Corruption in Public Office. Neither of the two largest parties seem to be willing to address this issue. Whenever a member of their teams, however senior, is caught with their snouts in the trough we see investigations cut short or handed to party lackeys. Even where a mostly neutral person is chosen to hold an inquiry their recommendations are met with lots of hot air and no real action. The recent Labour Lords case is just the latest in a string of such cases. When will we get honest politicians?

I think the Military one should be more general - end participation in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, end exporting of arms. I would like the Electoral and Parliamentary Reform one to be more open ended - government needs to be more responsive to the public but I'm not convinced PR would make that big a difference. The old Chartist aim of annual elections may be worth reviving. "Claw back Fred's pension" is too personal in my opinion; there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of other executives with inflated salaries, pensions and other benefits, and not just in the banking sector.

I would like to see a reopening of the BAE corruption investigation and a much tougher crackdown on fraud and bribery within the arms industry.

I would like to see us put banking and financial systems high on our agenda. This is an area where people can do something effectively and the results can be seen reasonably quickly. I also think that there is a deep sense of outrage which has remained unacted upon because many people are put off by what they perceive as difficulty in switching accounts and moving money. I just did it online and it took less than 10 minutes. Lets make sure that what we choose to do is doable.

I should say there should be two initial priorities, restructure the economy, but not only in regard to banking, an overall restructuring of salaries and pensions and a fairer distribution of wealth ... particularly in government both National and local. Some of the salaries and pensions are ludicrous particularly when few in these positions ever take the responsibility they are paid for. Second, campaign to get some real transparency, values and morals back into Government and an end to corruption .... let them also take responsibility

I have no problem with your list of priorities. Two comments. How do we restructure the economy? I'm against giving too much power to central authorities, as power tends to corrupt. Capitalism is the least worse way of devolving power but companies should be made to conform to minimum standards set by society and not just have an obligation to make profits for their shareholders. If I wanted to set up a UK company to chop down a rainforest in Brazil and sell the wood to an authority in say Burma for use in a wood burning power station, I would be allowed to do so by the UK authorities provided that I had the necessary overseas permits etc. In my view companies need to be under a legal obligation not to do anything that is "harmful" to society. I'll let others decide how to define harmful. Second point. Any change must be implemented under the current political set up. Although we have adult suffrage the public's influence on politicians in between elections is not that great. Corporations have much more influence because they own the newspapers and media that shapes public opinion, they fund political parties and give directorships to politicians, they lobby and give advice to government and they give employment to politicians and government officials when they leave government. Unless the influence of corporations is reduced, which would help make our politicians more responsive to what the public wants, then the winning of most of the other priority issues will be that much harder to achieve.

I agree with the above comment about Clawing Back Sir Fred's pension - its too personal. The Government are using Sir F as a scapegoat - not that he deserves what he gets - to focus attention on him and away from their failures, and the immorality of the whole banking sector. The sentiments expressed by ministers for the 'court of public opinion' are not right to be used in tackling one individual - however, the same court should judge the current government. This is why, as far as electoral reform goes, I believe that having set polling days every 4 years (or whatever is decided) is very important so that elections cannot be manipulated by the sitting government, and like Labour at the minute, governments cannot cling to the power they know they will lose for as long as possible.

Whilst agreeing whole-heartedly with the priorities as stated, I am currently concerned about another issue. Am I alone in feeling utter frustration that, in such financially difficult times, ministers refuse to allow us any information as to how and why they chose to involve us in the phenominal expense of the Iraqui war ? If 'freedom of information' means anything, such a fundamental and far reaching decision must be out in the open, whatever embarassment individuals may feel. If not, what are we supposed to think ?

The whole structure of government and politics in the UK is crying out for radical reform. With the major political parties now so heavily reliant on corporate funding and donations (plus "loans") from the very wealthy, there is no chance of them biting the hand that feeds them and setting about serious reform of the gross inequalities of our society let alone a real green agenda. The power of patronage leads to cronyism, the art of looking after those who look after you. No wonder both Tory and Labour Governments are so set against electoral reform. Our first past the post system suits them nicely ensuring that any real reformers are kept on the fringes of politics and well away from any power. Only by mounting a serious challenge to the whole structure of politics in this country can we hope to effect real reform.

May I take a second bite of the cherry? I have just scanned through again Will Hutton's book "The State We're In" to see what he said in 1995 about neo-classical free market economics, which has dominated the world this past decade and is largely responsible for today's market collapse. Fair dues to Will because he was just as critical then about this system as he is today. His book calls for a restructuring of the state both politically and economically, which he says is not the preserve of one political party with a majority in Parliament. It needs many allies both inside and outside Parliament and he decried the lack of a clear political voice for dissent of the then current system. He perhaps hoped that the Labour Party would be the instrument of change and could not have imagined in 1995 that the system would get worse with Labour in power. Thinking about this I'm wondering whether it would better not to pursue a number of specific issues but to simply agitate for a National Convention, where the basis of a new progressive constitutional settlement is discussed and agreed independent of any one political party.

