Whilst many of us do agree that high earners should probably pay more for living in social housing, an entire household on £30,000 (or £40,000 in London) a year just isn’t high or wealthy. That would consist of a couple earning just £15,000 each, and we know how hard it is to get by on that meagre amount. The current government are contradicting themselves when they say they’ll “make work pay” and they’re the party for the workers; yet if a social housing tenant works, they will now be penalised for it. If you live in social housing and you work, you will now face the prospect of losing your home. Many of these working families in social housing (just like most other people) have aspirations to get out of the poverty trap and use the opportunity of social housing to save for a deposit to one day buy their own home, thus freeing up the home for the next family who needs it. Now it is as though they are not allowed to have dreams or better themselves. All hope of saving for a decent mortgage have been ripped out from under their feet while they are pushed back down into the ground where they apparently “belong”. It is increasingly depressing that there is near to no hope for people’s futures. Mortgages aside, many families, especially those with children, will find it increasingly hard to manage day to day. These families could be forced to private rent, but not their own self contained flat as before, as the rents would again be too high, they will be forced into renting a room and sharing a house. Is this the way a family should live? We are regressing back to the days of overcrowded houses with notorious rip off landlords. The ONS says that a family of four will spend on average £517.30 per week. If both parents earned a total of £31,000, they would (after tax), have only around £465 to spend per week, this is well below the UK average. When their rents are raised to market level, where will they get the extra money from? This will result in more poverty, tenants giving up jobs or reducing their hours to earn under the threshold, or in worst case scenarios, couples splitting up or living apart to avoid being penalised for having a job or older working children being kicked out to reduce the household income. If these children are under 21, and on a low wage, how will they find housing without a Housing Benefit top up? Let’s cut out the “luxuries” of living, the ONS estimates that to live basically (rent/mortgage not included), a household will spend an average of £350 a week on bills, food, basic clothing, travel and health. This would leave a £30,000 earning home with about £100 a week to spend on their social housing rent. The average UK market rent is £960 per month, or £222 per week. How will these households meet the shortfall of market rent? Where will these families go? This petition is to ask for consideration that the threshold for Pay to Stay be increased to at least £60,000 per household (£70,000 for London). This would ensure that the average family is able to live without poverty, keep a roof over their head and still be able to save a little each month for a deposit to buy their own home, freeing up social housing without first making more people homeless. The current proposed threshold will only make one family homeless to rehome another, thus not bringing down homeless levels, and increasing the housing benefit spend. A consultation paper was produced which asked the opinions of experts in the field – Local Authority landlords, Private Registered Landlords, Tenant Representative Bodies, Private Landlords, and Individuals. A brief quote from the paper is below. Why was there a consultation when the majority of the views were not taken into account? “About a third of respondents thought that the threshold of £60,000 was appropriate. A smaller proportion thought that £80,000 should be the minimum, while the least favoured was £100,000. Social landlords largely preferred £60,000. There were also views that the threshold could be lower than £60,000, though not a consensus in favour of lowering the threshold. If the threshold was below £60,000 it could act as a disincentive to work, particularly for larger households and in high demand areas such as London. Those who favoured the threshold of £60,000 suggested it was reasonable and consistent with other Government policies involving income thresholds, such as access to affordable home ownership (although it was noted that the threshold may need to be adjusted to £74,000 for London, to align with London schemes) and the child benefit “cap”. There were also views that no more than 30% of a household’s income should go on housing costs; otherwise, it could start to impact detrimentally on the household’s budget.”

Workers' rights must be protected, and not left wide open to exploitation by Government, multinational corporations and unscrupulous employers. Plans for the biggest shake-up of strike rules in 30 years would make holding dodgy employers to account almost impossible. Please sign the petition to stop the government sweeping away our rights at work now.

The Living Wage is a concept which has been developed independently and it should not be hi-jacked by the Chancellor because he wants to pass the Minimum Wage off as something it is not. Only The Living Wage Foundation can set the Living Wage, by its own independent processes and no one, not even the Chancellor, can think of any other amount and pass it off as the real thing!

Many carers continue to look after people with substantial caring needs once they (the carers) reach retirement age, yet are no longer financially rewarded for doing so. Attendance Allowance is only payable to the disabled person once they reach 65! Unlike paid employment, where upon reaching the age of approximately 65, the State Pension is payable and those retired can spend their time doing as they please. The Government considers Carers Allowance to be overlapping with the State Pension (both are considered payments in lieu of paid employment, but Carers Allowance, according to the Government is neither a wage nor a salary). Carers continue in their role 24/7!!

