading the comments thread on Conservative Home.. one might have read similar complaints on a Labour site over the last decade or two. The leadership does not pay any attention to the grassroots, implementing the wrong policies, lack of democracy, just election fodder etc… but now I’m reading that there is a need to get rid of the neocons who have taken over the Tory party and let ‘real’ Conservatives take back their party!
Tony Blair observed that there were only two parties – one which saw a role for the ‘Courageous’ State and another whose role was to facilitate the ‘freedom of the markets’ by keeping the state from disrupting ‘market solutions’. The first has always comprised the overwhelming majority of voters whatever the nuances of their political beliefs. Unfortunately (until the election of Jeremy Corbyn), the leaderships of all the mainstream political parties have effectively belonged to the second.
Frankly, each of the political parties are ideological messes… the Tories with their anarcho-capitalist leadership, head a grassroots party which basically wants Stability, The Queen and a 1950s Britain. The Labour membership tried to persuade themselves for the last 20y that the Blair coup d’etat was the only way to be electable but their hearts were never in it. The Lib Dems and the Greens comprise voters who are all socially liberal but each have two completely incompatible memberships when it comes to economics. As for the SNP .. well every conceivable political stance is represented barring Unionism (and even then…).
I don’t know whether PR is the answer. I’m very concerned by the idea of political stitch-ups in dark rooms following inconclusive election results .. and I certainly would not want the central party leadership to draw up their own lists of candidates. I’d obviously like the political parties to each be clear about their ideology and philosophical assumptions but at least some of the more obviously incompatibilities need to be addressed.
Thanks
It’s an interesting notion that there are really only two viable parties but we have the wrong ones
Like yo Richard, I very much doubt Smith’s resignation is fundamentally a principled one, his view of work is very much the 19th Century one that if equilibrium is not reached it because of the labour not accepting lower wages/worsening conditions. His record on hammering people on benefits into spurious employment and his utter lack of ability to accept the absurdity of the Bedroom Tax and continue employing barristers at huge costs to fight the most egregious cases of human suffering caused by the policy-indicates a man devoid of moral compass.
I’m glad he’s gone but will no doubt be replaced with another ideologically driven flunkey.
Is this the first signs of a crack in the edifice. Not sure as yet, that seems too much to hope for. If it indicates the lower bound of the Tories moral depravity then that should be welcomed. But so many times I’;ve thought a ‘bottom’ has been reached and yet a trap door opens to reveal a new level to which they can sink our culture.
My fear is Labour will not say what needs to be said and despite the widening open goal the party will dither and hum and ha around the Overton Window as the Party fails to ditch it’s neoliberal frame.
Westminster is showing itself to be moribund just like the system in America. perhaps even the narcoleptic, zombified, I’m-alright-Jack British public might sense the dimmer switch in their heads reversing its rotation so as to increase the light -on second thoughts-Nah!
I see the comments here about a one-party state, and I cannot help wondering why Yvette ‘ATOS’ Cooper doesn’t cross the floor of the house and pick up the IDS baton in her old department.
Latter-day neoliberal MPs can only envy her effectiveness against the disabled.
Or perhaps Lord Adonis, who now wholeheartedly pursues the social cleansing of the London Boroughs? He is a genuine asset to Conservative Party, a dangerously effective strategist and politician, and a worthy standard-bearer for Ian Duncan Smith’s moral crusade against the debilitating philosophy of ‘Social Security’.
Or, best of all, Lord Reid: an asset to the boards of the companies who now employ him – hardworking and effective, not just a trophy on the headed notepaper – companies who stand to profit handsomely from the care home boom from families afflicted by the Benefit Cap. Companies who would have profited from the removal of ESA and PIP and a return to the mass incarceration of disabled people, if only a political champion with the drive of IDS and the support of his Prime Minister had pushed the policy through.
Labour is, indeed, in an unhappy place: there are unhappy people on the Front Bench and unhappy ex-ministers, still influential in the party, who regret their choices and who envy IDS’ successor.
So I think that someone will be found, in the absence of effective Parliamentary opposition, to complete the IDS agenda.
Our best hope is that he or she will be merely opportunist and corrupt, and not a driven man like IDS; the urge to self-enrichment and to self-advancent weakens them, for they will turn from any course of action that becomes unprofitable or uncomfortable.
Amazingly IDS has been replaced by what appears to be a clone- child of a single mother who “….went through a crisis in her life and became welfare dependent,” he said. “She started working just a few hours each week, increasing her hours and then moving to a position where with extra training she was able to move into full-time work, become a car owner, and reach full economic independence.”
I’d have interpreted that as supported by welfare until she could achieve independence, but apparently not.
