Self evident to anyone with a conscience

Genocide is wrong and i can't sit back while Cameron condones it in my name...

I asked the MEPs for the North west what they did, by email before the last election, only two of them out of 8 replied, only one with a thoughtful response. I am prepared to believe that some of them work hard to earn their money but I receive no direct evidence of them representing me on a day to day basis. We have a website 'theyworkforyou' that tells each of us when our Mps ask a question in the House of Commons. Using this as a template, it ought to be quite cheap, given the resources of the EU, to set up a system that keeps all EU voters better informed.

At a time of austerity, when almost a million people per year in the UK depend on food banks and when the average wage is stagnating, it's completely inappropriate for MP's to be getting a pay rise. We are not 'all in this together'. http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats To be fair to them, most MP's have already criticised the pay rise. Let's make sure they put their money where their mouth is.

Kew Garden is the largest oldest and biggest repository of plants and plant research in the world. The Governments and Defra's irresponsible action in cutting its grant aid and nudging it towards privatisation is a sacrilege, when we are dealing with the world's greatest. Rather our Government fund our own world ranking expertise than waste money on funding countries like India with overseas aid.It has achieved fame for being the world's greatest centre for botanical research, a place where the planet's rarest plant and tree species are preserved and studied. But now Kew Gardens, established more than 200 years ago, is set to become the focus of an international battle following an intervention by renowned biologist Jane Goodall, who has denounced a recently inflicted budget cut as "unbelievably stupid". Goodall, who carried out pioneering work on the behaviour of chimps, has written to the environment secretary, Owen Paterson, urging him to hand out £5m to restore the centre's budget in the wake of financial cuts imposed by the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs. "To read that 125 professional staff members are set to lose their jobs because of cuts in government funding is shocking," Goodall says. In an interview with the Observer, she revealed that she had made contact with several Kew scientists while researching her book, Seeds of Hope. "There is a tremendous feeling of anger and frustration there and I share it. This an unbelievably stupid thing to do. This is the mother of all other botanical research centres. Britain should be proud of it, not dismantling it. It is like tearing up the union jack. That is why I wrote my letter. I want my protest to go viral. I want thousands and thousands of people to protest as well." Last month a petition demanding the restoration of Kew's budget – signed by more than 100,000 people – was handed to 10 Downing Street, while 34 MPs signed an early-day motion expressing alarm "that vital international conservation work would be threatened should further cuts take place" at Kew.

The government commission on Digital Democracy is investigating "the opportunities digital technology can bring for parliamentary democracy in the UK" and will make recommendations in January 2015 (Google "Commission on Digital Democracy" - on their site you can see all the submissions so far to the commission). This submission proposes a form of e-consultations which provides an approach to e-democracy that is genuinely democratic, with people rather than politicians controlling the process. It also may help to get more young people involved in democracy and provide a means of youth constructively expressing its views and perceptions (which were certainly very relevant in the fable of The Emperor's New Clothes!) Whereas e-petitions, e.g. as organised by 38degrees, go a long way in e-democracy, they can be dismissed as un-representative of the population as a whole. An "official" e-consultation mechanism would be less dismissible - it becomes the MP's job to convince his constituents to support his "party line" on each issue raised by himself or by others. If there is a "Silent Majority" then the proposed e-Consultations would help them to be less silent. The "campaign website" (linked to above) contains a draft detailed presentation of the idea, based on the principles of "liquid democracy", for eventual submission to the commission - comments welcomed. An outline of the proposal is- • Govt. consultation websites on which anyone can include their issue, e.g. a petition on which citizens can vote. • Any activist group (from a local community assoc. to Greenpeace or a political party) can include their viewpoint on any issue, including links to supporting evidence. • There is a web page listing all the issues, each linking to: A page on which all the viewpoints on that issue are listed, each linking to: a page presenting that viewpoint. • Like Google search results – what matters is the order in which entries for issues and viewpoints are listed on these web pages - their relative position. • All citizens have equal “units of influence” which they have delegated to activist groups which they think should be listened to. At any time they can change how their influence is delegated. • An activist group applies the influence units delegated to it - to vote on the relative position of issues and of viewpoints on the web page listings. • Thus each citizen directly influences which issues and which viewpoints are most strongly presented to their fellow citizens.

The political climate is currently so bad traditional labour voters have been voting Ukip or EDL as a protest vote; racist, far right extremism as opposed to Ed Miliband. That's the sickening truth! People would rather UKIP were in charge than Labour. Why? Because Miliband has failed to inspire any faith or belief in the British public. But someone else on in the labour party has. And that person is Glenda Jackson. The people need somebody they can believe in, somebody they can trust, and that is what she has demonstrated herself to be. In her recent speech in the house of commons, she stood up for the welfare state, she stood for those who are suffering, and her stand has not gone unnoticed. The apathetic, disenfranchised but otherwise good people of this country stood up and took notice. They shared that video clip, indicating a glimmer of hope and inspiration to take an interest in politics. She was telling the truth, she was saying something I agree with. She was standing up for me and you. The only female Prime Minister we ever had in this country was a moral abomination. The current government are following in Thatchers ghastly footsteps, and if we keep following that path who knows what hell we'll end up in. Let's bring in another woman, a strong and intelligent woman who clearly cares about this country, who cares enough to stand in a room full of toffee nosed tories and tell them how it is. If Glenda Jackson were a labour candidate for Prime Minister, she would have my vote. Would she have yours? Sign this petition and lets show them how we feel about her, and about the future of the labour party being in the hands of somebody we believe in.

