Some war widows/widowers will still be disadvantaged and discriminated against even after changes to the scheme being introduced from April 2015. It has been widely reported that all widows/widowers would receive a war widows pension for life, even after remarriage, as a result of these changes which were to reflect the governments commitment to the Forces Covenant. This is not the case. Widows/widowers of service personnel, who paid the ultimate sacrifice between April 1973 and April 2005 and later remarried, had their pensions withdrawn and these will NOT be reinstated. This is simply unfair, unjust and not in the true spirit of the Forces Covenant. Discrimination like this should not be tolerated in a democratic society. After all, these service personnel gave their lives to uphold the principles we hold dear of justice and democracy. We should honour their memory and right this wrong. Please sign this petition, share on Facebook and if you feel strongly email your MP.

The Prime Minister has pledged that everyone should be able to see a GP 8am-8pm seven days a week. Despite this, NHS England have decided that from next September, two GP practices in Tower Hamlets which currently open these hours, the Barkantine Practice and St Andrews Health Centre, will only open 8am-6.30pm Monday-Friday and 9am to 1pm on Saturday. Similar cuts will affect hundreds of practices nationally. Along with 30-40% funding cuts, this means that these practices and others will struggle to stay open at all. Please do not allow these surgeries to close. Reverse the cuts and allow GP Surgeries to continue to provide the excellent services their patients benefit from.

If you are going to have UKIP in the debate the SNP must be included as they have 6 times the amount MP's that UKIP has, they are also have the third biggest membership in the UK so it's only democratic they are included.

It is essential that tve public are informed of all events that may affect their wellbeing. Our government, banks, business, law and so on must be held accountable and a free press us a big part of that. The UK press fails in that task. It is controlled by global corporations and hides and misrepresents situations to serve their interests. Government is supported, bullied and manipulated by them. The public don't get a look-in. There is no democracy in this. Important issues go unresolved and people suffer.

Such a fund ensures that any accrued money would not be frittered away on day to day expenditure. It would be built up over time, as in Norway. Any interest would be used as a resource to bolster schools, road infrastructure, poverty initiatives, social projects, etc.

So that silence cannot be bought by managers of the NHS for their own benefit. For example, the Baby P case.

Latest Update: The first specification outlines have been released and it is still 70% theory! Now it is 60% Exam 10% written coursework and still only 30% Practical! Following the consultation regarding changes to GCSE PE (in which the opinions of PE teachers seem to have been completely ignored) the government are forcing incredibly damaging changes to GCSE PE which will have far reaching impacts right down to year 7 PE lessons. They have decided that the course will change from the current 60% practical 40% theory to 30% practical and 70% theory! This change will almost completely take the physical/practical aspect out of Physical Education. They are also proposing to massively narrow the activities that students can use as the practical element (moving to a much more traditional / Public school offering of activities). The impact of this will mean a narrowing of the activities offered by secondary schools which will feed down through the year groups. The move to an almost solely theoretical course will also have an impact on the activity level of students in PE lessons, due to schools trying to maximise the performance of students by focussing much more on theory lessons rather than actually being physically active and taking part in sport. This will have long lasting and damaging effects on the health and fitness of future generations. The changes will also take away another avenue for students who are less academic to be successful and get a qualification in an area that they may wish to follow as a career. If these changes go through then many schools may choose to no longer offer Physical Education as a GCSE and the change to the GCSE PE course may well be the final nail in the coffin for physical education in secondary schools, if people do not force a change of direction.

Labour has said it will scrap the House of Lords and replace it with a second, elected house. This will not add anything to parliament, it will just add another layer of establishment figures that passed through private schools, did PPE at Oxbridge and will move into directorships when finished. The selection could be one member per constituency or several per county or some other geographical boundary. We need a second house populated by people that didn't get into power by knowing someone important or buying their way in. The MPs/PM must have no possibility of influencing the make-up of the new house. There must be no incentive for new members to use their time to attach themselves to the establishment. This will most likely lead to women, ethnic minorities, the poor, the unemployed, the disabled, those that didn't go to public school, etc being proportionately represented. If they need advice on points of law they can use the same methods the MPs use (civil service, advisors, etc). The second house should be able to send ill thought out legislation back to the MPs for revision. In addition it should be able to propose legislation for MPs to debate. We currently have nobody in either house that knows what it's like to live in poverty and have no network of rich friends to fall back on. This should redress the balance. It will prevent the new house being populated by those who want power (and therefore become corrupted by it) If anyone selected doesn't want to stand (or has to leave) they can be replaced by a further random selection. Selection would be very cheap - eg picking a random national insurance number. No-one can be a member of the new house for more than one session. The session should last the same amount of time as the MPs session (5 years) but could possibly be offset by two and a half years to prevent MPs from 'buying off' the members in any way for a parliamentary session. The new house would be located outside of London if a physical location is necessary and would allow for remote meeting (eg telecommuting) for as much time as the new house deems necessary.

