To ask why you are worried about a Tory government?

[NolanThorne]

Genuinely interested. I'm not British and didn't vote. My husband a FIL are saying this is the first time in a long time they are NOT worried about the UK. If you are worried, why specifically?

And I'm also worried about the Tories taking us out of the ECHR and replacing an absolute human rights act with a subjective bill of human rights.

Because the Tories believe that every aspect of life can be reduced to a business transaction. As a compassionate human being, I believe that some things are worth more than that.

The Culture Secretary, John Whittingdale, described the licence fee as worse than the poll tax - he'll oversee the BBC. (That's before you look at his voting record against equal rights, gay rights and same-sex marriage. Nice guy.)

I always ask people who are against the Human Rights Act exactly which human right they want to get rid of.

Because OP, I work my lazy arse for 18 hours a day looking after three people with disabilities for sixtyfive quid a week. Sometimes I wear the designer clothes I purchesed when working. Most times it's jeans and a top, though. I did have a holiday last year, we all went to a literary festival, the weather was mixed but it was fun and interesting and did all of us a lot of good, despite the fact that I ended up in hospital on our last day.
My respite care is fucked, I lost it a few years ago under the coalition government. Food prices have increased, fuel prices have increased, everything has increased, including hatred of the poor such as you have displayed elsewhere. The only thing that hasn't increased is the money coming in...

Because the Tories unleashed Iain Duncan Smith on the electorate. If he was in any other job he'd have been sacked for being incapable. As it is, he's just wasted millions of tax payers money and caused untold misery. He is staying.

• TTIP - scares the fuck out of me

• Fracking - expect the Frackers to turn up outside your house any and start drilling!

• Housing - selling off HA homes, not replacing council homes, selling all the social housing that becomes available in London, sitting on millions of pounds but won't build more social homes and won't control private rentals.

• Bedroom Tax stupid ill thought out - will get worse

• Loss of disability benefits and the stress caused to vulnerable people.

• closure of children's centres and destruction of youth support services

• The selling of our public assets - Post Office

• Selling off Police Stations and Fire stations to build luxury houses

• GIVING!!! Property companies council estates to 'regenerate' which means moving local families out.

That's for starters - I remember the Tories in power in the 80's and 90's

Human Rights Act. I almost admire the way the right-wing press have managed to convince people that a law protecting human rights is a bad thing.

Almost.

Because I'm not British either and I can see that Cameron will want to get of the EU which will cause me a hell of a lot of problem.

Because the care in hopsital is appauling. One consultant I know told me that they are working to give 'munimum care' to pxs rather than 'best care' (and when you compare what best care was to what is considered best care in other countries .....)

because we have been told again and again that the economy is on the up and fantastic and strangely enough when you read reports about the UK in other countries, they all say 'yes it's on the up but it's extremely fragile and the UK is nowhere near out of the woods'. Which me wonder. If what has been done for the last 5 years hasn't quite worked, why would you want to do that again for the next 5 years?

Because Cameron ahs managed to start a nice road for the UK to disappear. I'm convinced that Scotland will ask for their independence again and will get it. Then what will be left of the UK, economy wise in particular?

Because the first think that Cameron did when been elected is to remove Human Rights.

because the first thing the EU did when he was elected wasn't to say 'Oh that great!' but to establish very clearly that some rules are NON negociable (See my first point)

Because his tactics during the lections were appauling (eg using the death of his son and his diability to shut people off) so of all people I can not bring myself to trust him with this country, let alone

And then there is the whole thing about making anyone who is receiving benefoits the worst person in the world, having no compassion for the most vulnerable people of the society etc... In effect the fact he is very clearly transforming the UK into some sort of US style of country. And as it happens, it is the last place I want toleave on this planet due to tjeir complete lack of concern of the most vulnerable, in a cuntry that has enough money to actualy support them.

But you see, he is part of the 1%, the 1% who benefit from such organisation. So who cares?

And no, this time again, I haven't voted because 'm not British. ven if any single one of his decisions will affect me, my family and my dcs. It doesn't mean I'm happy about it though.

• we will probably lose money when universal credit kicks in.

• the charges for the child maintenance service will continue to go ahead and we will both lose money and be at risk of abusive, absent XP when he is asked for more money (i don't want any more off him, I'd like to be left alone). A private, non - court ordered agreement would mean he could get away without paying and I wouldn't be able to remortgage .

NolanThorne Can I ask which country you are coming from that you are finding the changes in the last 5 years not worrying?

