The cost of HS2 is huge and the long term benefits must be fully justified. Existing cost benefit analysis shows the investment will never be repaid - this is an unnecessary cost to the nation that we cannot afford. At the same time, the project will blight huge areas of southern Britain for many years of construction and in perpetuity - and for no gain. The government should upgrade the existing rail infrastructure and minimise the environmental impact for the same economic benefits and at much reduced cost.

After years of neglect under private ownership, South Parade Pier is in danger of collapse. This iconic structure has dramatically decayed over the past six months and is now boarded up and derelict, creating an eyesore for both local people and tourists. Although a sale was widely publicised, the pier has not been transferred to new owners and no remedial repairs have been carried out since the winter storms. Without proper investment, it continues to decay before our eyes. By signing this petition, you are demanding that Portsmouth City Council take action to preserve this Grade Two listed building, treasured by both residents and visitors to Portsmouth. By ordering the owners and operators of South Parade Pier to carry out end-to-end repairs, the council could reverse the decline of this key seafront area, encouraging growth for both new and established businesses - as has happened in many other seaside resorts. South Parade Pier has important historical and cultural value. British and Canadian troops embarked from there on their journey to Normandy for the D-Day landings in 1944. Winston Churchill and Montgomery addressed huge audiences there. Rock legends Pink Floyd, Genesis and David Bowie all performed there - and filming of The Who's rock opera 'Tommy' led to the infamous fire in 1974. Generations of Portsmouth residents and tourists have walked, danced and gathered on the pier since 1879. By lending your support, the pier may once again become both a hub for the local community and an asset for the city of Portsmouth - but we must act swiftly.

This needs to happen now because: 1. Council tax is regressive. Band A takes about 1% of the property value but Band H takes about a tenth of that. So, the more the house is worth, the less you pay. 2. At least 2,500 homes are worth at least £1 million in Brighton and Hove but the vast majority are not even in the top Council Tax band. That’s £ billions worth of homes only contributing about £7.5 million a year to local services, a tiny fraction of their value. Meanwhile, Housing Benefit has been cut but rents in Brighton and Hove went up on average by 27% over the last year. 3. The government gave councils responsibility for Council Tax benefits but gave them the funding less 10%, adding to the burden of already over-stretched councils. This means the poorest in the City are now required by law to pay Council Tax out of meagre benefits, yet residents living in the highest value property have only seen minimal rises to their council tax bills despite seeing the value of property increase an average of 12% in the past year. 4. The top rate of tax on income was reduced by the Coalition government from 50% to 45%. This means the highest earners have received a tax cut while wages have stagnated for the majority, and benefits cut for the poorest. 5. The poor already pay more of their income in tax than the rich http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/16/british-public-wrong-rich-poor-tax-research 6. Rising wealth inequality in Britain is one of the highest in the industrialised world and this has resulted in perverse situation where the top 1% own the same as the bottom 55% of the population http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/15/britains-richest-1-percent-own-same-as-bottom-55-population 7. The Spirit Level research shows that wider income inequality exacerbates and increases social problems, from health, to life expectancy, to education to others see http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/ 8. Thomas Piketty shows that the value of wealth has increased faster than the value of wages, effectively entrenching the circle of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/28/thomas-piketty-capital-surprise-bestseller. Progressive taxation should be used as a policy lever to address high levels of inequality. This is something the Coalition government are ideologically opposed to but this leaves space for truly radical and progressive local politics to make bold an brave decisions. Brighton and Hove City Council has the power both to make reductions in household council tax bills due to Council Tax Reduction regulations, and it also has the power to establish free standing benefits, outside of Council Tax regulations, to make local funding more progressive. For more details and examples of what can be done, please go to our website www.newdeal4brightonhove.org This petition will be presented to Full Council in October 2014, but the campaign won’t end there. When the petition is presented, we are granted a 3 minute speaking slot. This will be available on the council’s online podcasts.

