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.

NHS should be "Free at the point of us....just as long as you are entitled" saids ex-AM David Davies

Former Conservative AM, David Davies MP for Monmouth (Not the one that stood for leadership of the UK party), who is infamous for his speeches against gypsies (here and here)as well as his outbust against homosexuals being allowe to adopt and education on homosexuality in schools. (here and here)

In his blog, he has recently stated that he thinks that foriegners shouldn't get NHS treatment without having insurance. This clearly bring up all sort of issues.

One of the first is, what if someone fleeing pesicution from another country arrives in Britain and either hasn't gotten or cannot afford insurance? (Or don't have insurance for any other reason) Are they meant to be turned away from having healthcare if they are ill?, just because they are "freeloading" as Monmouth's David Davies MP (the ex-AM one, not the cabinet one) has put it on his blog. If so, then that would be a very immoral and deeply wrong, this is because healthcare should be a human right for everyone, not matter were they come from, no matter how much money they got, no matter what illness or injury they have, nor anything else you can discriminate by, everyone single person should have the right to have good quality healthcare. It is unjust to leave someone to die, or suffer, just because they do not have the money, nor the documents, to show that they are "entitled to it," because that is not important, what is important is that the paitent gets treated for their illness.

Even if they can afford to have healthcare, then surely if it is under and insurance system, then they will only be entitle to the healthcare they can afford. This would mean that if they, while in Britain, suffer an injury, get serious ill or anything else which is outside the insurance they have, then they would be refused treatment and have to suffer. That is of course, if they even have insurance.

Then there is the issue of immigrants that have come to Britain to live, how long would they need to pay taxes before they become eligable for free treatment on the NHS? one week?, one month? a year? 2 years?

Another issue with this, is that this will create more bureaucracy, something which I thought Tories such as David Davies, were against? This would mean that they would have to have people checking that this insurance and verify that it is A-okay, and the key word in his blog I feel is " verifiable health insurance document.."
To verify it, would mean more work and bureacucracy, for both the NHS and the immigrant offices. This of course would mean that funds would have to be diverted from paitents (be them British or not) or immigrants and too chasing up to see if they health insurance document is "verifiable" or not. How does this tie-in with the Tory agenda on bureaucracy? I don't think more paperwork would decrease the "red tape" that the Tories want to remove.

Personally, I am glad that Britain is a compassionate nation that values our free healthcare service, and believes that everyone should have free healthcare no matter who they are, or were they come from. The problem is also not as widespread or as bad as David Davies has made it seem to be, because it is quiet costly and time consuming to book a flight, fly to Britain, get a hospital appointment, get treatment and so on, I don't think that all of that would happen within a day, not in any country. However it does go to show the mentality of some Tories, especally the most right wing ones.