Because it suits his ideological aims?

I meant why should anyone believe him the second time?

They won't necessarily. But what's the alternative? A party lead by Clegg who signed the pledge not to increase tuition fees and within an indecently short period decided it was a good thing to treble them? Or maybe Ed Miliband, who owes his position and the very existence of his party to the Trades Unions but wants to have nothing to do with them? Could you trust either of those parties? No sane person could trust them. But at least in Osborne's case you are pretty sure his party would wish to destroy the welfare state (including the NHS, which is already being mentioned in the press as possibly losing its ring-fencing after the election and has suffered a great deal of negative publicity under the current idiot (IMO) of a minister, and previous idiot (IMO) of a minister, who has responsibility for it).

And that's all before you start looking at how much of "welfare" spending goes on current pensioners - the attacking of which would be electoral suicide for a party dependent on the blue rinse brigade.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/15/iain-duncan-smith-benefit-cap_n_3596984.html?1373875598&utm_hp_ref=ukIDS, school bully of the year, doing what he does best[/url

None of which really matters because as IDS so elegantly points out, he doesn't have to prove anything that he utters to anyone because if you can't disprove it then he is right by default, and to think, he could easily have been PM, this is probably the only time we can all say "Thank god for Cameron".

Just when you think you cannot be shocked much more ...

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me just how being even more unfair on benefit recipients can be seen as being fair to workers

IDS is fortunate enough to live rent-free in a very large country house owned by his father-in-law, the 5th Baron Cottesloe.
It has a swimming pool, tennis courts and a large number of bedrooms upon which he pays no bedroom tax at all.
It's very easy for him to say that he could live on the benefits level that he dictates for others, largely because he knows he will never have to.

A swift glance at his wikipedia entry (e.g. the lies in his CV about his education and the salary paid to his wife out of the public purse) tells you what a nasty, dissembling, grasping piece of work he is.

I would contend its worse than you make out. The problem isn't that you can't disprove whatever it is, it is even if you [ican[/i disprove it his response is simply to say he [ibelieves[/i otherwise! His gut feeling trumps all else.

So in the face of evidence to the contrary he switches into Victor Meldrew mode "I don't believe it."

The man is an arrogant prig!

You are right and we can all look out for those words "I believe" in all of his statements from now on, not that a Minister should be simply expressing an opinion not based on factual evidence or anything, or indeed refusing to acknowledge that an official government statistical body has refuted his "belief".

If you read the comments below the story in that link I made there is one reply that makes the point quite eloquently

One other point in the comments section of that report is the dodgy claim that 8000 people have moved into jobs rather than face the £500 a week benefit cap - they make a very valid point that to cover that sort of earning in a paid job you'd have to be on a salary of £36k at least, and as we all know those sorts of jobs are two a penny and you can just get up off your sofa having sat there on benefits for the last ten years and simply ask for one of those jobs for it to be so.

As pointed out, the number of claimants entitled to £500 a week is miniscule to the point where in the limited trials that IDS is speaking of there will not have been 8000 people claiming that amount.

The bloke is an idiot but is convinced that he is the most intelligent man in the country and that we are all the stupid ones, in future editions of the Oxford English Dictionary the word "Arrogant" will simply have "Ian Duncan Smith" as its definition.

And erm,

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/15/tory-mps-teenage-mums_n_3597557.html?utm_hp_ref=ukPut teenage mums in hostels to stop them considering benefits claims[/url

And don't forget folks, this is from a select committee of MODERATE Tory politicians, the sole purpose of that committee being to present a more voter friendly face of the party in order to hang on to closely contested seats at the next election, said committee being formed by Members who were getting twitchy bums by their far right colleagues in safe seats hogging the limelight.

So what do they offer in a conciliatory vote-winning swing the voters over to our side sort of manner ?

Stick all the pregnant teenagers who only get up the duff so that they can get a free house and £500 a week to live on, you know, those scroungers again, stick them all in hostels so they will think twice and not claim OUR TAXPAYERS MONEY.

They are of course getting the Daily Express readers to write the next manifesto.

Excellent to see some fairness in the welfare state after so long. Not only that but encouraging people into work.

You're not very good at this trolling lark, give it up while you're still a fair way behind.

How am I trolling by praising a measure which 70% of the public support?

You haven't even read the last page have you, in your haste to post one of your stock phrases you don't even know what the topic is anymore or that no poll exists to support IDS's idiocy or the latest missive from the 40Group.

Your problem is that your trolling account is threadbare now, everyone knows what you are about, we all know that you post comments purely to get a reaction in some cheap thrill for recognition, and we are all too aware that you contribute nothing to any debate at all.

You need to consider dumping that user account and re-register as something else.

Never mind his/her rather obvious unwillingness to answer direct questions.

Either a very obvious troll or someone whose ability to think for themselves was removed by surgery some time ago.

No I post my opinions. Don't like them, don't read them or respond.

Thats the problem - you don't post your opinions.

