This is a totally unnecessary decision and shows the Government does not value hard working nurses and health care support workers and are relying on their good nature and dedication to just accept it. A recent pay review body recommendation to increase MP’s salaries was accepted but then it was MP’s voting for their own pay increase! Please sign up to our petition so the Government knows how bitter a pill they are trying to make us swallow.

To simply say sorry is not good enough.

Since 2010, no major party has stood for election in the Buckingham constituency. Following an archaic, and blatantly anti-democratic convention, none of these parties stands against the Speaker. The electorate has therefore had the choice of voting for the Speaker, John Bercow – who is unable to vote in the House of Commons – but not for Conservative, Labour or Lib-Dem candidates. Mr Bercow has just announced that he will stand for election once again. Buckingham constituents thus face another five years of being unrepresented in Parliament. The Speaker is unable to vote on any motion in Parliament so his constituents are effectively disenfranchised. This issue is of national importance - we are being denied our democratic rights!

This petition is important for the simple reason that the Post Office is a vital part of the community in New Malden, and the only 'main' Post Office for a while around. Even a busy town like Kingston no longer has a main Post Office. The Post Office are trying to cut at least three, potentially four members of staff at the end of April, to be replaced by machines in Mid-May. The people of New Malden don't want machines to pay their bills - they prefer interacting with humans over the counter. DID YOU KNOW? Since 2012, if these plans are to go ahead, the Post Office will have lost 6 members of staff in 2 years - that's 50%! From 12 members of staff, to 6. Queues are already long enough now in New Malden Post Office, and it can't manage with 4 staff less. We need the Post Office to recruit new members of staff at New Malden Post Office to make up for this staff loss, and to, in effect, save New Malden Post Office. (See More at www.coombemonthly.co.uk)

1. South East is over crowded, expensive and takes up too much of the UKs resources. 2. If Parliament were not in the South East resources would be shared more equitably. 3. Manchester is the second largest city in England and could expand to balance the disparity between the South East and the North of England. 4.To work this has to be a permanent move, not a Parliament that sits sometimes in London and sometimes in Manchester. 5. Manchester is more accessible for regions such as Scotland and Northern Ireland. See:- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/04/westminster-manchester-democracy-parliament

This is important because the General Public of the UK are not being given a fair and accurate picture of the clear failure of the WP to provide what the public are paying for through their taxes. People are not fully aware of the "sanctioning regime", seemingly endorsed by the DWP Provider Guidance Notes and the detrimental impact it is having on the health and well being of many of the most vulnerable people in society. These tactics are actually creating barriers to work, rather than removing them. People should be aware that the DWP Provider Guidance is constantly being updated to strip the unemployed of their rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. It is also being used as a license to cut welfare expenditure by providing more avenues and extra guidance on how to issue more sanctions against WP participants. There is more information contained within the DWP Provider Guidance relevant to sanctioning people correctly, than there is information relative to helping people back into suitable full time employment. Where are our priorities? For too long now, our government has discredited the unemployed in the UK, creating a negative stereotype for everyone on benefits, including those who are doing their utmost to find work with very little support from this Work Programme. Two contentions are being widely overlooked here: a) Jobseeker's allowance is a taxable income b) No person would be able to claim anything from the welfare/benefit safety net, if they could not prove on a regular basis that they are doing everything they can to find suitable full time employment From reading the DWP Statistics, this is what they should say: 1.41 million people have partaken in the work programme 16.6% managed to find work regardless of whether this work was found through the WP or not 22,000 people – that’s 1.5% - managed to stay in employment long enough for the WP provider to claim the maximum amount of job sustainment payments. 219,000 people, roughly 15% have returned to the Jobcentre still looking for work after being on the Work Programme for over 104 weeks. [source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-programme-statistical-summary-december-2013] It is clear from interpretation of the evidence that the success rate has been approximately 1.5%. The ‘corollary’ is that the failure rate has been 98.5%. The DWP Provider Guidance: 8. Providers are required to present all of their customers with a leaflet explaining the Departmental position in respect of consent to contact an individual’s employer. (A fair processing notice) 9. DWP now has a designation order in place that allows the Department and Providers to contact the customer’s employer directly to validate employment details for the above benefit groups. 10. There is no longer a requirement for you to obtain customer consent to allow DWP to contact a customer’s employer or for you to contact an employer in connection with Outcome or Sustainment payments. 11. You may also share this information with the Department for Work and Pensions. [Source: Chapter 9, Work Programme Provider Guidance] This begs the question – of the 1.5% of participants that did find suitable full time employment, how many of these people found the jobs themselves, only for the WP to take the credit and get paid, even in cases where the WP provided no assistance whatsoever? This failure has come at great cost to the tax-payer, and it seems people are generally misinformed and are allowing 'celebrities' to dominate the discourse on welfare reforms, rather than listening to those of us who are already on the receiving end. No moral conscience can simply walk on by and allow the suffering of their comrades. "When a complaint is freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty attained, that wise men look for" (Milton, 1644) Please note that, not being experienced myself in the realms of ESA benefits, I don't feel that I qualify enough to really discuss that in much detail. But what I can say is that there was a risk highlighted by the National Audit Office upon the introduction of the Work Programme that people who the WPP's deem "easier to help back into employment" will always receive the help first. This is because the WPP's are paid on a target basis and by helping those who they deem easiest to help first, they can achieve their targets more easily and hence get paid more readily. THIS RISK IS NOT BEING MANAGED PROPERLY. The reasons the WP have provided for not managing this risk at all is that they "treat everybody equally", however in reality, this is clearly not the case and my argument is supported by the official statistics. It follows then, that if you are a person who needs extra help to find employment, unfortunately the WPP will get round to helping you last. This is disgraceful, it is unfair and it is unethical.

