Redefine our type of government.

Our government is called a democracy. The labour party proved and so far the Con/Lib have re-inforced the fact that we do not live in a democracy but a five year dictatorship. This website proves that if it is not on their agenda, then it is wiped off. Immigration, the smoking ban, capital punishement, foreign aid. Things that the people want and comment about are ignored or removed. The political ELITE have their own agenda which we the voting public will never be privy to. Is it the well paid job in Europe after parliament, a few well paid directorships after parliament, their place in history? Who knows the reasons behind their decisions, we never will. 

Why is this idea important?

Our government is called a democracy. The labour party proved and so far the Con/Lib have re-inforced the fact that we do not live in a democracy but a five year dictatorship. This website proves that if it is not on their agenda, then it is wiped off. Immigration, the smoking ban, capital punishement, foreign aid. Things that the people want and comment about are ignored or removed. The political ELITE have their own agenda which we the voting public will never be privy to. Is it the well paid job in Europe after parliament, a few well paid directorships after parliament, their place in history? Who knows the reasons behind their decisions, we never will. 

Repeal s.12-19 of the Legal Services Act 2007

Repeal sections 12 to 19 and Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007. These sections preclude anyone other than a solicitor or an exempt individual from offering legal advice or acting as an advocate in court.

It should be up to the individual where and from whom they seek advice and assistance. If they have limited funds which prevent them from affording the services of a solicitor, they should then have access to lay advice without the need for the judiciary's permission. It should be the right of the individual to access legal advice from wherever they so choose,  and there should be no barriers to access to justice.

The principle of lay advice is well accepted, if, bizarrely, illegal if the lay advisor is not employed by a solicitor. As recently reported on Radio 4, in a Magistrates court, there are instances where the only person with legal qualifications in court is the clerk.

In Family Law, in July 2010, the President of the Family Courts issued new guidance which, at paragraph 27, acknowledges that lay advisors may be paid for 'the provision of legal advice in connection with court proceedings'. Charities which provide legal advice services, but from lay advisors, to paying members, may technically be found to be breaking the law.

 




There should be no restriction to a lay advisor acting as an advocate (speaking for their client in court). Where one party is represented and the other is not, such restrictions may impinge on the party's convention right to a fair trial, and fails to afford an equality in arms. Nerves, anxiety, stress, a lack of familiarity with the court environment and learning difficulties such as dyslexia put the litigant in person at a significant disadvantage when compared to a represented party. The Official Solicitor, who might assist those most severely disadvantaged by disability was recently reported to be unable to take on more cases at this time.

The right to have a lay advisor speak on your behalf in court is currently subject to judicial discretion. This right should be unfettered, enshrined in statute, and made available to all.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal sections 12 to 19 and Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007. These sections preclude anyone other than a solicitor or an exempt individual from offering legal advice or acting as an advocate in court.

It should be up to the individual where and from whom they seek advice and assistance. If they have limited funds which prevent them from affording the services of a solicitor, they should then have access to lay advice without the need for the judiciary's permission. It should be the right of the individual to access legal advice from wherever they so choose,  and there should be no barriers to access to justice.

The principle of lay advice is well accepted, if, bizarrely, illegal if the lay advisor is not employed by a solicitor. As recently reported on Radio 4, in a Magistrates court, there are instances where the only person with legal qualifications in court is the clerk.

In Family Law, in July 2010, the President of the Family Courts issued new guidance which, at paragraph 27, acknowledges that lay advisors may be paid for 'the provision of legal advice in connection with court proceedings'. Charities which provide legal advice services, but from lay advisors, to paying members, may technically be found to be breaking the law.

 




There should be no restriction to a lay advisor acting as an advocate (speaking for their client in court). Where one party is represented and the other is not, such restrictions may impinge on the party's convention right to a fair trial, and fails to afford an equality in arms. Nerves, anxiety, stress, a lack of familiarity with the court environment and learning difficulties such as dyslexia put the litigant in person at a significant disadvantage when compared to a represented party. The Official Solicitor, who might assist those most severely disadvantaged by disability was recently reported to be unable to take on more cases at this time.

The right to have a lay advisor speak on your behalf in court is currently subject to judicial discretion. This right should be unfettered, enshrined in statute, and made available to all.

