English Votes for English Laws

Finally doing something about the West Lothian Question, where a Scottish MP is allowed to vote on matters that only affect England but the same Scottish MP is not allowed to vote on matter concerning his own consituency e.g a Member of Parliament for West Lothian being able to vote on matters affecting the English town of Blackburn, Lancashire but not Blackburn, West Lothian in his own constituency.

Another example being English students are required to pay top-up tuition fees, while Scottish students are not. The legislation imposing top-up fees on English students passed by a small majority of 316 to 311. At the time opposition education secretary Tim Yeo argued that this low majority indicated that the passing of the law had hinged on Scottish MPs voting to introduce tuition fees that the Scottish students would not have to pay.

Why is this idea important?

Finally doing something about the West Lothian Question, where a Scottish MP is allowed to vote on matters that only affect England but the same Scottish MP is not allowed to vote on matter concerning his own consituency e.g a Member of Parliament for West Lothian being able to vote on matters affecting the English town of Blackburn, Lancashire but not Blackburn, West Lothian in his own constituency.

Another example being English students are required to pay top-up tuition fees, while Scottish students are not. The legislation imposing top-up fees on English students passed by a small majority of 316 to 311. At the time opposition education secretary Tim Yeo argued that this low majority indicated that the passing of the law had hinged on Scottish MPs voting to introduce tuition fees that the Scottish students would not have to pay.

Give our front line soldiers the wages they deserve!!

Better pay and better housing for their families.

Basic soldiers pay should increase by £6,000 so that the lowest ranking soldiers starts off on a salary of £22,000 as a bus driver gets paid £20,000 and a traffic warden £21,000

Why is this idea important?

Better pay and better housing for their families.

Basic soldiers pay should increase by £6,000 so that the lowest ranking soldiers starts off on a salary of £22,000 as a bus driver gets paid £20,000 and a traffic warden £21,000

When given a Life Sentence it should actually mean LIFE!!!

I believe that those who are given Life Sentences for the crime that they have committed should indeed have to serve life meaning that they die in prison.

Where is the justice in so many cases when you know a cold blooded killer will one day be allowed to roam the streets once more, as free as one of us.

That i believe is wrong. Dead Wrong. Murderers should never, ever be allowed to see the other side of a prison wall was convicted.

The House of Lords years ago, to strip the Home Secretary of the power to increase the length of time that murderers must serve before they can apply for parole. It seemed, on the face of it, an eminently sensible decision that will remove from politicians the temptation to chase votes by making effortless "tough-man" decisions to win the approval of the tabloid press. But there is more to this than initially meets the eye-for-an-eye.

Life imprisonment has always been something of a misnomer. The term came about at the time of the abolition of the death penalty. In the days when judicial hanging was still legal, it was common ­ where there were particularly mitigating circumstances ­ for those who had been found guilty of murder to have their death sentences commuted, by royal prerogative, to one of imprisonment for life. But since, by definition, this happened only to those with immensely extenuating circumstances, it happened that public and governmental sympathy was such that the offenders were often released after eight or nine years.

With the Murder (Death Penalty Abolition) Act of 1965, all sentences of hanging were replaced by mandatory life imprisonment. This one sentence covers all offences ­ from the sadistic torture of children to those crimes we now know as mercy killings. Which is why the "life" sentence takes as its guideline starting point imprisonment for 14 years, though this is routinely reduced to 12 years in cases of lesser seriousness and often extended to 16 years.

Yet it has a downside. The idea of a tariff evolved under a series of home secretaries in the Thatcher years. It has come to be seen as the "punishment, retribution and deterrence" element of the sentence. Once that is served, the only function of jail is to protect the public, so if offenders are at that point deemed to be of no danger to the community, they may be allowed to apply for parole.

The trouble here comes with those prisoners who insist that they are innocent. The Parole Board, in all its public policy statements, insists that it "can, and does, direct or recommend the release of prisoners who deny their guilt, where the level of risk they present to the public is acceptable".

But the rider at the end of that last sentence is often taken to mean, in practice, that continued protestations of innocence reveal the prisoner doesn't possess the remorse that is a precondition for parole. The result of that, as we saw only this month, can be that injustice is magnified, as it was in the case of Robert Brown who had his conviction quashed after 25 years in jail ­ the last 10 of which he could have avoided if only he had agreed to lie to the Parole Board and admit his guilt.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that those who are given Life Sentences for the crime that they have committed should indeed have to serve life meaning that they die in prison.