Your Choice Barnet, that provides services for adults with learning and physical disabilities. Your Choice Barnet Ltd (YCB) began operating as a Local Authority Trading Company (LATC) in February 2012 and 100% owned by Barnet Council. In February 2013 a year after its creation Your Choice Barnet, was in serious financial difficulties and as a result, it looked to make savings by cutting staff terms and conditions and reduce staffing levels in some of the social care settings. It also received a £1 million bail out from Barnet Homes requiring a 6% interest repayment. A significant number of loyal hard working care staff were made redundant last year as a result of this cut which has led to an increase in agency staff delivering services. In January 2014, Your Choice Barnet were still in a financial crisis and stated they needed to cut the staff bill by a further £400,000. It is obvious to everyone that the ongoing attack on the terms & conditions of care staff will ultimately lead to: • fewer stimulating activities in a safe environment for adults with disabilities in Barnet. • fewer staff to work with adults with vulnerable disabilities in Barnet. • less supervision of, training and support for remaining skilled staff. • loss of professional staff and lower morale and motivation among remaining staff. • negative impact on staff health and well-being, with a knock-on impact on service quality. Both the Francis Inquiry into Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and the Winterbourne View abuse scandal highlighted the shocking results of employing unskilled and unsupervised staff. I note in a recent article http://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2014/03/maude-praises-the-barnet-formula.html you have been extolling the virtues of mass outsourcing “Our approach is already paying dividends, by allowing us to cut Council Tax bills to all residents next year.” Surely you must concede that instead of making a gesture of funding a tax cut, which will save a Band D taxpayer all of 26p a week; the money would have been better spent on ensuring safe and quality services for adults with disabilities. In another article http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/barnet_can_make_future_council_tax_cuts_due_to_one_barnet_outsourcing_says_westminster_finance_chief_1_3429038 you are quoted as saying: “We’ve made enough savings via the One Barnet programme so that we can meet our budget and distribute the money saved, back to the community.” In which case why are you not ensuring the savings you are referring to are redirected to Your Choice Barnet?

For close to a decade, Isabella cleaned ex-immigration MP Mark Harper's home for £22 per week - as well as a number of other politicians. When her undocumented status was revealed, she became a pawn in a political point scoring battle and the focus of a national media campaign which resulted in Mark Harper resigning. As none of the MPs that Isabella worked for were criminalised, the same spirit of kindness ought to be immediately extended to the hard working Acevedo family. We’re asking Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to do the honourable thing and grant citizenship to this lady and her family, whose lives have been turned upside down by this whole affair. Isabella Acevedo has since been forced into hiding, her family is being torn apart and they are facing destitution having lost their income. The hard working Acevedo family have spent close to 15 years in London - building a modest life. During this time, Isabella never had any sick pay, never had any holiday pay and earned less the minimum wage. Despite the difficulty, she was able to provide for her small family and create a home and life in London. All of this is now at risk of being destroyed as result of the damaging politics of Theresa May and Mr Harper. Please sign this petition and support the Acevedo family in their struggle to stay together, to keep a roof over their heads and food on their plates. More information: http://legaldefencefund.wordpress.com/about/ ** A campaign to stand with Isabella Acevedo and others in similar circumstances was collectively launched in February. Supporters include: No One Is Illegal; Campaign Against The Criminalisation Of Communities; National Coalition Of Anti-Deportation Campaigns; Tawantinsuyu Nation; Myrdle Court Press; Defend The Right To Protest; Precarious Workers Brigade; Unity In The Community; Movimiento Ecuador en el Reino Undio Meru; This Is Not A Gateway; 3 Cosas Campaign; Movimiento Jaguar Despierto; Justice For Domestic Workers; Latin American Women's Aid; El Telefono De La Esperanza UK

Because Tony Benn spent his entire working life trying to help people and make the world a better place. He was a constant source of criticism to those he saw as doing wrong, no matter what their political stripe and he retained his honesty and integrity in a working environment where these values are rare. He was an outstanding example of how good people can be and do and can be admired from across the political spectrum. It is entirely appropriate that his life be commemorated.

