Friday, 15 November 2019

My Initial Thoughts: General Election 2019


It's been an absolute age since I've written a blog post but the events of recent days have reminded me of just how important it is to feel empowered to write down my thoughts about society, politics and the like. In short I've been quiet for too long (blog wise) and it's time to begin my re-exploration of key issues that I am interested in and which I feel need to be addressed by politicians in order to improve the lives of people living in neighbourhoods such as my own in Birchwood ward. Just in case you needed a reminder, in the General Election of 2017 former nurse, Carholme ward City of Lincoln Councillor and Mayor, Labour's Karen Lee took the Lincoln seat from the Conservative Brexiteer Karl McCartney in what was considered a surprising result despite the fact that Lincoln had voted 56.9% to Leave in the 2016 EU referendum (although I must remind everyone this was the lowest Leave percentage recorded in Lincolnshire). Both Karen Lee and Mr McCartney will be candidates in the 2019 General Election, alongside Caroline Kenyon for the Lib Dems, Charles Shaw for The Liberal Party, Sally Horscroft for the Green Party, lawyer Reece Wilkes for the Brexit Party and independent Robert Bradley. Nobody can say we're not spoilt for choice in this election that's for sure.

So Brexit:

As an ardent Remain in the EU and Reform supporter, the decision I face making at this election, living in a traditional Lab-Con marginal seat would seem crystal clear. Karl McCartney and the local Conservative Association wholeheartedly support Bojo's position on Brexit (“Get Brexit Done” blah blah blah) and will no doubt attract support from voters who voted for the Brexit Party at the European Elections back in May. The Brexit Party may attract Conservative (and Labour) leave voters who are frustrated at both parties' Brexit policies and want to achieve a World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms type Brexit aka “Clean Break Brexit”. Both parties do not appeal to me based on their Brexit policy because my feelings towards Brexit have hardened quite significantly since the June 2016 vote. I understand that Labour's official position going into this election is to offer voters a Final Say referendum 6 months from December 13th which is framed as “a choice between a sensible deal and remain” according to Corbyn's own words (https://labour.org.uk/press/jeremy-corbyns-first-major-speech-of-the-general-election-campaign/ ). The problem I have with this is that I'm not entirely sure what a “sensible” Brexit deal looks like from a Labour perspective (apart from remaining in the Single Market and being part of a Customs Union) and naturally it would require the securing of another extension (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-delay-extension-labour-corbyn-boris-johnson-article-50-latest-a9179371.html). I'm far from convinced that EU negotiators would be willing to re-open negotiations for a 3rd time- after all, why would they choose to go through the same old arguments just for the sake of negotiating something that will pretty much look like we are still better off being members of the EU anyways? I have felt at times that the Labour leadership has let down voters like me who wanted the party to come out boldly and unequivocally for retaining membership of the EU. Then again I do understand that just deciding to Revoke Article 50 and denying voters the opportunity to have their say on a deal would be perceived by some as anti-democratic, particularly in constituencies that voted heavily to Leave in 2016. So yes I am very skeptical of Labour's Final Say referendum position (how it'll happen within 6 months is beyond me) but given the alternative (leaving the EU without having my Final Say), I am favourable to giving Labour the benefit of the doubt at least on Brexit and will wait to see further outlining of the Brexit policy in the manifesto. That being said, I can't say the policy of the Liberal Democrats to Stop Brexit by Revoking Article 50 isn't attractive...it would end the uncertainty even if it did anger the Brexiteers.

It's certainly not all Brexit:

Brexit isn't the only policy area that will be scrutinised by voters during the 2019 GE campaign. In fact, when I speak to neighbours here in Birchwood, discussions centre around a number of issues but include boosting the local economy to provide long-term job opportunities for young people living in the ward, tackling instances of Anti-Social Behaviour in the ward and Lincoln city centre, tackling levels of poverty and social inequality and addressing the level of traffic congestion faced by daily commuters into the city centre. I outline some of these issues below.

