The PM claimed we're all in this together. Now is the time to prove it. MP pay rises should be limited to the average of all other public sector pay rises. If we truly are all in this together, then why can MP's receive higher pay rise percentages than nurses, teachers, firefighters, etc? Now is the time to demonstrate that MP's truly believe we are in it together as a nation and agree to link pay rises to those in the rest of the public sector. Or is it as Orwell eloquently said in Animal Farm ... "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"?

If this is not done then more and more people will consider themselves disenfranchised and have even less wish or need to become involved in the way our society is run. Here in Scotland, with 50% of the vote, the SNP has garnered all but 3 of the Westminster seats. In other parts of UK, some parties did not even put up a candidate, knowing that there was absolutely no chance of any representation: thus there were very many voters deprived of choice. This cannot be allowed to continue. Please support my campaign.

British expatriates are not happy and are demanding their human rights. Thousands of British citizens are married to citizens from other countries around the world, known as non-EU or non-EEA (European Economic Area) nationals. Since 2014 the UK government opened the doors to citizens from the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar whose citizens can travel to the UK with an Electronic Visa Waiver (EVW) document. This allows them to visit the UK for up to six months without a visa and free from any payment. Travellers from these three countries only need to complete their Electronic Visa Waiver online at least 48 hours before departure and present a printed copy on departure and again on arrival in the UK. No surprise then, that when British nationals living and working in many countries around the Middle East, who are married to non-EU citizens e.g. South Africans, Russians, Ukrainians and many other countries, discovered this form of discrimination against their spouses and families they were not too happy. The non-EU spouses of all British nationals living outside the UK are required to obtain a visa which must be valid for each visit when flying back into any UK airport. British citizens feel they are discriminated against because they are married to non-EU citizens. Why should they have to go through the process of having to prove that their spouse has the right to accompany them each and every time they return to the UK.? A campaign has been launched to provide awareness of this discrimination towards British citizens and their families. See: https://www.facebook.com/britishcitizensandtheirfamilies

The BBC, particularly its radio service, is essential intelligent conversation for the whole nation.

As present system is unfair and undemocratic

In the forthcoming license fee review, the Government will endeavour to impose severe cuts upon the BBC in order to benefit the commercial broadcasters. The Government is too close to commercial broadcasting lobbyists, and is acting in their interests, not in the public interest. In particular, abolishing the BBC Trust would serve to greatly undermine the independence of the BBC from political interference. The BBC is one of the greatest and most valuable assets to the United Kingdom, and forcing cuts for purely political, ideological purposes would represent a terrible act of cultural vandalism. The British people need to show a collective will to resist such damaging changes, and demonstrate to the Government that any actions towards privatizing the BBC would cause severe electoral consequences for the Conservative party in the future.

The human rights act protects liberty, freedom of speech and the basic human rights people fought and died for.

The current system of voting for the House of Commons is grossly unfair and clearly unfit for the multi party climate we now have in Britain. People struggle to engage in politics because, very often, they feel unrepresented. This leads to a situation where people become vulnerable to those who have their own vested interests. The current system allows the possibility that extreme political parties can take control of Government despite getting a minority of the popular vote. A proportionally representative voting system was imposed on post war West Germany in order to help ensure that fascists would not retake control.

David Cameron has just appointed Michael Gove as Justice Secretary and his remit is to abolish the 1998 Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. The legislation will be introduced in the next parliamentary session. Or aim is 10 million signatures by the end of August 2015 and to put voting pressure on those decent-minded Conservatives such as Kenneth Clarke and Dominic Grieve (the latter was forced out over this issue). We can defeat David Cameron and Michael Gove in parliament when the legislation comes to a vote this autumn. If it does pass the House of Commons, we need to ensure it is defeated in the Lords and then keep fighting via legal challenges.

We saw lots of tiny corrections following big (and incorrect!) headlines during this election campaign. The changes to the way corrections are published was a key recommendation from the Leveson Inquiry that both the Conservatives and Labour agreed to adopt. It's time for Ofcom to make sure corrections are the proper size and place. The Times front page from 24th April 2015 had the headline 'Labour's £1000 tax on families' - it was completely inaccurate. The Times published a correction on the 2nd May, but it was buried deep in the paper. If they had to publish their correction on the front page - where the original article sat - it would have been a prominent and therefore just correction. The front page would have looked like this: 'Our headline about Labour's tax on families was inaccurate: Some of these taxes and levies will only apply to companies, and the others will affect a small minority of families, not “every working family” as we reported.' It would be a just and fair way to report corrections that would have a deterrent effect on mistakes, media bias and failure to check facts.

Who aided the Tories in gaining votes in swing vote areas. Well we don't know because a section of the Torys campaign fund comes from a club who's donors do not have to declare their donations by keeping them small. However small these donations may be at the end of last year the United and Cecil club donated £67,500 pounds to the The Conservative Party and since the previous election have donated around half a million. As our Prime Minister David Cameron should declare who these people are. I want to know whom our government is influenced by and seeing as some of the registered donors include rapists, tax avoiders and importers of companies goods who's long list of human rights abuses could make a person weep, I am very worried as to why the Tories would take such evasive action for these particular donations. Join me in uncovering more Tory secrets.

With the conservatives now given free reign to make boundary changes, and with the left split between at least three parties, it will be even more difficult to defeat them at the next election. Between the three parties, it is clear that there is more support for a left of centre government, but the electoral system prevents this from being expressed. The three parties need to come together (at least temporarily) to defeat the conservatives and to lay the foundations for fair elections in the future. By standing a single or combined candidate, and by encouraging cross party support on the ground from activists, seats that no single party can win will instead fall to at least one of the parties of the left. Ask yourselves which is more important? To each stand candidates that are highly likely to lose, or to cooperate to throw out the conservatives.