Aylan, the toddler who drowned fleeing Syria, was just three years old. His town was under attack by Isis. His five year old brother and his mum also died trying to reach safety. Yet our prime minister said ‘we won't take any more refugees’. He thinks that most of us don't care. But 38 Degrees members do care. We don't want Britain to be the kind of country that turns its back as people drown in their desperation to flee places like Syria. So let's stand up for Britain's long tradition of helping refugees fleeing war. Let's show the Prime Minister that we, the people of the UK, are proud to do our part and provide refuge to people in their hour of need. Please sign and share, or start your own petition for your town or city here: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/efforts/refugees-welcome

Syrian refugees are leaving their beloved country due to the civil war and pressure from Assad and ISIS. Syrian nationals are experiencing persecution and genocide , depending on race and faith. In World War Two Britain offered sanctuary to thousands of Jews fleeing persecution. Once again we should open our country and our homes to these people. This is a global humanitarian crisis. These are not economic migrants: they are refugees of a crisis of which Britain is partly responsible. We owe it to these people, as fellow humans , to extend sanctuary as relief from their suffering. It is purely by chance that they were born in Syria and we in the UK. Were the situation to be reversed we would hope the same from them.

People who are struggling to survive, should not be charged for calling numbers to arrange benefits.

The people fleeing Syria need shelter and refuge. The victims in Syria are dying from war, not starvation. This is not a migration issue. It is a humanitarian issue and with 6.5 million Syrian's displaced, asylum is the key.

Austerity and hardship affects so many in the UK today and that number is growing. Whilst the efforts of Tesco and other big retailers to support those in need of food banks is welcome (through collection points and other initiatives), offering shoppers the opportunity to gift / donate their 'points' to the local foodbank (and in the event of those who do not have a clubcard, to by default donate those unclaimed points) could really boost their supplies. Good for the food banks, good for the customers of Tesco and good for Tesco too! Non-political, humanitarian, community spirited and much needed. Especially in the run up to Christmas.

Challenge prejudice against people on benefits. Mark Wood, 44, of Bampton, Oxfordshire, starved to death in 2013 weighing just 5st 8lb after assessors Atos declared him fit to work and took away housing benefit and employment support allowance.

Changes to these regulations by the governing bodies of the series, will mean that deaths from incidents such as Henry Surtees and Justin Wilson will be significantly less likely.

The rising death toll due to the unscrupulous methods used by traffickers and the daily scenes of unacceptable border treatment of vulnerable migrants.

This is important because just because of his position doesn't mean he should get away with flaunting the law and due process. As a politician he should be made to account for his actions. He was duly elected to be a true and right minister in Parliament. His actions are causing many to suffer and if his policies that do so are flawed then they should be removed or he must give this account.

Am I crazy? Surely giving social housing tenants the right to buy their homes and reducing their rent by 1% every year for four years is good news. Don't be fooled! In the short term these measures might seem advantageous to people living in social housing. In fact in the long term they pose a real threat to the very organisations that provide such housing and therefore to the tenants and future tenants. They also pose a threat to every taxpayer. Who will pay to pick up the pieces when housing associations (RPs) go under? Once lost to a social housing landlord, rent money cannot be recovered. Social landlords will not benefit financially from the sell-off of their properties - people's homes - but will have insufficient surpluses with which to replace them with new housing. Many RPs will have to shelve indefinitely their plans to develop new housing. Much social housing is old and costly to maintain. RPs might also have drastically to curtail their plans to modernise these homes. If they're really strapped for cash, routine maintenance plans will also be adversely affected. The knock-on effects of the Government's plans are serious and wide-ranging. There is a housing crisis! This is not the time to be impoverishing the very organisations that could help to remedy that.

It is not inevitable that the second largest party should form the Opposition, any more than the largest single party should form the Government. It is the normal state of affairs, but many combinations are arithmetically possible and from time to time special circumstances may apply. This is one of those times. The interim leader of the Labour Party has stated that having lost the General Election, it cannot and should not vote against Bills brought forward by the Government. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the parliamentary process at Westminster, and brings the whole House into disrepute. Adversarial politics requires a strong Opposition to hold the Government to account, by force of argument and by attempting to defeat it in divisions. An Opposition party that will not do so abdicates its constitutional role. In fairness, not all Labour MPs agree with the leader's position, and if there were so much as an even split it might be legitimate to leave the matter alone. But the 48 Labour members who voted against the Government's recent Welfare Bill constitute barely a quarter of the delegation, and are in themselves a smaller parliamentary group than the Scottish National Party. The official Opposition should be the largest party which actually opposes the Government. At present, that is the SNP, not Labour. There may be a case for reexamining the issue in September, depending on the result of the Labour leadership election and the policies it pursues thereafter, but that should not stay your hand now.

George Osborne has cut 12 billion from Social Security from the young, the working poor and families. This will plunge many adults and children into poverty. Thus damaging children's physical, mental and emotional development costing the NHS much more to treat in the future. But George Osborne has given away more money for the very wealthy through inheritance tax changes and is cutting Corporation Tax for big business again, without any guarantees they will provide jobs, pay tax or benefit the communities they serve.