Poverty:

In the latest Indices of Multiple Deprivation (2019), Birchwood ward was identified as having 2 of the top 10% most deprived neighbourhoods in England and 1 (which I happen to live very close to) was ranked the 394th most deprived neighborhood in England . Overall 18% of neighbourhoods in Lincoln were ranked amongst the top 10% most deprived (https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/ten-most-deprived-neighbourhoods-lincolnshire-3369859). When people think of Lincoln (and Lincolnshire more widely), they often picture middle class suburban voters or older Brexit voting retirees but the county demographic is far more diverse than that. The City of Lincoln Council has done a lot at a local level to try and reduce levels of poverty through the Anti-Poverty Strategy, the second version of which was approved in July 2016. The Strategy focuses on a number of areas and objectives include empowering people to maximise their income, breaking the link between poor health and poverty and improving the condition of people's homes. The Strategy document can be viewed here: http://79.170.40.231/lincolnagainstpoverty.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Lincoln-Anti-Poverty-Strategy-2014-2020.pdf .
Comparison of the Indices of Multiple Deprivation figures for Lincoln from 2015 and 2019 shows that 42 out of the 56 neighborhoods measured in Lincoln have gone down in terms of rank, demonstrating there has been an improvement in poverty levels in the City. For example, my own neighborhood in Birchwood has gone from being the 2,397th most deprived neighbourhood in 2015 to to the 2,742nd in England in 2019.

However, I personally feel that policy decisions taken at a national level can help to compliment local policy such as the Anti-Poverty Strategy and reduce poverty levels more significantly. This should include more investment in our local authority support services as well as a re-examination of the effectiveness of the Universal Credit system. It's just not right that more families in Lincoln find themselves reliant on food banks because they have no income left by the end of the month to afford essentials and families with a parent or parents in low-paid work are particularly struggling. Earlier this year, the Welfare Team reported that they had “issued 505 food vouchers for local community larders and food banks in 2018-19”, up 306 from 2017-18 (https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2019/05/food-vouchers-surge-65-as-universal-credit-is-rolled-out/). Nationally the Trussell Trust issued 823,145 food parcels between April and September 2019, including 301,653 to families with children and their research found that 94% of food bank users are classed as destitute (https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/welfare/news/107943/universal-credit-slammed-figures-show-sharpest-rise-food). If we are truly a society that cares for all citizens, we need to ensure that nobody is left in a state of destitution. Politicians must work further with charities, voluntary organisations, social enterprises and campaign groups such as The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and End Child Poverty campaign and listen to their policy ideas because they know what works and what doesn't work when it comes to addressing poverty.

Children and young people:

Since July I've been keeping a written record in my notebook of statistics relating to children and young people and the impact that growing up in poverty has on their life chances, whether they are living in Lincoln or England more generally. Did you know for example that nearly one in three reception children and almost half of children eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) were found to be not ready for engaging fully in lessons at primary school? (https://schoolsweek.co.uk/one-in-three-reception-children-arent-school-ready-warns-teach-first/).
Were you aware that disadvantaged young people are on average 19 months behind their peers by the time they come to do their GCSEs and that only 35% of students on FSM get 5 GCSE passes? In non-mainstream settings (Alternative Provision), only 1.5% of students achieve grade 5 GCSE passes in Maths and English (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/oct/17/pupils-with-behavioural-issues-failing-to-meet-exam-benchmark). Very concerning indeed. It still rings true that your start in life can have a significant bearing on your chances of academic achievement but there are policies that can be enacted which improve those chances. According to Impetus' comprehensive Youth Jobs Gap research (https://impetus.org.uk/policy/youth-unemployment), young people who are classified as “doubly disadvantaged”, described as being from disadvantaged backgrounds and having achieved less than 5 GCSE passes are being “left behind” in the jobs market. Even when young people from disadvantaged backgrounds have those 5 GCSE passes, they are still 50% more likely to not be in education or employment or training in early adulthood (NEET) (https://impetus.org.uk/policy/youth-unemployment).What's even more concerning is that 75% of NEET young people are NEET for a long-term period ( https://impetus.org.uk/policy/youth-unemployment).
It's natural to understand why younger voters and their parents are concerned about being able to access the long-term job opportunities which allow young people to have the financial stability needed to be able to lead an independent life. The latest employment statistics I have accessed (July 2018-June 2019) show that 6.1% of economically active people in Lincoln (i.e. people between the ages of 16-64) are unemployed which is higher than the overall East Midlands percentage of 4.6% (http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/1946157150/printable.aspx). The statistics also show that the percentage of people in Lincoln with a qualification above NVQ Level 4 is lower than the East Midlands figure (24.2% compared with 33.2%). What's also interesting to note is that the majority of businesses based in Lincoln are micro businesses (85.0%) employing between 0 and 9 people. Most micro business employers are looking to employ young people who have advanced IT skills, are good communicators and who are willing to learn and can provide opportunities for stable, long-term employment. Yet one-third of English 16-19 year olds have low basic skills, there has been a dramatic decline in the number of Level 2 and 3 apprenticeships being offered and more worryingly, research uncovered by 2017-19 Education Select Committee Chair Robert Halfon suggests that 28% of jobs being done by 16-24 year olds could be at risk of automation by the 2030s and yet only 5% of young people work in the STEM sector (https://www.makeuk.org/insights/blogs/2018/03/06/robert-halfon-for-naw). Couple this with research by the IFS which has looked at the decline of adult learning programmes over the last 15 years which found that “overall spending on classroom-based courses has fallen by two-thirds, as have the number of adult learners” (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-50378666?ns_source=twitter&ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews) and it's clear that we need much more decisive action to change this situation. Upskilling is vital for those who want to thrive in a competitive, increasingly tech driven economy, particularly in an area such as Lincoln which already has a lower percentage of full-time jobs and higher number of part-time jobs than the East Midlands and Great Britain average (http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/1946157150/printable.aspx). So for me and for other voters my age and younger living in Birchwood, policies which focus on investment in FE colleges and community outreach education, which focus on providing more access to Level 2, 3 and degree apprenticeships, especially for young people with disabilities and funding for projects which improve the social and technical skills of young people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds which are grassroots led, appeal greatly.

