Things that you are scared about with the new Tory Government

I don't understand the "not in a bubble" comment then.

I stand by my opinion that it's childish for grown women to say that they're 'scared' of a political party, or 'terrified' of what might happen now it's in government.

Agreed, Ana!

If you have serious concerns, fair enough, sign the endless petitions and go on demonstrations, but just saying you're 'scared' sounds wimpy. Like being scared of the dark when you're little.

Which is understandable if you're a four year old...

Abu Hamza is in jail in the U.S. for life. The battle was about extradition to the US. It had been going on since 2004 and would eventually have run its coourse whoever was in power as he was bound eventually to run out if options. There were two main threads iirc. One was that as signatories to the ECHR we can't deprt anyone to a country were they coukd face the death penalty. So that had to be taken off the table. The secondly, the argument was about cruel and unusual punishment based on the conditions in US jails.The Jordan case was to do with evidence obtained under torture and that was Abu Qatada. He was finally deported after a special treaty was signed by Jordan and the UK to say such evidence was not admissible. He was found not guilty. The ECHR was also involved but after they had denied him leave to appeal against his deportation, it was SIAC that the upheld his appeal and released him. It was after this that the treaty was drawn up

Ana I am neither scared not terrified of the Tory Party but I am seriously concerned for my grandchildren's future because of the long term impact of the policies the Conservatives propose and the social / economic climate they wish to create. I will do what I can to raise my concerns as vociferously as I can in any legitimate way. Just because they won the election does not mean those that do not support their view of the future should just roll over and accept it!

Thank you Gx2

Well said, Penstemmon.

I can read the link now Penstemmon.

Due process means exactly that - you go through the process and this can take a long time. I'm not for one minute saying that the length of time that these two cases took was OK but they are exceptional and we should be careful about making changes that could impact on the whole concept of due process - Gary McKinnon's case was fought for 10 years with some ( I think limited) ECHR involvement. We can't simply pick and choose between who we allow due process and who we don't and having recourse to ECHR means we all have protection regardless of the allegations against us - and fundementally that is what makes us better than 'them' ( who don't) and is what the original convention after the war was all about and one of the the reasons the war was fought

soon a caution. I now understand the link was outlining a proposal for the Tory manifesto. I do not think it was included. However that does not mean they may not put it forward now they are in power!

Penstemmon, well said indeed - of course people have a right to be concerned and take whatever action they consider appropriate to address those concerns.

So anyone older than 4 gets told off for being scared of the dark, do they, Ana?

Oh dear...it wasn't meant to be taken literally, durhamjen.

I'm sure we all know of childen older than four who are afraid of the dark. I'm also sure that no one would 'tell them off' for it.

The link that Lilygran posted of a statement that David Cameron made strikes me as, if not scary, then giving rise to some concerns:

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance. This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach."

What exactly does this mean? What is a passively tolerant society? Isn't it right that citizens should be left alone provided they are not breaking the law? What exactly does he mean by "left alone"? What does "standing neutral between different values" mean? What does "conclusively turn the page on this failed approach" mean?

If he is saying that there is a specific set of values that are uniquely British and that these values should underpin British society - who is to decide exactly what those values should be and what, to date, have the Conservatives done to promote some sort of shared value system? They have eagerly welcomed the prospect of 500 more "free" schools, many of which will instill in their pupils some beliefs and practices which are at variance with one another and with the values underlying equality legislation.

I worry about
1:- the privatisation of the nhs
2:- the loss of freedom of speech and other human rights
3:- the introduction of anti union legislation
4:- more austerity - which the poor can not take
5:- the increased need for food banks
6:- the continuing demonizing of the Scots
7:- the Smith commission being disregarded
8:-Boris

Cameron and his cohort decide what those values are, Eloethan.

This is interesting.

theconversation.com/david-cameron-has-promised-too-much-on-europe-and-that-could-mean-a-brexit-41726

This is what has been happening in London over the last five years.

speye.wordpress.com/2015/05/24/housing-benefit-cleansing-of-london-since-may-2010-election-why-it-costs-every-taxpayer-more/

I am worried that even more social cleansing will take place over the next five years. However, as this article states, it does not save money.

Quite apart from the social/ethical considerations I'm appalled to see an increase of £440 million in the housing benefit bill during the period that all the 'caps' have been put in place.
Although I'm at the other end of the country, I have felt enormous sympathy for families being evicted from their London homes so that those homes can be demolished/upgraded for the private housing market. Have signed petitions but I think that these drastic moves to change housing policy will be hard to shift and it's the people who are directly affected who seem to have no say.

We're not quite as far to the opposite end of the country as mcem, but I share her sympathy for families being evicted from their London homes for the benefit of the private housing market.

Another of the negative effects of the cost of the housing benefit bill is the way in which vulnerable families are uprooted and moved to the north west or north east because rents are cheaper. They're cut off from established support networks, children's education is negatively affected, mental health of adults and children deteriorates. The financial and social costs are huge. Add to that the fact that for some reason (!) northern, Labour councils have had their funding cut at a higher rate than many of the wealthier southern Tory councils and I feel another cry of 'we're all doomed' coming on.

But is it really the case Iam? My own parents moved away from friends and family to find work in the early 1950s, and again ten years later. I moved schools many times, coped with making new friends, changes in schools, and so on. I hardly knew my grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins.

My own children moved away, one to NZ, and coped too. Granted we now all live much closer together and we have a close family set up.

But had my parents stayed where they were we would have suffered unemployment, poor schooling, bad housing and so on. It's been this way since civilisation began, moving away for better hunting grounds, to escape war, to find a job.

I suspect that a lot of the families that are moving, have not ventured very far before. A suprising amount of people dont cope well with that. Especially if it wasnt their choice in the first place.

I'm not saying it's ideal.