Tories are still anti-single parents

The latest Tory Policy proposals (not an actually policy as that would mean Cameron actually having to make a descion)shows that the Tories are still anti-single parent.
The policy proposals are full of the anti-signle parent policies of the failed Tory past, dressed up in different clothes, but however will still not help the poorest, and this is coupled with more Thatcherite attempts to destory the welfare state.

The Tory policy proposal has a number of things in it including a £20 tax break from married couples, which not only discriminates against single parent families (who are already some of the poorest in Britain), but also could force people to either enter into, or stay in an unloving relationship, because they are better off married in such a relationship then not, and I don't think that a child growing up in an enviroment wherre there parents don't really love each other, and do not want to stay together will be a good enviroment for that child to grow up in. It could well happen, since the tax "incentive" is there for them to do so.

Another policy which is even worse, is the Tory policy proposal of them forcing single parents to return to work, 16 hours a week when their child reaches 5, and 30 hours a week once their child is 11. Not only does this discriminate against single parent families, many of who struggle in already difficult circumstances to raise their children right, and do what is best for their child, however forcing them to go to work will make this job 10 times more difficult, not that the Tories care about single parents, nor the children from single parent backgrounds.

This policy will also have another side effect too, if the single parent is at work when the child is 11, and cannot be their for them once they come home from school, the child will be bored, and at home alone, this could very well risk the child becoming anti-social, and it will be the fault of a Tory government led by David Cameron, if that happends, not of the parent, who would be forced to work by this policy proposal. During the teenage years a child would be very vunerble, and this policy would make them more so. Then their are other issues of child welfare which this backward policy proposal by the Tories ignores.

Children are in single parent families of no fault of their own, and the Tories should not punish them because of this, a single parent family could be a result of mutual ending by the couple, because of a death of one of the partners, escaping an abusive relationships, and other possiblities, none of which can be blamed on the child, and many of which cannot be blamed on the parents either, yet the Tories would cause this kind of family to again suffer if the Tories were to return to power. These two policies show that the Tories do not care about families living in poverty, do not care about the worse off children in our society, and this policy will definitly not lift them out of poverty, and will certainly not "mend the break society" as David Cameron claims it would.

A more sinster aspect to this, is the privatisation of aspects of the welfare state, ontracting out "welfare to work" schemes, which would not benifit anyone on such schemes, but would make it cheaper for the government to do such schemes. However, the welfare state is there to help people who need it, and doing it cheapily to save money is not helping anyone but the government. This is a throwback to Thatcherism, and a move which would help the corrosion of the welfare state started by Thatcher, which must be stopped at all costs, if we had a real leader of the Labour Party, that had a backbone.

The Tories haven't changed, if this is the sort of policies they are coming up with. They are still a party for the rich, and of out of date victorian values.

Do we really want this man and his party running the country?

David Cameron, and the so-called "Modern" Conservative Party have, over the last few weeks, have again been proving themselves to be nothing but a party even more obsessed with spin, the polls and focus groups, then New Labour, with Cameron being the most guilty politican of the lot. The recent grammer school row is just one in a long line of flip-flops, U-turns and David Cameron being unable to make a solid decision.

Cameron's most recent flip-flop over muesum charges, the Tories floated ideas by Dave's Old Etonian friend Hugo Swire MP (Culture Spokesman) to abolish free entry to muesum entries (abolished under this Labour government), which was then said to be "under review" before being thrown out. Either that was a pretty quick reivew, or it is yet another example of the inability of Cameron to make any decisions and stick by them.

David Cameron's only belief is getting into Downing Street, he has no agenda, no principle and no ideas beyond spin, and saying what he thinks people wants to hear, instead of trying to be principled, and showing that he does have the ability to make the difficult decisions. Cameron does not have the ability to do that, if he becomes Prime Minister, he would not be able to run the country effectively, since he is a big political jelly fish.

Even if Cameron is sincere about shifting his party towards being a more liberal, caring and compassionate party. There are many on his back benchers and in the front bench that do not believe in it, and with the polls slowly getting worse for the Tories and better for Labour. How long before his party's right wing start speaking out more then they have already done with Grammer schools, or before they influlance his policy decisions even more.

It is also important not to forget that the this is the true face of Conservatism (demands to abolish the NHS), and that there is a serious threat that if the Tories get back into government, that Cameron would be too weak, and would make a total mess of the country, or would be too weak to deal with his troublesome back benchers, and if he is too weak to deal with those, imagine how he would be with dealing with more serious crisises, and making serious political decisions that will effect the future of Britain.