Where is the justice in so many cases when you know a cold blooded killer will one day be allowed to roam the streets once more, as free as one of us.

That i believe is wrong. Dead Wrong. Murderers should never, ever be allowed to see the other side of a prison wall was convicted.

The House of Lords years ago, to strip the Home Secretary of the power to increase the length of time that murderers must serve before they can apply for parole. It seemed, on the face of it, an eminently sensible decision that will remove from politicians the temptation to chase votes by making effortless "tough-man" decisions to win the approval of the tabloid press. But there is more to this than initially meets the eye-for-an-eye.

Life imprisonment has always been something of a misnomer. The term came about at the time of the abolition of the death penalty. In the days when judicial hanging was still legal, it was common ­ where there were particularly mitigating circumstances ­ for those who had been found guilty of murder to have their death sentences commuted, by royal prerogative, to one of imprisonment for life. But since, by definition, this happened only to those with immensely extenuating circumstances, it happened that public and governmental sympathy was such that the offenders were often released after eight or nine years.

With the Murder (Death Penalty Abolition) Act of 1965, all sentences of hanging were replaced by mandatory life imprisonment. This one sentence covers all offences ­ from the sadistic torture of children to those crimes we now know as mercy killings. Which is why the "life" sentence takes as its guideline starting point imprisonment for 14 years, though this is routinely reduced to 12 years in cases of lesser seriousness and often extended to 16 years.

Yet it has a downside. The idea of a tariff evolved under a series of home secretaries in the Thatcher years. It has come to be seen as the "punishment, retribution and deterrence" element of the sentence. Once that is served, the only function of jail is to protect the public, so if offenders are at that point deemed to be of no danger to the community, they may be allowed to apply for parole.

The trouble here comes with those prisoners who insist that they are innocent. The Parole Board, in all its public policy statements, insists that it "can, and does, direct or recommend the release of prisoners who deny their guilt, where the level of risk they present to the public is acceptable".

But the rider at the end of that last sentence is often taken to mean, in practice, that continued protestations of innocence reveal the prisoner doesn't possess the remorse that is a precondition for parole. The result of that, as we saw only this month, can be that injustice is magnified, as it was in the case of Robert Brown who had his conviction quashed after 25 years in jail ­ the last 10 of which he could have avoided if only he had agreed to lie to the Parole Board and admit his guilt.

Get more disabled MP’s into Parliament

I'm 18 and i suffer from Aspergers Syndrome and Attention-Deficit Hyperativity Disorder (ADHD) which are forms of autism and i know how hard it is for someone living with a disability to get ivoloved in everyday life as i struggle with my conditions everyday.

Before being diagnosed with these conditions i was a hyperactive boy who was unable to fully understand the concept of my actions or even the simplest form of human emotion due to my disability.

Now unlike many of my peers my disability is relatively mild in comparison but i feel the negative aspects just as much as other people do.

Due to the mildness i am able to hide and control most of the diability due to the drugs that i take to help me understand what i should say and do and what i should not, however a boy in my music class is not so fortunate, the boys name i will not mention but i will give him the name of Simon.

Simon suffers from severe autism and dispraxia and i have seen first hand the cruelty of my friends towards him, the sheer loathing that erupts and spews out of them…and i'm ashamed to say that i to have been involved in the bulling even though i know exactly what its like to live with autism, as i want to continue to be liked my mates but when i pick on Simon deep down inside i really want to tell my friends  that i am just like Simon in so many ways.

True Simon might struggle in many aspects of life that most people deem as basic but there is one thing that is truly astounding and that is..well he is one of the most amazing musicians i have ever met. He is a truly outstanding flautist and composer and believe me this is incredibly hard for me to say as i'm an Classical/Opera singer so a diva i might be which means praising another isn't easy…the autism doesn't help.

Simon is also very keen on the subject of politics where when ever me and him can get the chance we readily debate the goings on of this weeks news, Simon often tells me that he wishes to become either a musician or a politician, something which i openly want to be aswell, but he fears going into the political profession due to the fear that he will be branded a freak, a retard etc

But a strong thing i believe in is if political parties are openly trying to get more ethnic minority, female and gay MP's why are they not as well trying to get more disabled candidates elected to office.

I just think that you should try and give diabled people more of a chance, as its all well and good saying something will change but its actions in these circumstances that could help change the way the world sees disabled people and it could help it for the better in so many ways as i'm sure their brains are filled with ideas and notions on how to help this country!!!!

Why is this idea important?