There is an increasing awareness in politics of the need to invest long-term in public services and community projects in order to address the impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) on young people's chances of improving their quality of life. ACEs include experiencing bereavement of close family members or close friends, surviving a traumatic life event, being a young carer, experiencing repeated discrimination based on a protected characteristic (e.g. race), being involved in a gang and being a survivor of domestic abuse and/or violence (https://youngminds.org.uk/media/2852/aa-slides.pdf).
Investment in schools, children and youth services, youth centres, mental health services and local amenities has been identified as important in helping to improve the life chances of young people who have experienced or are still experiencing ACEs. However, youth services across England for example have faced cuts as a result of the austerity measures imposed on local authorities by the Tories. £880m has been cut from spending on youth services in England since 2010 (70% of total spending) with 87% of councils slashing spending on youth services by 50% and 50% of councils slashing spending by over 75% (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-500m-youth-services-380m-20338813). In Lincoln we are fortunate to have third sector organisations such as YMCA Lincolnshire and The Lincolnshire Youth Association which are providing a diverse range of affordable activities for disadvantaged and vulnerable young people as well as the Lincolnshire Council for Voluntary Youth Services (LCVYS) commissioned by Lincolnshire County Council to provide small grants to grassroots youth clubs who are registered with them. However, I believe the next Government must do more than restore funding for youth services lost due to austerity cuts: it needs to work with third sector organisations to establish a long-term strategy for funding youth work. The National Youth Agency provides a number of excellent recommendations in their High 5 manifesto, with ideas including the establishment of a Government Youth Covenant and funding for the core provision of at least 2 qualified youth workers per school catchment area (https://nya.org.uk/2019/11/high-5-manifesto-investing-in-youth-work/ ).

Funding for schools has been high on the political policy agenda since the 2017 election. The School Cuts website reveals that 83% of schools across England will lose out on funding next year and recent research released by the National Education Union found that just 18 out of 533 constituencies analysed (3%) would receive real terms funding increases next April compared with 2015 and even when the £2.6bn of funding announced by Boris Johnson before the election is factored in. Lincoln is ranked 298th in the table, with a £227 per pupil funding loss between 2015/16 and 2020/21. You can check out the funding table via the Schools Week website here: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/union-publishes-constituencies-league-table-for-school-funding-to-sway-voters/.
Further investigation of the Schools Cuts website demonstrates that levels of per pupil funding can vary from school to school: for example, the figure which signifies the difference between funding provided between 2015 and 2020 and the amount which is needed to protect per pupil funding in real terms for Birchwood Junior School is £462,637 and the loss per pupil is calculated at £252 (https://schoolcuts.org.uk/schools/?chosenSchool=9252245) whereas funding increases for Woodfield Infant and Nursery School mean that per pupil funding has increased by £138 (https://schoolcuts.org.uk/schools/?chosenSchool=9252135 ). This is interesting to say the least. 

