Course Title : How to be a Government Minister

Lesson 1 : How to claim a victory from defeat

Study text ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24742499

Case History : Your Government rushes through some hastily thought legislation which allows you to make the unemployed do free work for their benefits under threat of losing some or all of their benefits if they do not, one claimant takes you to the High Court and asks for a judgement on two issues...

1. You did not explain fully that you were not entitled in law to remove some or all of her benefits if she did not comply

2. You were using her as slave labour under Human Rights legislation

The court finds in favour of the claimant for point 1 but against the claimant for point 2.

You don't like this because the press give you a right slagging off, so you appeal to the Supreme Court so that both issues can be found in your favour.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court agrees with the High Court and the judgements stay as they were.

Your task today is to present this second slap in the face from the Supreme Court in a manner which makes it look as though you have won the appeal instead of lost it, at the public expense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For the answer to this question see the linked BBC News reports and read the final few paragraphs which contain statements from two Government Ministers and a Government Department who all claim a victory despite the real fact that they lost their appeal.



Next weeks lecture : How the Japanese won the war in the Pacific in 1945.

Course Title : How to be a Government Minister

Lesson 1 : How to claim a victory from defeat

Study text ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24742499

Case History : Your Government rushes through some hastily thought legislation which allows you to make the unemployed do free work for their benefits under threat of losing some or all of their benefits if they do not, one claimant takes you to the High Court and asks for a judgement on two issues...

1. You did not explain fully that you were not entitled in law to remove some or all of her benefits if she did not comply

2. You were using her as slave labour under Human Rights legislation

The court finds in favour of the claimant for point 1 but against the claimant for point 2.

You don't like this because the press give you a right slagging off, so you appeal to the Supreme Court so that both issues can be found in your favour.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court agrees with the High Court and the judgements stay as they were.

Your task today is to present this second slap in the face from the Supreme Court in a manner which makes it look as though you have won the appeal instead of lost it, at the public expense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For the answer to this question see the linked BBC News reports and read the final few paragraphs which contain statements from two Government Ministers and a Government Department who all claim a victory despite the real fact that they lost their appeal.



Next weeks lecture : How the Japanese won the war in the Pacific in 1945.

So the outcome of this ruling is so long as the scheme is explained properly then it is totally legal. Sounds reasonable to me.

Cait Reilly now works for a supermarket but apparently her work at Poundland didn't help her get the job.

So the outcome of this ruling is so long as the scheme is explained properly then it is totally legal. Sounds reasonable to me.

Cait Reilly now works for a supermarket but apparently her work at Poundland didn't help her get the job.