The Tories are really nasty people, aren't they? That story of how Smith slimed Ms Reilly makes my skin crawl.

Tories lie, shock horror! Somebody ring the newspapers.

The scale of the lying, though, is what is newsworthy.

Considering the dribble and claptrap Cohen fills much his article with, he's in no position to lecture anyone on lying. Still, Iain and Duncan Smith have been something of a disappointment lately. Far better to admit you don't know than pretend you do and look foolish. In my more charitable moments I like to assume he was badly advised.

I read that article, and it's the only thing I've heard on the subject, and it's spectacularly hard to follow. I seems the policy was upheld on appeal but the judges excoriated it in their dicta. Is that right? If so, that sounds much more like spin than lying. A distinction without much a difference perhaps, but a difference nonetheless.

@ Invictus: In the main, the court upheld a previous ruling which held that the Government's policy was legally flawed.

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

Don't worry I'm sure Invictus and Octavious will manage defend this blatant lying, come what may.

Now that article makes much more sense. I still don't see how this makes the jump from spin to lying. I mean, the court did say it didn't violate human rights, just that the policy was structured badly. Presumably, if they fix that part the thing can go on. How is this lying rather than putting the best face on a bad outcome?

I'm not trying to defend the Tories here, to be clear. Making people work for nothing strikes me as a fairly stupid idea.

Good god. The court said the back to worth schemes were unlawful and rejected the government's appeal on every point, and IDS and his cronies hail this as a 'victory' upholding the DPW's program because the court said it wasn't quite forced labor.

But that's not lying, that's just "spin". And assassinating Cait Reilly's reputation, completely making shit up about her, is not lying, that's just "spin".

Politicians lie, how is this news?

Yeah, the first paragraph would be spin. That's, like, the definition of it.

As for the stuff about the woman, I wasn't talking about that. Assuming the things things the government said about her aren't true, then yes, those were lies. How are you getting so invested over something that effects you not one bit?

@ Invictus: The court rejected the Government's appeal against the earlier judgement, on every single point on which the Government had appealed. Duncan Smith's response was to say he was "very pleased that the supreme court unanimously upheld" the Government's programme. That is not what the court did, and as on many other topics, he is a liar.

I suppose I'd have to hear audio. After all, it seems they did uphold the underlying idea of the program, it was the mechanisms that were struck down. He's clutching at straw, obviously, but is he lying?

Again, this seems like a stupid policy anyway. I'm not defending it or them. It just doesn't seem to me like a "lie."

It's not a lie because the Tories are doing it. Period. I'm not invested in it, but stop pretending you're not being a hack here.

I'm not being a hack at all. A hack would defend the policy.

"How are you getting so invested over something that effects you not one
bit?"
Have you heard of a little thing called empathy? (not sure what the context of your question is, but this seems like a fair answer regardless)

@ Putin

"Don't worry I'm sure Invictus and Octavious will manage defend this blatant lying, come what may."

I've read my post back a few times now, and can't for the life of me see the bit where I defend him. For someone complaining about the assumptions and lies of politicians you're pretty quick to make exactly the same sort of assumptions and lies yourself.

We all spin...

Ms Reilly said: ‘I am really pleased with today's judgment, which I hope will serve to improve the current system and assist jobseekers who have been unfairly stripped of their benefits."

We know that ms Reilly counter appeal contending that the workfare scheme was forced labour was thrown out. We also know that government has already changed the rules after they lost in the court of appeal. This decision isn't going to improve the system or help job seekers who had been stripped of their benefits.

I'm not having a go at ms Reilly, I think she was absolutely right to take the government to task. All I'm saying is that all parties always put the best gloss on the outcome of events.

We do indeed all spin (or tend to look on the bright side, to give it a more human and less political feel), but there are certain levels of spin where it becomes distasteful, and when a few blatant untruths slip in it has well and truly crossed the line.

IDS is a good man on the whole, but he has let himself down with this. I hated this sort of thing when Labour did it (and they did it a lot) and if anything I hate it more when the Conservatives do it.

@ Maniac: "This decision isn't going to improve the system or help job seekers who had been stripped of their benefits."

Actually, according to the lawyers who represented Ms. Reilly, the judgement *will* do at least the latter of those things. Job Seekers who were unfairly stripped of their benefits will now be able to take the Government to court to claim those benefits back:

http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/news_details.php?id=332

Octavious, your first reaction was to attack Cohen and claimed the article was filled with lies, without giving us a clue as to what you're talking about. All we get about IDS is that he has been a "disappointment" and was likely "badly advised". Now he's a 'good man'. If a Labour minister did this, you wouldn't spare him like this and you know it.

"This decision isn't going to improve the system or help job seekers who had been stripped of their benefits."

Jobseekers who haven't been provided information can now seek repayment of their benefits. Saying "I hope this happens" is not remotely on par with what IDS did here. False equivalence.

" if anything I hate it more when the Conservatives do it."

Yeah, sure looks like it.

@ Putin

If you have read the article it's obvious. The thing is filled with partisan tosh and rather pathetic anti-Tory hate speak. The effect is to devalue what should be a serious criticism of a minister who has made some bad errors. Cohen deserves to be criticised and I make no apology for doing so.

Also, if you are going to use my words, do it right. Anyone can see quite easily that I never said he was likely badly advised. All you do by implying I did is make yourself look dishonest or foolish.

When I make my comments on IDS I do so using a wealth of information rather broader than this article. I have met the man briefly, and read much about him, and the balk of it is positive. Yes, he deserves a good ticking off for this, but I remain convinced he is broadly a good egg. There are some Labour types who I respect as well. I have a lot of time for Ben Bradshaw, for example.

@Putin - I accept that how Ms Reilly discribed her 'victory' may not be on a par to IDS's lies. I was merely pointing out that we all spin. Ms Reilly could have said..."We took the government to court to see if their workfare programme violated the EU law on forced lanour. We lost. We also pointed out some procedural irregularities, which the government has since retrospectly corrected. We hope that this case helps improve the system and assists other jobseekers reclaim money incorrectly deducted." She didn't say that, she concentrated on the positives.

@Octavious - I don't share your view that IDS is a good egg. He pretends that workfare was set up to help people gain experience and help them assess the job market. But in this case Ms Reilly was already volunteering at a museum hoping to get taken on. Getting her to stake shelves to 'help her' is crazy. Criticising her is just nasty. I can understand if jobseekers are asked to go to firms to receive training, but shelf stacking! If poundland has a role for someone to stack their shelves, they should pay someone a wage to do it. Workfare seems to gift profitable companies free staff - in effect our taxes pay the wages that private businesses should be paying. If I'm wrong and IDS is genuinely concerned, then he must be stupid to think that this is a solution.

@ Maniac

From my understanding the underlying idea is less about providing training (although that sounds good in the media), but more about proving to future employers that person x has the ability to hold a 9-5 over a period of time. A lot of long term unemployed stay unemployed purely because no one has faith in their ability to put a shift in. Shelf stacking at Poundland will genuinely help these people.

Sadly, in Reilly's case, it was a tad counter productive. More sadly IDS failed to realise this.

@Octavious - I agree that giving jobseekers an opportunity to prove themselves in a short trial to the likes of Poundland could be advantageous to them (the jobseeker). But if I were poundland's MD I wouldn't know if the employee was only turning up for two weeks because they would starve if they didn't or if they are genuinely going to be a good employee. I'd be happier to give a trial to anyone who wasn't forced to attend. Also would I want to take employees on who start with possibly negative thoughts about my involvement in forcing them to work for nothing?