On 22 May 2014 GP's are to vote on whether to introduce appointment charges (estimated £10 - £25 per visit). If this vote is passed it could mean the end of our NHS, free at the point of use. The NHS is currently being dismantled under the guise of an ineffective system and more consumer choice. Increased GP workload and patient demand driving this issue is largely as a result of government policy, hospital closures and privatisation. GP income has fallen by design and patient charges are not the answer. "How many times are we going to fall into the traps set by our political masters?" asks Gurdave Gill, GP Partner writing on the Pulse Today website. "Patient charges are NOT the answer. User charges deter the sick and poor as much as the 'worried well'. Expensive and bureaucratic to collect, evidence shows patients delay seeking medical advice when user charges are introduced. Delay in diagnosis can cause significant harm. If we know this to be fact, to introduce charges appears to suggest that our incomes are more important than any potential harm to the patients. Is this ethical? "The current crisis in Primary care has been manufactured to create a pressure from GPs for charges. [...] We should be demanding increased resources from Government and not our patients. The NHS returned £5bn underspend to the treasury in the last 3 years. The cost of the purchaser-provider split exceeds £10bn pa yet delivers absolutely no patient gain at roughly the entire cost of primary care! {...] We need to identify the correct target and demand our representative bodies are more effective rather than the incompetence/collusion with Government we have seen in recent past. The minority of pro-privatisation GPs leading the call for charges need to be recognised for what they are. We must not be persuaded by the 'greedy and dims' amongst us.” And how about that consumer choice? Right now we have the best of both, individual private healthcare and tax-payer funded. Both are a form of 'paid for' healthcare, one is paid for by the individual, the other paid for and negotiated collectively. If the asset strip continues we will only have the most expensive poorly-negotiated option open to any of us. That is no choice at all. UPDATE The BMA's current position on this motion as outlined to one of our members, obviously, it would be naive to rest on these laurels: "The BMA's current position is not in favour of charging patients for GP appointments. Introducing charging would undermine the basis of the NHS; that healthcare is free at the point of use, and patients receive care based on their clinical need. A fee charging system could require an expensive bureaucracy to collect money from patients. It is also possible that the charges may deter vulnerable patients from seeing their GP which could lead to delays in treatment. However, there will be a motion debated at the Local Medical Committee (LMC) conference in York later this month. If the motion is carried, this does not mean it will become BMA policy. BMA Policy is decided at our Annual Representative Meeting (ARM) in July [ed- It's actually Sunday 22 - Thursday 26 June 2014] and motions are proposed by individual branch of practice conferences (e.g. GPs, consultants, junior doctors etc) and submitted for debate by geographical divisions. It would require further consideration by the BMA's leadership and the BMA's Annual Representative Meeting in July. It is understandable that GPs are looking at raising these kind of ideas, given the enormous pressure on GP services. Many GP practices are struggling from a combination of rising patient demand and falling funding that ministers have failed to recognise. However, the BMA feels that we don't need a complicated and unfair charging system to be introduced for GP appointments. We need the government to provide the resources to enable GPs to deliver the care that their patients need. I hope this is helpful and that it clarifies the BMA position for you." Links: Facebook page that inspired this petition: https://www.facebook.com/healthcharge Pulse Today - GP leaders to vote on whether to support patient charges for appointments: http://bit.ly/1lrI1gg LMC Conference - Full Agenda: http://bit.ly/fullagenda BMC/GPC: http://bit.ly/bmcandgpc BMC Annual Meeting: http://bma.org.uk/working-for-change/arm-2014-info Wessex LMC: http://bit.ly/aboutWessex