I'm concerned I will lose the free pre school hours for my three year old which keep me sane and let me do some work. I'm worried the license fee will be cut and the BBC will suffer. I don't want my local village library to be forced to close. I'm worried about rioting. I'm also worried about vulnerable people being screwed over.

I think people have forgotten that the welfare state is a safety net.
My Mum was a single parent in a poor town in the tough 1980s. She waited until we started school then took 2 jobs to pay the bills. We had no car, no holidays, no treats, very very little. Basic food. Almost ration style at times.People expect to run cars, go on holiday, have an x box and other 'stuff' which was just a pipe dream for me as a poor kid.
If the welfare state is allowed to grow and not capped properly, it often spells the death of ambition and the desire to self improve. People need an incentive, a reason to improve, study, learn, work and have the children they can afford when they can afford to have them. Of course there's no perfect time and anyone can fall on bad times; (my Mother certainly did) but there are definitely better times to do things and be mindful of what we can do to help ourselves.
There are a couple of women I know in a similar situation to my Mum in the 80's. They're skint, have three or more kids, little money, no husband or partner and little opportunity to work at the moment. But they can make slow steady steps to improve their situation instead of making excuses why they cannot. Obviously I'm talking about healthy adults with healthy kids (although single parents with disabled children DO often work, they're all over mumsnet)
So yeah, we need a shift in collective consciousness so we can keep reminding ourselves that the Welfare State is not a bottomless pit, it's an emergency fund for emergency situations.

I heard earlier this morning that free child care for 3-4 year olds would be extended. And this would happen within 100 days. That has to be good news for a lot of people here.

Yes vivienne, it will. But someone upthread said preschool for 3 year olds is going and people believe this stuff without doing their research. It's scaremongering. Just like the dangerous twaddle about he the NHS going. The NHS needs overhauling but it's going nowhere.

Because there was SFA in their manifesto about legislating and regulating the private rentals market and, to the millions of people like me (and it is in the millions now) who can't afford to buy their own homes, yet earn 'too much' to be able to claim any sort of housing benefit, this is a bit of a priority due to escalating rental charges/fees/general cowboy approach of the lettings market.

I also slightly begrudge the fact that those on housing benefit will have the 'right to buy' their house under a Conservative government, yet there is no tangible help for those of us who have never claimed such benefits; apart from a couple of airy-fairy schemes which unless we're under 40 (most of my peers who are renting privately are professionals in our late 30's/early 40's so on the cusp of or outside of the window of opportunity) or possess a still significant deposit (impossible to save with the continually escalating costs of renting) we can't access, which will create a whole generation of retirees with no assets who will eventually be forced into having to claim large amounts of benefits in their dotage, despite having worked hard all their lives to avoid such an eventuality.

That's why I didn't vote Tory.

Meechimoo I wonder if what people like you sometimes don't understand is that most of the welfare state goes to people who are in work. But incomes these days just aren't enough to pay for everything particularly childcare that is needed to work.

I guess Meechimoo just thinks everyone should have a much lower standard of living?

'people like you'

Spare me the holier than thou moralising tone. I have a pretty good idea where benefits go and you can blame labour for encouraging employers to pay fuck all because people would supplement with tax credits. That was a Labour sticking plaster over a bleeding artery.

"I think people have forgotten that the welfare state is a safety net", that was forgotten a long time ago but I cant see how it will ever be any different until we can properly identify and approve those at need and avoid the swindling, cheating sods. It astounds me that in the age of google we still cant link tax, benefits, healthcare, etc against a persons name effectively.

No morage, but if you're out of work and on benefits obviously you'll have a lower standard of living. Not rocket science. If people on benefits had the same standard of living and same 'stuff' where would be the incentive to work? That would be socialism and it doesn't ever work. Look at France.

Meechimoo - A lot of benefits go to people in work. So taking these away would mean a lower standard of living for a lot of people.

Agree with Pyjamadrama - so much of the welfare budget is spent on tax credits because big businesses refuse to pay a living wage. Another chunk goes on housing benefit to support people paying private landlords because there's not enough social housing. Plus the massive pension pot! When you start being it down, less and less goes to support a lifestyle for the unemployed.

So, if there is to be no change to income taxes or VAT, just where is the money going to cone from to start reducing the deficit?

I think people have forgotten that the welfare state is a safety net.

No, with the failure of trickle down economics, the welfare state is also the mechanism by which money is redistributed to the low paid working population.

that's true. But you can't throw money at a problem continuously. You need to look at the root causes. The Labour party were ignoring the root causes of poverty when they created tax credits and making it far easier for employers to abdicate from their responsibility. A bit like restaurants who let their waiters survive on tips.