An amount of £100billion has been touted to replace the UK's Trident Nuclear deterrent. It is important to scrap this for two reasons: 1) The amount of money involved is vast and can be spent in other much more needed areas, such as schools and hospitals. More importantly this money can be used to fund the British Armed Forces and buy much needed equipment. 2) We no longer need a nuclear deterrent. Wars and battles are not fought with nuclear weapons but with men and modern equipment. Any future deterrent should include a well equipped and modern army.

The Austerity programme the last coalition Government implemented, has hit the poorest and most vulnerable in our society the hardest. You might have noticed that the economic crisis and the recession have left a massive hole in the UK’s public finances. Frontline services and jobs are at risk. Many other developed and developing countries face a similar struggle. The financial sector is responsible for a big part of the mess we're in. So our merry band of hundreds of thousands of Robin Hood supporters believe that banks, hedge funds and the rest of the sector should pay their fair share to clear up the mess they helped create. For more information, use the link. http://www.robinhoodtax.org.uk/

Abolish QMV and re-instate the right of individual member states to veto! The Treaty of Lisbon provides for a blocking minority composed of at least four Member States representing over 35% of the EU population. Until 31 March 2017, any Member State may request, on a case by case basis, that a decision is taken in accordance with the rules in force before 1 November 2014 (i.e. in accordance with the qualified majority as defined by the Treaty of Nice). In simple terms, this means that unless serious action is taken in the next 2 years, any opinion or decision made by a member state can be blocked by another. In the context of the UK, it will be very unlikely we will ever be able to leave the EU after this date, as currently, we would need the permission of 10 member states! This will progress the plan of a European Superstate! This must stop now!

This graph shows what people think wealth distribution is, what they think it should ideally be, and what it actually is in reality. https://ugc.futurelearn.com/uploads/images/4d/3f/hero_4d3f4dc3-dad3-4424-836a-95d1823c32e4.jpg Open University Inequality Briefing 2013. © Copyright 2015 FutureLearn The poorest in society are paying for the mistakes of the Banks and unfair Government policy. Austerity cuts are aimed at the poorest in society but the cuts affect the quality of life of all of us. This includes the cuts to Welfare, Public Services, and the recently announced sell off affordable rented accommodation in the Housing Association sector. We are NOT all in this together. N.B. OECD figures show that since 1979 the top 1% of population have increased their wealth from 9% to 23% of the total. The bottom 20% have reduced to 0.6% of the wealth. Top rate of tax in 1978 was 83% now it is a flat 40%. OECD figures also prove that the less inequality in a society, the more successful it is economically.

The Labour Manifesto rightly says it is important to strive for greater equality in the UK. It commits to raising the National Minimum Wage to living wage levels by 2020. But this will not deal with rising pay inequality in the public sector - where taxpayers' money often gives the top more than 10 times the wage of the lowest paid. Nor does it deal with huge and unjustified salaries and bonuses in large private sector firms - many of which receive huge amounts of public money - and where top incomes are often several hundred times greater than those at the bottom. A renamed Fair Pay Commission would examine both low and high pay. It would make recommendations to Parliament to reduce income inequality and will monitor progress on a year by year basis. Curbing excessive high pay is not only fair, it is also important for the economy. It will encourage longer-term investment, raise middle and lower incomes across the board and reduce the fizz at the top of the housing boom.

The high rents are pushing people more and more into poverty or homelessness Letting Agencies can pick and chose and the majority are exclusive. No matter whether you have evidence of being a good tenant or not makes no difference if you are not working for what ever reason you are automatically excluded by most of the agents.

People should not be forced to choose between bad and worse candidates. We should be able to reject candidates outright, all candidates if need be. We spend too much time waiting for unqualified, lying, cheating, unworthy, ethically and morally corrupt individuals to serve their time in public office at our expense when many of us would have preferred they not be there in the first place. It's time we had the democratic option to say no from the start.

