Councillor Willie Young has now used twitter twice to send hateful twitters to people, both of which have used the theme of disabilities against the individual. The use of using these actions goes against the disabilities act as it falls as harassment and makes derogatory remarks of a disabled nature.

In the UK a party can make pledges before an election and immediately do the opposite after taking office and the electorate can do nothing about it for 5 years despite the fact the party got elected based on the original pledges. Examples from the 2010 UK election include the Tories announcing they had no plans to put up VAT and then announcing an increase to 20% 1.5 months after it, pledging no top down reorganisation of the NHS and then publishing a White paper 2 months after the election doing exactly that. Personally I would consider getting votes on the basis of pledges that you have no intention of keeping as fraud, given how quickly the 2 examples above came after the election it seems unlikely that there was a unexpected change of circumstances to account for the change. Since we can't deselect MPs that break pledges they made to get elected, any pledges made in the manifesto should be legally binding since it is those pledges that got them elected, it is possible that a change of circumstances may occur which make carrying out a pledge they made less viable, a process should be put in place to give the government an option to revisit the electorate to get authorisation to break the pledge rather than the current carte blanche to ignore the pledges they gave to get elected. A computerised system could be put in place to allow for referendums to do this to be carried out cheaply, this could be via the internet or via public terminals in council buildings for example. The system could also be used by the electorate to block legislation they didn't agree with subject to a minimum percentage of voters taking part. The current situation encourages parties to make pledges before an election that they know they have no intention of keeping, a change in the law to make them legally enforceable unless they revisit the electorate would force them to be kept whilst still allowing for the pledges to be amended if circumstances should change.

Parliament is currently considering spending at least two billion pounds on renovating the Houses of Parliament. The building is increasingly unsafe to use, with falling masonry, asbestos, fire hazards and many other dangers. Spending this amount of money to keep an out of date system hobbling on would be indefensible. This is the ideal opportunity to change not only the home of Parliament, but the way it works. The Government say they want to make the North of England an economic powerhouse: now is the opportunity to make a move in that direction. A new purpose built campus would be a start. A modern debating chamber - such as we have in Scotland, with a design to make it less confrontational - would be a start. Apart from the chamber, offices, committee rooms etc,. the campus should also include flatted apartments for MPs who have to travel. These would be furnished to a comfortable, but not luxurious, standard and would be free to use, so there would be less opportunity for the suspicion of fiddled expenses. This could be extended to including an on-campus dining system where a number of restaurants would be available. MPs would be given a daily allowance when staying on campus to attend committee meetings or plenary debates. These could be paid for by a customised debit card system. This would allow them to budget by dining in their apartments at times, or going out at others. The cost of security would be less, with all MPs under one roof whilst they were at "Northminster". The accommodation area of the campus would be secure and private for the safety and convenience of MPs and their staff: the debating chamber would be open to the public, as well as being visible on televsion as now. One big advantage for all of us, including MPs and their constituents, would be that the new system would be designed for video-conferencing and electronic communications generally. This would reduce the inconvenience and cost of MPs having to travel as frequently as they do now. Of course, there would be a need for occasional plenary sessions, but these could perhaps be reduced to one week in four or something similar. There would still be a need for a presence in London, for the meeting and greeting of foreign dignitaries etc., so Number Ten could continue to function as the Prime Minister's residence. There might also be a need for similar official residences for one or two senior figures in the Government, but apart from that MPs would live in their constituencies - at least we'd hope so - and use a mixture of new technology and visits to "Northminster" to carry out their duties. There are, of course, already plans afoot for a high speed rail link: this would enable MPs from the south of England to travel efficiently from their constituencies, as required, and would mean MPs from Midland, North of England or Scottish constituencies had shorter distances to travel. I firmly believe that this would a) help the general population to see they were getting value and relevance from their MPs, b) bring an outdated and much-lampooned mediaeval system of government into the twenty-first century and c) bring economic benefits to an area which apparently feels left behind in modern Britain.

Penny Mordaunt MP made a speech riddled with innuendo in the House of Commons following a dare from friends in the Royal Navy. She said ‘c**k’ six times and ‘lay’ or ‘laid’ five times in a debate about the welfare of poultry. She is responsible for the Fire Services of England and is part of the Pension reform that is being pushed through Parliament. How can she be taken seriously when she uses valuable time to debate trivial subjects and say certain words as part of a bet. As as retired fire fighter I find this outrageous. To watch the video click below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvLcYUXBBuc For background on the story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855316/Did-really-far-risque-speech-MPs-Penny-Critics-accuse-Tory-trvialising-Parliament-innuendo-laden-address.html

