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.

MOST would be INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES stay away from STANDING in General Election because they can't afford the DEPOSIT. This deprives the Democratic function in Britain from many brilliant capable candidates.

The success of a country is judged by objective markers depicting economic, industrial, social, and cultural output, alongside the health and well-being of its citizens. The only mechanism people have to potentially secure this success is through the quality of a nation's operating democracy, and the central law making body at its heart. The latter is elected by 'informal promises' to hopefully achieve the best outcomes. In Britain's case, this duty falls on the workings of the House of Commons and ultimately by the quality of the party in government, supported in essence by a balance of 650 elected members of Parliament representing the regions and people of Britain. The British Parliament has been a historical role model, but deep and ongoing problems are now present. The system for electing MPs has not effectively changed for hundreds of years, the duties of an MP are not clearly defined and no task obligations are written down. This casual state is unheard of in every other walk of life. Many events are now challenging these loose foundations, change is badly needed to refresh and update the principles by which the Commons, government, and particularly MPs work. This is to ensure we have the most responsive central legislature that is fully equipped and in touch with a rapidly changing country, its people, as well as a very fast-moving highly technical world. Over the last decade or two, many calamities including financial, economic, banking, health, employment, infrastructure, education, as well as the very probity of elected members, have emerged as significant issues. In many cases, these issues fail the test of good government. Even now, we are unclear what expenses MPs are entitled too, what extreme views an MP can hold in office, whether MPs can be compelled to quality control, should they take on second and sometimes a third (or more) jobs, and why there are no basic qualifications which would make MPs 'fit for purpose'. All these points fundamentally return us to question whether the aspirations of the first and second paragraphs above are ever going to find success again. Not surprisingly, voter apathy reflects this deep impasse. This petition proposes that much greater tests on the suitability of people to become MPs must be put in place. We accept the principle that effectively any British citizen of diverse background can become an MP, but, we also suggest that as in any other walks of life where there is a very specific and demanding job to be done, the incumbent should be maximally prepared for the task in hand and certainly not merely possess 'casual well meaning' as the test for office. MPs will therefore have to be 'fit for purpose' in showing strong evidence of educational, vocational, and personal skills demanded both by their new job and by the electorate, and not just offer a test of arbitrary party loyalties to be finally selected. Hence, evidence that MPs can sit in our central law making House and are pre-endowed with the educational skills to steer economic and social reform to which the nation is entitled, becomes a pre-requisite. The issue is not therefore so much about female to male ratios, ethnic or indigenous grouping, or indeed gender orientation, but about exacting proficiency and technical competence, in the same way every other job in the country has rightfully become. The technical competence issue should now be raised as the central argument, whereby, only a person who is versed and learned in specified skills that are central to the demanding task in hand should be allowed to stand for Parliament. This will mean aspiring applicants must achieve set qualifications first, and for political parties to put in place a process where they steer prospective candidates through specific training before allowing candidates to stand. The qualifications will set the bar high, but Britons are especially well equipped to achieve this, as our educational history consistently shows. These qualifications, including all the subjects set out above, become preconditions of educational experience and attainment before finally sitting as an elected Member of the British Parliament. Furthermore, a special internal and external education, science, and culture committee should refresh this MINIMUM list of requirements on a regular basis, checking educational progress of elected members and demanding new updated units to keep pace with the changing world and the job types (secretarial/ministerial) which the member may be diversifying into. Sitting MPs will have to constantly learn and update skills too, this can be achieved as 'study within recess' periods and cover all the units newly elected MPs face. Learning and re-learning, up-dating and re-validation, becomes part and parcel of the discipline for a Parliamentary political career.

Year after year landlords and Councils have increased rents by at least 4%. This year many are levying 4% increases at a time when many ordinary people - 'hard working families' to use politician speak, are on minimum wage and who have not had a wage rise in 2 years. Private landlords and local Councils are proactively making people poorer as expenses increase and income remain stagnant. Just recently The Royal Bank of Scotland, that was bailed out by tax payers, has defended plans to pay £588m in staff bonuses despite suffering an £8.24bn loss in 2013 as it slumped into the red for the sixth successive year. Ross McEwan, its Chief Executive, is expected to earn £2.7m for simply doing a job he was brought in to do. However, the bank is still in the red, so he hasn't achieved the goal, yet he still receives more money in bonuses than most people earn in a lifetime. Barclays increased bonuses by 10% to £2.4bn. HSBC said it would increase salaries for its bosses to get around a European union cap on bonuses. Are we going to swallow this silently? We clearly are not 'all in this together'. Perhaps the worst offenders are those local Councils who are taking the easy option and passing on the costs of their central government funding shortfall to those in social housing and those who have to pay council tax - those who have the least ability to pay and do anything about the increase. It is sickening to hear politicians speaking about raising people out of poverty yet allowing this activity to continue.

ECO heating is just not affordable to most, with quotes of around £40,000 for a just a GSHP, and a loan on offer of £10,000. Disabled and living with no insulation, heating or hot water for two years I have battled the system, Grants, loans, ECO, Green Deal, all these well paid "helpers" are no help, EST, REA, RECC, NAPIT, TRUSTMARK, MCS, this list of "approved" installers, along with the energy companies, and the worst of all British Gas. No one cares or listens, pages of letters no one can explain why help that is on offer is not accessible. Meanwhile the government funded agencies continue to profit. The Energy saving trust tells you you must use an RECC approved installer, RECC is part of REA, why is the CEO of the EST also the boss of REA? Have you had problems trying to access the help to improve your insulation and heating? if so sign this petition, lets see if the DECC will listen.

An MP that responds to constituents concerns by answering letters, attending surgeries and hustings is upholding the democratic process. MP's that fail to do this fall short as a representative. I have sent 15 letters on a wide range of concerns including the human rights act, access to work, the NHS, the prison service, the UK border Agency, the future of our library service and the failure of the Green Deal. None have been answered or even acknowledged.

The original constitution of the Labour Party included a section known as Clause 4 which promised: "To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service." Tony Blair scrapped Clause Four as it did not fit in with his conservative ideals. It is time for the Labour Party to return to its original purpose and fight for working people and those least able to fight for themselves.