"we" all employ MP's to get "stuff" done. I use the word "stuff" as it is a basic word we can all understand, nice and simple, cuts through all the potential waffle and gets to the point.

I was reading a debate on home affairs in the House Of Commons today ref ( http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2013-05-09a.166.2 ) and I was shocked to read a point of order from Peter Bottomley (Worthing West - Conservative) who said "Member has just called across the house saying "Stop Making That Stupid Face"". Bottomley went on to say "I invite my right hon. Friend to join me in congratulating the police on making savings and on working far more effectively in reducing crime.".

Theresa May then responds to statements by Yvette Cooper to say "The right hon. Lady has made an attempt at two jokes during her speech, which is probably two more than we normally have.".

Is it just me or are you all also fed up with MP's using their valuable time to try and showcase in the House Of Commons, instead of using basic language to get as much important "stuff" actually done in the time they have to do it?

The speaker is supposed to control all of this but I get the sense he also enjoys "the show".

Can we please review the wasted time and effort given to ridiculous childish comments that wastes so much time, introduce a new three strikes rule (new speaker) to support, MP gets "three strikes, they are out" system where you could give an MP a verbal warning for first infringement, yellow card for second and red card for third and at that point they are told to leave the house and stay out for a week.

If hey are banished from the house a week at a time for trying to tell jokes, acting like a child, using ridiculous language that only try's to impress and does not help get the job done, I am sure their constituents would soon vote them out of office at the next election for not being able to focus on the job at hand.

To make that clear to constituents you could create a league table to illustrate how many times MPs have been "kicked out" of the commons for showboating, acting like a child etc etc etc.

We need to give MPs a clear message, "stop acting like children, grow up and get "stuff" done".

many drivers that are involved in traffic accidents whilst under the influence of drink are able at present to continue to drive before appearing at there local court building

the attention of this campaign is to highlight this to the government and create new legislation to make it possible for the victims of such incidents to have the peace of mind that the law has acted with immediate effect to prevent this from further occuring by the actions of the driver else where.

Further more drink drivers could be tackled by penalisation in areas such as points on license, a register created to which is provided to insurance companys and also a further cost penalty to the driver.

It would be a demonstration against the Education cuts, and the abolishment of the EMA. It would be inTrafalgar sqaure, everyone could sit down for a day with food, and drink etc. It would be a campaign against the student cuts, and it would be a peaceful protest. The point of this would be so that more generations can join in with the 'Student Demos'. And also to turn around the image of the student protesters that the media have put in place.

And the police would not be able to beat anyone because we would be simpley sitting down. We might get kettled, but that would only make the police look bad.

We would sit down for a good few hours, in Trafalgar sqaure and probably branch out. It would be easy to get numbers, as the protest is a very simple one which requires virtually no effort. And all ages, and people would be welcome. Just an idea :)

I believe that many people are disillusioned with politics due to the fact there is no real distinction between the non extremist parties. Many of us find ourselves checking the box on the ballot form of the person/party we feel is the 'lesser of all evils', but still 'an evil'. We the people are not being represented, there are no candidates we feel will act in our best interest. So every election becomes a struggle for us. On the one hand one does not wish to give a vote to any candidate, yet if one does not vote the Government will have the masses believe its due to lack of interest. If there was a vote of no confidence in any of the above, or a NOTA (non of the above) check box I believe we would see lack of interest is not the case, it is lack of choice. If the majority of people check this box, surely there would have to be some major party and Government reforms, which I personally would welcome, please vote for this idea if you agree.

The Government is proposing to relax current limits on the number of children per childcare worker in England. This would be both dangerous and detrimental to the care and education of young children in their early years, a crucial stage of learning and development.

Under the proposed rules, nursery and pre-school staff could be expected to look after six two-year-old children (up from the current limit of four) and four babies aged one or under (up from three).

Childminders could be expected to care for four children under five (up from three) and two babies under one (up from one).

There is currently an official Government e-petition aimed at parents, which calls for the Government to scrap these plans and conduct a full and proper consultation with practitioners and parents on any future proposals. This can be found at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/45887 or the redirect URL: www.rewindonratios.com.

The proposals have received almost universal opposition from both parents and professionals for a number of reasons:

1) They will have a detrimental impact on the quality of childcare.

Under the new ratios, children will receive less individual care and support. This is particularly concerning in the case of children with additional needs.

2) They pose a serious risk to child safety.

The Government has stated that only nurseries and pre-schools with highly qualified staff will be able to operate under the new ratios, but regardless of qualification, an adult only has one pair of eyes and one pair of hands.

In fact, in two separate national surveys of childcare providers, 94% and 95% of respondents respectively opposed the plans to relax ratios.

THE EXPERTS SAY NO

- Professor Cathy Nutbrown, an early years academic who was commissioned by the Government to conduct a review into the quality of early years qualification, described the plans as “nonsense” and said that “watering down ratios will threaten quality”.

- A DfE-commissioned report into the impact of relaxing childcare ratios concluded that doing so would lead to a decline in childcare quality. The report, filed to the Department in November 2012, has yet to be published.

- A recent research paper published by four early years experts argued that for babies and toddlers, "relaxing ratios ... will lead to a reduction in quality ... with the evidence pointing to reductions in the quality of care routines, health and safety, and the extent to which settings are able to provide for children’s individual needs."

