The devil is in the detail, but in interviews IDS appears to have no time for the subtleties of the debate
Iain Duncan Smith's performance on the Today programme was a typically combative performance on the issue of the benefits cap from a secretary of state under siege from both the bishops and internally – with critics in the coalition as diverse as the London mayor, Boris Johnson, and Lib Dem deputy leader, Simon Hughes.
However, in a series of set-piece interviews, beginning with the BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson, on Friday, the cabinet minister has been pushing the line that the proposed £26,000 cap on benefits is not "about punishing people", and has said people are "not suffering" under his reforms. With the measure to be voted upon on Monday in the House of Lords, the devil is in the detail of the argument.
So Duncan Smith's appearance on the Today programme was meant to put a spine up the backs of coalition-friendly peers in the face of charities, bishops and the Labour party. The problem was that the secretary of state has no time for the subtleties of the debate.
In the first two minutes of the interview, Duncan Smith repeats the idea that £26,000 is the average wage. Actually, the average working income of households is the figure to use – it includes in-work benefits – and would see that figure rise by £5,500.
The Today presenter Evan Davis then battles on to make the point that the Department for Work and Pensions has modelled the effect of the policy, and this would leave 100,000 children in poverty. It takes a couple of questions before Duncan Smith admits that the "numbers of families involved in this by comparison with the number of people on benefits is really quite small".
The definition of homelessness is not, as Duncan Smith asserts, those households with children "sharing a room". He says this definition was used by Shelter. The charity's website, however, answers the question: "Who is legally classed as homeless?" with replies such as "you have no home in the UK or anywhere else in the world" or "you can't live at home because of violence or abuse or threats of violence or abuse". There's no mention of children sharing rooms, which seemed to preoccupy the cabinet minister.
Duncan Smith chose his words more carefully over who is affected. But he attempted to create the impression that most of people affected were out of work. But he's ignoring the fact that ministers confirmed in their impact assessment document that any couple working up to 23 hours a week will still be affected by the cap when it is introduced.
The secretary of state was also at pains to say that disabled people would not suffer. The government has admitted that they expect half of the households hit by the cap to include a disabled person. Anybody would think it's not the reality but the perception that Duncan Smith is trying to change.