MPs accused of abusing the unreformed expenses system will escape official investigation after the House of Commons authorities destroyed all record of their claims John Bercow, the Speaker, faces accusations he has presided over a fresh cover-up of MPs' expenses after tens of thousands of pieces of paperwork relating to claims made before 2010 under the scandal-hit regime were shredded. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/11204405/MPs-to-escape-expenses-investigations-after-paperwork-destroyed-by-Parliament.html I am calling for John Bercow to be investigated to by the police to find out if there are any records that have been destroyed contrary to the proceeds of crime act . I am calling for a police investigation into every MP’s expenses. I am doing this on the grounds that although MP’s are entitled to expenses, these expense claims should be available to the public to inspect the claims made. There is a 7 year time limit for investigation of these claims and MP’s should keep proper records of these claims. If they fail to do so then they are failing in their duties as public servants. In my opinion any MP that has not kept records of their expense claim for the past 7 years should be investigated with the possibility of having to repay those expenses if they are unable to justify the claims with paperwork to back up the claims made. We, the general public, are constantly being told by politicians that the laws are all inclusive and that if we are innocent then we will have nothing to worry about. This same principle should also apply to MP’s and if the MP’s are innocent and can prove that they have made expense claims that are justified then they are entitled to keep the expenses received. However, if MP’s are not able to prove that the expense claims that they made are justified then they should be forced to repay these expenses. Below I have pasted a copy of the proceeds of crime act part 7 (this has been taken from the following page) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceeds_of_Crime_Act_2002 I think that at the end of this there is an important part about this act that should be acted upon – The offence of failing to report a suspicion of money laundering by another person carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine This means that if any member of public suspects that any MP has falsely claimed expenses that they are not entitled to – by law you must report this suspicion. If anybody reading this suspects that any MP (or any other public figure such as the speaker John Bercow) has committed an offence then it is your public duty to immediately forward this suspicion onto your local police authority. I would suggest either putting your suspicions in writing or forwarding this page by email to the chief of police in your area. Proceeds of Crime act part 7 Unlike certain other jurisdictions (notably the USA and much of Europe), UK money laundering offences are not limited to the proceeds of serious crimes, nor are there any monetary limits, nor is there any necessity for there to be a money laundering design or purpose to an action for it to amount to a money laundering offence. A money laundering offence under UK legislation need not involve money, since the money laundering legislation covers assets of any description. Technically therefore an individual who steals even a paper clip in the UK commits a money laundering offence (possession of the stolen paper clip) in addition to the predicate offence (of theft of the paper clip). In consequence any person who commits an acquisitive crime (i.e. one from which he obtains some benefit in the form of money or an asset of any description) in the UK will inevitably also commit a money laundering offence under UK legislation. The principal money laundering offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The offence of failing to report a suspicion of money laundering by another person carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine. Parts 8 to 12 of the Act make further provisions with regard to investigation of suspected offences, international co-operation, etc. Importantly it is a criminal offence to impede a money laundering investigation by the authorities by the concealing, destroying or falsifying of documents relevant to the investigation or by the making of a disclosure of information which prejudices the investigation. The offence carries a maximum punishment of 5 years imprisonment.

There are numerous reports and accounts of our claim including the findings of the Work and Pensions Select Committee and the Public Accounts committee - (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmworpen/394/39404.htm). Further 105,344 people agreed with Debbie Sayers and myself when we called for Hold Iain Duncan Smith to be held to account for misusing statistics http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-must-face-2912624, to no avail, this is despite the Government agreeing that "statistics should be presented in a way that is fair, accurate and 'unspun' ". These distorted 'facts' are used to further deprive disabled people of the essential benefits needed to manage their conditions; so far the 'Cuts' have resulted in disabled people losing an average of £4,410 per person - 9 times more than the burden placed on most other citizens http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/uploads/attachment/354/a-fair-society.pdf. These mis-truths are also responsible for justifying the latest proposals, irrelevant of the Evidence http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/disabled-people-threatened-another-cut-4534714 Iain Duncan Smith continues to ignore his Government and persists in misusing statistics, and it is for these reasons we believe it is time for the Powers of the Commissioner for standards to be exercised, and for Iain Duncan Smith to be independently and openly investigated for breach of Conduct Jayne Linney & Debbie Sayers

Britain first are a far right hate group that promotes racial and religious hatred via their website and Facebook page. The number of their likes, even though fake, gives them a veneer of respectability and increases their global reach. The comments on their posts are of the vilest hate speech imaginable. Facebook needs to investigate Britain Firsts page and remove their fake likes.

Voters are apathetic, as they perceive the establishment parties as not giving them enough choice. We need plurality in politics, not just the Establishment parties plus UKIP.