The government is considering reducing tax credits for millions of working families as part of its £12bn welfare cuts. Changes would cut entitlements for about 3.7 million low-income families by about £1,400 a year, the IFS said, and has calculated that for the poorest families it would mean a reduction of £845 per child per year. Mr Osborne's political allies are saying the move will increase 'incentives to work' and Senior Tory sources are trying to suggest that tax credits have allowed big companies to get away with paying employees lower wages. During the general election, Prime Minister David Cameron promised he would not be cutting many benefits - including the state pension, pensioner benefits, and child benefit. It appears this didn't include child tax credits! On a recent appearance on BBC Two's Newsnight, David Skelton, director of the Conservative pressure group Renewal, stated that he agreed the tax credit bill could be lowered. "you have a lot of employers who are basically getting subsidy from the state for low paid work and we'd like to see a shift towards those employers who can afford to pay the living wage to pay the living wage." Mr Skelton said. The conservatives believe that this move will encourage workers to work more hours if they can, or if they are working part time at the moment. And also get to see a higher minimum wage over time as well. What is apparent is that this will hit the poorest hard in the short term with no guarantees that the lost benefits will be made up. Vulnerable families will have to work longer hours to maintain their current levels of income or loose out. We propose that these cuts do not go ahead. Stephen Timms, Labour's acting work and pensions secretary, said plans to cut £12bn from social security would hit "working families and children hard". "It's clear that David Cameron and George Osborne's plan will make working families less secure," he said. These cuts are an idea that is among many being considered now as the Tories wrestle with how to deliver their pledge to cut £12bn from Britain's £220bn budget for benefits and tax credits. We need to act now to show how many of us would be disappointed in such a decision.

The mental health crisis in this country is dire. There is a shortage of beds, people waiting too long to be seen by a therapist. My local mind may have to close because of funding. I need people to help me fight for the services we so badly need please can people sign and share xx

Oakham Fire Station is 1 of 20 Fire Stations in Leicestershire Fire and Rescue (LFRS). The geographical area it protects is the second largest in LFRS. The area includes many risks such as part of the A1 motorway, HMP Stocken and a number of industrial units. The station attends a number of Road Traffic Collisions (RTC’s) on the many treacherous roads surrounding the area. Oakham Fire Station is the only Station in LFRS where calls to incidents have not declined over the last 5 years. Because of the risks in the area, Oakham Fire Station contains 3 Fire Service appliances. 1 of which is a fire engine that is available 24/7 and crewed by a minimum of 5 full time firefighters. The other 2 appliances are crewed by part-time retained firefighters who live and work in the Oakham area. The part-time retained firefighters at Oakham crew a second fire engine with a minimum of 4 firefighters. They also crew the Heavy Rescue Unit (HRU) appliance that attends specialist rescues such as RTC’s involving Heavy Goods Vehicles. LFRS have proposed to remove all of Oakham’s part-time retained firefighters and the fire engine they crew by April 2016. There has been no mention of what will happen to the HRU, but without the retained firefighters who crew the vehicle. It is unlikely to remain at Oakham Fire Station. Therefore, Oakham will be left with only 1 fire engine usually riding 5 firefighters, rather than 3 fire appliances with 11 firefighters it currently has ready to respond to any emergency incidents when they are needed. We believe these changes would increase the risk of death and injury to the members of the public in Oakham and Rutland. The estimated cost for LFRS to keep Oakham’s second fire engine and all the retained firefighters who crew it is £97,000 a year. RCC has kindly offered the Combined Fire Authority (CFA) £150,000 in order to maintain Oakham’s second fire engine and its retained firefighters for the next 2 years. On the 8th April 2015 the CFA decided that Oakham’s second fire engine and all its retained firefighters would be removed by April 2016. At the same time the CFA stated they would continue discussions with RCC regarding accepting the offer of £150,000 and using it instead to fund a Rapid Response Vehicle (RRV) which is to be placed somewhere in Rutland. We believe the RRV will provide a significantly reduced service to the people of Oakham and Rutland compared to that given by the second fire engine at Oakham. The RRV will be crewed by 2 or 3 firefighters rather than a fire engine which can be crewed by a maximum of 6 firefighters. The RRV will contain significantly less firefighting and rescue equipment compared to a fire engine. Furthermore the RRV may not even be placed in Oakham. To highlight the reduced service the RRV will provide; at present when a fire engine attends a house fire, the crew can only go inside that house if it has a minimum of 4 firefighters. This is to ensure all the safety critical roles and procedures are being met. Since the RRV will only be crewed by 2 or 3 firefighters, in the same situation the crew of the RRV would not be allowed to enter the house to rescue the people inside or extinguish the fire and would instead have to wait outside until further resources arrived. This is unacceptable and could lead to members of the public risking their own lives to try and save their family, friends and neighbours. Whilst the firefighters riding the RRV have to stand outside awaiting further resources. Therefore, it is crucial we oppose the £150,000 offered by RCC to be used for anything other than helping to maintain Oakham’s second fire engine and the retained firefighters who crew it.