I agree with Derek Morse and Jim Pragnell's comments. This may well be the moment to focus not just on electoral and Parliamentary reform. Campaigning for or organising a National Convention leading to a constitutional settlement should be the basis for achieving all the other priorities - though cutting emissions and global financial reform also need tackling immediately. The Convention on Modern Liberty and earlier the Power Inquiry have been valuable rehearsals to the real thing, but it must be citizen-led, not directly or indirectly the product of the political and media elites (though the support of our representatives and mainstream media outlets would be a great boost). We've seen time and again that generating almost any political will within Parliament, let along government, for fundamental reform to the constitutional system is hopeless. The solution must come from us.

It seems to me that two of your objectives should be combined. It's clear that the world's economy is undergoing profound change and this is going to be an issue that resonates with a lot of people right now, however there can be little doubt that climate change represents the greatest challenge to the future health and happiness of the greatest number of people on the planet today. Surely we are now presented with a unique opportunity to create a sustainable economic system as we rebuild from the current credit crises. Is it not now clear that the damage wrought on our environment and on our finances have the same route cause: greed. We need to find a way to reward that which delivers greatest benefit to society, rather than endlessly seeking greater consumption and growth.

It's disappointing that the banks point focuses on clawing back 'Fred's' pension. There are far bigger and more significant banking issues which could and should be higher up the agenda; and if we are going to focus on this particular case, we should do so not by trying to claw back money that was legally apportioned and signed off by the government in the first place, but by tracing the chain of political responsibility further up the food chain. This way, instead of focusing on the 'evils' of one particular banker, maybe we could see that his greed was sanctioned by the very people who should have prevented it - the political classes. If banks is going to be on the list, why not focus more on the question of forming a nationalised 'peoples bank' - maybe as one of the ways in which to renovate and reinvigorate the Post Office?

I think we should make the top 3 our main priorities. Although the bank issue/Fred Goodwin situation is infuriating, our main goal should be structural economic change rather than just pursuing certain banks and individual bankers. It is the type and structure of our economy which has truly caused the current economic crisis. On the environment I don't think we should focus solely on carbon emmisions, we need to push for a true energy revolution in terms of technology and how we use it in a future economy. Finally I'm all for electoral/voting reform and more scrutiny of politicians. However, I think we also need to look at the media and the role it plays in our democracy. We need to be critically looking at television and newspapers (especially tabloids) and analysing how much of a healthy contribution they make in terms of public service and awareness. I'm for a free media, but not a media free to print false "truths" to suit the agenda of their private owners.

I agree wholeheartedly with Derek Morse and Jim Pragnell. Big business has too much influence in the corridors of Whitehall, and until the ties between businesses and government are severed completely, they will continue to corrupt our politicians. Any contracts given out will go to the people whose lobbying is the most effective, rather than who will do it with the most benefit to the taxpayer. Any attempts for revolutionary changes will be diluted by the businesses with the most to lose whispering into the government's ears, telling them they'll up sticks and leave the country if the government doesn't do as they say. The creeping privatisation of public services and ridiculous PFI schemes will continue. This is already plain to see when you check the backgrounds of some of the people being entrusted to help the financial system recover. As long as the influence of big business exists, everything the government and future governments do will be tainted. MPs must serve the public and no one else.

Electoral Reform must be at the top of any credible agenda for genuine change. The mess we're in is the end product of a 30-year political consensus adopted by politicians from both major parties whose primary motives were getting elected and staying in power. Unless we sweep this cosy coalesence over the middle ground which swing voters in just a few marginal constituencies define - nothing substantial will change. We need a political movement which demands just one thing: a new electoral system based on a robust form of PR. Once introduced, the two major parties will collapse in on themselves and split into four or maybe five smaller parties - some of whom will offer real alternatives to the half-baked policies which have served us so badly. Dated concepts of 'left' and 'right' will become irrelevant and then - and only then - will we be able to embark on a grown-up debate over how the hell we extricate ourselves for this mess. Many planks of a new political platform will revolve around the issues already aired here: environmental and economic reform are probably two sides of the same coin, Fred the Shred's pension - whilst offering splendid tabloid fodder - is simply the symptom of a far deeper-seated dysfunction in the financial markets which needs resolving. Some form of recoupling finance with the real economy so that it's more tax-efficient to invest capital in real companies rather than complex financial instruments would be in order. But before any of this can happen - fundamental reform of the electoral system is a pre-requisite. It's so fundamental that maybe it requires a single issue approach - rather like the Jubilee Debt Cancellation campaign.

