Because 1. Buying Hinkley Point is a colossal mistake 2. Mrs May inherited the project from Osborne & Cameron, keen to develop Chinese trade, 3. but now finds it politically embarrassing to back out of this very bad deal Consequently, we need to inform the public 1. why the deal is bad 2. that there are better alternatives and 3. the Chinese and French can be placated while serving British interests Why is Hinkley Point such a bad deal? 1. It is far too expensive 2. There are undeclared costs associated with the nuclear legacy which make nonsense of published costs – we will have to look after the abandoned reactors and radioactive waste for centuries and nobody knows how to do it or cares how much it will cost 3. There is a huge risk of failure – no such reactor has yet been completed and the ones started (Finland 2005, France 2007) are unfinished, in deep technical trouble and seriously (by billions each) over budget 4. The risks are ultimately borne by us, not the French contractors or Chinese financiers – the project is too big to be allowed to fail by the Government of the day (not Mrs May) 5. Nuclear technology is in any case the wrong choice for filling our anticipated supply gap: nuclear energy gets more expensive as new ideas to improve safety are incorporated in the design; in contrast other well established methods of electricity generation such as gas or coal-fired turbines and particularly offshore wind and solar energy get cheaper by the day owing to accumulating experience and rapid technical development 6.IF it has to be nuclear, the Hinkley Point reactors are too big (small modular reactors can be built instead as needed, at a fraction of the cost and in much less time) and probably also the wrong technology (a debatable, but only secondary, point) Why is the Government pursuing it? The above problems with the Hinkley project are well known to Mrs May and her advisers, but 1. Mrs May inherited it from Messrs Cameron & Osborne, who promoted it mainly in order to develop tempting business relations with China. 2. Brexit makes such relations even more important as proof of GBplc's viability outside the EU Are there any alternatives? Technical alternatives are set out above, but how to meet the political and commercial imperatives? We must persuade the public, and thus influence the Government, to 1. Abandon Hinkley even at this late stage and with possible compensation costs and offer the Chinese and French Governments partnerships in implementing the chosen technical alternative (the Chinese are leaders in solar cell development and production and both the French and Chinese may be interested in offshore developments, small reactors and advanced research). 2. Maximise the benefits to UKplc by ensuring that a good share of work is retained (for example involving UK contractors and Rolls-Royce if small modular nuclear plants form part of the chosen technical mix). Balint Bodroghy BASC DIC (nuclear engineering) 5 Palmeira Avenue Mansions 17-19 Church Road, Hove, BN3 2FA REFERENCES Why Hinkley Point is a nuclear folly of Titanic proportions New Scientist 28.07.16 Michael Le Page Forget the economics of Hinkley Point, the politics are convincing Daily Telegraph Matthew Lynn 15 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 6:21PM If there’s one sure-fire way to irritate de Rivaz of EDF, it’s to mention Christmas turkeys. Emily Gosden, energy editor, Daily Telegraph 17 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 8:00PM Let's ditch Hinkley Point and HS2 to get more bang for our bucks, Daily Telegraph Liam Halligan 17 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 12:59PM Hinkley Point fires up Britain's nuclear ambitions Daily Telegraph 17 September 2016, 8:00pm Rolls submitted designs to the Government for Small Modular Reactors capable of generating 220MW, that could be doubled up to 440, a 10th of the size of a traditional nuclear power station. Rolls Royce Publicity: For some 50 years, Rolls-Royce has been helping Naval and utility customers maximise plant operation and safely extend plant lifetimes. Britain is “ideally placed” to take a global lead in the SMR market, which could be worth £400bn,

It will show the disparity in earnings between the top and average pay in these organisations at a time when the gap is widening. HMG has put a limit on most peoples pay increases whilst executives are receiving much more, which is taking money away from front line services.

It is important because as children their feet grow at significantly different rates and it is largely parents who have to pay for this. It is unfair that zero rate VAT stops at 6 1/2 whereas children as young as 11 or 12 can have size 8 or 9 plus. Once children are legally independent at 18 then this should attract VAT, but not before.

TTIP may be dead but worse still is the upcoming Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (Ceta). Not only the NHS but every service will be totally controlled by corporations that can simply sue governments for any supposed future profits that it claims to lose if action is taken to protect the public. We elect governments and hold them to account - we do not elect corporations to decide what is best for us.

I feel that this is important because public services should not be used to generate profit for individuals or shareholders beyond what is necessary to operate the service and provide investment into improving the service.

The inability to use Paypal's global electronic money transfer system, is hindering the progress of Palestinian owned businesses to exploit markets necessary to their healthy growth, in an location where this is vital. They should have the right to compete on a more even footing with Israeli settlers who suffer no such restrictions.