To Many Tiers of Governance Local & National

In my local area i have representing me the following councillors Parish,  District, Borough ,County, an MP and a MEP, what a waste of taxpayers money, they all have senior officials and offices and are claiming allowances etc .Why do I need so much duplication Some of these tiers should be removed

Why is this idea important?

In my local area i have representing me the following councillors Parish,  District, Borough ,County, an MP and a MEP, what a waste of taxpayers money, they all have senior officials and offices and are claiming allowances etc .Why do I need so much duplication Some of these tiers should be removed

Prospective MPs have to live in the constituency for 5 years

Prospective MPs have to live in the constituency for 5 years before they can be selected as a prospective MP, though I suspect no political party would entertain this idea 🙁

Why is this idea important?

Prospective MPs have to live in the constituency for 5 years before they can be selected as a prospective MP, though I suspect no political party would entertain this idea 🙁

MPs Pay

MPs should be paid the previous years average income of the people they represent. It is critical that the unemployed, incapacitated and retired are also included in the calculations.

Why is this idea important?

MPs should be paid the previous years average income of the people they represent. It is critical that the unemployed, incapacitated and retired are also included in the calculations.

Give parliamentary representation to those people in constituencies where their MP does not take the oath of allegiance

Representation should be given in parliament to people who are in constituencies where the winning candidate does not stand in parliament. Even though they may have won with a majority and constituents may know they will not stand in the commons, those people who did not vote for the winner will not be represented.

Perhaps representation could be given by MPs from neighbouring constituencies in the form of surgeries and questions to be asked. Either way, representation is the important issue here.

Why is this idea important?

Representation should be given in parliament to people who are in constituencies where the winning candidate does not stand in parliament. Even though they may have won with a majority and constituents may know they will not stand in the commons, those people who did not vote for the winner will not be represented.

Perhaps representation could be given by MPs from neighbouring constituencies in the form of surgeries and questions to be asked. Either way, representation is the important issue here.

Do not allow MPs to vote on legislation not affecting their constituents

MPs should be stopped from voting on legislation that does not affect their constituents. For example: Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote on issues and legislation that only affects England or England and Wales.

Why is this idea important?

MPs should be stopped from voting on legislation that does not affect their constituents. For example: Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote on issues and legislation that only affects England or England and Wales.

Replace the current minister for disabled people

With someone who is actually disabled and can understand the barriers and prejudice and ignorance and worries we face every day of our lives. Even if we are doing well we still have those things as disabled people and someone who isnt disabled just cant understand it.

not sure i put this in the right place, this website seems to have some flaws

Why is this idea important?

With someone who is actually disabled and can understand the barriers and prejudice and ignorance and worries we face every day of our lives. Even if we are doing well we still have those things as disabled people and someone who isnt disabled just cant understand it.

not sure i put this in the right place, this website seems to have some flaws

Repeal of the 1973, Treaty of Accession, bringing the UK, into the EEC,

REPEAL THIS HENOUS ACT OF PARLIAMENT THAT SUBJEGATED BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY AND THE BRITISH PEOPLE TO A FORIEGN POWER IN BRUSSLLS.

THE TREAT OF ACCESSION IS THE CENTRAL PLANK OF EU CONTROL IN BRITAIN, REPEAL THIS AND THE OTHER EU TREATIES, LISBON, MAASTRICHT, AMSTERDAM AND OTHERS HAVE NO BASISIN UK LAW, AND ARE THEREFORE SCRAPPED ALONG WITH EU MEMBERSHIP.

THE EUROPEAN UNION IS A FEDERAL SUPER-STATE AND THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS PROPOSED OR VOTED FOR BY THE BRITISH PEOPLE.  THE ACCESSION TO THE EU BY GREAT BRITAIN WAS PERPETRATED ON A LIE AND THEREFORE HAS NO LEGITEMACY IN LAW OR ANY MORAL FOUNDATION.

BRITAIN IS AN INDEPENDENT SOVERIEGN STATE NOT A PROVINCE OF A FORIEGN EMPIRE.



 

Why is this idea important?