Richard Speight is spot on. I'm sure there are many issues that we feel strongly about but a scattergun approach is not going to get us anywhere. Frankly the whole of our political and financial system (and the interaction between them) is rotten to the core. What we need to do is find a way of sweeping it all away, like the Great Reform Act of 1832. How to achieve it? The current incumbents - that's anybody in Parliament right now - will never act, anymore than turkeys will vote for Christmas. Can we organise a nationwide petition to force a constitutional conference? There are lots of ideas out there for how to create a better system of government, but if we get into that debate we shan't have a clear message. Look at history - in the 1840s the Chartists had an admirable programme of reform but they lost out, while the Ant-Corn Law League had a single issue and won. Who would participate? Trade Union reps, academics, journalists, the professions, even parliamentary committee members could all participate in some way but you would need a nucleus of suitably qualified people to draw up a new constitution. Elder statesmen and retired judges would be good - people past personal ambition. How would you keep the vested interests out? Only by enthusing the public to stimulate mass vigilance. What would be the scope? The whole democratic structure. We could take the German constitution as a template - the British wrote it after all - or the American one or any other as an example. What would be the options? To be determined. The point is that all our economic and financial problems flow from poor, weak government. Tinkering with improvements here and there isn't going to fix anything. We need a single message that everyone can understand, that doesn't get bogged down in detail until we have secured the forum for discussing it. Only government can run this kind of conference and only government can implement its outcome so we need to get a government that will do it. History offers the alternatives of revolution or a military coup (or foreign occupation) and we don't want any of those. So how? Can DSAI get the ball rolling to apply pressure on all those Labour MPs who are looking into the electoral abyss which awaits them at the next election? A mass petition for a constitutional conference would give them a popular bandwagon to jump on. Greens and Lib Dems would surely join in. Somehow we have to find a way of prising power out of the hands of the current holders. What about Great Reform Act Mark 2?

I disagree with making Fred the shreds personal pension a campaign issue. One pension is insignificant despite the clamour, concentrating on it is a diversion. We should be campaigning on the whole issue of salary and pension inequality. Here CEOs get more than 50 times the average wage in most of Europe it is 10-15 times. In particular we should be campaigning against "jobs for the boys" and for promotion on merit alone.

It is a mistake to expand the manifesto of DSAI into the realm of political and economic reform. The most important task at the moment is to reinvigorate the electorate by a reform of the vote. To do that you cannot alienate those sections of the electorate that would high-tail it outta here at the first glance at the "lefty" manifesto as it is now. If you focus on issues that may divide us, this movement will falter. If you focus purely on making our vote count and our voices heard, then the rest of this manifesto will follow. Until the voice of the electorate can be heard in parliament, none of these issues will ever see the resolution that we seek for them.

Dave Holloway "would like to see a reopening of the BAE corruption investigation", but this is something that other organisations (CAAT, The Corner House) are already pursuing. DSAI should support them, not reinvent the wheel by pursuing a separate campaign of its own.

I would like to see service replacing financial profit as the central motivation of such public utilities as gas, electricity and water and telephone companies. They pay lip service at present to customer service and seem to be only concerned with shareholder value. Competition in these utilities seems mythical. The hyper-salaries of executives and the bonus culture seems to have spread as in the finance sector. Perhaps they should be allowed to operate under licence and accountable to parliament. Bob Allso

@ Matthew Kendon Spot on. If we drive this issue to the top of the agenda - everything else will flow from it. Get this right and we have a chance of making headway in other areas which are in urgent need of reform once the majority of the electorate believe they can make a difference at the ballot box.

Some of the items are time critical like 3 and 4 above and other long term but critical climate change. Fairer economy is linked strongly to reducing military spending . What we must be careful of is diluting effort by trying to do too much. How does DSAI fit with the convention on liberty? We should seek cooperation with other groups to create greater synergy and maximise our impact.

I am committed to standing at the next general election as an Independent in Hexham - hoping to emulate the success of my first boss Dr. Richard Taylor MP (for Wyre Forest). My priority themes are: Hexham constituency, Environment, Health and Parliamentary & Electoral reform. A particularly influential book that I have found is 'Post-Democracy' by Colin Crouch. Small and readable but seems to be closely in tune with much of what DSAI is about. Three elements that we need in our 21st century democratic landscape are: 1/ an active, informed and involved citizenship which has effective electoral authority over - 2/ a competent, representative and responsive executive and legislature backed up by an energetic and indifferent (in its true meaning) civil service and an effective independent judiciary, which together run the country (especially its essential public services) for all of the people and create and maintain and environment for - 3/ the corporate/commercial sector doing what it does best - producing goods and services within a properly constituted and enforced regulatory environment. Staying at the overview and general principle level is the best option for DSAI at present.

