Who aided the Tories in gaining votes in swing vote areas. Well we don't know because a section of the Torys campaign fund comes from a club who's donors do not have to declare their donations by keeping them small. However small these donations may be at the end of last year the United and Cecil club donated £67,500 pounds to the The Conservative Party and since the previous election have donated around half a million. As our Prime Minister David Cameron should declare who these people are. I want to know whom our government is influenced by and seeing as some of the registered donors include rapists, tax avoiders and importers of companies goods who's long list of human rights abuses could make a person weep, I am very worried as to why the Tories would take such evasive action for these particular donations. Join me in uncovering more Tory secrets.

With the conservatives now given free reign to make boundary changes, and with the left split between at least three parties, it will be even more difficult to defeat them at the next election. Between the three parties, it is clear that there is more support for a left of centre government, but the electoral system prevents this from being expressed. The three parties need to come together (at least temporarily) to defeat the conservatives and to lay the foundations for fair elections in the future. By standing a single or combined candidate, and by encouraging cross party support on the ground from activists, seats that no single party can win will instead fall to at least one of the parties of the left. Ask yourselves which is more important? To each stand candidates that are highly likely to lose, or to cooperate to throw out the conservatives.

This campaign is very basic: teach children about politics. Politics is arguably one of the most important things in this modern society, yet a lot of people don't seem to have a real understanding of politics and how our system works. The media is dominated by the likes of big boss Rupert Murdoch, making most of the places people look to for information incredibly, biased with no other real, credible alternative available. If the only place you can muster up an opinion on politics is from places that class all people on benefits as "scroungers" and ridicule politicians on the way they eat a sandwich - can you really create a valid opinion on politics? At the minute, Citizenship is compulsory in state schools. This is a subject not entirely based on politics, meaning the information gained in some places can be limited. Also, as this is only made compulsory in state schools, it means that 56% of schools do not have to teach Citizenship. And with the amount of schools converting into academies, it will only be a matter of time before this is number is increased. Teaching Citizenship to less than half of the teenagers in the UK is not enough. Everyone needs to have a strong understanding of how our government works and basic ideas of each political party in order to make an informed decision on who to vote for. Do you really want people voting blindly? What I’m proposing is that the basics of politics i.e. types of government, different voting systems, differences in political parties and a history of what those parties have done in government be taught to children. Whether that be making a completely separate subject for politics which teenagers have to learn from year seven to year nine or having one lesson of politics a week for a year is irrelevant - all I’m after is an opportunity for young people to learn about politics. By having politics a compulsory part of education, it can have so many benefits. Obviously, with more people aware of party policies, it's likely more people would vote, meaning a fairer representation in parliament of what everyone wants and people will not be following ill-informed information from bias newspapers. On top of this, if more young people are exposed to politics, it can increase an interest in politics for young people which could potentially lead to working class people developing careers in politics, meaning people would be better represented in parliament. Politics is vital to all of our lives. We need to be more aware of what we're voting for and have access to unbiased information about politics.

The Human Rights Act is an important act designed to protect each and every individual from inequality and injustice be it from another individual, corporations or our own government. As such the decision to remove or change that protection should, ultimately should lie with the people of the UK - not politicians. In the past we've been rightly proud of our tough stance around the world on human rights. The UK will not extradite to a country where the death penalty is used. UK politicians have called for Guantanamo to be closed and laws criminalising homosexuality in Africa and elsewhere to be overturned. We accept that the Conservative party won the 2015 General Election with a majority, however a decision on something as important as this has to have the backing of the majority of the electorate, not just the 36% that voted Conservative. We are therefore asking you to do the right democratic thing and bring your proposal for a 'British Bill of Rights' before the electorate in a referendum and let them decide if they wish to opt for this, or keep the existing Human Rights legislation.

The Human Rights Act 1998 offers citizens of the UK many basic protections of their human rights. Under the Conservative's plans they will repeal this act. Don't just sit there whilst this Government begin to slowly strip us of protection whilst they implement their policies. Have your say! Please sign the petition, share with your friends in order to protect our basic human rights!

Esther McVey was unsuccessful in her attempt to be elected into parliament, the members of her constituency voted that she should no longer have a say in their politics: that would effect them directly on a local level or the nation as a whole. To give Esther McVey a free ride to a seat in the House of Lords would show them, and the system by which we appoint and decide our politicians, a complete lack of respect. Esther McVey has been one of the leading champions of the bedroom tax, yet despite being a minister for disabled people she played an integral part in the closing of the Remploy factories and the benefit reform bill which has hurt so many people. Esther McVey has, and continues to, snub Scotland by refusing to defend her brutal policies. To reward such failure with a seat in the house of Lords would be distasteful and utterly wrong. The electorate of Wirral West have had their say, we ask you honour this and that no seat is offered or appointed to Esther McVey.

Our political system no longer revolves around two parties. The first past the post system cannot work when we have a multi-party system. To give an example the SNP won 1.5 million votes and gained 56 seats; UKIP won 3 million votes and gained one seat. The current voting system is skewed and undemocratic.

However well meaning this may be to start with, removes the rights and civil liberties that this nation was built on. There is little or no judicial overview and as such this law is going to be misused. You only have to look to 1950's America to see how things could get out of hand so easily. McCarthyism blighted ordinary, innocent citizens lives for decades. We cannot let this happen in the UK.

◾Moving to proportional representation (PR) in the UK may offer would give minority parties and independent candidates a better chance of winning seats in Parliament. ◾The current First Past the Post electoral system is considered unrepresentative, as candidates can be elected with a very small share of the votes while all other votes cast in the constituency are wasted. ◾PR ensures that the parties would have to appeal to their core supporters, rather than a small number of so called ‘swing voters’ in marginal seats. ◾It could be argued that PR delivers fairer treatment of minority parties and independent candidates ◾Under PR fewer votes are ‘wasted’ as more people’s preferences are taken into account ◾PR potentially offers greater and more-representative choice for voters. ◾PR may encourage turn-out and reduce apathy. ◾PR rarely produces an absolute majority for one party, however, it could be argued that PR ensures greater continuity of government and requires greater consensus in policy-making.

To overide the will of the electorate by appointing to the Lords a former MP recently unsucessful in standing for election shames the democratic process and damages the established principle that MPs are ultimatly accountable to the voters.

The country is supposed to be a democratic country, the results from the election are raising many questions within society. I have seen very few conservative fans so how did they get a majority. If they received their votes and won the election legitimately then they should not objected to a re-election!

We acknowledge the splendid job he has done in the past six months and hope that he continues to do a similar job in the coming months and years.