SEND funding has been a central area of concern, with some families struggling to access support by securing a Education Health and Care Plan (ECHP). Layla Moran cites Freedom of Information reports which found that 40% of ECHPs were not being issued within the 20 week deadline required by law (https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/education/house/house-magazine/107201/layla-moran-mp-children-special-educational-needs-or ). 
A report by the Royal National Institute for the Blind found that 44% of councils had cut or frozen funding for educational support for visually impaired children and 43% had seen a reduction in specialist staff even though there has been a 7% increase in the number of children needing support (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/oct/22/funding-cuts-visually-impaired-pupils-rnib). 
Children with SEND are also more likely to be excluded from mainstream schools: a new report by the charity JUSTICE highlights statistics which found that although only 15% of pupils in England are pupils with SEND, 45% of permanent exclusions and 43% of fixed exclusions of pupils in 2017/18 were of pupils with SEND (https://justice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Challenging-Report.pdf ). 
Being permanently excluded can have a detrimental effect on mental health and emotional wellbeing, academic performance and future job prospects. 
The 2019/20 Lincolnshire County Council Budget did not see an increase in the SEND grant award amount from 2018/19 (£259m) and the testimonials from families who are struggling to secure an ECHP or to keep their child in mainstream education demonstrate that support must be readily available.
The next Government must ensure that funding provided for schools in Birchwood ward and across Lincoln is fair and sufficient to allow for the provision of a comprehensive, inclusive education for ALL students.

Mental health service access for children and young people who have experienced ACEs is mixed at best across England. The latest NHS statistics available finds that at the end of July 2019, there were 234,458 people in contact with children and young people's mental health services (https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/mental-health-services-monthly-statistics/final-july-provisional-august-2019). We are very fortunate in Lincolnshire to have a pioneering, inclusive mental health services trust (Lincolnshire Partnership Foundation Trust) and it was recently announced that they would receive £6m over 2 years to “test new models of care for young, working age and older adults who have moderate to severe, long term mental health problems” through a community service approach (https://www.lpft.nhs.uk/news-and-events/news/significant-funding-lincolnshire). Yet many children and young people do not access CAMHS yet experience anxiety and stress which impacts their everyday lives. The Children's Society Good Childhood Report found that almost a quarter of a million 10-15 year olds are unhappy with their lives and that any experience of financial strain or poverty in childhood is linked to lower well-being by the age of 14 (https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/good-childhood-report).

Overall, 1 in 8 children and young people experience mental health problems: in fact there has been a 48% increase in levels of anxiety and depression among British children since 2004. Such statistics are incredibly concerning to read about and it highlights the urgent need for more early intervention strategies to support children and young people to cope with challenges which go beyond reliance on community mental health services. This includes delivering self-care strategies and mental wellbeing lessons through a wide-ranging Relationships and Sex Education programme of study, starting in primary school, ensuring every school has qualified Mental Health First Aiders as well as providing access to youth clubs and counselling services. 

Law and Order:

Law and order is a policy area which I know from conversations I have that Lincolnites take very seriously. We are proud of our police force and our emergency service personnel more generally and our emergency services have led the way on modernisation and diversification of the emergency services. Funding for front-line police officers has increased recently thanks to grassroots campaigning and campaigning by Marc Jones, our Police and Crime Commissioner and this has already led to the announcement of the recruitment target of 50 new police officers by March 2021 (https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/boris-johnson-police-lincolnshire-3409759). However, Lincolnshire police do face a deficit of £6.7m next year despite this announcement and I continue to support the fight for fairer funding.

One of the law and order issues that concerns Lincoln residents in particular is Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB). ASB consists of a variety of different behaviours but the ones that are most noticed and reported in Lincoln happen to be harassment of customers in shops and restaurants, loud noise levels mostly as a result of night parties and public urination. According to statistics recorded by local news site The Lincolnite3,181 requests for assistance with ASB were made to the City of Lincoln Council between April 2018 and March 2019 and 595 fines were handed out (https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2019/09/harassment-and-public-urination-lincolns-anti-social-behaviour-hotspots/ ). 36 ASB incidents were recorded in Birchwood but despite this low number, there is regular talk about the perception of the level of noise coming from houses in areas of Birchwood. Over the past few months I've been looking at research focusing on how community social action projects can reduce instances of ASB amongst young people whilst also challenging perceptions of what constitutes ASB to avoid stereotyping...for example, I have heard one or two residents in Birchwood label gatherings of young adults at local shops as ASB but usually such gatherings of young adults happen because they feel they have nowhere else to go to socialise and they are courteous whilst in the shopping centre anyways. Yes we need the next Government to continue to commit to tackling ASB at a local and national level but we need more provision and promotion of social action projects and localised services for young adults.

