Because the theory goes that everyone who is out of work is a malingerer and they are drawing billions in "unearned" income by sitting on their backsides doing nothing all day. The theory further states that the best way to get these people back to work is to starve them back to work, not in so many words, but basically the over-riding principle is that no-one should receive any money if they are not in work.



So far they seem to be carrying the general population with them thanks to a compliant (mainly printed) media doing all of the propaganda work on their behalf and probably at their bidding.



The fact that the unemployed figures contain people who are unable to work due to disability is also being re-written by the callous principle of simply sticking fingers in ears and repeating the mantra "You are fit to work regardless of what your medics say as they can't be trusted any more", the additional fact that the vast majority of benefits are paid to those IN work in order to bring them up to the "living wage" standard is simply brushed under the rug as you can't vilify those people in quite the same way if they are already doing what you recommend and proving that it still doesn't work.

Osborne said he'd eliminate the deficit in one parliamentary term by cutting spending.

But he didn't, nowhere near.

Why believe more of the same?

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