There have been multiple inventions across the world in the last few years that would alleviate congestion and aid the restricted movement public in this country, if the law were modified. Currently these PMD's do not fit into our highways act simply because they aren't disabled carriages, are motorised and so cannot be driven on the pavements and are too slow for the road networks. I propose that room should be made in the highways act and by extension in the Cyclist part of the Highway code for the use of properly registered and maintained "safe" Personal Mobility Devices. These devices are growing in popularity across the world (I believe at the last count the Segway for example was a legal form of transportation in 30 different countries now) and simply sticking our head in the sand and quoting legislation based on an act that was made in 1835 is putting us at risk of missing the boat on properly regulating the safe and controlled use of these devices. If we were to open the doors on this issue, we could provide laws and rules to do things like prohibit the use of these PMDs inside so that people do not injure themselves riding around the office as I have seen in one Youtube video, but also we can regulate the types of PMD allowed on Cycle lanes for example. Most of these PMDs are limited to 10mph the equivalent of a fast run, so could legitimately use cycle lanes and pavements where it is safe to do so, if the law were changed to allow these vehicles to be treated similarly to bicycles. Furthermore, if these PMDs were treated like a stage between a bicycle and motorbike, they could be taxed and regulated like a discount motorbike. Allowing for further regulation and control, perhaps even licensing to promote safe usage of them too (which is more than is required for Disability "buggies"). Currently Disability "buggies" have 2 classes -4mph they are allowed unrestricted access to public areas, +4mph these vehicles have to have a tax registration and have road legal lighting on them. There is a section in the Highway code for the correct use of these devices, most of them are electric and most of them are often used in public areas with little or no danger to the public. All I am asking, is for a similar allowance for Safe Personal Mobility Devices to be given a fair chance to be used by a public who are crying out for an alternative to sitting in traffic jams all day, whether using public transport or not, or having to get all hot and sweaty cycling to work through fume and traffic clogged streets. Providing a section in the Highways act to classify PMDs would allow for this development. To further my argument, most of these PMDs are also electric and so would be far less polluting than even the most eco-friendly hybrid bus that Boris can sponsor. You ride your electric PMD in to the office in the morning, charge it back up using the company solar panels, then ride it home and plug it back into your solar panels at home, much better than riding a hybrid bus that uses a diesel generator to charge its batteries when it's outside of the congestion zones.

Members of the public find it difficult to support a political party 100%. Our system is out of date, our MPs out of touch, the public go unheard. We agree with points made by the Lib Dems, the Conservatives, Labour, the Green Party, the SNP etc and sometimes we disagree with them all. Either way we can't communicate with the government effectively. The system needs to work for us all but instead it's dusty, nobody really understands it or cares to sort it out with any long term vision. We need to start again. Simplify. Direct questions, direct answers. If regular referendums were to take place, the public are truly part of the process, allowing us to demonstrate what we care about, that we're united and want to invest in the future of this land and it's people. Less moaning and more doing, having a proactive and fair say, feeling satisfied that the decisions are being made and supported by the majority of the UK. Let the UK public vote for their future. This Kingdom can then begin to feel proud and respected, and most importantly, united.

In making these industries exempt, the funding has to come from elsewhere. The Conservative government has made it clear that it will not finance renewable energy off its own back, so funding will instead be passed on to regular households. The Government proposes to withdraw support for short-term funding (the next 4-5 years) of renewable technologies like solar panels and wind turbines as they are concerned it will add £ 7 p.a. to consumers energy bills which is unacceptable. Households will see their bills increase by £5 a year for the next four years to fund this exemption, at a total cost of £20 added to household bills. What has also been revealed is that projected savings from “reforming” (closing) the renewable obligation and feed-in tariff (renewable energy support schemes) will save households a total of £17 over the same period. Clearly, this action does not fit with the Governments intention to save consumers money on their energy bills as this action actually increases consumer energy bills. Renewable energy industries benefit communities, reduce wholesale future electrical energy costs and reduce pollution, making the environment a better place for current and future generations. Money used to support these schemes will now be passed as "Levy Control Framework Exemptions" (tax breaks) to high energy busines users - who pollute the planet and cause pollution related illnesses. The European Commission has aggregated a list of industries it considers intensive users of energy. That list, includes but is not limited to industries such as the mining of hard coal and the manufacture of refined petroleum products. On the face of it, it looks as if savings made from the feed-in tariff are being handed straight to large energy users to make sure they can survive the kind of difficult business environment the government is creating for domestic solar. It’s a galling prospect, and one that flies completely against any ‘the polluter pays’ principle put across in environmental law. “Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children” Please sign this petition to let George Osborne know we want a clean environment for our children and not to give money used to support clean energy industries away to support polluting fossil fuel companies. More details on the link below, but please read the quote below the link from Carl Sagan - a famous astronomer who was moved to write about the last image of our planet, taken as a Voyager satelite left our galaxy : http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/editors_blog/fit_cut_savings_all_but_handed_to_potential_polluters_under_eii_2592 “From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of particular interest. But for us, it's different. Consider again that dot. That's here, that's home, that's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.” ― Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot:

James Clerk Maxwell stands beside Einstein and Newton in the trinity of physicists who explained how the universe works. The other two are global superstars, but Maxwell is barely known in his own country, Scotland. To celebrate a great man and encourage future generations to take risks and think big, Maxwell should be the face on the next RBS banknote. The greatest Scotsman to ever live deserves to be a household name.

Small and medium-sized businesses in the UK are paying a disproportionate amount of tax, which is manifestly unfair. In addition, the Austerity measures and severe cuts to public services would be unnecessary, if this revenue were collected.