Whilst mentioning law and order I can't forget to mention the prison service. A report released earlier this year found that whilst prison officers and support staff were doing their best to help look after the welfare of prisoners, there was a 49% rise in incidents of prisoner self-harm between 2017 and 2019 and issues were identified with the infrastructure of the prison (https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2019/07/lincoln-prison-falling-apart-as-staff-do-top-job/). In addition, the number of prison staff who took sick days increased by 28% between 2017/18 and 2018/19 (https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/number-sick-days-taken-prison-3351794). I hope the next Government will ensure that prisons do receive the funding and support needed to address these issues to ensure that prisons are truly fit for purpose for the 21st century and I hope that the mental and physical health of prison staff improves as a result.

Community Services and Amenities:

There's much discussion around the perceived and actual reduction of community services and amenities in Lincoln. It's true to say that some services have been reduced or lost altogether. Birchwood library is now open for only 2 days a week and the nearby Skellingthorpe Library has been closed down. Over the past year there has been discussions as the future of Lincolnshire's heritage attractions after Lincolnshire County Council voted to cut £750,000 a year from its heritage budget (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-49569564).
The Usher Gallery had been earmarked for closure, with plans to turn it into a wedding venue and for artworks from the likes of L S Lowry and Henry Moore removed, something which I am personally opposed to but recent news looks promising (https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/lincoln-news/row-over-lincolns-usher-gallery-3279735).
Amenities wise in Birchwood we do have a recently renovated Leisure Centre, a number of pubs including my family's local Green Barrel and a thriving Shopping Centre with a diverse range of shops, including a chippy, a Co-op and a Greggs (yes there is a Greggs out here in the suburbs). The next Government must ensure they enact policies which create the economic environment which will protect these vital amenities from closure as well as looking at ways of restoring some of the library and information services lost.

Transport:

There is so much discussion about traffic congestion into Lincoln City Centre. My parents for example have regularly sat through traffic delays of up to 45 minutes in the mornings travelling in and they complain about the number of times the barriers go down for the trains. Even the bypass from the Skellingthorpe roundabout down to the Riseholme roundabout can be gridlocked for 30 minutes when congestion is made worse by accidents or bad weather. It's alright for Mr McCartney to talk about transport infrastructure improvements that have been made since 2010 but the volume of traffic on the roads continues to increase and the perception of transport infrastructure remains mixed at best. It's all fine and dandy having a shiny new public transport hub to travel to and from but if more people are not being convinced to use the buses to get into Lincoln, what's the point? Dawn Hinsley, a Lincoln resident, recently wrote a column for Lincolnshire Live discussing the haphazard nature of the bus services in the city, not least the phenomenon of waiting ages for the bus to come but two follow in quick succession (https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/lincoln-news/bus-services-lincoln-farce-deserve-3442835). I must say I also agree with Dawn when she states that Stagecoach needs to improve its service provision and perhaps the next Government needs to do far more to ensure local councils have the funding they need to commission bus services which run efficiently and when they are needed. It's just ridiculous that buses services to Bracebridge Heath stop at 6:15pm.
Notwithstanding this, Bojo is apparently interested in funding the completion of the Lincoln bypass after being asked about it by Dr Caroline Johnson at the last PMQs before the General Election (https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/lincoln-news/lincoln-eastern-bypass-set-108-3488665). It remains to be seen whether the investment is forthcoming post the General Election.

Social Care:

One final General Election issue in this very long blog post that I want to outline is that of Social Care. My Mum (who happens to be a Norwegian citizen) worked in the care sector for 20 years and she saw the difficulties that people needing care and their families experienced particularly in relation to affording care services. In 2019, there are around 1.4m older people who are not getting the care and support they need to thrive. There are around 122,000 vacancies in the care sector in England (https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/articles/brexit-implications-health-social-care) and more than 50% of home care workers employed on zero-hours contracts. Staff feel undervalued and do not always receive the training they deserve. Even when staff do gain experience, they do not necessarily see an improvement in pay and conditions: care workers with 5 or more years' work experience are only paid on average £0.15 an hour more than new entrants (https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/whats-your-problem-social-care#meanstesting?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=thekingsfund). 