NYCC has already made subsidy cuts to bus services of a whopping £2 million in 2013/2014 - the highest in the UK - and now it wants to cut an extra £500,000 in 2016. Buses are a lifeline for so many, for both practical and social reasons. If a person cannot drive, or doesn't have access to transport, why should they be disadvantaged further? If somebody relies on the bus to get to work, why should they worry - again - that they may not be able to get there? You never know when you may need a bus so please don't take them for granted. They are a necessity and not a luxury. Here's my story: I've been using the 31x between Easingwold and Helmsley on an almost daily basis for several years to get to work. It's clean, reliable and a safe way to get to a lovely rural part of the world that is very popular with tourists. NYCC is thinking of cutting my two regular journeys to term-time only, with unacceptable cuts to the rest of the service which will effectively reduce it to three days a week and two journeys a day - one from and one to Helmsley - and nothing at all at the weekend. You can find full proposal information here: www.northyorks.gov.uk/bussubsidy DON'T LET NYCC CUT OR FRAGMENT ANY MORE SERVICES.

The proposed changes to services across our town's children's centres will have a devastating impact on our communities and will leave thousands of children and families without adequate early years services.

The human cost of welfare cuts is huge, with levels of stress, depression, physical ill health and family breakdown likely to increase as the cuts hit. Welfare cuts are about so much more than simply reducing the deficit for so many people. It's not possible for our politicians to experience fully what it is to be on a low income long-term, but we call on them to make this effort to engage with the human cost of their policies.

'Education Other Than At Schools' (EOTAS) provides a service which is in very high demand. In addition, there are so many more children still on the waiting list, due to the limited amount of teachers that they have at the moment. The Council is intent on cutting the tuition team further (from 12.6 to 4 full time equivalent teachers ). That’s not enough! It’s going to mean a great deal of children like me are not going to get the education they need and deserve. Under the new proposals, children with mental health issues will no longer be eligible for home tuition and the Key Stage Four Pupil Referral Unit, a provision for pupils for whom school is not suitable, will be shut down. For two and a half years I received home tuition. I was so ill that I couldn't even get out of bed and there wasn't really a question about whether or not I could get into school. I had two wonderful home tutors who not only were my teachers but became great friends. They made my lessons not only manageable but also fun and made me eager to learn. They got me through my GCSE's, helping me achieve an A, two B's and two C's, where most people including myself thought I might not pass any of my exams. I know so many kids personally that are really very ill/disabled and are in receipt of home tuition or have received it in the past. Over and over I have heard of the invaluable support, teaching and guidance that these teachers have given. I'm now far better, my condition has stabilised and I have just had my 17th birthday. I am my studying my A-levels in college, looking at universities and considering a career in politics and art. None of this would be possible without my fantastic home tutors. Without Home Tuition, I would just have been another NEET statistic (Not in education or in employment training). Most of time the kinds of children that are in need of home tuition are the ones who will need to rely on their education most in future. The team are highly skilled, highly qualified and experienced teachers. This is not just about keeping their jobs. It’s about looking out for all the vulnerable children that need an education! Once this service is gone, it's gone. There’s no getting this service or these teachers back. What if your child in the future is unable to attend school? What if for some reason you or your child develop symptoms that make going to school difficult if not impossible? Save our services! You never know when you ‘re going to need help! Thanks

Our community libraries are under threat! The council want to stop funding the running of Bromley's community libraries, and have asked for volunteer groups to run and fund the libraries, threatening the loss of jobs for qualified library staff and the closure of the libraries. The council has millions of pounds in reserves, some of which should be used to maintain an efficient and comprehensive library service as required by law. It is a vital community hub used by the most vulnerable members of society- children and the elderly and it cannot be lost.

This is important as in modern day society socialism and plain human instinct is to help and support one another. With the proposed budget being shown next month, we are likely to see the poorest get hit with waves of austerity and the rich getting richer as usual. Please sign to prevent such happening!

More people are going to suffer if these cuts are made and we need to do something to stop it now.

Life for a person who is disabled whether it be a physical or a mental disability is hard enough already. People never chose to be disabled and it can happen to anyone at anytime. There are many many more humane ways to save money and a society who does not care for the less fortunate of it's people is doomed, history teaches us that time and time again. The disabled and sick should have never been demonized in the press, even the disabled peoples doctors are being ignored or seen as in collusion with their patients to"sponge" off of the state, in most cases this is categorically untrue. Most of us know directly or indirectly someone who suffers from a mental or a physical disability can we as a civilized society stand by and watch the most vulnerable in our society being targeted yet again as an easy attempt to claw back money while the bankers and large corporations get away with it again. Do we as civilized people condone this behavior as right or just?

They docked the benefits so that's hitting them once and with what they have left they have to pay the bedroom tax so they been hit twice. So they won't have much to live on. People should have enough money to live. Prices go UP and money gets cut from everywhere.