Sketch: 'Please, sir, can I have a pay cut?' Two hundred and fifty-five pounds, Jiggins? I'm sorry, sir, I know it's a lot to ask, but I have to think of my family. I fear you put me in a difficult position, Jiggins. Your work this past year has been good and you've met your sales targets. As a result the board intends to give you a modest rise. A rise, sir? Oh no, sir. Please, sir. I'm begging you, sir. Not a rise, sir. I'm sorry, Jiggins. My hands are tied. I don't want you to get a pay rise any more than you do. But this is the reality of the modern business world. Then I'm afraid you leave me with no alternative, sir. If I can't get less money here, I shall simply have to find a lower-paid job somewhere else. No doubt the Chancellor, George Osborne, will face more criticism of the plan tomorrow when he answers Treasury questions in the Commons. Perhaps he will take heart from Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, who has been hotly attacked by Labour over his own reforms, and is now gleefully returning fire. This afternoon Mr Duncan Smith proudly reminded the House that his welfare reform bill is expected to be given royal assent this week, and, just as proudly, reiterated his faith in the work experience scheme as a "lifeline" that would get the young off benefits. Labour seems to have run out of ways to condemn the scheme. The worst Stephen Timms, the Shadow Employment Minister, could do was to complain about an inconsistency on the Department of Work and Pensions website. Mr Duncan Smith and his ministers, believing the battle won, celebrated with a festival of insults. Those who had opposed the scheme were "anarchists" whom Labour dared not criticise because of its "union paymasters." In the debate on Europe that followed, David Cameron joined in, breaking off from an answer about Spain to call opponents of work experience "a bunch of Trots." (An oddly blunt way of putting it. Perhaps it was just another horse pun.) The other benefits barney of the day was about Universal Credit. Mr Duncan Smith argued that this proposal would "slim down the complexities" of the benefits system. It would have been easier to believe him if he and his ministers hadn't kept talking about "skills conditionality," "skills gaps" and "migrations in three phases." Any chance they could slim down the complexities of their language?