Last year, the NHS Professionals department (the NHS internal recruitment agency) actually made a profit of 8 million pounds. No sooner is this information available than internal sources confirm a privatisation deal is in the works. (See link at the end) This is a scandalous betrayal of the Health Service, on a par with the deliberate alienation of nurses and junior doctors. (It's worth mentioning that the only reason a department of the NHS can generate a profit is because of the "internal market" system that exists in NHS England - essentially, it's Mum paying Dad to cut the grass, then Dad paying Mum to make dinner: it's a wasteful circle of money that exists only as a precursor to back-door privatisation) Our public money should remain in public services, not go to the cosy friends and relatives of government ministers through privatisation deals. It's our money. It's our service. It's our say. And we say enough is enough. https://www.rt.com/uk/333270-nhs-professionals-privatized-deloitte/

Books that you have read, books that seem too old but tell our history, books that you think the next generations should read, why should we keep them isolated from the world? Why not share them with everyone?! In this technological era where everything is moving so fast, where social networks command our daily life, a book can save us and make us comeback to our roots and untangle who we are. This is why this campaign is so important; to have the liberty to read a book that can remind us that there are stories that cannot be forgotten because they represent a part of ourselves.

I suffer from a long lists of medical conditions of which I suffer daily chronic pain. This limits my ability to get out at times. Having a dog for support and emotional comfort has at times been the 1 thing that has kept me going. It has been proven that a pet can be of enormous benefit to someone's well being. Also it can make that person go out as they have to consider their pets well being as well.

It's important as the decision and outcome that is created will have a greater effect on younger people. Scotland allowed 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the Scottish Referendum, which what's the difference between that and this vote? Why shouldn't the people who are going to be affected have no say in the decision?

So many social issues the UK faces today are to do with the fact that "trickle down" economics proved to be a myth. Societies down the ages have faced the choice: redistribution or revolution. The U.K. may be far from the latter; but anger and frustration is felt by millions. A sensible wealth tax is always possible. All that stands in the way is political will. An unbalanced society is healthy for nobody. Make the change before anger turns into rebellion.

Benefits * a more realistic reflection of the countries opinions * A more modern approach to voting, making it easier and quicker for people to do so. * A faster way to count votes with a more accurate result * People will feel like they have more influence and control over the political issues in our country * Easier for people to get involved with issues that they are particularly passionate about * People will have a more educated approach to voting as full information will be provided before voting. * Younger people will engage with their government and politics more. * Easier for over seas and military voters "Petitioning, a practice from medieval times, was used by the working class in the 19th century to demand the vote in their millions; yet the government of the time was quick to reject the multiple petitions they presented. The Speaker, John Bercow, promised that the internet would change all this. Indeed the public appetite for petitions has not abated. When the government launched its own e-petitions site two years ago, the volume of traffic caused it to crash on its first day. E-petitions can and do work. Remember when Malalai Joya was nominated for the Nobel Peace prize or when BBC 6 Music was saved from closure? How about when campaigners won a fight to keep a woman on our banknotes? These campaigns owe their success to the rise of digital platforms such as change.organd 38 Degrees." - theguardian.co.uk Let us once again petition to change the way that the UK public vote and influence politics, using the power of online petitioning, to ultimately create the equivalent power of online politics and voting. Sign up now and be a part of the modern political movement!

When asked where the homeless shelter will be with this large sum of money I had the snooty reply of "oh there is no money in the budget for that Chatham needs a facelift"

The Monday to Friday service is to be withdrawn from 28th March 2014. The bus links the rural areas of Charlesworth and Chisworth to shops and doctors' surgeries and shops of Marple and Glossop and provides a link to railway stations at Glossop, Marple and Hazel Grove.The bus is a direct link from Marple and Hawk green to Stepping Hill Hospital.

Unconventional gas exploitation - "fracking" - is a ridiculous idea. The Government's arguments used to justify fracking are as follows: That it will create jobs, that it’ll bring down energy bills, that it’s good for our energy security and it's a transition fuel to a green energy economy. 1. That it will create jobs. A Department for the Environment and Climate Change’s (DECC) report estimated a maximum of 24,300 of them. Yet 400,000 jobs could be created by 2020 by investment in the clean energy sector. 2. That it’ll bring down energy bills like it has in the US. But the UK’s geology is more complex than in the US, which means that the process here will be uneconomic. Even if that wasn’t the case, unlike the US, the UK exports gas as part of a European gas market, and as fracking companies will sell to the highest bidder of these European countries, there could never be a guarantee that UK energy users would be the beneficiaries. 3. That it’s good for our energy security A House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee recommendation was that shale gas should not be relied on to contribute to energy security. An energy security expert has said the best way to reduce energy security risks is to promote renewable power generation, improve energy efficiency and reduce overall energy demand. 4. A transition fuel to a green energy economy. Department for Energy and Climate Change-commissioned report on fracking’s greenhouse gas emissions has been shown to be based on poor data and exaggeration. When the actual figures are factored-in, the report shows that burning shale gas to produce electricity is about as bad as, or very possibly even worse than burning coal! The arguments against fracking are so numerous: The UK’s geology is too complex for fracking to be safe or economic. The UK’s geography means we don’t have America’s wide open spaces away from the population or agriculture. Water contamination. The UN has listed seven different ways this can occur. The huge quantities of water required. The carcinogenic properties of the chemicals used. Air pollution. Earthquakes. Industrialisation of countryside and loss of agricultural land to roads, well-pads, pipelines, compressor stations and so on. Traffic/chemical spills/noise and light pollution. Impact on tourism. Even if none of the above applied this doesn’t discount the big one – climate change. A growing number of climate change scientists are recognising that to have any chance of us staying below the two degree increase in global temperature that is required to avoid catastrophic climate change, we have to leave 80% of all already discovered fossil fuels in the ground. So why does this government want to find more of the stuff if we can’t burn it? Not all governments are hell bent on fracking - far from it. There are bans or moratoriums on fracking in France, Germany, many American states, and at least twelve other countries worldwide. And there are attractive alternatives, particularly for the UK as we have the best renewable energy resources in Europe. That’s where our energy security is - and the 400,000 jobs to get our economy back on track. A policy of support for fracking is a vote-loser. As elected representatives of Burnley we the community call on you to say no to fracking and yes to keeping Burnley frack free?