The Social Care system needs an overhaul to become more sustainable and retain experienced and dedicated staff. The next Government must do far more than promise to release a Green Paper and then not release it: they must look at implementing policies that can cope with future increased demand. Population estimates provided by the ONS state that the number of 85 year olds is set to double to 3m by 2043 and Age UK warns that care services will become overstretched as demand for carers experienced in supporting older people with dementia care increases (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/21/number-85s-uk-double-25-years-amid-fears-social-care-crisis/). 

The challenge posed by Brexit to an already stretched care sector cannot be underestimated either: whilst there are more non EEA nationals working in the care sector than EEA nationals, the proportion of non-EEA workers fell by 3% between 2012/13 and 2018/19 whereas the proportion of EEA workers rose by 3% over the same period (https://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/adult-social-care-workforce-data/Workforce-intelligence/publications/Topics/Workforce-nationality.aspx) and this comes before the implementation of a points system that is more likely to favour applicants with higher qualifications. 


This blog is just the start of my examination of core issues over the General Election period and only gives an overview of some of the key issues that I will be thinking about. I look forward to finding out more about the policies which parties propose to try and address social inequality and funding concerns. If you'd ask me to make a prediction about what will happen come December 13th, I would say that we should all “expect the unexpected” but we have to prepare ourselves unfortunately for a dysfunctional Hung Parliament that is even more divided on Brexit than before. Some traditional Labour voters do feel alienated from supporting the party because of factional infighting, confusion over previous official Brexit positions and what some perceive as radical far-left policies. If Labour wants to have a chance of broad appeal amongst voters and win them back, the party needs to focus on talking about the “bread and butter” issues that so many care about, from improving community service provision and encouraging small businesses to strong law and order policies and improving public transport infrastructure. 2019 will not be like 1997 but it can still be fruitful. However, if Labour is unable to make gains against a Conservative party that has lurched further to the right and in fact loses Lincoln to them, then serious questions will need to be asked about Labour's place as a major player in UK politics and as the party of choice for centre left progressives going forwards.

Sunday, 13 January 2019

Brexit won't help to resolve key social issues faced by working class communities. So is it any wonder why I'm wholeheartedly backing a People's Vote?

Hey folks - I'm back!

It's that time of year again when many of us have been busily settling back into our work routines, figuring out how we're going to improve productivity, coupled with the odd “let's try not to break but ends up getting broken at some point or another New Year's Resolution” thought or two. This year seems more important than ever due to the impending date of our departure from the EU, ever etched in the minds of political folks as the 29th March although this does now seem subject to change. Things have been heating up at Parliament, with MPs declaring support for the various positions that the UK should proceed in. My own preference is that the electorate be given an opportunity to make the final decision as to whether we accept whatever Brexit deal finally emerges out of Parliamentary discussions (although I have no idea what that deal could actually look like....it's probably not going to be Chequers Improved that's for sure) or reject the deal and decide to Remain in the EU and look to reform its structures (the option for a No Deal Brexit on World Trade Organisation terms needs to be on the table in the interests of fairness of course). The People's Vote campaign has been gradually gaining steam and attracting interest in Leave voting areas, including Lincoln, Mansfield and Sunderland and it's been pleasing to see the photographs of Brexitometers appearing on a weekly basis on Twitter and the accompanying comments about conversations campaigners have had, particularly with voters who declare they are Remainer Now. I'd encourage anyone interested in finding more about some of the personal stories of Remainer Now voters in Lincolnshire to follow the Lincoln for a People's Vote Twitter handle (@LincolnVote) as well as hashtag #LincolnRemainerNow.

What's clear from reading social media messages over the past month is that the People's Vote campaign face a huge challenge of getting working class people in leave-leaning surburban and rural areas proactively engaged in campaigning and buying into the reasons why a People's Vote is an important step in helping politicians to find an effective way forward out of the political stalemate they have found themselves in. Very few of my neighbours living in Birchwood, Lincoln have mentioned Brexit in public and those that have, tend to do so with a mutter of angst, disgust or frustration, depending on how invested they find themselves in the process. Even the Brexiteers of Birchwood, once emboldened by the promises of “taking back control” of Britain's sovereignty and seeing “real” constitutional change are more muted and contemplative. I'm reminded of one articulate gentleman who had told me back in early 2017 that I had nothing to fear from Brexit because leaving the EU would lead to Tory MPs realising they needed to end the austerity measures they had placed on local authorities, has now retreated to a position that only by getting the Tories out will mean Brexit can be fashioned in a socialist way and lead to an end to austerity. It's a subtle shift but it highlights where the real concerns are concentrated. The issues that the working class are facing are not actually due to mismanagement and harsh treatment by the EU towards us, its mismanagement and harsh policies imposed by the Government of the day. Well shit's got real y'all and there is little that seems certain politically.