REPEAL THIS HENOUS ACT OF PARLIAMENT THAT SUBJEGATED BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY AND THE BRITISH PEOPLE TO A FORIEGN POWER IN BRUSSLLS.

THE TREAT OF ACCESSION IS THE CENTRAL PLANK OF EU CONTROL IN BRITAIN, REPEAL THIS AND THE OTHER EU TREATIES, LISBON, MAASTRICHT, AMSTERDAM AND OTHERS HAVE NO BASISIN UK LAW, AND ARE THEREFORE SCRAPPED ALONG WITH EU MEMBERSHIP.

THE EUROPEAN UNION IS A FEDERAL SUPER-STATE AND THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS PROPOSED OR VOTED FOR BY THE BRITISH PEOPLE.  THE ACCESSION TO THE EU BY GREAT BRITAIN WAS PERPETRATED ON A LIE AND THEREFORE HAS NO LEGITEMACY IN LAW OR ANY MORAL FOUNDATION.

BRITAIN IS AN INDEPENDENT SOVERIEGN STATE NOT A PROVINCE OF A FORIEGN EMPIRE.



 

Abolish the Party Whip

Abolish the post and concept of the party whip, and replace it with the concept that political parties may inform members of their official position, but that it should be as unthinkable to instruct an MP how to vote as it would be to instruct someone how to vote in an election.

The replacement of division with a secret ballot (eg by black and white balls) may be useful, though a public vote would serve the MP's accountability to their constituents.

A variation on this latter might be to retain division as a public declaration of intent, but for the actual vote to be by secret ballot, perhaps in  the division rooms.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the post and concept of the party whip, and replace it with the concept that political parties may inform members of their official position, but that it should be as unthinkable to instruct an MP how to vote as it would be to instruct someone how to vote in an election.

The replacement of division with a secret ballot (eg by black and white balls) may be useful, though a public vote would serve the MP's accountability to their constituents.

A variation on this latter might be to retain division as a public declaration of intent, but for the actual vote to be by secret ballot, perhaps in  the division rooms.

Restoring choice of representation in employment tribunals.

The repeal of the Compensation Act 2006 which makes it an offence for a paid representative other than a solicitor or barrister to represent claimants at employment tribunals. This restricts claimants' choice as to who they can have to represent them. Most claimants, who may have lost their jobs which is why they are making claims to employment tribunals, find it too expensive to employ solicitors or barristers to represent them. Paid non-lawyers representatives can appear for claimants at employment tribunal but they have to obtain an expensive licence from the Quango that supervise these lay representatives and, in addition, these  paid representatives – many of whom represent claimants on a 'no win, no fee' basis – have to pay a high yearly fee that goes to maintain the totally unnecessary Quango. Previously, the employment tribunal system operated efficiently for over 35 years without this form of unnecessary and restrictive regulation. 

The essential points are: abolish the Quango and the supervisory regime; by doing that claimants will have greater choice of representatives; this would lower the cost of employment tribunal representation; it would also break the 'dock labour' style monopoly of work in this area of the law in which the work is mainly restricted to solicitors and barristers which was the main (albeit covert) reason for enacting the Compensation Act 2006.

Why is this idea important?

The repeal of the Compensation Act 2006 which makes it an offence for a paid representative other than a solicitor or barrister to represent claimants at employment tribunals. This restricts claimants' choice as to who they can have to represent them. Most claimants, who may have lost their jobs which is why they are making claims to employment tribunals, find it too expensive to employ solicitors or barristers to represent them. Paid non-lawyers representatives can appear for claimants at employment tribunal but they have to obtain an expensive licence from the Quango that supervise these lay representatives and, in addition, these  paid representatives – many of whom represent claimants on a 'no win, no fee' basis – have to pay a high yearly fee that goes to maintain the totally unnecessary Quango. Previously, the employment tribunal system operated efficiently for over 35 years without this form of unnecessary and restrictive regulation. 

The essential points are: abolish the Quango and the supervisory regime; by doing that claimants will have greater choice of representatives; this would lower the cost of employment tribunal representation; it would also break the 'dock labour' style monopoly of work in this area of the law in which the work is mainly restricted to solicitors and barristers which was the main (albeit covert) reason for enacting the Compensation Act 2006.