As Scotland moves forward to whatever it's new future entails the fact that the oil industry is in the doldrums and Scotland is a world class destination means tourism will only become more important. The Isle of Skye, whilst becoming ever more popular with visitors, is currently under resourced to meet growing demand to visit the island. This must be addressed to make sure a real opportunity for Scotland's future is met.

Currently senior managers and others such as private equity funds may have a conflict of interest with the staff as it may be in their interests to run down the pension fund to pay themselves dividends. Senior managers may also be in schemes unapproved by HMRC which are far, far more expensive for the company to run. People who are paid a lot can afford to make their own pension arrangements or savings, staff cannot. It is manifestly unfair and unacceptable for anyone to have personal financial incentives to run down the staff pension fund. See the Philip Green affair. It is also good management for managers to align their own interests with the staff and company.

Update (28 August, 2016): Since I started this petition the NHS Trust where I live has decided, due to the huge increase in cost imposed by Univar, the manufacturer, that it can no longer supply me with Trientine Dihydrochloride, the drug that I rely on to control an otherwise fatal rare liver condition called Wilson's Disease. The situation for me and other Wilson's Disease patients has taken a turn for the worse so please sign the petition and please share it and encourage as many people as possible to do the same. Thank you so much! Jude ___________________________________________________________ The amazing NHS, funded by us through our taxes, buys drugs and provides them to us, our family members, our friends, our colleagues, to help us beat, alleviate and control all kinds of physical and mental health conditions. My case is just one example of how pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers unfairly hike the prices of vital lifesaving drugs in order to inflate profits and company share prices. It's not the only example out there and I'm sure it's not the worst. We need to stand up and let them know that unethical price hikes are not acceptable. I have a rare genetic liver condition called Wilson's Disease. To control this, I take a drug called Trientine Dihydrochloride, which is a product that's been unchanged since it was developed for the treatment of this potentially fatal condition in the 1960s. Trientine is owned by multinational corporation, Univar, and it's been a registered product in the UK since 1985. Trientine is a great drug! It's kept me alive and healthy for the past 30 years when other drugs haven't worked. The fantastic NHS provides Trientine to me free of charge (I just pay the tiny prescription fee). The hospital pharmacist that supplies me with Trientine told me that until recently it cost the NHS about ￡400 for 100 Trientine capsules (that's a lot, right!) and that was about 16 days' worth for me. Univar has, over several incremental rises, increased the cost by about 750% so it now costs the NHS nearly ￡3,400 for the same amount. That's ￡205 each day to keep me alive and healthy; ￡1,431 each week; ￡6,219 each month; ￡74,624 each year... I now face periods without this vital drug because the NHS pharmacy cannot provide enough due to their spending limits and the increased cost. I don't know what this means for my health exactly but it's not good - I know that much. I'm not the only person. Others with Wilson's Disease are facing the same uncertainty over their health and prospects for controlling this condition. This is the ugly, greedy, unethical face of the pharmaceutical industry. Companies often have a monopoly on the rights to a certain vitally important drug and abuse this status to make profit hand over fist and inflate their share prices with no care for good organisations like the NHS that they're ripping off, and no regard for the patients that ultimately suffer, fall ill and die by being priced out of the treatment that they need. It can cost a pharmaceutical company a lot of money to develop new drugs but we're talking here about products that are long established and unchanged. There's no justification for astronomical price hikes. We need to show that we care and demand better ethical standards and enforce fair pricing regulations with us the people and our NHS at the heart. Thanks.

The actions of the NEC are so undemocratic they do not belong in this country. All across society they have excluded members and supports with bitter choices. This cannot be allowed to go on in The Labour Party.

Just as it is important to know where our consumer goods come from, how they have been produced, the safety of these goods, their quality, the contents of our food, so is the fairness of staff pay. The recent economic crises have been driven by the scandals in the financial services, their remuneration has not been effectively criticised and curbed by the share holders and there is not enough transparency to allow a public debate about the fairness of pay in these service industries and in the general economy. What people earn should be transparent in order to allow public scrutiny over the fairness of pay. The same applies to other industries: supermarkets, multinationals, entertainment industries, like the BBC, sports and charities.The highest earners seem to believe in their entitlement to an ever larger slice of the national earnings, and even convince the public that this is reasonable. A public debate about fair pay is what is needed. Please note that the figures on income distribution published by the UK government exclude information from the financial services. That is why these services should be included in these new legal requirements. In the long run these data can be used to measure the relative fairness of companies, leading to league tables much like league tables for schools and universities, or leading to a Charter mark like Fair Trade or labelling of food items in the supermarket. This could also be rolled out internationally leading to fairer pay in the world.

The referendum was called by Prime Minister David Cameron, who has now resigned leaving the country in a parlous state with nobody at the helm. For members of parliament to abandon ship leaving us rudderless for the next six weeks would be negligent.