Currently many members of his Wadebridge West believe he is not fulfilling his council duties while he serves as a Westminster member of parliament.

The future of NHS is a source of worry for a great swathe of the population. A huge majority of Doctors, experts and professionals linked with the NHS, see Jeremy Hunt's plans as a destructive force for a public service we all hold so dear. Many of his stats (such as the 20% increased likelihood of dying from a stroke at the weekend) have been called out as incorrect by those within the industry. As well as false media claims that those involved are quaffing champagne, whilst one doctor's payslip recently proved that it is possible to be paid as little as £2.61 an hour currently. The NHS is an important part of British culture and seen by many as one of the proudest achievements of Western democracy. The fact that it has currently been dragged into a slagging match at a national level, isn't the correct way to deal with such an issue. As it is a public service, and one that the public not only relies on but also holds in such high regard, the facts should be made public, with both sides allowed a say. Mr Hunt should show he holds the NHS is the same high regard as the public, by treating this situation with the respect it deserves and having an open public debate about these important issues.

Too many areas of service are being or have been run by G4S and rarely has any company had such spectacular failings yet they still win contracts

Trident has little or no relevance in the 21st-century world - even for those with a belief in the so-called nuclear deterrent. There has not been an informed public debate on Trident for many years and few politicians appear seriously to consider the issue, simply wrapping themselves in the flags of patriotism and strength in support of an absurd, expensive and dangerous programme. Trade unionists, shamefully, are seeing the issue in terms of jobs. Have they not heard of swords into ploughshares? Jeremy Corbyn and other abolitionists are portrayed as crazed and unrealistic, of putting the country in grave danger. Yet there are politicians of all parties who believe we should not renew Trident (Michael Portillo and Lord Owen to name but two, neither in office now of course but with considerable experience of the issue) and many in the military. And the public? If we knew all the facts and could come to an informed judgement it is likely that the vast majority would vote against, preferring to spend the money on health, education, the environment, houses and so forth. We need a debate - now - before Parliament votes this spring.

I heard on the news this morning that a person had been reported to have been interviewed on the Radio, that he was having a bowl of water with some spices for dinner. They have no food and have even been eating the grass. It has now however snowed, so the grass is covered over. They are so starved, it was reported that they have even eating their pets.\ Image is copied from BBC Website dated 7th January 16, Story Title: Syrian government 'to let aid into besieged Madaya'

With all the mobile networks claiming 99% population coverage for mobile phone signal why is only 63% of the UK land mass covered by signal. Over 4500 miles of UK roads have no mobile phone coverage at all. This is not only dangerous but it is stifling development in rural areas and holding back local businesses. The government have an arrangement with the 4 main UK networks to spend £5bn by the end of 2017 to improve this but they have already come up against issues themselves with planning permission, un-co-operative landlords, site access and power to the sites. If we can make enough noise to make them realise how important this is to our communities then they will make the necessary changes needed to push through these plans. If we don't? We can see the 2017 deadline come and go and very little will change apart from 4g coverage in cities getting faster and faster.

There have been multiple inventions across the world in the last few years that would alleviate congestion and aid the restricted movement public in this country, if the law were modified. Currently these PMD's do not fit into our highways act simply because they aren't disabled carriages, are motorised and so cannot be driven on the pavements and are too slow for the road networks. I propose that room should be made in the highways act and by extension in the Cyclist part of the Highway code for the use of properly registered and maintained "safe" Personal Mobility Devices. These devices are growing in popularity across the world (I believe at the last count the Segway for example was a legal form of transportation in 30 different countries now) and simply sticking our head in the sand and quoting legislation based on an act that was made in 1835 is putting us at risk of missing the boat on properly regulating the safe and controlled use of these devices. If we were to open the doors on this issue, we could provide laws and rules to do things like prohibit the use of these PMDs inside so that people do not injure themselves riding around the office as I have seen in one Youtube video, but also we can regulate the types of PMD allowed on Cycle lanes for example. Most of these PMDs are limited to 10mph the equivalent of a fast run, so could legitimately use cycle lanes and pavements where it is safe to do so, if the law were changed to allow these vehicles to be treated similarly to bicycles. Furthermore, if these PMDs were treated like a stage between a bicycle and motorbike, they could be taxed and regulated like a discount motorbike. Allowing for further regulation and control, perhaps even licensing to promote safe usage of them too (which is more than is required for Disability "buggies"). Currently Disability "buggies" have 2 classes -4mph they are allowed unrestricted access to public areas, +4mph these vehicles have to have a tax registration and have road legal lighting on them. There is a section in the Highway code for the correct use of these devices, most of them are electric and most of them are often used in public areas with little or no danger to the public. All I am asking, is for a similar allowance for Safe Personal Mobility Devices to be given a fair chance to be used by a public who are crying out for an alternative to sitting in traffic jams all day, whether using public transport or not, or having to get all hot and sweaty cycling to work through fume and traffic clogged streets. Providing a section in the Highways act to classify PMDs would allow for this development. To further my argument, most of these PMDs are also electric and so would be far less polluting than even the most eco-friendly hybrid bus that Boris can sponsor. You ride your electric PMD in to the office in the morning, charge it back up using the company solar panels, then ride it home and plug it back into your solar panels at home, much better than riding a hybrid bus that uses a diesel generator to charge its batteries when it's outside of the congestion zones.

Every year we have a tawdry process of the Prime Minister using honours for influence and to reward friends and donors to their party. Celebrating people who do important work for others in public service, the business/charity sectors and popular figures in the arts, sport and media is important and the main purpose of having an honours system. Political interference devalues the reason for having honours. There is no reason why an independent committee could not ensure appropriate balance in the awarding of peerages where the recipient has a declared political allegiance.

I lost my husband to mental health just before Christmas. This has ripped apart and devastated our family. As a family we were failed. We were given very little support and information. Basically left to cope on our own. More needs to be done. Mental illness can be a killer like cancer and heart disease but it has a very low profile and funding. This needs to change and it needs to change NOW! More and more people are suffering. Mental health wards are full yet run on minimal staff. Patient care is lacking and community follow up is so stretched that the support just isn't there. We need to change this for now and future generations. As a nation we need to do something. Stand together and fight for more help. Everyone knows someone affected. Please sign and support me in this campaign so we can hopefully change the lives of those suffering. Its what my husband would want us to do...he wasn't happy with the care he had.

UK farmers are subsidised millions of pounds by the British taxpayer. Despite this there is no effective regulation or carrot-and-stick approach to prevent soil erosion, plant trees and manage rivers to properly manage river uplands and prevent downstream flooding. Promoting natural flood defences and flood plains is more cost-effective. The Govt needs to stop focusing only on last resort man-made flood defences and tackle the root causes of devastating flooding, addressing its own contradictory policies.

Locally elected councillors should be free to reflect the views of their local voters, to whom they are accountable, on how council money should be spent - or where it should not go. To prevent local councils from making decisions to reflect the views of their voters is profoundly anti-democratic and Un-British. Compelling councils to invest in the arms trade, or industries supportive of law-breaking foreign regimes, is high-handed and centralising. It makes a mockery of previous government statements about local democracy.

When on the news the broadcaster says something like ' The latest research by the Foundation for Better Health and Future shows that there is no relationship between fracking and high levels of toxic material found nearby water drinking wells.' this sounds very impressive. We can all rest assured now. Fracking very safe. But if we knew that the Foundation for Better Health and Future is sponsored by the fracking industry - we may think twice about these results before we take them as true. This will make us more aware of the forces that are playing with us and try to influence public policies.