This is important for keeping the human rights and dignity, is important to stop these agencies making money from doing nothing. There is a lot of humiliation working as an agency staff - they make you work hard with no reward.

Many of the road sweepers in Harringey do a great job starting early and having to clear the sort of filth of a streets that im sure you all can imagine, these sweepers are trying to do the right thing by working and paying there way even though the salery is at the bottom end its them who are getting effected by the cuts, I mean at the moment Veolia has 9 chargehands supervising the street sweepers and 9 managers watching the chargehands, This all seems to unfair to both the public and lowend paid street sweepers

The Red Lion Public House dates back to the 17th Century, and is an important historic Grade II Listed building, and an irreplaceable feature of the village of Gedney Hill in rural Lincolnshire. In the past it has been a thriving business at the centre of the community, but in recent years neglect, mismanagement and underinvestment on the part of the owner has led to it's decline and closure. The building has now been sold to an individual who intends to convert the site into a house, and demolish part of the porch structure on the front of the oldest part of the listed building. This is now the only public house remaining in this area, and many local people believe that under the right ownership it could again be a popular venue and a successful and sustainable business. Please help to ensure the future of this vital hub of local village life by signing the petition.

If something is not done a lot of parents will, and have spent a huge chunk of their maternity leave in hospital.

The recent change to planning legislation means that permission is no longer required for businesses to change use, even in conservation areas. Rye Lane is be likely to be targeted by large chains looking to take advantage of this change. The problem is that this will put huge pressure on rents, pressure which many local, cherished independents are not likely to survive. The Direction will give time to planning officers to consider proposals in accordance with the development plan. We want Rye Lane to continue serving all its diverse Londoners, and supporting local creative economies, not letting them be priced out of Peckham.

On 4th June NHS England asked the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to suspend its programme on safe staffing in the NHS. The capacity for independent review of researched evidence on safe staffing, provided by NICE and called for by Sir Robert Francis in his Mid Staffs report, has been discarded. We need you to sign this petition today! REVERSE THE DECISION RT HON JEREMY HUNT! AFTER THE GREAT WORK THAT JEREMY HUNT HAS CHAMPIONED FOR PATIENT SAFETY IN THE NHS, MANY ARE SHOCKED AND SURPRISED AT THIS DEVELOPMENT. Sir Robert Francis QC who led the Public Inquiry into the Disaster at Mid Staffs has spoken out in concern by releasing a press statement and said, “While there is nothing wrong, and indeed everything to be said, for NHS England reviewing staffing levels, I specifically recommended the work which NICE has been undertaking for a reason, namely, they have an evidence-based and analytical approach. NICE also has an advantage not enjoyed by NHS England of being independent. It is important to establish practical guidance, based on the needs of patients, which will enable providers, commissioners and service users alike to understand whether a particular service is safely staffed.” Julie Bailey founder of ‘Cure the NHS’ says: “It is critical that this work is done independently. We cannot allow this important work to be sabotaged. We have all waited too long for this already. Our fear is that the guidance will be based on cost and not evidence, anymore. Removing NICE from this critical work in our opinion is a step backwards for patient and staff safety.” This is about making sure patients are safe in our A&E departments. It’s about making sure that vulnerable people receive safe care when treated at home or are discharged from hospital into our communities. For years Julie Bailey CBE and the group she formed with the Mid Staffs families’ Cure the NHS’ campaigned for Safe Staffing levels on our NHS wards and eventually won the fight for a Public Inquiry. The result was the Francis report which exposed the deaths and suffering of hundreds of people. The report produced a massive 290 recommendations, which changed the landscape of our NHS for the better, to keep ourselves and our families safe. Julie’s mum died because the NHS centrally driven target approach put finances before safe care. She worked tirelessly for the rights of patients to receive safe care, losing her home and her café business in the process. Again Julie is fighting this campaign to make sure the NHS has enough staff to make care safe. Please sign the petition.

LG, like any other corporation should be aware of the conditions their products are made. They should take responsibility and treat them like humans. They are, like many other, using human lives like cannon fodder for their shareholders. It is time we make them know that we care about how our products are made. A livelihood has been destroyed for the sake of another TV, and LG are not even interested. Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/11/lost-hands-making-flatscreens-no-help

MPs already earn over £67,000pa plus expenses plus generous pensions. A 10% pay rise will take them to £74,000 which is around 3 times the national average salary. this at a time when many people are still restricted to zero rises or increments in line with inflation (again, currently at zero percent) To take such arise just shows complete arrogance and contempt for the British electorate.