This petition is a direct response to the perception that we cannot change the system which already exists. Even if it isn't fit for purpose, up to date with the modern world, or representative of most of the electorate. We can! The promise of parliamentary debate on any petition which reached 100.000 signatures was a brave manifesto promise by the conservatives, but without some significant changes in the way the commons work, these petitions will fall on deaf (or absent) ears. We live in an age of technology and information, many embrace it, many fear it. It is an age where almost everything you do is done on line. Whatever your personal feelings about it, the internet is here to stay, and has the so far untapped potential to allow YOU unprecedented control over YOUR life, and the direction of politics in real time. We have social media which is acting as a lightning rod, by allowing us to display our righteous indignation at policy's which we don't agree with, but with no effect whatsoever. How many would bother to sign a petition which WOULD be heard by those that create all of our futures? Internet petitions are branded "slacktivism" by the press, and yet many of us who walk in the middle of the road, or the "silent majority" fear taking part in any more pro active activism, because of the disproportionate response by the state to peaceful protest. Also in these austere times many simply cannot afford to take the time to participate in politics, except by signing these e- petitions, and going out to vote once every 4 or 5 years. At these times you are faced with a choice; to support one of 3 main parties, because it supports something which you are passionate about, even though you do not support all of the manifesto, give your vote to a fringe party, or like 45% of the electorate, not bother at all. If these changes were implemented then that would no longer need to be the way. At present there is no record (accessible to the public) of attendance in the commons except for voting figures. This is not acceptable, as the public must be able to see whether their MP has attended any debate which they have petitioned for, and for general transparency, as promised by every incoming government. All MPs are public servants, paid by the public purse, and, as we're reminded when we call HMRC, DWP, or any other government body, we are all customers of the state, and as customers we are entitled be listened to, and served well. We demand a certain level of service for our taxes,and as customers, as voters and most importantly as Humans, we demand the right to determine how we live, and have our voice heard! Its time to accept your "invitation to join the government of Britain" (This was the title of the Conservative manifesto 2010) "People have been shut out of Westminster politics for too long. Having a single vote every four or five years is not good enough – we need to give people real control over how they are governed. So, with a Conservative government, any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament". "The Big Society runs consistently through our policy programme. Our plans to reform public services, mend our broken society,and rebuild trust in politics are all part of our Big Society agenda. These plans involve redistributing power from the state to society; from the centre to local communities, giving people the opportunity to take more control over their lives". "Big Society; our reform plans require a social response in order to be successful. So building the Big Society is not just a question of the state stepping back and hoping for the best: it will require an active role for the state. The state must take action to agitate for, catalyse and galvanise social renewal. We must use the state to help remake society". The above are all excerpts from the Conservative party manifesto, printed before winning the 2010 general election. They all seem to say very much the same as this petition, and yet more and more of the people I speak to, feel the same as me, that they have less and less freedom, power and control over the way they are governed. Apathy is a dangerous thing because it shows a lack of hope. A lack of hope is acceptance of that which makes you unhappy. Acceptance of unhappiness is surrender. Once surrender has been accepted, it is irrevocable.

There is a clear need for the Department of Energy and Climate Change to embark on a Public Information Campaign that actively seeks to: Improve public understanding of Climate Science Illustrate the implications of Climate Change Effectively communicate the findings and recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change --- The realities of climate change are clear and present. Experts in the field of climate science have published their findings time and time again, and there are very few dissenting voices against the consensus view. “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, human influence on the climate system is clear, and limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. These are the key conclusions from an assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)” - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press/press_release_wg1_full_report.pdf These opening words from the IPCC press release announcing the online publication of its full report ‘Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis’, are utterly unambiguous. An international endeavour comprising the work of hundreds of climate scientists, prepared with the assistance of more than a thousand expert reviewers, and citing over 9000 publications, the report leaves no doubt as to the reality of climate change. The scientific consensus is not fully reflected in the wider population, however. A recent report from the UK Energy Research Centre suggests that public scepticism towards climate change has actually risen in recent years and that people are now less concerned about its potential impact than previously (http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=3514 - pdf download - survey conducted March 2013). The flooding crisis of the last few weeks has re-ignited a national debate on climate change, centred around the question of whether the spate of storms that contributed heavily to rising floodwaters could be attributed to climate change. But it has been clear that there is a large degree of misunderstanding on the topic, as well as a certain amount of misrepresentation. Some of the views on display in the national media are not just a rejection that the extensive flooding may have been caused by climate change, but are rejections of the very idea of climate change as a whole. Such sentiments are rare, but come from highly prominent political individuals. Of most concern is that they are people who are not experts in the field, but have still been given equal weight to their arguments. The issue of climate change is not one of political opinion, but of scientific fact. The Department of Energy and Climate Change should begin a program of public information releases that relay the message that climate scientists and many non-governmental organisations have been imparting for a number of years. We have seen instances of public information campaigns regarding health, safety, and security concerns in a wide range of areas. It is high-time that climate change was given the attention it requires.

Engagement with politics happens for the vast majority of people through radio and television, particularly on popular programs such as Question Time. The lack of diversity amongst MP's is a problem for the UK. The lack of diversity in our political programming is a linked problem. Politics should not be the sole domain of well educated, white men. Nor should political commentary, debate and discussion.