I'd love to discuss some of the finer points of political strategy with you, so would others, but you don't offer anything to any debate and never have, you're like the kid who pokes a stick in a wasps nest and then runs away without explaining why or wondering what the wasps look like in real life.

Go away and think of another new user name and persona because this one is too obvious now.

I just did - I said it is excellent to see fairness in the welfare state - that is an opinion. Incidentally an opinion shared by the vast majority of the population. Just because you don't like it does not mean it is not an opinion.




No.

I believe that its not an opinion shared by "the vast majority" of the population.

There is no valid response to my argument because I have invoked the Ian Duncan Smith standard syntax but please feel free to try and prove your opinion correct.



Of course, to be sensible, if asked the question "Do you want to see fairness in the welfare state?" then almost 100% of the population would tick the "Yes" box, only the lunatic would tick "No, I want it to be unfair".

Its how you arrive at a definition of the word "fair" that is the crux and this current administration by its own admission want to play no part in any sort of debate over what they consider to be "fair", they will simply trot out a string of statistics that even their own departments have to correct and state that they have been mis-quoted or mis-used, culminating in the biggest culprit, IDS, simply stating that he doesn't really care if his department correct him anymore because what he thinks is more important than the actual facts of any matter that he sees fit to pillorize.

Now if you are running your own private business then you can run it in any way you see fit to, truth or no truth, ignore facts, tell lies, its your company you do what the hell you like - but we expect slightly more integrity from our politicians, telling the truth should be top of their agenda, using statistics in the correct context should be part of that and when that politician is a Minister in charge of a department with the biggest expenditure in The House, then not having his own colleagues point out that he is not telling the truth should be of paramount importance to him, but its not, he doesn't actually care.

Caring is another attribute that is good in a politician.

"I believe that this to be right, I believe that we are already seeing people going back to work who were not going to go back to work,"

Brilliant, utterly utterly brilliant.

[urlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/16/george-osborne-benefit-payments_n_3602588.html?utm_hp_ref=uk[/url

More to come later because of course Georges best mate IDS says that everything is working absolutely to plan (inside his head) and that these scroungers who never work and all sit on their backsides all day long earning the equivalent of £35000 of TAXPAYERS money need to be thrashed a bit more, have their children taken off them if they have more than two, have their pregnant teenage daughters sent to live in hostels and anyone under 25 is not an adult anyway so they can go live with their parents.

Its a FACT as well because IDS says its so, he even tells the BBC in that interview (above) that they are spreading lies because some leader of a council in his trial area has given out some true statistics that contradict what IDS thinks, but they won't count anyway because he says that he BELIEVES that "very, very significant" numbers of people in those trial areas have come off benefits and found work.

IDS believes it to be so, therefore it is.

Its the new mantra and its all they'll need on billboard posters at the next election.

I manage a construction agency in Manchester and find the above quote strange to the point of unbelievable. For another side to the debate:

The job would have been advertised at £18 p/h self employed. If he was then to be paid PAYE the agency would have to accrue holiday pay for his wages as this is European legislation and reduces his rate by approximately 10.19%. THis would leave him with a pay of £16.05 per hour and £1.95 per hour in accrued holiday pay, which is paid when he either needs a holiday or as a lump sum at the end of a contract. The agency does not keep this money and it is illegal if they do no t pay it out.

Construction agencies pay PAYE personnel through umbrella companies to avoid paying Employers National Insurance and thus offer cheaper rates to construction companies who are demanding ever more ridiculous rates. The length of a contract is told to us by the end client. We do not advertised jobs for months if they are for a day. If the job is for a day it's a waste of our time as we make no money from it. We give as an accurate length of contract as is given to us by our clients.

"200+ plus deductions they said it was to cover what they had to pay" - who said this the agency or the umbrella company?

The agency should not be making any deduction other than the accrued holiday pay. They send the gross amount to the umbrella company who make the necessary deductions for tax and national insurance. Umbrella companies also allow the provision of expenses to be paid against the tax that the operative pays reducing their tax bill. They charge an admin fee for their services.

The agency makes money from the client NOT the candidate. It does this by charging the client £20 per hour and paying the candidate £18 per hour for example. The umbrella company makes money by charging an admin fee of usually £15-£20 per week.

We payroll hundreds of people through umbrella companies every week and I get no complaints. In fact they pay very little tax and get more back by paying less tax than they do by paying the admin fee.

I fail to believe if the site manager is getting paid £8 per hour net he would still be working there and guess this is a case of Chinese Whispers.

If the site manager who is agrieved wants an explanation of his wages and where it has gone wrong I am more than happy to look at his wage slip and find out if his agency or umbrella company are "ripping him off" - please PM me with details.

Like in all aspects of life their are "Corrupt/Bad" agencies out there who are looking to make a quick buck. If this is the case name and shame them. A bad agency name spread around construction sites will do far more damage than on rugby league forums. We supply across the M62 corridor and have a good reputation I hope!