All over the country people are tired of politicians who promise one thing at election time when they need our votes and then go off to Westminster and ignore what their constituents really want. In a recent survey, 77% of us said we wanted MPs to put the views of their constituents first but only 27% of us thought they actually did. In constituencies across the UK, voters are fighting back by demanding all parliamentary candidates sign the MyMP pledge. This means any candidate who gets elected agrees to consult with and poll constituents on key parliamentary decisions and vote accordingly. We have a great opportunity during the election campaign to force our candidates to do politics in a different, genuinely democratic way by demanding they put the views of the people of Barnet first on issues like the NHS, immigration and living standards. If you live in the London Borough of Barnet, sign the petition and make sure your voice is heard over the next five years.

In the UK we have bishops in the House of Lords making decisions that could affect each and every one of us, these bishops are being influenced, not by us, not by society as a whole but by religion; the same ideology which influenced a group of religious men to fly planes into the world trade center killing thousands of innocent lives, the same ideology that for thousands of years has caused unnecessary death and suffering of innocent human beings. The only thing religion is very good at is conferring a sense of moral superiority on its followers and I will take no part in it; nor should anyone else that has any sort of individual morality; nor should our 21st century parliament, get religion out of the political decision making processes and as far away from the governing of the country as possible. If I created a religion right now and put in writing what I thought was right and wrong; I could even write a great load of mumbo jumbo proclaiming that I know all the answers, or I add some fiction in there about resurrection and healing powers. Well first people would probably say I’m crazy and I’d be sectioned; but what if over time people actually started believing it? And hundreds, even thousands of years into the future people start sacrificing their lives over it, wars break out because of it, governments changing their laws because of it and the entire sociological ideology of the world’s populous would have changed all because of a religion I could make up on the spot right now. Well, I needn't go on, I’m sure you get the point. We can listen and chose to abide by the rules of society but we don’t have to listen and chose to abide by the rules and fundamentals of anything else. Each and every one of us has our own morality and that is okay! If our own individual morality tells us that something is right or wrong then who is tell us otherwise? The government? The police? The church? A 2000 year old book written by a group of men with their own morals; I ask who influenced them? Who influenced their moral standpoint on things and why should we be dictated to by a group of men who aren't even alive anymore? Let’s say that the authors of the bible thought that murder was right, does that mean that through the ages our morality would in-fact change and not only would we believe this to be the case, it would be instilled into us, into who we are and our individual conscious would know no different. Just because a majority believe something to be right or wrong does not make it so. There’re people in the world that will look to others to influence them morally, the church is the biggest example of this, praying on the weak and feeble telling each and every one of them how to live their lives and they pay the price for it, every single religious person in some way pays a price; be it monetary or non-financial. Whether that be sacrificing their lives or donating ten percent of their hard earnings, they pay a price.

We want our MPs to put our views first, NOT the party agenda, the media, or the wealthy donors. We think it’s time our politicians genuinely represented us: the people who put them in power and pay their salaries. If enough people sign this petition, candidates in this election will feel pressured to agree to the MyMP pledge to vote on the big issues in the way the voters want. We can vote for TV show contestants online and from apps on our phones and the best organisations use consultation to find out what their customers think – the technology is already here to make democracy directly and easily available. There is nothing stopping MPs finding out their constituents’ view on the NHS, immigration, fracking, the NHS or going to war. MPs should all be harnessing this technology to listen to their constituents on the important issues. If candidates in the upcoming election (whether they're from any party, or no party) would pledge to represent us in this way, we could guarantee that whoever won the seat, the people would be listened to. It would free the winning candidate from the lash of party whips and give them a true mandate in line with their duty as an MP, which is to their constituents first and foremost. Will you put pressure on your local candidates and candidates across the country by joining this call for political renewal? Please sign the petition and pass it on.

The people of this country would have more faith in our political system if politicians were held to account in this way. The distinction between parties would become clearer. We would achieve genuine, much needed, political reform. It would minimise those individuals using our political system for their own financial gain thus reducing corruption.

Assessing value for money in sixth-form education, a recent report published found that academies are able to spend an average of £1,598 more per sixth-form student than sixth-form colleges. The report gives two explanations for this. The government provides funding to academies to meet their VAT, insurance and capital costs in full. Sixth-form colleges, on the other hand, must redirect funding away from frontline education to meet these costs: the average sixth-form colleges pays £335,000 per year in VAT alone.