Also a practising christian who voted against same sex marriage, voted for all the welfare reforms, and voted against increasing taxes on bankers and on the rich.
All very christian – he seems just right for continuing the attack on the disabled and the poor.
Indeed- sounds lick he’ll be another ‘My mum did it so can you -stand on your own feet’type of bullshiter (let’s project my experience on the whole populace as if life were one dimensional) add the that a mechanical form of Christianity based on pure solipsism and you’ve got a great recipe for another does of the 19th Century.
This might help with a perspective:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/03/stephen-crabbes-alf-garnett-credentials/
I like the idea of PR, I’d also like to see party whips banned, it would also be nice if MP’s seeking election did so in the constituency they lived, preferably for a reasonable amount of time too,
there are two distinct parties hiding within both the Labour and the Conservative Party’s, surely it’s time they split up… a coming out of the closet almost!
PR would allow for a greater diversity in political parties representing the great diversity of people living in this country, everyone deserves a voice,
without party whips MP’s could represent their constituents instead of toe-ing a party line moulded by lobbyist pressure,
I’ve no problem with coalitions, they increase the likelihood of debate, compromise and moderation,
surely appointments to government positions should be proportionate to the seats gained in the HoC?
the whole FPTP system is favoured on the grounds of it producing ‘strong governments’ capable of ‘driving through’ policies,
that has always struck me as appointing a dictatorship for 5yrs with no way of controlling their given ideological frenzy,
I think democracy probably is the best of a bunch of governing ideas and definitely worth giving a try!
I really like the idea of the Conservatives ousting the neocon virus in the heart of their party, it really is time to metaphorically hammer a stake through Margaret Thatchers heart!
I tip my hat to IDS for his achievements, in so few years, to have reached such a level of loathing within the UK is quite impressive!
Before we get carried away with the glories of PR, can we pause for a moment.
I presume we would all agree that no system is perfect, and perhaps we are more familiar with the failings of FPTP than with the failings of other arrangements. But it is always a mistake to take advantages for granted, as we have seen with the history of the neoliberal rise (or so I would contend). So for me, those who advocate PR should be prepared to address both its potential benefits and its disadvantages; and I think the comparison must be made on the basis of the “ideal” first, before we turn to the gap between that and what we get
FPTP is said to deliver strong government, and that is true. Many people believe that is a good thing, and many criticise it on the basis that it delivers electoral dictatorship for the period of office, as Matt notes. But it has this advantage. The party manifestp can be delivered, and there is no excuse for not doing so. Obviously this means that each party will put as little into the manifesto as they can get away with; and be as vague as possible too. But nonetheless there has to be some content, and if we, the electorate, were a little less supine that wd be a powerful tool in our hands. Our media prefers to focus on personality, because they control our knowledge of that, and so many now argue, again as Matt appears to do, that we should not have whips and we should vote for independent minded individuals. I could not disagree more. Ideally manifestos would be quite detailed and would be binding on all members of a party, and that is why we have whips. For we do not, as a rule,vote for individuals. We vote for a party and we ought to do so on the basis of what the party said they would do.
By now most appear to believe that parties say any old thing and have no qualms about lies. But that does not mean the manifest is not still important: and the fact is that it would be more so if we held them to it.
By contrast, in most PR systems you get a lot of coalition. What that means is that you cannot know what you are voting for, even in principle. Witness the lib dems in coalition explaining that their breach of absolutely binding manifesto commitments was “grown up politics” and that a coalition must make those compromises. Well compromise is generally held to be a good thing: but I prefer to know what I am voting for in advance, and such a position prevents that.
One can presumably deal with that problem somehow, but I am not hearing how, so far.
Similarly one can deal with the problems of FPTP (as noted whips are not one of them in my view) somehow: lobbying being the most obvious one. But again I am not hearing how, nor do I see any reason it would not be as big a problem under PR, necessarily.
Curiously, in this thread at least, it seems to me that some comments indicate that the problem is that we do indeed have PR, but it is expressed within the ruling party rather than by different ones. How is PR going to improve it, if that is already the reality?
Note, I am not wedded to FPTP: but I am not convinced that PR is self evidently better. I still feel the case has not been really made either way, nor what other alternatives might be considered. I see no reason why we should not seriously think about selecting our representatives in the same way as we select juries, for example. That is called sortition, I believe. There are probably other ways as well, if we are going to have this debate
Until you got go sortie ion this was going well
But that is ridiculous, and also unjust on those picked who do not want to be
I think we have to work in the realm of poasibility
And remember, Scotland already votes a list system. Why not the rest of the UK?
