TTIP is a threat to our NHS, jobs, environment and hard fought for rights that we enjoy as workers and citizens. It is a secretive deal that will allow for the interests of wealthy corporations to be put before those of citizens and the elected governments that represent them. It will allow multi national companies to sue elected governments in secret courts for policies that they deem to be harmful to their profit making ability. These courts have been used to sue governments for bringing in a minimum wage, placing health warnings on cigarette packages and halting fracking due to environmental concerns to name but a few. TTIP is an undemocratic corporate power grab that will displace jobs and open up our public services to increased privatisation. We want no part of this deal, make North Lincolnshire a TTIP-Free zone! Join the Facebook group here - https://www.facebook.com/groups/northlincsagainstttip/ More information on the TTIP-free zone campaign can be found here - http://action.globaljustice.org.uk/ea-campaign/action.retrievestaticpage.do?ea_static_page_id=4189

We are being asked to vote on something which will possibly change the future of Britain and haven't been given the facts from which to make a choice.

In May the government will block charities, who receive a government grant, from being able to lobby and campaign against government policies. A clause inserted into new and renewed grant agreements  will state that Charities can't take part in "activity intended to influence - or attempt to influence - Parliament, government or political parties". Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, said the new rules were "draconian". "This is tantamount to making charities take a vow of silence and goes against the spirit of open policy-making that this Government has hitherto championed." Meanwhile big business, who receive government grants can carry on spending over £2.5bn a year on lobbying Westminster.

Despite attempts to persuade him privately, Iain McNicol, General Secretary of the Labour Party, is refusing to budge on the cost of Youth Conference. Labour are already charging elected delegates £40 for their conference pass (seven times the national minimum wage for most young members), this is without provision for accommodation or travel, meaning in reality the cost of Youth Conference will come to £200 or more for most delegates. This is the first Youth Conference in two years and the first youth elections conference in three years. Delegates have been elected by the entire youth membership regionally to represent them at #YL16, the lack of funding to get delegates there is pricing young members out of democracy and only the Party can resolve this issue. Unless this issue is resolved, Young Labour's democracy runs the risk of looking like that of pre-universal suffrage Britain, in which only those with wealth will have the right (or ability) to vote; the Chartists, whose struggle led to the creation of the Labour Party, would not be impressed.

This government have made pledge after pledge , promise after promise to repair the damage from this disaster and to ensure that it never happens again, yet they have kept none of their promises . There is substantial evidence to show that logging has been a major cause of flooding in the region and yet the priority isn't to restore the road for local people but use it to recommence the very activity that caused the problem in the first place. This government has no concern for the environment or local interest but only for profit. It continues to make the same mistakes for its own greed. "The A591 repairs are a blag,it is in working order apart from the GAP which they are not working on,they seem to be concentrating their efforts on forestry operations! Something must be done!!! I saw lots of heavy forestry machinery using the road which is strange as we are being told it is undermined and I saw no evidence of the whole mountain moving!!!" 30 January 2016

This is a smoke screen to avoid public accountability. It is supposed to be a time when serious questions are asked and serious questions are answered. MP's represent the public and the public have both the right to be heard and answered. MP's when ridiculed, held to scorn and derision, are standing in the place of the Public and should behave and be treated accordingly. PMQ's has become a Circus.

Current draft guidance from Ofcom (which would affect the coverage of private broadcasters such a STV) categorises four of the five parties currently represented in Holyrood as 'major parties', the Scottish Labour Party, SNP, Scottish Conservatives, & Scottish Liberal Democrats. The fifth party in parliament, the Scottish Greens, fall under the 'minor parties' category alongside UKIP. This is despite UKIP having no representation at Holyrood at any point in it's history. Since the parliament's inception five parties have been continuously represented, the five represented currently. To treat one of these parties as being in a tier below the rest, particularly given the Greens' strong polling over the last two years, would create an unfair and unbalanced broadcasting environment for the election.

Parliament has to be renovated. It's crumbling and the roof is leaking. To renovate with MPs in situ would cost £2.2bn more than if they moved out and take up to 29 years longer according to a BBC report. MPs might not like it, but moving out permanently to another part of the country is a no brainer. In any case no other western democracy has the political, financial, sporting, tourism and cultural centres in one city. The UK does. Its crippling the country. It causes immense congestion in London and massive distortion to the economy as a whole and as a result makes it more difficult for the UK to compete. So why do our MPs not want you to read this? It is surprising. Permanently moving Parliament and providing on-site residential accommodation would give our MPs the opportunity to prove that they are not the self seeking, greedy individuals, loathed by many as a result of the expenses scandal. How? Well they would no longer own second homes that had their mortgages paid for by the public purse, but which they could sell at a vast profit when they left Parliament. There would be no profit for them if they lived in purpose built, publicly owned accommodation in the South West, North East or West Midlands for instance. They would be doing something that was in the public interest but not in their own. That they won't do it without there is a huge public outcry is a given and even then they will fight and rubbish this suggestion. The region that gets the new Parliament would see huge investment and employment opportunities open up. Civil with massive savings in unemployment benefits and big increases in income tax revenues. This money could be invested elsewhere in the UK, thus ensuring all regions benefit. The investment would be No region would suffer. Londoners would see price pressure on homes reduce, but tourism related jobs increase. House inflation would be controlled and not ripple out to the rest of the country in the way it does now, thus helping to keep the cost of living stable. And the boost the poorest region got by hosting Parliament would reduce dependency and mean there could be lower taxes or increased spending for all regions. So this hurts no region and benefits all. Please help push our MPs into taking this action by signing this petition and then requesting your MP to give their support. They will have to vote at some point in this Parliament and it is important they get this decision right.