I'm 18 and i suffer from Aspergers Syndrome and Attention-Deficit Hyperativity Disorder (ADHD) which are forms of autism and i know how hard it is for someone living with a disability to get ivoloved in everyday life as i struggle with my conditions everyday.

Before being diagnosed with these conditions i was a hyperactive boy who was unable to fully understand the concept of my actions or even the simplest form of human emotion due to my disability.

Now unlike many of my peers my disability is relatively mild in comparison but i feel the negative aspects just as much as other people do.

Due to the mildness i am able to hide and control most of the diability due to the drugs that i take to help me understand what i should say and do and what i should not, however a boy in my music class is not so fortunate, the boys name i will not mention but i will give him the name of Simon.

Simon suffers from severe autism and dispraxia and i have seen first hand the cruelty of my friends towards him, the sheer loathing that erupts and spews out of them…and i'm ashamed to say that i to have been involved in the bulling even though i know exactly what its like to live with autism, as i want to continue to be liked my mates but when i pick on Simon deep down inside i really want to tell my friends  that i am just like Simon in so many ways.

True Simon might struggle in many aspects of life that most people deem as basic but there is one thing that is truly astounding and that is..well he is one of the most amazing musicians i have ever met. He is a truly outstanding flautist and composer and believe me this is incredibly hard for me to say as i'm an Classical/Opera singer so a diva i might be which means praising another isn't easy…the autism doesn't help.

Simon is also very keen on the subject of politics where when ever me and him can get the chance we readily debate the goings on of this weeks news, Simon often tells me that he wishes to become either a musician or a politician, something which i openly want to be aswell, but he fears going into the political profession due to the fear that he will be branded a freak, a retard etc

But a strong thing i believe in is if political parties are openly trying to get more ethnic minority, female and gay MP's why are they not as well trying to get more disabled candidates elected to office.

I just think that you should try and give diabled people more of a chance, as its all well and good saying something will change but its actions in these circumstances that could help change the way the world sees disabled people and it could help it for the better in so many ways as i'm sure their brains are filled with ideas and notions on how to help this country!!!!

Life Peers who commit a crime should be stripped of title and expelled from Lords.

I might be only 18 but even i know the difference between right and wrong and so i believe that if a Life Peer commits a crime then they should be automatically stripped of their right to sit again in the House of Lords and must also be stripped of their title.

Currently in the HoL there are quite a few peers with convictions for Perjury (Lord Archer of Weston), Fraud ( Lord Black of Crossharbour) and even a charge of dangerous driving which caused the death of a fellow motorist (Lord Ahmed).

Her Majesty the Queen currently is able to strip anyone of their decoration e.g MBE, Knighthood and so forth as they are awarded by the Monarch, the Queen also has the ability to strip a Hereditary Peer of their title by causing them to Forfeit it either for life or in some cases forever, so i ask myself if everyone else can be stripped of their honour or their title, why oh why can a Life Peer who is a criminal still be allowed to call themselves a "Lord" and sit in the Lords at the taxpayers expense.

Take the appalling case of the "Case for Influences" scandal that occured in 2009 concerning four Labour Party Life Peers who were caught offering to help make ammendments to legislation for up to £120,000.

Two of the peers Lords Truscott and Taylor of Blackburn were later suspended….SUSPENDED….Now i'm not a genius but surely accepting money in order to influence the outcome of a particular event is called BRIBERY which is a criminal offence…so i ask myself why were these "Right Honourable Lords" were not charged with bribery and stripped of their ermine robes for the shame and dishonour that they had brought on the chamber, if they had been working for a big corperation there would have been many people baying for their blood not just shrugging it off like it was a daily occurance.

As if i'm not mistaken under the Code of Conduct for the House of Lords it CLEARLY states that members “Must NEVER accept ANY financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence" and "must NOT vote on any bill or motion, or ask any question in the House or a committee, or promote any matter, in return for PAYMENT or any other material benefit (the "no paid advocacy" rule)"….seriously do these people think that the public are all simpletons who don't take an interest in the ongoings of the venerable elite and that we won't look into it if they're found to be corruptable.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey stated that he believes that peers should be expelled for serious breach of rules "For the good name of the House of Lords any peer found guilty of abusing their place for financial gain should be expelled at once"

So to sum it all up why should someone who is a criminal be addressed as Th Rt Lord Dodgy of Corruption in the County of HMP Belmarsh and sit upon the benches of House of Lords, when surely they should be forced to give a grovelling apology, then be publically stripped of their robes and titles and then be barred from entering the Palace of Westminster and The House of Lords for the remainder of their lifetime.