I merely suggest we should seriously review all possible options realistically, Richard. Nor do I think your objection to sortition is the main flaw with it. Many would argue that there are genuine skills in politics which we would lose, and that may be more imp.
Scotland does vote a list system. Apparently it delivers a “one party state”, which is not at all what proponents of PR expect or want: it is closer to what they are trying to avoid, really. Course it is nonsense, but I think it makes my point that we have to think much harder about what we wish to achieve and how to get there. It truly is difficult
Scotland is not true PR
And it is the people of Scotland wanting to give the SNP a majority at present, it seems
On the whipping question, I agree entirely with Fiona, for two reasons; one she has mentioned, and one she hasn’t.
As regards the first, whipping in alliance with clear manifestos make for clean/clear statements of policy and (relatively) clean/clear implementation. Without such a system, it would be difficult to know what a Party stood for, or to judge when it had carried out its promises. Political accountability would thus be diminished.
As regards the second, the problems of an unwhipped system have already been noted above, not the problems of a “loose” whipping system, as obtains in the American system, have not. And here the problem is that lobbyists and saboteurs only need suborn 1 or 2, or a small handfil of legislators to completely stymie the system. In the first “Obama in the White House ” programming last Tuesday, the forgotten fact that the Democrats had a majority in BOTH Houses in Obama’s first 2 years was referred to: but, amazingly, the Democrats ONLY had 58 Senators – a majority that in the UK system would allow a PM to vote for Christmas taking place on the August Bank Holiday, and knowing s/he woyldcwin the vote.
However, Obama needed 61 votes for many of his motions, so all a saboteur would need to do would be to “bribe” 3 Senators, and “Bob’s your Uncle”. And in a loosely whipped system, whose to say those ” bribed” Senators cannot be found in the majority Party grouping?
In the UK system, by contrast, with its strong whipping, you have to bribe a WHOLE Party to achieve that effect, though I am aware that that did occur with New Labour, which was”bribed” by the prospect of power to adopt Thatcher-lite neo-liberal policies.
On Fiona’s second point, mistrust of deals and stitch-ups under a PR system, as has already been noted, a SORT of PR operates WITHIN each Party, but without our even being AWARE of any deals. PR would not only award representation and seats more in keeping with cotes, it would ALSO allow the separate factions in the two main Parties to campaign separately, and perhaps then go into an OPEN coalition.
Frankly, I would FAR rather have had a Macmillanite Tory/old radical Joe Grimond/Charles Kennedy Liberal/Social Democrat “One Nation” Harold Wilson/Jim Callaghan Labour Coalition than the ghastly neo-feudal and neo-liberal Coalition of Orange Book Liberals and head-banging “Nasty Party” Tories Coalition that we experienced between 2010 and 2015.
And PR COULD deliver a true “Rainbow Coalition” encompassing the Greens and the Nationalists. I know what I would prefer, perhaps even more than a majority Labour Government, and it is exactly such a coalition of genuinely progressive interests, not bound to the dead hand of the “Washington Consensus” and worship of the, usually partly failing, markets.
@ Richard
I agree that Scotland is not true PR, but you did rather imply it should be applied to the whole UK, and I took you to mean it was at least a move in that direction. Whether or no, it has delivered a strong government precisely because that is what the people have chosen. And there is no doubt that it is being attacked as a 1 party state by the very people who like FPTP because it delivers strong government. But then logic is not their strong suit, perhaps. I merely wish to point out that the outcomes of one system over another are not all one way. Constitutional change, if it should come, needs to be carefully considered and the disadvantages understood in depth. I do not really see much discussion of that sort when the issue of PR is raised. I accept I may not be looking in the right places, though.
@ Andrew. We are agreed about the lack of accountability which is a danger of abolishing the whip system I see. But you are correct I did not touch on other problems which are also in play. As you note, loose whipping can lead to an easier ride for the lobbyists, and I suggest that a PR system itself makes it easier for them too. It is clear they have plenty of money, and in a PR system subversion might well be cheaper, in fact. Because even though you might have to buy several parties they will mostly be little parties, and will not command such bargaining power. I fail to see how PR automatically addresses the problem of lobby and funding at all.
I agree that it would be better if the de facto coalitions within the main parties were acknowledged, and they formed separate groupings which offered genuine choice to the voter. But the problem of lack of accountability still remains, in a way it does not under FPTP if the electorate take it seriously. It is no accident that its importance is denied by our media and in the plutocratic narrative. For therein lies the power of the electorate. It is actively downplayed in order to further the learned helplessness which is so helpful to the plutocrat.
