John Bercow has served the House of Commons unstintingly with honour, professionalism and dedication for a decade. It is unthinkable that the current UK government should deny his elevation to the upper House breaking with all tradition, common decency and good sense. John Bercow is far more worthy of this honour than many who currently enjoy it. Boris Johnson should not be allowed to throw his toys out of the pram and block this.

We live in an multi-party democracy and in a general election voters will have a choice between at least three major national parties and several credible smaller parties. Newspapers are reporting that the Conservatives are pressing for a debate just between the Conservatives and Labour falsely narrowing the options open to voters, denying the public a balanced programme and unfairly advantaging two parties at the expense of the others.

We should be supporting local businesses by trying to increase the number of people visiting Clackmannanshire and spending in the local economy. The introduction of parking charges will impact local businesses, reduce tourism and be a tax on local people trying to access their own community. This is a bad decision and the Councillors who supported the charges should reverse their decision without delay.

All Chichester District Council meetings are held during the day making it impossible for working people or people with day time commitments to attend Council Meetings. 95% of the District and Borough Councils in England and Wales hold evening or late afternoon meetings. Chichester District Council is one of only a very few of over 200 second tier councils to hold all meetings during the day. Day time meetings make it very hard for working District Councillors to attend Council meetings to fulfil the roles for which their communities duly elected them. This also affects Parish Councillors and residents who work and need to attend meetings at Chichester District Council.

Turkey's military action will disrupt the fragile stability of the region, harming and displacing thousands of civilians and paving the way for Isis to reestablish itself in the region. The EU states that military action is resulting in more civilians suffering and further displacement and severely hindering access to humanitarian assistance. A number of major European powers have unilaterally pledged to halt arms sales to Mr Erdogan’s government, including Germany, France and Finland. But the UK, one of the world’s largest arms exporters, is absent from the list. Dominic Raab, the UK’s foreign secretary, was absent from Monday's meeting (EU foreign affairs council meeting in Luxemburg 7.10.19). The Financial Times reports "the UK has licensed £1.1bn worth of arms to Turkey since Mr Erdogan became president five years ago, according to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade. These include £206m of licences for aircraft, helicopters and drones, £84m on armoured vehicles and tanks, and £82m on grenades bombs, missiles and countermeasures."

The proposed Electoral Integrity bill will require voters to produce a passport, driving licence or other photographic ID before they are allowed to vote. However, it has not been clearly demonstrated that levels of voter fraud are sufficient to warrant such a step. The bill would merely deny millions of eligible voters the opportunity to cast their ballot. The affected groups of voters - those most likely to be unable to provide a driving licence or passport - predominantly includes: young people, people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, women and the elderly. It's just plain wrong. This petition calls on the government to abandon the requirement for photographic ID to validate an individuals right to vote.

because i am one of the lower state pensioners (pre april 2016) and receiving £100 per month less than pensioners (april 2016) new pensioners !!!

The result of the 2016 EU Referendum is a United Kingdom that isn’t so united anymore, and an intensely divided country that finds itself facing the prospect of losing power, jobs, wealth, international standing and influence as a result of a hasty decision that is only supported by a narrow majority of voters. What if, for example, ‘Leave’ had won by 120,000 votes instead of 1.2 million? What if the margin had been much smaller? Does it really make sense to implement something that will have a fundamental, historic impact on the British Isles and Europe based on such a small majority? Of course it doesn't ! No other major democracy is so cavalier with the security of it's Constitution and Peoples' rights. For example, Amendments to the Constitution of the USA require 2/3 majority votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and a nationwide referendum that must win in 75% of the States. The United Kingdom deserves better than this !

It’s important that those who voted for politicians are not let down by their mps changing sides. There should always be a fresh election.

In more recent times we have seen a relatively large number of MP's who were elected under Conservative, Labour, Liberal party etc banner/manifesto switch allegiance to other parties and still remain as MP's. Surely as those individuals were elected by the public to serve under a particular party manifesto it is wrong for them to switch to another party thereby denying their electorate of representation under the terms for which they were elected. Quite recently at least two sitting MP's have switched alegiance twice whilst holding onto their seats. This can not be right....can it? It is clear that MP's will not always agree with the party line. In that case they can abstain from voting on a particular issue. However if they find that they fundamentally disagree with the party then surely the proceedure should be to trigger a by-election and seek re-election under the banner of their now preferred party? The ability to 'jump ship', seemingly at an individuals whim, alters the balance in Parliament, does a disservice to the electorate and allows MP's to cross to 'the other side' with impunity. It needs to be stopped.

Taking more money from people that are already struggling to live well all in the name of immigration status is unfair on people. I see this as exploitation.

This is important because people are tired of tax year to tax year rhetoric, they need a vision of a future to work towards, and would instill a sense of purpose and hope to tackle the challenges we all face.