Why is this idea important?

I might be only 18 but even i know the difference between right and wrong and so i believe that if a Life Peer commits a crime then they should be automatically stripped of their right to sit again in the House of Lords and must also be stripped of their title.

Currently in the HoL there are quite a few peers with convictions for Perjury (Lord Archer of Weston), Fraud ( Lord Black of Crossharbour) and even a charge of dangerous driving which caused the death of a fellow motorist (Lord Ahmed).

Her Majesty the Queen currently is able to strip anyone of their decoration e.g MBE, Knighthood and so forth as they are awarded by the Monarch, the Queen also has the ability to strip a Hereditary Peer of their title by causing them to Forfeit it either for life or in some cases forever, so i ask myself if everyone else can be stripped of their honour or their title, why oh why can a Life Peer who is a criminal still be allowed to call themselves a "Lord" and sit in the Lords at the taxpayers expense.

Take the appalling case of the "Case for Influences" scandal that occured in 2009 concerning four Labour Party Life Peers who were caught offering to help make ammendments to legislation for up to £120,000.

Two of the peers Lords Truscott and Taylor of Blackburn were later suspended….SUSPENDED….Now i'm not a genius but surely accepting money in order to influence the outcome of a particular event is called BRIBERY which is a criminal offence…so i ask myself why were these "Right Honourable Lords" were not charged with bribery and stripped of their ermine robes for the shame and dishonour that they had brought on the chamber, if they had been working for a big corperation there would have been many people baying for their blood not just shrugging it off like it was a daily occurance.

As if i'm not mistaken under the Code of Conduct for the House of Lords it CLEARLY states that members “Must NEVER accept ANY financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence" and "must NOT vote on any bill or motion, or ask any question in the House or a committee, or promote any matter, in return for PAYMENT or any other material benefit (the "no paid advocacy" rule)"….seriously do these people think that the public are all simpletons who don't take an interest in the ongoings of the venerable elite and that we won't look into it if they're found to be corruptable.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey stated that he believes that peers should be expelled for serious breach of rules "For the good name of the House of Lords any peer found guilty of abusing their place for financial gain should be expelled at once"

So to sum it all up why should someone who is a criminal be addressed as Th Rt Lord Dodgy of Corruption in the County of HMP Belmarsh and sit upon the benches of House of Lords, when surely they should be forced to give a grovelling apology, then be publically stripped of their robes and titles and then be barred from entering the Palace of Westminster and The House of Lords for the remainder of their lifetime.

Control the Highways Agency

The Highways Agency seems to think it can dictate to everyone.

If you have an A road through your town / village, you cannot put up posters on lampposts (they're removed), plant bulbs alongside the road (might distract drivers to see a few daffodils), or erect A-boards outside your shop (blind people might bump into them). We were even told (not asked) to remove an A-board from a patch of our own grass because it was obstructing the pavement (there was no pavement). And yet they can put large numbers on every lamppost, which ruins the look of our picturesque High Street, to enable them to check the lights without stopping.

There is no arguing with them. They will not listen to reason or common sense.

Someone needs to give them some boundaries.

Why is this idea important?

The Highways Agency seems to think it can dictate to everyone.

If you have an A road through your town / village, you cannot put up posters on lampposts (they're removed), plant bulbs alongside the road (might distract drivers to see a few daffodils), or erect A-boards outside your shop (blind people might bump into them). We were even told (not asked) to remove an A-board from a patch of our own grass because it was obstructing the pavement (there was no pavement). And yet they can put large numbers on every lamppost, which ruins the look of our picturesque High Street, to enable them to check the lights without stopping.

There is no arguing with them. They will not listen to reason or common sense.

Someone needs to give them some boundaries.

Return the responsibility for Out-of-Hours medical care to GP’s

The current out-of-hours medical care is demonstrably not working. One doctor can end up being responsible for half a county, and foreign doctors have been deployed with (in at least one high-profile case) fatal results because of the language barrier.

GP's are now being paid more, with less responsibility. Time to redress the balance, and return to the previous pattern of practices being responsible for the care of their own patients at night or at weekends.

Why is this idea important?

The current out-of-hours medical care is demonstrably not working. One doctor can end up being responsible for half a county, and foreign doctors have been deployed with (in at least one high-profile case) fatal results because of the language barrier.

GP's are now being paid more, with less responsibility. Time to redress the balance, and return to the previous pattern of practices being responsible for the care of their own patients at night or at weekends.