To me, we had a kind of consensus post war, which ended with Thatcher. After Blair took power we had a different consensus amongst politicians, but in that case it did not represent what the polity preferred.That view is supported by the fact that the language of the post war consensus continued to be used long after the actual aims had radically changed. And that, in turn, destroyed the trust in politicians we see now. It also explains the surprise at the support for both SNP and Corby, amongst our elite, both neolib politicians and the mainstream commentators. But people continue to assume that the consensus is shared, for the lag is long, and the propaganda works far better than I had believed possible. I do not think it is going to work for much longer however.
As I see it, one can have a coalition, formal or of the post war kind, so long as the basic aim is shared and the difference lies in how to achieve it. That is what seems to me to characterise the mixed economy approach, and the debates during the post war period were about means. The consensus was precisely about aims: and the debates were about how best to achieve them. One nation tories and social democrats alike believed in compromise in the interests of the country/people/whatever they valued in the concept the the nation state. That died with Thatcher and has not risen since
Your idea of a rainbow coalition cannot work in a neoliberal world, because there is no longer any consensus on the aims. The difference is not about means any more, it is about where we ought to be going. So I infer that what you envisage is a coalition of progressive interests AGAINST a neoliberal opposition. And that is fine, but we cannot pretend that it will result in the kind of government we had post war.
Unfortunately, when the hard right are in the ascendant, as they have been for decades, it leads to social breakdown and ultimately to war. Indeed it was that knowledge which spawned post war consensus in the first place, IMO. For you cannot compromise with the ideologues: they see it as weakness. You cannot meet them in the middle, because when you step forward they step back. That truth needs to be faced head on, because when that is your opposition the democratic certainties about how to deal with difference lead only to destruction of the democratic project itself
“In the UK system, by contrast, with its strong whipping, you have to bribe a WHOLE Party to achieve that effect,”
Not necessarily, only the leadership needs to be corrupted and then the whipping system ensures that the lobby fodder delivers. It’s more cost effective that way.
“both neolib politicians and the mainstream commentators.”
The problem here is that what is defined as mainstream commentary is in actual fact nothing more than various facets of neo liberalism pretending to be “centre ground” and “mainstream”. Tariq Ali’s last book refers.
I have long been a supporter of PR – to the extent that in the referendum of a few years back (continually cited by supporters of FPTP) on our voting system, even though the alternative on offer was carefully selected to be deeply unappealing (by dint of being very nearly as flawed as the original)I voted for it to make my opposition to FPTP clear.
There’s another factor in IDS’s resignation, surely.
Last week the Courts once again said that he MUST release information under the Freedom of Information Act about the delays and problems in the implementation of Universal Credit. These have been both numerous and expensive.
When they finally come out, it would have been very embarrassing for IDS – possibly even a resignation matter… or sacking…
Decided to jump before he was pushed, perhaps?
Interesting….
Hadn’t heard that one
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/16/universal_credit_internal_reviews_disclosure_order/
And since the cost so far is over a billion, and rising.
Well behind target, so far only 200,000 are on UC, instead of the target of one million.
Not well mentioned in the newspapers either….
Could also be that there is an impending defeat in the Bedroom Tax Judicial appeal that is pending. The cases involved in this involve people with grotesque levels of stress and suffering and IDS has still decided to fight the cases involving a quarter of a million in costs.
If it’s taken 6 years of gratuitous suffering to awaken a moral compass then I suspect there is something lurking behind his sudden outbreak of ethics.
Richard
The recounting of your student days is very interesting.
To me there is a lot of compromise in politics – real politics that is. Politics should be about the delivery the greatest amount of social benefit to the greatest amount of people. I accept ( I don’t know if you do) that this means inevitable compromises. Whilst at University as a mature student I learnt about Sweden and how it extended benefits to the middle class as well as working class not only as a means of levelling up economic viability for both but also to encourage the middle classes to support such programmes for the lower classes (something I feel has and is being eroded in the UK – US style of course because if you make life harder for one group, they begin to resent help given to another it seems).
However, maybe it is all about context and what factors you have to compromise with?
The context that I grew up in was seeing politics being undermined by bad ideas such as neo-liberalism, and seeing Labour party values undermined as a result as the compromises that they had to make with neo-lib material to become electable.
Again, the devil is in the detail here too – obviously New Labour set out to woo Tory voters in the long run to remain in Government rather than looking at the growing underclass in the country who have descended into some sort of anomie as Labour began to ignore their more traditional voting base.
As we have seen and explored in this blog, modern politics is dominated by damaging concepts such as ‘TINA’ or ‘the lady’s not for turning’ – in other words orthodox rigidity. Here, there seems to be no compromise. Politics is now all about winning – even if it means imitating your opponent.