To the residents of Exeter, people who work in Exeter and visit Exeter, together with those who love Exeter… In an increasingly commercialised world, people should have the freedom to choose when they are exposed to advertising. In public open spaces we should be free from private and commercial interest and advertising should not be allowed to disfigure our city. We are Citizens not Consumers. Imaging how much more beautiful our city could be if it were not covered up by ugly advertising hoardings. Sao Paulo, Auckland, Bergen, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont, and 1,500 towns throughout the world have already banned external advertising. In the UK, Bristol has a campaign to ban outdoor adverts. Plymouth has already banned adverts for pay-day loan companies, whilst Leeds, Newcastle and Bristol are considering it. We should add our wonderful city to the growing movement to reclaim our open spaces. CONSUMER PRESSURE: Excessive advertising encourages us to run ever faster on the treadmill of modern consumer life with damaging consequences. It contributes to growing consumer debt and to the consumption of ever increasing amounts of the earth’s finite resources. Additionally advertising is increasingly sowing the seeds of unhappiness by persuading the consumer to be dissatisfied with what they have got, and so creating an artificial need to buy the next thing. Evidence from the Good Childhood Inquiry indicates that the most vulnerable groups to commercial pressures - children and young people - show higher rates of mental health problems. Removing advertising in public spaces, such as billboards, would free us in our outdoor environment from the pressure to consume and allow us to see previously obscured parts of our city. Any remaining empty spaces can be reclaimed for the purpose of art, poetry and inspiring social campaigns (e.g. volunteering, encouraging recycling). VISUAL POLLUTION: Currently there are laws on air pollution, noise pollution and light pollution - now is the time to take back our city from this visual pollution so that we can be citizens rather than just consumers. There is no doubt that the removal of advertising can change the appearance of our city enormously and allow us to see parts of the city previously hidden to us, opening up new exciting vistas. For more information see – “The Advertising Effect” http://www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/the-advertising-effect-how-do-we-get-the-balance-of-advertising-right/ Joint campaign by Exeter Friends of the Earth and Steady State Devon

This is a totally unnecessary decision and shows the Government does not value hard working nurses and health care support workers and are relying on their good nature and dedication to just accept it. A recent pay review body recommendation to increase MP’s salaries was accepted but then it was MP’s voting for their own pay increase! Please sign up to our petition so the Government knows how bitter a pill they are trying to make us swallow.

Rents in London are unaffordable. We can’t afford to live here. We are sharing bedrooms with strangers and commuting for four hours a day. We are spending over 75% of our salaries on rent. We are being evicted and made homeless as we can’t afford rent rises imposed by our landlords. A rent cap is the quickest way to reduce rents and make homes affordable. It’s vital that the Government gives the Mayor of London the power to introduce a rent cap so we can afford to live in London. We should not have to choose between food or a home. We want a rent cap which is similar to council housing rents. For example: - Room in shared house: £75 a week - Studio: £95 a week - One bedroom property: £120 a week - Two bedroom property: £145 a week - Three bedroom property: £170 a week - Four bedroom property: £195 a week

1. South East is over crowded, expensive and takes up too much of the UKs resources. 2. If Parliament were not in the South East resources would be shared more equitably. 3. Manchester is the second largest city in England and could expand to balance the disparity between the South East and the North of England. 4.To work this has to be a permanent move, not a Parliament that sits sometimes in London and sometimes in Manchester. 5. Manchester is more accessible for regions such as Scotland and Northern Ireland. See:- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/04/westminster-manchester-democracy-parliament