This is a public service, created by the hard working people of the UK in past generations, which has been sold off to make money for the government - but sold at a low price to ensure the certain people and agencies made money on the sale of the shares after going private. This is illegal, against the wish of the people, and a complete sham from a government who are supposed to represent and work for the will and welfare of the people. A full investigation should be held, and those who are found to have made money by insider knowledge held accountable.

More time is needed to ensure proper laws are discussed and agreed. We do not live in a policed state... Maybe there is law firm out there that would take on a mass case of legal challenges by the public to force telecoms companies to destroy the data now and thereby force the government into proper dialogue with people they are representing!

Children should be protected from everyone especially from those who believe they will never be caught or convicted.

As UK and EU citizens, and human beings, we can not accept this. We call on David Cameron to immediately reverse the UK's stance. If we do not do this then how can the UK or the EU pretend to be democratic communities? If you are an EU citizen and you care about Human Rights, please sign this petition. Links: http://seedfreedom.in/un-to-outlaw-corporations-human-rights-abuses/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/06/eu-aims-to-scuttle-treaty-on-human-rights-abuses/

If a Minister in the Government saw the number of signatories rising beyond – say 120,000, it would be open to them to stick to what they believed to be a point of principle (whatever the personal cost to them), or hastily propose that the issue will be immediately reconsidered and interested parties consulted with, provided the Minister was able to remained in Office long enough to do so. Other than this, there would be no appeal from this verdict of the Electorate. This would immediately make the Government far more responsive to, and aware of the needs and wishes of the voters who put them in Office; it would increase democracy – Government by the people, for the people. It would return power to the people – the electorate –which is where it belongs, and it would (rightly) ensure that government is by consent of the Governed. Government Ministers (including Secretaries of State) would need to keep “looking over their shoulders” to ensure that they remained fully aware of the Electorate’s reasonable expectations. The Prime Minster (of whatever party or coalition) and the Cabinet would have to consider most carefully what Bills to proceed with, for fear of losing a valued member of their team. Where a Government Minister lost Office by this process, a Prime Minister might have considerable difficulty finding any one else willing to accept the Poisoned Chalice of promoting whatever the unpopular legislation had been. It would reduce cases of “single-issue politics” occurring at an election –many “single issue politics” issues would be resolved (and the issue would be closed and finished with) at each and every decision of the Government. This would also make the whole matter of Internet petitions far more worth while. People would know that it really could make a difference if enough people signed – the petition could not just be ignored by those in power. Those faced with unfairness and injustice would re-double their efforts to get more signatories, knowing that it really could change the outcome of the matter under discussion. There would probably be strong opposition to this proposal from current members of the Government (whatever Government is in power whenever this measure is proposed). Ministers have nothing to gain from this proposal, but it does threaten their self-interests and any attempt to impose doctrinaire positions or non-manifesto items. The shadow cabinet would similarly oppose it – particularly those who hope to be in power come the next election and gain a portfolio, as they would then have to live with this measure. Back-bench MPs have absolutely nothing to fear from this as it is totally separate from the “recall of MPs”; it applies only to Government ministers. Many Back-bench MPs might in fact see an opportunity for a quick promotion into the empty shoes of a minister who was diplomatically inept or out of touch with the electorate. (One thinks of the alleged old Royal Navy toast; “Here’s to a short and bloody war and a quick promotion”!) No Health Minister would close a hospital (or it’s A&E or Maternity departments) unless they were certain that they could convince all the local voters of the necessity to do so. No minister of Immigration would engage in dubious deportations of a promising A level student or a young mother with two small children, for fear of losing his ministerial position. Bedroom tax, reduction of Legal Aid, the Lobbying Bill and the spread of Academies might all have been defeated if such a constraint had been in place. No secretary of state would overturn a local planning decision unless he was sure that he could argue the case – and equally a minister aware of strong and widespread local feeling against a planning appeal would have a strong incentive to consider the needs of those most affected by the planning issue. No minister of transport would plan new a train-line or a motorway if it caused planning blight or if it passed through a site of Special Scientific Interest or an area of outstanding Natural Beauty, unless he was sure of support from a vast majority for his sacrificing the views of a tiny unrepresentative minority. Similarly Wind Farms and individual wind turbines could not be installed, nor could “Fracking” occur against the wishes of a significant number who were opposed to such actions. It has occasionally been suggested that it should never be a crime to assassinate a member of the Government – thereby ensuring that only those who truly want to act for the benefit and welfare of their country would accept Office. This is a kinder and less violent alternative.