Next week my constituency MP, Stephen Dorrell, will be starting a 21-hour-a-week post with KPMG as a health policy consultant on a massive salary. Stephen Dorrell has chaired the Commons Health Select Committee until this summer, a role requiring impartiality, yet he will now be helping KPMG bid for £1bn NHS contracts. This presents a serious conflict of interest and misuse of his privileged position on the select committee making him unfit to continue as an MP. Public trust in politicians is vital for a working democracy but is currently at an all time low. Dorrell's action in joining KPMG displays yet enough cynical lack of integrity amongst MPs. Civil Servants have to wait 2 years to take up such posts relating to their government work, so MPs should also follow this principle. If it is discovered that Stephen Dorrell was in discussion with KPMG whilst Chair of the select committee, it would discredit the role of select committees. See Mirror article here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/1billion-nhs-sell-off-scandal-tory-4724959 And Daily Telegraph article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11264425/Stephen-Dorrell-MP-faces-calls-to-resign-over-conflict-of-interest.html

Stephen Dorrell, the veteran Conservative MP, has been accused of a conflict of interest after taking a job as an adviser with a private firm targeting a £1billion NHS contract. The MP for Charnwood, a cabinet minister in John Major’s government, announced last week that he would be stepping down at the General Election as he had accepted a job as a health policy consultant with accountancy firm KPMG, which he said would be “incompatible” with his role as an MP. However, it is claimed that he is starting his new three-days-a-week job on Monday, meaning that he will be in both positions for six months. KPMG are considering bidding for a £1 billion deal to manage the patient’s medical records. Mr Dorrell, who quit his post as chairman of the House of Commons Health Select Committee in June, faced calls to resign from one of the posts.

In many countries including the USA and Spain British pensioners enjoy annual increments to their pensions just as their counterparts in the UK. But if you are unlucky enough to live in a number of countries including Australia, Canada or Indonesia, your pension is frozen for life. A recent example in the press highlighted the plight of two sisters. They both retired in 1982 on the then full pension of GBP 28.50 a week. One now lives in the UK and enjoys a fully indexed pension of GBP 113.10 per week. The other sister went to Canada and receives the same GBP 28.50 a week that she received in 1982. There are many war veterans living overseas who are similarly suffering. They paid their contributions in full during their working lives and they fought for their country. But who is getting the benefits they earned now? Many politicians have promised their support in the past but when it comes to the crunch the victims of this injustice are out of sight and out of mind. The pensioners are not asking for charity; they are simply asking to be treated fairly and given the pensions that they paid for. Had they paid the contributions to a commercial institution and been similarly treated that company would no doubt be in serious trouble. But the government is above the law and continues to be more concerned about winning votes than righting a wrong that has been perpetuated by successive governments. The wicked irony is that the cost of rectifying the wrong would be a fraction of the billions they are now collecting in fines from the crimes committed by banks. Another irony is that the people who are suffering constitute no burden to the state while they are living overseas. But should they be forced through sheer poverty to return to the UK not only would their pensions be restored in full but they would have access to all the state benefits and could become a much greater burden on the government. It all defies logic but unless the public recognizes the unfairness and shouts loudly enough for MP's to hear, the 550,000 pensioners will gradually grow weaker and fade away. Does anybody care?

According to the housing and homelessness charity Shelter, 2% of all renters in the private sector have been evicted after they complained to their landlord or letting agent about a problem. Revenge evictions has particularly been a problem in London, where 14% of all families renting privately have been a victim to the practice in the last year. Time to debate issues in Parliament is a precious commodity. It appears that these MPs put their private interests above those of their constituents, democracy and the British tradition of fair play. Rather than allow a debate, they deliberately monopolised the allotted time, using rule-play to subvert democratic decision making. This seems to be further evidence how many modern politicians serve themselves over the common good of the electorate, thus bringing politics into disrepute again. In order to restore some confidence, those political parties who value the opinion of the electorate should condemn the practice and take measures to reassure voters that a conflict of interest will not occur. New reports: http://www.buzzfeed.com/sirajdatoo/these-two-tory-mp-landlords-just-blocked-a-bill-banning-reve http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tory-mps-who-blocked-bill-banning-revenge-evictions-are-private-landlords-1477218

"Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne's appearance and bizarre behaviour during Prime Minister's Questions on the 26th of November 2014 begs the question of whether or not he was or had recently been under the influence of drugs. The government's exponentially failing drug policy puts public health at risk and defies the advice of their own researchers, whilst lining the pockets of dubious pharmaceutical companies and criminal gangs dealing on the black market. It is also in the public interest to know whether MPs are dabbling in legal highs, in a bid to escape failing a conventional drug test."

This is important because he has backed Andrew Mitchell for the last two years, since "plebgate" started, now officially said MP has been told, by a judge of his peers, he probably did call that hard working police officer "a pleb".

People are under threat and we owe our thanks and should give them safety. I am and was against this war but these people are being let down by our country - they are not at fault, the UK is.

The commissions report on 27.11.2014 are not the powers that were promised. Many voters in Scotland voted no as a result of HOME RULE being promised. The new devolution settlement falls far short of this and as such does not constitute home rule. Therefore the result was based on a lie making the previous result null and void.