We are particularly concerned about road maintenance and the closure of Congleton’s Household Waste & Recycling Centre. We acknowledge that funding grants from central government to local authorities has DECREASED BY OVER HALF since 2010. Cheshire East Council does its utmost to support those with the greatest need, however year on year cuts mean that services must evolve to adapt to the funding it receives. Without more funding the loss of some services and a deterioration of road standards are inevitable.

It is extremely important that the conditions some of the most vulnerable people in our society are housed in are improved. Families with children should not have to endure such conditions which have negative impacts on young children’s development. With homelessness increasing every year it is very important that more social housing is built that people on a low income can afford. This is even more important with two million people fearing they won’t be able to find a home after the eviction ban is lifted. Temporary accommodation has become institutionalised and it isn’t sustainable. This must be reversed by building more social housing.

As frontline keyworkers all NHS and Health & Social Care Workers have faced unprecedented challenges throughout the Coronavirus pandemic. They have placed themselves and their families at risk to provide care and support to their patients, residents and service users. The least they can expect is to be in a position to use their routine NHS PCR test for travel purposes thus preventing them for incurring the cost of private PCR Testing.

To Honour the Children who were committed to the Industrial Schools in Ireland.

Testing is an NHS service British taxpayers already pay for and should be entitled to access it whatever the reason. It’s discriminatory: No other activity deemed “risky” by the government requires people to pay for testing eg if contacted by Test and Trace after a pub or cinema visit, testing is free. Why should travellers be different? It’s more efficient and safer: The NHS testing system is well established and efficient. Even at very low levels of uptake the private providers have failed to deliver a service of a similar standard. On performance so far it seems unlikely they could scale it efficiently which puts the testing efficacy at risk It balances health and economic risk: Private testing will significantly flatten demand for overseas travel particularly amongst low income families. By making testing free for British taxpayers it gives the travel sector a real chance to build itself back up and secure the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people who depend on it, whilst providing the government with scientific data on which to monitor variants

The scientific research carried out by the researches benefits not only developing parts of the world, but can have commercial applications here in the UK too. For example : Simon McQueen-Mason, from the University of York, is nearing the end of an ODA-funded project using novel enzymes to reduce industrial waste from sugar mills in India. He fears that all the understanding and knowledge they have gained to date will fail to come to fruition if their funding is pulled at this stage. “It’s devastating because the results so far are really promising,” he says. McQueen-Mason and his team had high hopes that their work would be able to significantly reduce waste streams from one of India’s major and highly polluting industries, whilst also increasing profitability and creating new jobs. And it won’t just be India that loses out. “The systems we have developed would have been incredibly valuable for the UK with potential for making aviation biofuels, bioplastics, organic acids used in industry and high quality re-cycled textiles,” he says, adding that the industrial partners involved in his project that had invested significant amounts of their own money in the work are livid. “At least one of the companies I work with has already written to Innovate UK to ask for their money back,” says McQueen-Mason.

The right to protest is a human right. The changes proposed in part III of the Home Office's Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill (published 9/3/21) will give the police and government powers to silence protests, whether a protest of 1 or a protest of 10,000. Whereas the previous powers (Public Order Act 1986) have allowed police to restrict demonstrations that risked serious public disruption, serious disorder or serious damage to property, the new bill adds additional justifications for restrictions: noise and the potential for ‘impact’. It also increases the opportunity for protestors to be prosecuted if they fail to comply with restrictions they are unaware of, and in broadening the definition of what constitutes a protest. Protests are noisy events - they are designed to demonstrate the public's feelings, many of those people may be marginalised from mainstream politics, with this their only way of being heard. They are designed to make an impact! The proposed changes are a clear attempt by the government to prevent dissenting voices being heard. In addition the changes proposed reduce future scrutiny by parliament through the use of statutory instruments, undermining the democratic process and placing the decision as to whether a protest can go ahead in the hands of the Home Secretary. These changes restrict the rights and freedoms of people from all sides of the political spectrum to assert their human and democratic right to protest. The Bill has its second reading in the House of Commons on Monday 15th and the first vote on Tuesday 16th March - urgent action is required. Please sign, share and write to your MP (link below). Links & photo credit: 1. https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/03/11/silencing-black-lives-matter-priti-patels-anti-protest-law/?cmpredirect 2. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0268/200268.pdf 3. https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP 4. Photo: Police Barricade, Parliament Square cc-by-sa/2.0 - © Nigel Mykura - geograph.org.uk/p/2327817

Britain has drastically cut its aid to Yemen, which has been devastated by conflict for six years, saying the pandemic created "a difficult financial context for us all". The UK government said it would provide "at least" £87m ($120m) this year, down from £164m pledged last year. Aid officials have condemned the cut. The UN chief, António Guterres, said reducing aid was a "death sentence".

As more and more stories get released such as the latest with Matt Hancock the health secretary gave his local landlord a £30 million pound contract to make ppe equipment with no such experience in the field. We cannot have government ministers and civil servants giving out these contracts at a time when everything covid is treated as a blank cheque, I strongly suspect it’s not only illegal to give these contracts out to individuals but you can also bet there is a 360 degree arrangement in place. People need to be held to account

To stop corruption in British politics

The Man Is Our Country's Hero During a Time lifting spirits and raising so much money for the NHS.

Why do we need a debate? Since Bristol changed to the elected mayor system, concerns have been raised that it is less democratic than the previous system and too much power is given to one person - the elected mayor. Despite these concerns, there has been very little discussion about the other types of governance available and options for change. We need more information, and we need to have a citywide discussion about the pros and cons of different systems. The Centre for Governance and Scrutiny has produced several documents for councillors, council officers, and others interested in local governance issues. See, for example, https://www.cfgs.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Rethinking-council-governance-for-the-20s-2020.pdf Please note, this is not a petition to scrap the elected mayor system or to call for a referendum. It is a petition requesting a full and frank debate about the elected mayor system and other models of local government. The debate may lead to calls for change or may reinforce Bristol’s decision to adopt the elected mayor system What if people want change? This petition will not change the system, but it may help people decide if they would like a referendum. If there was a referendum, the people of Bristol could decide whether to keep the elected mayor model or change to another system of governance. There needs to be a gap of 10 years since the last referendum in 2012, so the next opportunity is in May 2022. There are two ways that Bristol could trigger a referendum: • A vote in favour of a referendum at full council • A petition signed by a minimum of 5% of the electorate A referendum must offer a choice between the current elected mayor model and one other form of governance. In Bristol that would mean offering a choice between (a) the elected mayor and cabinet model, and: either (b) the leader and cabinet model, or (c) the committee model. To make that decision, people need to know more about the benefits and disadvantages of the different options available.