Unconventional gas exploitation - "fracking" - is a ridiculous idea. The Government's arguments used to justify fracking are as follows: That it will create jobs, that it’ll bring down energy bills, that it’s good for our energy security and it's a transition fuel to a green energy economy. 1. That it will create jobs. A Department for the Environment and Climate Change’s (DECC) report estimated a maximum of 24,300 of them. Yet 400,000 jobs could be created by 2020 by investment in the clean energy sector. 2. That it’ll bring down energy bills like it has in the US. But the UK’s geology is more complex than in the US, which means that the process here will be uneconomic. Even if that wasn’t the case, unlike the US, the UK exports gas as part of a European gas market, and as fracking companies will sell to the highest bidder of these European countries, there could never be a guarantee that UK energy users would be the beneficiaries. So the argument about not importing from Russia doesn't stand! 3. That it’s good for our energy security A House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee recommendation was that shale gas should not be relied on to contribute to energy security. An energy security expert has said the best way to reduce energy security risks is to promote renewable power generation, improve energy efficiency and reduce overall energy demand. 4. A transition fuel to a green energy economy. Department for Energy and Climate Change-commissioned report on fracking’s greenhouse gas emissions has been shown to be based on poor data and exaggeration. When the actual figures are factored-in, the report shows that burning shale gas to produce electricity is about as bad as, or very possibly even worse than burning coal! The arguments against fracking are so numerous: The UK’s geology is too complex for fracking to be safe or economic. The UK’s geography means we don’t have America’s wide open spaces away from the population or agriculture. Water contamination. The UN has listed seven different ways this can occur. The huge quantities of water required. The carcinogenic properties of the chemicals used. Air pollution. Earthquakes. Industrialisation of countryside and loss of agricultural land to roads, well-pads, pipelines, compressor stations and so on. Traffic/chemical spills/noise and light pollution. Impact on tourism. Even if none of the above applied this doesn’t discount the big one – climate change. A growing number of climate change scientists are recognising that to have any chance of us staying below the two degree increase in global temperature that is required to avoid catastrophic climate change, we have to leave 80% of all already discovered fossil fuels in the ground. So why does this government want to find more of the stuff if we can’t burn it? There are attractive alternatives, particularly for the UK as we have the best renewable energy resources in Europe. That’s where our energy security is - and the 400,000 jobs to get our economy back on track. A policy of support for fracking is a vote-loser. As elected representatives of Rossendale we the community call on you to say no to fracking and yes to keeping Rossendale and Darwenfrack free?

In a written parliamentary answer earlier this month, Duncan Smith’s junior welfare minister, Justin Tomlinson, said they expect claims to be made online. The government’s universal credit website, however, advertised the phone number. An increasing majority of people do not use a landline phone, especially those on low incomes due to the higher fixed costs than owning a mobile phone. This new number is directly prohibitive to some of the most vulnerable claimants in the country and is a new cost hurdle for people in dire need. Along with this almost 6 million British adults have never been on line, with many more with no or limited access to the internet, again from the most vulnerable sections of society. Once again, Iain Duncan-Smith is playing with the lives of Britain's downtrodden, putting Universal Credit out of reach for those that need it most. Credit it the Guardian for the article that forms the basis of this petition (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/17/iain-duncan-smith-refuses-to-set-up-freephone-for-families-claiming-benefits)

Homelessness in Maidstone continues to rise under the Tory government. The period from 2010 to the end of quarter three 2015 saw a more than tenfold increase in the number of households defined as homeless, from 12 to 157. This rise in recognised cases, along with the sevenfold increase in applications for help, shows a growing issue and a need for determined action to combat the situation. Despite these concerning statistics, the Council have undertaken a consultation, which closed on January 25th 2016, on a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO). This would effectively criminalise homelessness, by making it illegal to sleep rough within areas of Maidstone town centre. Meanwhile planned developments to build new homes continue to move forward, but only 15-30% of new homes will form ‘affordable’ housing. Affordable rent can be classified anywhere up to 80% of the market value of the property. The average private rent for two bedrooms in Maidstone in 2014/2015 was £745 a month. As it is widely accepted that rent should take no more than 30% of your monthly income a two person household requires a joint income of £2000 per month, the equivalent of £32,000 per year, to meet 80% of this cost. Projects such as the Winter Shelter, run by local churches and charities, are helping to alleviate the symptoms of this increasingly desperate situation. However, more must be done at a local government and national level to deliver on the causes of escalating private rents, and a lack of council owned social housing.