It has been reported that MPs who were only elected last week are set to receive a backdated 10 per cent pay rise worth £7,000 within months. A review of MPs salaries is taking place in the next few weeks, and the review is likely to rubber stamp a finding from 2013 which was that MPs' pay should increase from £67,060 to £74,000. The review is being conducted by IPSA (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority), who are Parliament's expenses watchdog. Jonathan Isaby, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "To press ahead with a 10 per cent pay rise is not only putting two fingers up at voters, but it starkly contradicts the pay restraint required elsewhere in the public sector if the government is to balance the nation's books. The only way to stop the salary increase is by Mr Cameron passing a law in the House of Commons to scrap Ipsa altogether." (The above as reported in The Telegraph) If "we are all in it together" then MPs should not have a 10% pay rise when public sector pay has been frozen for years.

The BBC service is one of the most admired public broadcasting companies in the world. It has its faults but it is one of the most trusted sources of news on the planet. As the latest attempt to curb its influence proceeds it will be interesting to see who is behind the attempt to run it down until it is just a public information station. It is simply unthinkable to destroy this national asset.

The PM claimed we're all in this together. Now is the time to prove it. MP pay rises should be limited to the average of all other public sector pay rises. If we truly are all in this together, then why can MP's receive higher pay rise percentages than nurses, teachers, firefighters, etc? Now is the time to demonstrate that MP's truly believe we are in it together as a nation and agree to link pay rises to those in the rest of the public sector. Or is it as Orwell eloquently said in Animal Farm ... "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"?

If this is not done then more and more people will consider themselves disenfranchised and have even less wish or need to become involved in the way our society is run. Here in Scotland, with 50% of the vote, the SNP has garnered all but 3 of the Westminster seats. In other parts of UK, some parties did not even put up a candidate, knowing that there was absolutely no chance of any representation: thus there were very many voters deprived of choice. This cannot be allowed to continue. Please support my campaign.

British expatriates are not happy and are demanding their human rights. Thousands of British citizens are married to citizens from other countries around the world, known as non-EU or non-EEA (European Economic Area) nationals. Since 2014 the UK government opened the doors to citizens from the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar whose citizens can travel to the UK with an Electronic Visa Waiver (EVW) document. This allows them to visit the UK for up to six months without a visa and free from any payment. Travellers from these three countries only need to complete their Electronic Visa Waiver online at least 48 hours before departure and present a printed copy on departure and again on arrival in the UK. No surprise then, that when British nationals living and working in many countries around the Middle East, who are married to non-EU citizens e.g. South Africans, Russians, Ukrainians and many other countries, discovered this form of discrimination against their spouses and families they were not too happy. The non-EU spouses of all British nationals living outside the UK are required to obtain a visa which must be valid for each visit when flying back into any UK airport. British citizens feel they are discriminated against because they are married to non-EU citizens. Why should they have to go through the process of having to prove that their spouse has the right to accompany them each and every time they return to the UK.? A campaign has been launched to provide awareness of this discrimination towards British citizens and their families. See: https://www.facebook.com/britishcitizensandtheirfamilies

The BBC, particularly its radio service, is essential intelligent conversation for the whole nation.

As present system is unfair and undemocratic

In the forthcoming license fee review, the Government will endeavour to impose severe cuts upon the BBC in order to benefit the commercial broadcasters. The Government is too close to commercial broadcasting lobbyists, and is acting in their interests, not in the public interest. In particular, abolishing the BBC Trust would serve to greatly undermine the independence of the BBC from political interference. The BBC is one of the greatest and most valuable assets to the United Kingdom, and forcing cuts for purely political, ideological purposes would represent a terrible act of cultural vandalism. The British people need to show a collective will to resist such damaging changes, and demonstrate to the Government that any actions towards privatizing the BBC would cause severe electoral consequences for the Conservative party in the future.

The human rights act protects liberty, freedom of speech and the basic human rights people fought and died for.

The current system of voting for the House of Commons is grossly unfair and clearly unfit for the multi party climate we now have in Britain. People struggle to engage in politics because, very often, they feel unrepresented. This leads to a situation where people become vulnerable to those who have their own vested interests. The current system allows the possibility that extreme political parties can take control of Government despite getting a minority of the popular vote. A proportionally representative voting system was imposed on post war West Germany in order to help ensure that fascists would not retake control.

David Cameron has just appointed Michael Gove as Justice Secretary and his remit is to abolish the 1998 Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. The legislation will be introduced in the next parliamentary session. Or aim is 10 million signatures by the end of August 2015 and to put voting pressure on those decent-minded Conservatives such as Kenneth Clarke and Dominic Grieve (the latter was forced out over this issue). We can defeat David Cameron and Michael Gove in parliament when the legislation comes to a vote this autumn. If it does pass the House of Commons, we need to ensure it is defeated in the Lords and then keep fighting via legal challenges.

We saw lots of tiny corrections following big (and incorrect!) headlines during this election campaign. The changes to the way corrections are published was a key recommendation from the Leveson Inquiry that both the Conservatives and Labour agreed to adopt. It's time for Ofcom to make sure corrections are the proper size and place. The Times front page from 24th April 2015 had the headline 'Labour's £1000 tax on families' - it was completely inaccurate. The Times published a correction on the 2nd May, but it was buried deep in the paper. If they had to publish their correction on the front page - where the original article sat - it would have been a prominent and therefore just correction. The front page would have looked like this: 'Our headline about Labour's tax on families was inaccurate: Some of these taxes and levies will only apply to companies, and the others will affect a small minority of families, not “every working family” as we reported.' It would be a just and fair way to report corrections that would have a deterrent effect on mistakes, media bias and failure to check facts.