I would vote that stopping privatisation of the "Post Office" should be the initial objective. Let's be clear though it "Royal Mail" we are talking about - not the Post Offices. Firstly because it's urgent, secondly it's a issue of immediate national interest. I have a new word for what has happened/is happening "Foreignisation" of any industry with any immediate value to the current government. Given the world-wide financial situation I would call it clutching at straws :( If we can fix the post office problem with foreign investment we can fix it with our own investment. One of the main problems seems to be the 5 Billion pension hole. This sum is starting to look small by comparison to the 100s of billions we have poured into banks. In addition we are fairly sure it is 5 billion, with the banking crisis we still do not yet know how big the problem is! Also if the "investment" was carried out over 5 years it would be 1 billion a year - hardly worth a mention by comparison to bank "investments". In addition the investment would be being made while equity prices are low (and going lower) so mid-term there will be added benefit when the market recovers... Longer term aims will be just that longer term - the Royal Mail is urgent!

Many people of all ages and political orientation are completely disaffected by our political system. This is why I feel that the restoration of local democracy is of paramount importance. The government's insistence on controlling from the centre has left many people feeling that they have no 'voice'. Giving back the right to have a say in local issues could be the impetus needed for people actively re-engage with our politic systems and hopefully change them.

I would expect a 'fairer economy' to include the renationalization of the public utilities - water, gas and electricity. I consider access to these commodities to be a human right, and therefore not apt for raising profits. The poorer members of our society are often struggling to pay their utility bills, whilst the supply companies remain able, under weak regulation, to charge whatever prices they wish. Meanwhile the CEO of British Gas, for instance, pays himself about £1,500,000 per annum, I believe. This example of corporate greed, which is now structural and endemic in our country, is a related issue, which also needs addressing.

why trident? the deployment would wreck any environmenral initiative for all. just keeping it in commission negates my savings on plastic bags forevermore. unless this is addressed by someone who is not mad i shant play,so there.

why trident? the deployment would wreck any environmenral initiative for all. just keeping it in commission negates my savings on plastic bags forevermore. unless this is addressed by someone who is not mad i shant play,so there.

Your ballot invites us to choose between a fairer economy or climate change but they are so closely connected that you can't distinguish. It's the rich both locally and globally who are having most of the harmful impact on climate. Tackling either involves an end to the cult of choice and its twin, the unfettered free market, and looking at a return to centralised planning.

I object to (7) being "claw back so and so's pension". There seems something wrong with taking a person's pension whoever and however much it is. Isn't the real bank problem the loans? It would be great if there was simple explanations for these things. I have never heard of "single transferable vote", have no idea what "House of Lords reform" constitutes, why I should care etc. But if they need improving, sure, I want to do something about it :) Personally have issues with: 1) Extradition. (e.g. the Gary McKinnon case). I think it is inhumane to transport a person thousands of miles away from their home + family. 2) Abolish TV Licensing. In particular, the threatening letters you get even if you don't own a TV. Also, a TV has many uses other than receiving BBC; e.g. games consoles, non-license fee funded channels. So you shouldn't feel that you may be prosecuted simply for owning a TV. Yet another qualm: a person can accidently stumble on live BBC broadcasting while browsing the internet; and you may feel threatened since you have broken the law unintentionally. 3) Need to end terrorism fear mongering. We as adults accept that with liberty comes a little risk, as David Davies recently said. 4) No to ID cards. 5) Internet freedoms. There should be no website blacklisting, that is a slippery slope. 6) Need some way of getting people to vote sincerely rather than tactically. 7) Need some sort of revolution in the education system. Haven't decided the specifics yet though :)

I agree with Douglas Daniel.Also what about prison reform especially the huge numbers of adults and children for whom it seems to do no good but costs us all enormous sums

I agree with David Lambert - climate change and a fairer economy are so closely linked. But if I have to choose one it must be climate change - all other arguments for change become academic - if we don't get carbon emission down, there won't be any of the planet's social structures to reform! I agree with another contributer that people are fed up with the political system as it is - and we can't wait around to convince people there is another way - lets get down to the nitty gritty - small and local, national and international and get things changed! How about this for a small idea that can grow >>>> the great, almost painless change in getting households to recyle has been pushed by council's having to meet EU criteria on this. But despite the success, all the household recycling is only 11% of all waste - so lets get things going and get business' and industry to have to recycle. Research on 'change' shows that some small legislative action is needed to help people comply with what they know makes sense - so we would need to go forward on two fronts - information and education of industry etc and pressure on government/Eu to bring in some legislation.

having just returned from a short break in Benidorm Spain, I would be very interested in finding out how many people go on holidays paid for by the DHSS and why?