WE NEED YOUR HELP!

Despite this overwhelming opposition, the Government is plowing ahead with its plan.

We are asking for 38 Degrees to support and promote the official e-petition and helpus to reach the 100,000 signatures we need to prompt a debate in the House of Commons. We hope that all 38 Degrees members will sign the petition and share it with everyone they know.

THERE HAS BEEN AN EARLY DAY MOTION (EDM) WHERE BY MPs ARE SUGGESTING THAT THE NAME OF BIG BEN BE CHANGED TO "ELIZABETH TOWER",

THIS IS WRONG AS BIG BEN HAS BEEN PART OF OUR CULTURE FOR SO MANY YEARS, IT BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE AND IS KNOWN ALL OVER THE WORLD AND PLAYS A BIG PART IN OUR NATIONAL LIFE.

THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO "ELIZABETH TOWERS IN LONDON ALREADY, ONE IN THE CITY AND ONE IN EAST END OF LONDON.

TO CALL BIG BEN "ELIZABETH TOWER" IS TO REDUCE IT TO SOUNDING LIKE A BLOCK OF FLATS.

IF THESE MPs WANT TO HONOUR THE QUEEN ON HER DIAMOND JUBILEE THEN I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THEY PROPOSE TO CHANGE THE NAME OF ST. JAMES PARK TO THAT OF ELIZABETH GARDENS.

THIS ROYAL PARK DATES FROM THE REIGN OF HENRY X111 WHEN HE USED AS A DEER PARK, HIS DAUGHTER ELIZABETH THE FIRST USED IT FOR CELEBRATIONS AND FÊTES, CHARLES 11 OPENED IT UP TO THE PUBLIC.

AS YOU CAN SEE THERE IS AN HISTORICAL LINK BETWEEN THE TWO QUEEN ELIZABETH'S AND THIS ROYAL PARK WOULD PROVIDE AN BEAUTIFUL LIVING MEMORIAL TO OUR QUEEN ELIZABETH AS OPPOSED TO A COLD PILE OF VICTORIAN STONE WORK.

PLEASE SUPPORT THIS PETITION TO SAVE BIG BEN AS WE KNOW AND LOVE IT AND TO HONOUR THE QUEENS DIAMOND JUBILEE IN A MORE FITTING MANNER AND SUPPORT THE RENAMING OF THE ROYAL PARK, ST JAMES PARK TO ELIZABETH GARDENS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS AND ALSO LEAVE "BIG BEN" FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS

The Peoples Charter has 26 points on it. Some of these points need more consultations, deliberations in order to get them into the right alignment with the People.

However I feel that 99% of the country could agree on the first 3 points, which would then give rise to the further points 4-26 being put to the People for wording, voting.

With March the 26th a few weeks away I feel that the People need something on the table, a list of demands, not open to negotiation with the goverment/s

It is essential that laws are changed, with transparency and accountably taking the lead.

It would be good to have some idea of a people's charter/constitution, made for the People, by the People.

I would like to propose the first three points to put forward for a NEW written Constitution.

At the very least can we agree on points 1-3?

Acknowledging that further discussions and details need to be worked out and voted for by the People on points 4 -26

Some of these will be able to be carried out swiftly, others will take a little bit more time.

We cannot change the World in a day, but we can change our Country.

The People’s Charter

1. We the People are demanding the common law of the land apply within parliament with a fully transparent and a just system favouring democracy of the people, whereby the government and police are held to account for their actions against the people.

2. We the People are demanding that members of parliament appointed and acting on behalf of the people shall have no other vested interest other than that of the people.

3. We the People are demanding an end to injustice.

As mentioned there are other points, but these first 3, if applied would be a staring point for a reality check. We are in NOW TIME, a time for real change.

Make the 26th , 27th, 28th of March a new leaf in the history books, where no one is getting burned.

What if there was a web-site that consisted of a map over London, on which you could zoom in to the area around parliament? What if you were able to pitch your virtual tent near parliament and outwards from there on streets and squares? What if the only requirement for being allowed to pitch your tent was that you agreed with and united behind the banner that “We do not accept privatisation of the NHS - the NHS bill must be ditched”? What if after a user had pitched a tent, you could click on the tent symbol on the zoomed in map and up popped a little window/bubble, telling you the name and contact info (facebook page or e-mail) of the camper. What if the camper was also able to post a brief message saying what they think about the NHS bill? It could serve as a dedicated place for people to, not only protest and express their minds, but also to get in contact with others who feel the same, including health workers, politicians and everyone else.

You may not have read Ben Goldacres’s ‘Bad Pharma’.

It is, in my view, a book with a message, as, if not more, significant in content than Ralph Nader’s ‘Unsafe at Any Speed’, which had such an impact on the motor industry in the sixties.

In essence, it tells, in a thoroughly investigated (about 500 references) and evidence based book how drug companies mislead doctors and patients; how the trials conducted by the pharmaceutical industry are poorly designed and poorly regulated; how data are suppressed if trials show adverse results and much more in the same vein.

He also proposes solutions, some of which require legislation or the enforcement of existing regulations.