This is an important issue whereby many women over the age of 55 particularly will suffer financial hardship through no fault of their own. There has been no proper planning or compensation considered for or this small minority of women which will suffer as a result. Many women over 50 find themselves living alone and had always expected to retire with a state pension at 60. The new legislation has not given woman a fair enough amount of time to prepare for such a major financial disruption to their lives.

The government is threatening to change firefighters’ pension schemes, meaning all members will pay more, work longer and still get less. Pay more Before 2010, firefighters already contributed one of the highest proportions of their salary towards their pensions (11%), and in April this year it increased for the third year running. Firefighters typically now pay over £4,000 a year from a £29,000 salary, and the government has announced they will impose another increase in 2015. Work longer Firefighters will be expected to work until they are 60 however the government’s own report by Dr Tony Williams, published in December 2013, recognises that two thirds (66%) will not meet the current fitness standard. Firefighters, who are forced to retire at 55 due to a natural decline in fitness, could lose up to half of their pension or face the sack. Get less Firefighters will only receive the full pension they signed up for if they work for 40 years in the service which given current retirement and fitness rates is unlikely for the majority of firefighters.

This is important because the vast majority of people reading this petition will still be around in five years, and so this affects YOU. If we don't act now, then our safety and the safety of future generations will be in danger as our National Health Service slowly crumbles from a lack of funds.Furthermore, the population is ever increasing; as the ONS predicts, within 25 years the UK population will reach just over 73 million. This will put further strain on an already struggling institution. We need to say NO to spending £1.4 billion on redundancies, and YES to more spending on the NHS itself, its resources and its staff.

It is important because TTIP will rid us of some of our basic liberties and will oblige the UK Goverment to put businesses over people,stop the UK making laws that hinder companies profitability and will allow companies to bring in workers from any where in the world to save money on labour. TTIP should not,must not and will not make exploitation from corporations easier! With the help of you we can stop this! For more information on the issue search TAFTA,TTIP or go to the following link http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/trade-justice/more/inform/18078-what-is-ttip

Whether we farm animals for food, use them for recreation, or keep them as pets, we need to make sure they are properly looked after. This requires more than simply protecting them from cruelty. We need to meet their needs for food, water and living space, protect them from disease, and create a healthy and stress-free living environment for them. When we slaughter animals for food, we need to ensure that, as far as possible, they have calm, painless deaths.

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