Uk government forces out charity head. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/03/camila-batmanghelidjh-to-leave-kids-company Should the UK government be able to force charity founders out of their job in exchange for funding, due to them raising publicity of growing poverty and abuse amongst children? I think this is a terrible example of where the UK is heading politically and socially.
Well yes, when the governments main objective is to massively increase the level of poverty for children she is not going to be a good citizen and ignore what is happening is she. Poverty in this country is about hit very very scary levels...But at least the rich are getting a lot richer because they are the only ones who work hard
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33374153 This has a good breakdown of how selling off council houses have caused this problem.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...signed-photo-of-the-new-cabinet-10362163.html And these are the people in charge
As expected though, I'm struggling to understand why people are starting to become concerned about what this disgusting elitist scum government are doing....Everyone knew this was going to happen if they got back in and worse if they got a majority, hell they even admit that that they are going to destroy the poor and help their friends out. Now suddenly after constant warning about what will happen people seem to be acting surprised and even worse SHOCKED! England voted for this so why are they complaining?
Because they are gullible, and belived the right-wing press, and selfish because they didn't care untill it effected themselves personally.
Stupid and ill-informed sums it up for me. I'm not going to stop complaining about the amount of people I see who refused to vote Labour because they though Miliband had a funny face and/or voice.
We would be in no better position if the red tories got in, until a real Labour party emerges that is not owned by the rich for the rich there will never be any difference between the Tory blue and Tory red. This why Scotland felt forced to vote SNP as there was no alternative to what we have just now
That not true though is it, even if there Tory lite, its still lite not the full strength Tory, just like coalition Tory is better then the Tories in their own. That's one of the lies that gave us the current government.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of the SDP, but anyone thinking the Tories and labour are the same really doesn't know what there talking about. I don't see labour abolishing the monitoring of childhood poverty, slashing tax credits for the working poor, cutting child benefit, cutting housing benefit, privitising the NHS, having ministers who voted against equal rights as their equalities minister, whilst cutting income tax for the well off and blocking attempts to stop the bankers bonus culture.
I think the problem is there was no reason for people to believe what Labour said from their past history, they are still in total denial about so many issues. For me I could never vote Labour because of Iraqi, they are murdering animals in my eyes and the Tory animals backed them. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have done so much damage and why they are not in jail is beyond, especially Blair he is a murdering so and so coward. Plus there was not a single year under labour when Child poverty fell or the gap between the working class and the rich did not decrease or even stop growing.....All Labour lies. I don't know maybe England's Labour party appear different to the English than the Scottish Labour party did up here.
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/did_child_poverty_go_up_under_labour-1508 "david Cameron’s figures are technically accurate. However the way they are used ignores important context in longer term trends in child poverty.The despite a rise in numbers in the middle part of the last decade, measuring progress since the late 1990’s shows a much more significant reduction in child poverty.So while child poverty rose under the Government elected in 2005, this is significantly outweighed by the reductions seen over the entirety of Labour’s term in office.*"
Also if you look at relative poverty, having arise in average pay, will increase the amount of children, whilst a depression such as today will actually cause a decrease in figures as the average wage decreases. The key is realitive poverty.
*on Labour's economic record when in government between 1997 and 2010. As part of this, IFS researchers assess Labour’s record on income inequality and poverty. Here, we show how income inequality changed little but child and pensioner poverty fell significantly. We suggest, though, that these falls in poverty might prove fragile given that they were mostly based on very large increases in spending on benefits and tax credits. We also reflect on the main lessons for today’s policymakers. One such lesson is that how you spend money is more important than how much you spend. Governments need effective means to establish what works and what doesn't, and patience to see whether policies bear fruit in the long-run.Labour had very clear objectives to reduce poverty amongst families with children and pensioners, and accorded these objectives high priority. Tony Blair made a famous commitment to end child poverty within a generation, and Gordon Brown promised to ‘to end pensioner poverty in our country”. However, it is much less clear that Labour took a strong view on the appropriate level of inequality within the top half of the income distribution, as indicated for example by Peter Mandelson’s famous statement that he was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes.'. ttp://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6738
As I said I can never trust Labour after Iraqi and while Blair is not rotting in a hell hole...But yes these stats look like there was an attempt to address it but it failed badly