It is important that all disabled veterans are supported by the government as it is the same government that placed them in areas of conflict that has resulted in them requiring financial supports as a result of the injuries they received while serving their country this including loss of mobility, loss of their ability to maintain their basic personal care, ie such as washing dressing, nutrition. Please support this petition to ensure that those U.K veterans who have been left permanently disabled do not also find themselves financially disadvantaged due to the these changes. Ian Duncan Smith needs to remove this process, provide a fair system and be forced to support disabled veterans and not just on Poppy Day. It will only take a few minutes of your time, but a life time of difference to improve the quality of life for disabled veterans.

Our environment is important to us and it's about time we started to realise this. We need to focus on renewable energy. I believe a stronger stance against fracking would also gain the SNP more support.

Increasing numbers of homeless people are being arrested for begging around the country. In 2013-14, 2771 cases were brought before the courts, a 70% increase on the previous year. Police use an archaic law which deems those found begging to be 'idle and disorderly'. Begging was made a recordable offence in 2003 against the strong criticisms of civil rights groups and homelessness organisations. Those prosecuted can be fined up to £1000 excluding court charges when found with just a few pennies. Those who have 'gathered alms' (that is, accepted money, food or other material goods offered to them) can be prosecuted under this same law with the same consequences. Some people are kept in cells for several nights. Although begging in and of itself is not an imprisonable offence, if the person is already on bail for another case a simple arrest for begging can lead to imprisonment. Those who are fined will inevitably have to beg more to pay off these fines, risking further arrests and fines, a punishment which stands out in its absurdity. Punishing the destitute for trying to survive is both costly and morally abhorrent. It is a waste of tax payers' money which is spent paying police who 'catch people out' in organised undercover operations, as well as on court cases to prosecute them. The minimum cost of bringing one case to the Magistrates' Court is £1000, meaning that in the year 2013-14, bringing begging cases before the courts cost the taxpayer at least £2.777 million. This is money that could be spent helping people rather than punishing them. Police also routinely move homeless people on under part 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) which gives police the power to confiscate property and exclude individuals from a particular area for up to 48 hours, with the officer also able to impose by what manner and route the person must leave. Failure to comply is a criminal offence which can result in a £2500 fine or 3 months in prison. Refusing to surrender your property is punishable by a fine of up to £500. The two conditions needed by officers to issue a dispersal order are firstly, that the constable has 'reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to (a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or (b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder, and secondly, that the constable considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of (a) or (b)'. Given that begging is a crime considered 'idle and disorderly', the two laws in tandem essentially give police de facto power to exclude any homeless person from any area simply because they think it is likely that the person, being homeless, might beg there. The highly subjective definition of 'anti-social behaviour' as that which contributes or is likely to contribute to members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed reinforces this and even with the decriminalisation of begging, would still give police the power to move on any homeless person from any area simply because they believe doing so is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of members of the public being distressed by seeing them. Seeing people forced to live on the streets is distressing to much of the public for good reason, but this compassionate distress means that under this definition a homeless person is considered to be exhibiting anti-social behaviour simply by existing visibly. The anti-social behaviour that causes the public distress is not caused by the homeless person however, but by the authorities' failure to provide people with shelter in a country that has 600,000 empty homes. As described by someone living on the street, being asked to move on when you have nowhere to go is like being asked to walk into a brick wall. These laws and their enforcement victimize vulnerable people who are already suffering the daily struggle of life on the streets or in insecure and unstable temporary accommodation. We believe that kicking someone for limping when it is you who cut off their leg is shameless and cruel. We believe that the government should be providing homes for the homeless, not handcuffs. We therefore call on parliament to repeal without replacement section 3 of the Vagrancy Act (1824), to amend part 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) to safeguard homeless people from its discriminatory use, and for an ultimate end to the criminalisation of homelessness by any and all other laws that may be newly concocted or dug up for this purpose. If you have an MP who may be sympathetic, get in touch with them to push this issue to parliament. We launched this petition at our demo at Brighton Magistrate's court on the 20th January.

Why in 2016 when the government are looking to make cuts, should they be immune to the same austerity they force so many others to live with? Last year a reported 1.1 million people were forced into using food banks, this year they are trying to force our NHS to do more, with less. They have already attacked the disabled, and raised tuition fees for those looking to further their education while at the same time taking a pay rise. Why should they get to claim personal expenses? Especially when the average MP salary is £67,060. The UK average salary is reported to be £26,500, and yet you and I have to pay for our own food, our own travel expenses, as well as our own day to day living expenses. Whilst I understand that staffing costs make up nearly three quarters of the total MP expenses budget, staffing and office costs as well as reasonable long distance travel costs should be managed by the IPSA. Any other personal claims simply shouldn't be allowed. Let's stand together and remind the Government they stand in office to serve the greater goods best interest and not their own.