Make sure your vote counts! At the recent local government elections in London and other parts of the UK (May 2014) the current "first-past-the-post" electoral system served as a huge barrier to local democracy, with voters' genuine choices not reflected in the seats allocated in local councils. For example, in the London borough of Hackney, the Labour Party took 50 out of 57 seats (88%) seats from 58% of the vote, whereas the Green Party received 20.5% of the vote but not a single council seat. The Liberal Democrats received 8% and have three councillors, and the Conservatives with 12% have four councillors. The numbers from "first past the post" elections don't add up. Most of Europe (including Scotland) uses variations of proportional representation in local elections, only Britain still clings to "first-past-the-post"; it is archaic and outdated. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation concluded in a 2000 study, the system "does not always perform effectively against standard criteria used to assess the performance of electoral systems". Some boroughs have opted to elect an independent Mayor, local governments should also be able to choose to use a fairer voting system. We propose offering councils proportional representation (PR) at the next local elections, using the Additional Member System. Make everyone’s vote count.

The Shape of Training is a review of medical training being implemented by the government and its recommendations pose a serious threat to patient safety and high quality patient care by reducing the amount of time take to train hospital consultants. Evidence also suggests that the government may have influenced the review in a non-transparent manner. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31048279 The review's key recommendations include reducing the time taken to train to become a 'consultant' by at least 2 years and changing the point at which doctors become fully registered to practice by the GMC. The major professional bodies including the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons and the British Medical Association have expressed serious concerns about these recommendations. Tom Dolphin of the BMA was involved in the review and has recently spoken out against its recommendations: " This is an egregious assault at the heart of medical standards; we cannot allow it to proceed. " The Shape of Training review in its current form is not compatible with high quality patient care and maintaining patient safety in the NHS to a high standard, and for this reason I would urge you to sign this petition.

This is important to allow a fair and balanced presentation of the separate parties arguments without the unrelenting bias faced by the YES campaign, this is already being seen by the public in that the press are lining up AGAIN to demolish the SNP while the press have every right to decide who they support, what they should not be allowed to do it lie about the SNP,Which as anyone who was part of the Yes campaign will know they did with impunity, The OSCE is The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and will support the freedom of the press to report in a fair and unbiased manner without pressure from government and provides oversight of elections and referenda to ensure a fair and interference free poll. Heres the OSCE http://www.osce.org/

Despite consistent opposition to the policy since its outset from organisations such as the National Association of Boat Owners (NABO), The Residential Boat Owners Association (RBOA) and other representative groups; Despite criticism from the Environment Committee at the Greater London Authority, which stated; 'CRT should review its system of auctioning moorings, and seek a system that is fairer to those using and contributing to the waterway network.' (see Recommendation 3 in 'Moor or Less: Moorings on London's Waterways', Nov 2013; http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/publications/moor-or-less-moorings-on-london-s-waterways); Despite the All Party Parliamentary Waterways Group stating, 'The APPG believes that this policy needs to be reviewed to encourage more diversity on the waterways', (See link to the report in http://www.nabo.org.uk/index.php/reference-section/crt/626-appg-waterways-report-on-crt-s-performance), Despite many other critics of it's policy, CRT has not included an option to reconsider the policy as a whole in its current consultation. Many believe the policy artificially inflates moorings prices as the policy only takes account of the maximum amount someone will pay for moorings. Many people believe that the detailed auction procedures are far from transparent and many allegations of unfairness and suspected manipulation of the process by CRT have been made. Many believe that the setting of reserve prices represents a mechanism to artificially inflate prices and cite examples of where moorings have repeatedly been left un-let at the reserve price, suggesting that the reserve price is more than the market can stand. In addition it appears to many that the process of seemingly setting reserve prices too high means CRT may be foregoing rental income in order to fix market prices. (Edited for typos approx 15 20 hrs 08 Oct 2015)

people should not be put in danger by having dangerous criminals living in their neighbourhood with new identities. New identities should be to protect witnesses, not criminals. The law needs to change to prevent this happening again.

