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.

rlIDS, school bully of the year, doing what he does bestrl

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,

rlPut teenage mums in hostels to stop them considering benefits claimsrl

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?