Welfare cuts will ensure that the government is not in compliance with its international human rights obligations to realise a right to an adequate standard of living under “Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights (ICESR) and a child’s right to an adequate standard of living under Article 27 of the UN CRC. Further it will be in breach of the statutory target to eliminate child poverty contained in the Child Poverty Act 2010.”. The reason way Ian Duncan Smith wants to change the definition of child poverty. Great article, which breaks down Osborne’s budget. Also getting to the heart of Conservative ideology. To increase wealth to the rich, whilst reducing the poor to limited income. In the majority of cases cutting of their income to an extent they need to find work or starve. Sick, unethical and pure evil
The pro-wealthy and anti-humanist budget indicates clearly that the Conservatives are preoccupied with highlighting and cutting the state cost of sustaining the poorest citizens rather than the costs of subsidising the rich.
I’ve pointed out before that the Conservatives operate a perverse, dual logic: that wealthy people need support and encouragement – they are offered substantial financial incentives – in order to work and contribute to the economy, whereas poor people apparently need to be punished – by the imposition of financial cuts – in order to work and contribute to the economy.
That Osborne thinks it is acceptable to cut the lifeline benefits of sick and disabled people to pay for government failures, whilst offering significant cuts to corporation tax rates; raising the tax-free personal allowance…
View original post 2,187 more words