This is important because the General Public of the UK are not being given a fair and accurate picture of the clear failure of the WP to provide what the public are paying for through their taxes. People are not fully aware of the "sanctioning regime", seemingly endorsed by the DWP Provider Guidance Notes and the detrimental impact it is having on the health and well being of many of the most vulnerable people in society. These tactics are actually creating barriers to work, rather than removing them. People should be aware that the DWP Provider Guidance is constantly being updated to strip the unemployed of their rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. It is also being used as a license to cut welfare expenditure by providing more avenues and extra guidance on how to issue more sanctions against WP participants. There is more information contained within the DWP Provider Guidance relevant to sanctioning people correctly, than there is information relative to helping people back into suitable full time employment. Where are our priorities? For too long now, our government has discredited the unemployed in the UK, creating a negative stereotype for everyone on benefits, including those who are doing their utmost to find work with very little support from this Work Programme. Two contentions are being widely overlooked here: a) Jobseeker's allowance is a taxable income b) No person would be able to claim anything from the welfare/benefit safety net, if they could not prove on a regular basis that they are doing everything they can to find suitable full time employment From reading the DWP Statistics, this is what they should say: 1.41 million people have partaken in the work programme 16.6% managed to find work regardless of whether this work was found through the WP or not 22,000 people – that’s 1.5% - managed to stay in employment long enough for the WP provider to claim the maximum amount of job sustainment payments. 219,000 people, roughly 15% have returned to the Jobcentre still looking for work after being on the Work Programme for over 104 weeks. [source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-programme-statistical-summary-december-2013] It is clear from interpretation of the evidence that the success rate has been approximately 1.5%. The ‘corollary’ is that the failure rate has been 98.5%. The DWP Provider Guidance: 8. Providers are required to present all of their customers with a leaflet explaining the Departmental position in respect of consent to contact an individual’s employer. (A fair processing notice) 9. DWP now has a designation order in place that allows the Department and Providers to contact the customer’s employer directly to validate employment details for the above benefit groups. 10. There is no longer a requirement for you to obtain customer consent to allow DWP to contact a customer’s employer or for you to contact an employer in connection with Outcome or Sustainment payments. 11. You may also share this information with the Department for Work and Pensions. [Source: Chapter 9, Work Programme Provider Guidance] This begs the question – of the 1.5% of participants that did find suitable full time employment, how many of these people found the jobs themselves, only for the WP to take the credit and get paid, even in cases where the WP provided no assistance whatsoever? This failure has come at great cost to the tax-payer, and it seems people are generally misinformed and are allowing 'celebrities' to dominate the discourse on welfare reforms, rather than listening to those of us who are already on the receiving end. No moral conscience can simply walk on by and allow the suffering of their comrades. "When a complaint is freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty attained, that wise men look for" (Milton, 1644) Please note that, not being experienced myself in the realms of ESA benefits, I don't feel that I qualify enough to really discuss that in much detail. But what I can say is that there was a risk highlighted by the National Audit Office upon the introduction of the Work Programme that people who the WPP's deem "easier to help back into employment" will always receive the help first. This is because the WPP's are paid on a target basis and by helping those who they deem easiest to help first, they can achieve their targets more easily and hence get paid more readily. THIS RISK IS NOT BEING MANAGED PROPERLY. The reasons the WP have provided for not managing this risk at all is that they "treat everybody equally", however in reality, this is clearly not the case and my argument is supported by the official statistics. It follows then, that if you are a person who needs extra help to find employment, unfortunately the WPP will get round to helping you last. This is disgraceful, it is unfair and it is unethical.

The Bombed Out Church is an Iconic Space in the City of Liverpool; it represents many of the struggles of the City over decades. It's not a simple a shell - It is a living, working monument to the people of Liverpool.

The magnificent Brighton Hippodrome needs your help to save it from being wrecked. It is a unique theatre building, listed Grade II* by English Heritage because of its historical and architectural significance. It was converted into a variety theatre in 1901/02 by Frank Matcham, the leading theatre architect of the time. It is one of only three theatres of its type in the country. It is of national importance. After closing as a variety theatre in 1965, it was a bingo hall until 2007. The stunning interior, however, is still in remarkable condition, with very little deterioration. Nonetheless, the Hippodrome is top of the Theatres Trust list of Theatre Buildings at Risk. Suddenly, in mid 2013, a proposal to convert the building into an eight-screen cinema emerged. The plans involve demolishing the stage, the fly-tower, all the back-stage facilities, the stalls and the orchestra pit. Without these it ceases to be a theatre. Please sign the petition to help to keep it intact. English Heritage has a statutory responsibility to protect listed buildings. It says any changes should be reversible. The proposed changes will make this impossible. No one so far has tried to produce a scheme for restoration for its real purpose: live performance. It would be a national scandal if the opportunity to save the Hippodrome were squandered because of misinformation and short-term gain. Please sign this petition to allow the Our Brighton Hippodrome campaign to produce that missing theatre proposal, for presentation to the Council, to English Heritage and the developers. We have the knowledge, we have the experience and we have the contacts. All we need is time. Read about the campaign, see the full details of our objection and see pictures of the Hippodrome Website: www.ourhippodrome.org.uk Facebook: www.facebook.com/ourbrightonhippodromepage Twitter: https://twitter.com/ourhippodrome The developer’s plan for conversion (not restoration!) to a multi-screen cinema: www.brightonhippodrome.co.uk/

We, the undersigned, are students, alumni and staff of Royal Holloway, University of London concerned about the recent pay rises awarded the Principal Paul Layzell. In 2012-2013, Professor Layzell was awarded an £8,000 pay rise of 3%, which he is yet to justify and we still do not know whether he was in receipt of a pay rise in 2013-2014.