KEEP OUR VILLAGE A VILLAGE. PLEASE DO NOT BUILD ON ALL THE BEAUTIFUL FIELDS SURROUNDING OUR VILLAGE. PLEASE KEEP THE LAND SAFE AND PROTECTED FOR THE FUTURE GENERATIONS OK KNOWSLEY RESIDENTS TO APPRECIATE. Why is this important? What it would mean to the local community:  The loss of a tremendous amount of Greenbelt and farmland.  The loss of wildlife in the woodlands.  The loss of valuable open spaces.  Disruption of pathways.  Loss of natural break from the other nearby communities, creating an ugly urban sprawl.  An over capacity for local schools and doctors.  Heavy traffic on local roads which are not suitable for the amount of housing proposed. They are already heavily used and always in a poor state of repair.  More excessive housing would increase the carbon footprint.  The village would lose its heritage.  According to National surveys Knowsley is already the 10th Unhealthiest place to live in the country! Knowsley  Keep Knowsley Cleaner, Safer and Greener. We urge the council not to consider building on the Greenbelt or farmland, but to utilise many of the other concrete areas within Knowsley. These would more than meet the current housing demand.

Though many Minsters and MP's tell obvious lies that do not require much effort to identify some go to much greater lengths to pervert the truth. Though it is commonly accepted that constant lying is part and parcel of politicians way of life, it has lead to very bad governance and law making. This is because people, like me, do not have time to go through ever statement to check for lies. The shear levels of lies is currently so high it is easier for me to assume everything they say is a lie. However many people have come to take these lies to be true and as a result support policies, parties and politicians to the detriment of this country. A register of lies will put an end to this and restore some semblance of honesty to government.

Repeatedly the benefits bill has been discussed by politicians and the media as being too large that we cannot afford it, despite it including housing benefits, pensions, disability allowances and job seeker's allowance, all of which help the poor, old, sick and unemployed in a time of need. The details of these social benefits are well known and publicised. The Conservatives have just promised to freeze this benefits bill to help cut the budget deficit if they are elected at the next election. Recent research published in the Guardian [1] has shown that at least £85bn was given to large corporations by the government to help make the rich richer in the financial year 2011-12 alone, but with the budget deficit we just cannot afford it. This information was hidden; it is about time that the government publishes the amount given in corporate benefits - so called wealthfare - and starts considering this costly expense as an area to cut to reduce the budget deficit instead of welfare because the poor cannot cope with anymore cuts. We are all in it together, as Prime Minister David Cameron keeps saying. We've cut social benefits, it's now time to cut corporate benefits. [1] Aditya Chakrabortty, "Cut benefits? Yes, let’s start with our £85bn corporate welfare handout", The Guardian, Monday 6 October 2014 20.30 BST, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/06/benefits-corporate-welfare-research-public-money-businesses.

To keep farmers in milk production to guarantee the UK keeps control of future supplies. Hundreds of farmers have already given up milk production, it is not something that can be stepped up again quickly. A guaranteed minimum price is vital to keep production levels stable. Supermarkets using milk as a loss leader at the expense of the producers is very short sighted and cheap milk now is great, but we need to safeguard the future by paying a fair price now. Let the supermarkets take the hit NOT the Farmers.

What it would mean to the local community:  The loss of a tremendous amount of Greenbelt and farmland.  The loss of wildlife in the woodlands.  The loss of valuable open spaces.  Disruption of pathways.  Loss of natural break from the other nearby communities, creating an ugly urban sprawl.  An over capacity for local schools and doctors.  Heavy traffic on local roads which are not suitable for the amount of housing proposed. They are already heavily used and always in a poor state of repair.  More excessive housing would increase the carbon footprint.  Halewood would lose its heritage. It was in the Domesday Book of 1086.  Keep Halewood Cleaner, Safer and Greener.

In July 2013 the government introduced fees for taking an employer to an employment tribunal. Their reasoning behind this was that it would stop people making bogus claims. In reality, all introducing these fees has done is made it financially impossible for the majority of people who have been treated unfairly to take action against their employer. The current fees for taking an employer to an employment tribunal are between £390 and £1200. According to research carried out by Citizens Advice, now only 14% of valid claims are being taken forward to a tribunal and from October 2013 to March 2014 there was a 73% drop in claims on the same period the previous year. Imagine the following: -your employer sacked you because you developed a long term illness or because you were pregnant. -your boss was bullying you because of your sexual orientation, your race or your religion. -you employer stopped paying your wages or stopped you from being able to attend maternity related appointments. All of these thing would be a breach of your employment rights so why should you have to pay to stand up for them? These rights are protected by law so how can it be legal for the government to charge you a fee to take action when these rights have been broken? We need to get these fees scrapped so people can have the ability to stand up for themselves when they have been treated unfairly, otherwise it will just become even easier for employers to treat their employees however they want without any consequences.

We are facing pay freezes and poor working conditions and the NMC keep increasing our registration fees. The purpose of the NMC is to protect the public. But no-one is protecting us from the extortionate increases the NMC apply each year.