Everyone needs a decent secure affordable home in which to flourish. We therefore call on Brighton and Hove Parliamentary candidates to campaign for the following changes, and to vote for them if elected: • Bring back fair rents - a “Living rent” (achieved by rent controls) • Protect private tenants with long secure tenancies • Institute registration of all private landlords to ensure minimum standards of fire safety, energy efficiency and a decent home standard for private housing • Abolish the Right to buy and lift borrowing ceilings and restrictions so councils can again build social rented housing • Link rents policy to affordability not the market • End discrimination against tenants on benefits

Because UK benefit claimants are simply not given enough money to survive, these are not hand-outs they are entitlements, every tax payer pays into the system, whether working or not, pensioner or youngster, it is time UK government stood up to the plate to comply with the EU Social Charter they have signed up to...........

The Lee Valley receives money from every council tax-payer in London as well as the County Councils in Hertfordshire and Essex. By contrast our own Wandle Valley Regional Park in South West London leads a threadbare existence supported by the small allowances that our local boroughs can afford. When the current arrangements were made in 1966, there was a strong argument that the whole of London should help restore the Lee Valley, which was then a polluted ex-industrial wasteland in a poor area. Now after the Olympics and years of investment this is a beautiful park run by a well resourced Park Authority. Yet few visitors from South West London ever go there. The current Government and London Mayor have been asked to support legislation for change, but have failed to do so. Now in the run up to the national and London Mayoral elections we should demand that change. Let us repatriate our annual £1.6m payments and use the money to support a beautiful river park of our own instead.

We as a nation have been lied to, cheated and used by the Westminster system, we work hard, pay our way and politicians abuse our system.

Being an MP is a full time job. Members should not be distracted from their work on behalf of their consistuents and the nation by outside interests. The public can only have confidence in their elected representatives if they can be sure that those MPs do not have paid agendas from private companies or individuals foremost in their mind

Because the people of Thanet deserve to be served by councillors who aren't racist "Leadership - Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and by example, and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence."

In your own words, this £2,000 payment was to "suitably reward our staff for the transitions they have and continue to make". May we respectively remind you that we are also your staff and we equally contribute and adapt to change. Such a contemptuous approach only serves to undermine our contribution. This would be difficult to accept at any time but on the back of year on year pay cuts, additional unnecessary pension contributions and in the middle of our campaign for fair pay makes it even more disdainful. Non-Operational staff have equally shown continued commitment, flexibility, adaptability and drive over many many years but regardless will not receive this payment. Surely this cannot be right. The importance and value we place on teamwork within the Scottish Prison Service is steeped in history yet it would appear you are now prepared to cast this aside in favour of a divisive, fragmented and financially motivated approach. Inevitably this cannot be good for the long term future of the SPS. We cannot underestimate our strength of feeling and injustice. What we are asking for is simply Fair Pay for All;- Mr Mathieson, it is in your gift to make this happen, your recent actions have clearly shown that you are not constrained by Westminster. Mr McConnel, your early messages showed an acknowledgement of unity, togetherness, shared values and goals. Please don't lose sight of this now.

There are hundreds of acres of brownfield sites in the Stroud District which could be used to build the new housing required for the people of the Stroud District. However, developers don't want to build on these sites because it costs them more money than building on green fields.We should not allow the greed of developers to dictate local housing policy. If we still need more land for housing, once the brown field sites have been developed, we can then consider building on green field sites. The Government have said development should be on brownfield sites first so why aren't Stroud District council enforcing this policy? The Government have also said its a bottom up policy with local people deciding where houses should be built. This is our opportunity to tell Stroud District council.

The people most vulnerable people in society are being used for political gain. The measures being taken are punitive, uncaring and causing untold misery. People who are patently very ill are being told they are fit for work and are having all financial support removed. This has lead to suicides, hardship and suffering so great that even the United Nations are investigating human rights breaches by the UK Government. Living with a debilitating illness is hard enough without the fear of sanctions by an uncaring government churning your stomach every day of your existence. It causes mental anguish that is hard to explain to those who do not experience it and badly affects the general health of those in the firing line. The majority of claimants would give anything to be free of their illnesses and, unlike the portrayal by the minister that they are all freeloaders, have paid their NI contributions and are therefore entitled to the insurance they have paid for. There have been far too many mistakes made and far too many deaths associated with the war being waged on those in receipt of benefits.

The court can only order exemption, if satisfied that the dog is not a danger to public safety; the court must now look at the temperament and past behaviour of the dog, whether the applicant is a ‘fit and proper’ person to be in charge of the dog and any other relevant circumstances. The changes will affect and be a death sentence to exempted dogs, much loved family members and companions - dogs which have already been found by a court of law, not to be a danger to public safety. The changes are draconian and do nothing to protect public safety. A family canine member may need to be appointed a new person to care for it, for a variety of reasons, including, housing issues, accident/injury, employment/work commitments, family commitments, divorce/separation. Due to the changes, someone can ONLY apply via a court application, which will be a complicated process for the average person to follow, to be the keeper if the previous person in charge of the dog is either dead or seriously ill. A non-legal person i.e. a rescue/animal welfare charity/company/local authority already registered or about to be registered as the owner on the exemption certificate should be able to re-home their exempted dog via a keepership change without restriction and appoint another registered keeper to the one appointed for any reason deemed necessary, thus saving the dog’s life. If the person to whom the exemption certificate has been issued is away and at a different address to their dog for more than 30 days over the course of a year, according to the new rules set out under SI 138, the dog must die; However, anyone for example who is regularly working away from home, visiting family, undergoing medical treatment/hospitalisation, travelling/working overseas, could be affected and their dog destroyed. This cannot be fair nor just, it is not necessary

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) currently compensate 'blameless victims of crimes'. However, they also state 'We may refuse or reduce a payment if you have a criminal record, even though you may have been blameless in the incident which resulted in your injury'. As somebody who works in the legal profession representing victims of abuse, I have witnessed victims of abuse (whose abuser has been convicted) refused compensation on the basis that they have unspent criminal convictions. Some victims were drugged, laced with alcohol and forced to commit crimes by their abusers - they too have been refused compensation because they have 'unspent convictions'. These people were CHILDREN who were abused and put in that situation and CICA are punishing them for their abuse. Common symptoms of those who were or are being abused are anger, use of drugs and alcohol, committing crimes and lashing out because they want to be heard and helped. Their experiences will be with them for the rest of their lives and they will never be able to regain their childhood or live a normal live. These issues were submitted to the government last Autumn but to date they have failed to acknowledge the correspondence sent to them. Is this being swept under the carpet too? These victims need help to rebuild their lives, not to feel they are being punished by CICA: A government run organisation!

Most of those who have the option will always be tempted to avoid paying their fair contribution to support the old, the sick, the disabled and those trapped in poverty. This way those who enjoy the benefits of better housing have to pay more than those who don't.