But winning for for whom? Well, I don’t think it is for the voters or the country. All too often it is for the party itself – or at least its major donors.
The problem with PR is that it is contingent upon on the politicians involved being of a certain high quality and being interested in DEMOCRACY and not power.
Such a desired position does not exist in my view within British parliamentary politics at the moment. The notion of power dominates.
So, the first step to me in rectifying this situation is for the opposition parties to work more closely together in the name of saving the nation from what must be one of the nastiest, most reactionary administrations in a long time in this country.
If the opposition could gather around that (loose their tribalism) then perhaps we could consider PR at a later date.
So my formula would be to encourage the opposing parties to try coalition first (on the basis of common ground) and then try PR after.
The signs are not good though. Look what has happened in the Welsh assembly where having been insulted by Labour, the Nationalists punished them by not supporting a potentially useful initiative that may have genuinely helped ordinary people. So who lost out? Well – the man in the street whom we know to be under pressure because of bad politics/economics. In this case the politicians have all still got their jobs and their expense accounts.
The real fundamental message to the opposition is that by not working together, they are helping Tory divide and conquer tactics to be successful. This continues to be the greatest political tragedy of our time – and a tragedy for the people of this badly Governed country.
Sooner or later, HM opposition has to realise this – especially as we begin to see how the Tories are funded – which again undermines democracy and cements out change for the better.
Lots to do……………
I agree with you: compromise will always be part of politics
The tough but is knowing what is not negotiable
There are certainly sections within Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition who understand this. Unfortunately when it comes to the PLP they constitute a minority. The majority of MP’s in the Labour Party are still ideological soul mates with neo liberalism and understand their role is to maintain at all costs the phoney tribalism that is suckling the lifeblood out of the country.
Until these cuckoos are ejected there will be real progress (pun intended) from that direction.
Whatever the ulterior motives may or may not have been, having watched IDS on the Andrew Marr show and read some of the subsequent media commentary, if you take what he said at face value it is a damning indictment of the current Tory financial and economic policies – led by Osborne at the Treasury but ultimately directed and sponsored by Cameron.
I’m not sure this is yet a Geoffrey Howe moment, but his resignation and outright attack on the direction of travel under Cameron/Osborne is very interesting at such a time of obvious division over other matters within the Tory party.
It’s all starting to look a bit shaky for the Bullingdon Club pair of tw*ts (choose whichever noun you prefer)
Richard, details here:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/03/17/ids-loses-legal-challenge-to-keep-universal-credit-problems
Had missed that
I think IDS had really smelt the coffee
Here are just some of the things I don’t want in a political/economic system and the government of a country in which I would genuinely be proud to be a citizen of:
1. A hereditary, non-elected, head of state
2. An unwritten, unfathomable constitution
3. Antiquated, out of place, ludicrously anachronistic pomp and circumstance (dressed up as unchangeable tradition and reinforcing the status quo)
4. Strong government (if by strong you get one that is narrowly focused, complacent, divisive and unrepresentative of society as a whole)
5. Safe constituencies for any parties (virtually guaranteed with FPTP in many areas)
6. A legal system that is un-affordable for everyone to obtain justice (as we have today)
7. A society in which essential public needs and goods are provided by the private for-profit sector (as we are moving to in the UK)
Sadly, that is making the UK start to look like a country I can no longer take any pride in being a citizen of anymore – oh of course I forgot, I am just a subject after all!
From the practical point of view of doing the business the House of Commons is not fit for purpose.
There is insufficient space to hold the number of representatives, which makes the HOC a health and safety risk. Jamming so many people together is not conducive to effective decision making nor of generating debate of any reasonable quality. If it was a football stadium it would be shut down until was brought up to standard. The arcane rituals associated with it are reminiscent of a public school ethos from two centuries ago, which is why the school assembly type benches are two swords length apart. A deliberate maintenance of a feudal hierarchy sop to so called democracy waiting for the time when the oiks and the plebs can be put back into their proper place in the English caste system; a time which is fast approaching.
It is not fit for the 20th century never mind the 21st century. I recall a visit to the equivalent chamber of Sierra Leone over thirty years ago which even then made Westminster and the HOC look like a medieval school quadrangle by comparison. As such it represents all that is poor and shoddy in a system whose structures and processes are well past their sell by date.
It gets even worse: “The latest MPA report as of June 2015 once again flagged Universal Credit as being at high risk of failure, with total lifetime costs of the project having increased by £3bn over the last two years to bring them to a whopping £15.85bn”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/21/universal_credit_a_timeline_of_ids_legacy/