We are far to dependant on the banks. If you were unable to get a bank account life would be ormost impossible Consider paying bills . receiving your salary . getting a rental property. The effects are far reaching . The banks charge what ever they want and increase charges when ever they want . You have to have a min monthly earning either £500 or £1000 or they will not give you an account. Looks like the banks run the UK not the Gov.

Hundreds of thousands of Tenants across the United Kingdom who pay their rent on time and without arrears are being indirectly discriminated against by the credit reference agencies who do not treat tenants rental payments the same as mortgage payments made by the landlords and those who own their own homes. This means that Tenants who later would like to get onto the property ladder often find themselves with a much lower credit score than someone who has paid exactly the same in mortgage payments over the same period of time which puts them at a disadvantage when applying for credit with a bank or building society.

The National Minimum Wage is currently set at £6.70 per hour for anyone over 21, which will go up to £7.20 (for over 25s) in 2016. This is calculated by the Low Pay Commission and is the lowest amount any UK employee can legally be paid per hour. The Living Wage is a term defined and set by the Living Wage Foundation and is calculated according to the real cost of living, including food, fuel, childcare and more. This amount is determined by independent academics. The UK Living Wage is currently set at £8.25 per hour nationally and £9.40 per hour in London. (in recognition of the fact that the cost of living is higher in London). Across the UK, one in five working people currently earns less than the Living Wage. While the introduction of the National Minimum Wage has been almost universally acknowledged as a significant step forward for the lowest paid in society, it still falls way short of the amount people actually need to live on. The chancellor has announced that the National Minimum Wage is due to rise to £7.20 per hour for over 25s in 2016, while at the same time, in a deceitful sleight of hand, he is attempting to rebrand this as the "National Living Wage". While that 50p per hour increase over the current National Minimum Wage will be welcomed by the several million people who are currently paid the National Minimum Wage, it will still be £1.05 per hour less than the UK Living Wage and £2.20 per hour less than the London Living Wage. If the Government were proposing to increase the National Minimum Wage to the amounts the Living Wage Foundation have deemed to be what people actually need to live on, then they would be entitled to re-name it as a "National Living Wage", but if not, then they have no right to hijack the term Living Wage and it should instead be referred to as what it actually is - an increased National Minimum Wage. It seems they are attempting to deliberately muddy the waters and steal the clothes of the true Living Wage, in order to deceive the public into thinking the increased National Minimum Wage will be an amount people can live on, when that is not the case. This petition urges the heads of news at BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky, as well as the editors of national newspapers, to recognise their responsibility to the British public to communicate accurately and transparently and so to only use the term "increased National Minimum Wage", as that is what it is. We also expect news presenters, correspondents and columnists to challenge any attempts to use the misleading term "National Living Wage" and to explain to viewers and readers why that term is inaccurate and misleading and to explain what the true UK Living Wage and London Living Wage are and to make it clear that they are set by the Living Wage Foundation, as opposed to the National Minimum Wage, which is set by the Low Pay Commission. But why does it matter what it is called? It matters because Britain remains an extremely unequal society, in which there are millions of people in fuel poverty and an increasing number reliant upon food banks for basic necessities. However an increasing number of these people are in work, yet they are not paid enough to sustain their basic needs. A growing number of employers are voluntarily opting to pay all their staff at least the true UK Living Wage and this is to be commended - as they really are ensuring their employees are paid enough to live on and they should be recognised for doing so. It may well seem like a semantic and technical argument, but the widespread mis-use of the term "National Living Wage" is intentionally misleading and is giving people the false impression that once it is introduced, every employee will be paid an amount they can live on, when in reality there will still be several million of the lowest paid people who will welcome the 50p per hour pay rise, but who will be receiving an increased National Minimum Wage, not a National Living Wage. The more people sign this petition, the more difficult news organisations will find it to ignore this issue and the more likely it will be that we can stop the misleading misuse of an important and meaningful term, which affects millions of the lowest paid workers in Britain. Thank you for your support and please forward this to people you know.

Negative official interest rates make it more likely that retail banks will pass on the negative rate to you. When they do, you’ll no longer earn interest on your savings. You’ll pay interest. And because you can’t take your cash out in the form of banknotes, you have a simple choice: spend your digital cash, or watch it whittle away bit by bit. Do you see how negative interest rates and a cashless society could be seen as the ultimate tool of economic coercion? Changing the general rate of interest changes incentives. But for central bankers, merely changing incentives isn’t working. If you’re a central planner, you have to force action. If you still possess your cash, you don’t have to do what other people want you to do with your money. With cash, you still have choices. You can plan for a rainy day and choose to take possession of some of your savings. If it’s still in your hands, the choice is yours. But if there’s nothing to possess, no cash to put under the mattress or in the freezer, how much control do you have left? Not much, I’d say. And that’s precisely the idea.

The BBC is one of the most admired and respected media outlets in the world. To attempt to force it into private hands through undermining its financial base is verging on the criminal. The organisation is neither marxist nor threatening to our national culture. It is portrayed as such by those who wish both to silence it for political reasons and to benefit financially by its privatisation.

* Steel is a strategic material. Without it we cannot exist on our own, supply our own industries, fight a war if the worst occurred. * Skilled jobs are being lost, these skills may not come back and our industrial future is in peril * Families are suffering, far better to assist the companies in the short term than pay dole to the redundant workers. * Britain needs to look to the long term industrial future like Germany and support its industries.

In this time of austerity, cuts and financial difficulty for some of the poorest in society, we need a strong opposition to Tory policies. A minority of Labour MPs cannot be allowed to divide the party on such important votes which will affect millions of people.