Sometimes subtle aftershocks are more sensitive than the initial quake. It begins in this case with Iain Duncan Smith being caught out telling tales about the effect of the benefit cap on behaviour, which in turn caused the UK Statistics Authority to eventually get round to expressing a view on it. But that itself has opened a fault that will grow into something bigger and as usual, journalists will ignore it. I only spotted it carried in the article for the Independent:
Either Katherine Trebuck or Oxfam will be made to pay. It won't make News until it is already old.
Oxfam's Katherine Trebeck, policy and advocacy manager for the charity's UK poverty programme, said: ”Not content with using rhetoric to stigmatise poor people, the Government has now been caught misrepresenting the figures. This is beyond the pale.“Unfortunately this is a political intervention made on behalf of Oxfam, a registered charity. If they were asked to look into it, the Charity Commission would probably find it to be at fault according to the obligations that are placed on charities to not be political. What has limited the ability of charitable status organisations to assist grassroot campaigners may now be exploited to punish Oxfam unless it distances itself from Katherine Trebeck. I do not at all think the government and their SpAds are above being this vindictive. They have engaged in similar dirty tricks before, briefing against a charity who's representative had resigned from their advisory role on welfare reform because it was obvious they were being used as a fig leaf. The DWP press office said they had actually been 'fired' because they can't advise on reforms whilst at the same time campaigning against it. Remember it is the government who accuse campaigners of not being constructive.
|Closest thing I had to a Tremors film pic|