When I talk to neighbours who voted Leave and Remain and neighbours who didn't vote in the 2016 EU referendum or couldn't vote in the referendum about what changes they want to see happen to improve the quality of their lives, similar comments emerge time and time again. They talk about wages and earning enough to keep a roof over their heads, homes heated and food on the table. If you're on a zero hours contract or only manage to secure less than 16 hours a week at minimum wage, you feel more on edge and uncertain about the future. The Universal Credit reforms introduced thus far have been botched and the effects on people struggling are well documented. I remember reading a Lincolnshire Reporter article in October which reports findings from a survey conducted with Lincolnshire residents dealing with Universal Credit: “Of those who had moved over to the welfare system, 46% of people said they had received help from a food bank. Some 29% had sought assistance from Citizens Advice” (https://lincolnshirereporter.co.uk/2018/10/universal-credit-leaves-many-hungry-in-lincolnshire/). A trainee midwife said that she was being “penalised” for studying and that had left her going into rent arrears. At a time when there are midwifery and nursing vacancies across the NHS (41,000) and more than 7,000 nurses and midwives from the European Economic Area (EEA) have already left the UK since June 2016 (https://www.ft.com/content/8f2d6e22-e7f9-11e8-8a85-04b8afea6ea3) this is just simply not acceptable and it's one reason why I think training bursaries for nurses and midwives need to be made available, so that trainees are not forced to endure financial hardship whilst studying and training for long hours.

Tory Austerity measures are making life harder for working class families and families who have fallen on hard times, whether that be due to being made redundant or a family member not being able to work because of the severity of illness or having to stay at home to care for a sick or disabled relative. Child poverty is becoming ever increasingly visible. I saw a BBC Breakfast interview with Siobhan Collingwood, a Headteacher from Morecambe who stated that 1 in 10 of her school's pupils came from families that had been forced to access a foodbank (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-46827360). Ms Collingwood isn't alone. Teachers from across England have reported that students in their class are coming into school hungry and worried about the mental and physical health of themselves and their family members. Just last month The Guardian reported findings from the National Education Union which found teachers reported “that a lack of food, poor housing and unsuitable clothes are overwhelming pupils and cash-strapped schools”, with 2 in 3 teachers saying that more families of students attending their school were now unable to afford adequate winter clothing compared with just 3 years ago (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/17/many-pupils-in-england-hungry-and-badly-clothed-say-teachers?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other). Child poverty statistics paint a picture of a Britain that is far from being considered fair and equal. The Child Action Poverty Group has compiled a list of statistics (http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/child-poverty-facts-and-figures) which include the following:
  • 9 children in a classroom of 30 will be living in poverty
  • Children in large families are at a far greater risk of poverty – 42 per cent of children living in families with 3 or more children live in poverty
  • By GCSE, there is a 28 per cent gap between children receiving free school meals and their wealthier peers in terms of the number achieving at least 5 A*-C GCSE grades.
Numerous reports have demonstrated how growing up in poverty can affect a child's chances academically and vocationally. This is particularly the case in the North of England. The 2018 Children's Commissioner report” Growing Up North” found that the most disadvantaged students in England are two years behind non-disadvantaged pupils by the age of 16 and less than a quarter of Northerners possess a Level 4 qualification (https://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/education/opinion-schools-and-colleges-need-more-investment-1-9533033). Educational inequality has soared on this Government's watch, with 3 out of 10 maintained secondary schools now reporting a financial budget deficit of nearly £500,000 (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/17/many-pupils-in-england-hungry-and-badly-clothed-say-teachers?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other). Recent research conducted by Lucy Powell, MP for Manchester Central found that independent schools are putting their students through IGCSE's for their EBacc subjects which are found to be less academically rigorous than the new GCSEs introduced by the Conservatives and which students in state schools have to take because access to IGCSEs is being phased out in those schools: in fact 91% of all entries for the EBacc core subjects were in independent schools this year (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/dec/30/labour-demands-inquiry-into-private-schools-evading-gcse-reform). Labour have quite rightly demanded an inquiry into this and hopefully it may lead to decisive action. Every child has the right to access a comprehensive, challenging academic education regardless of their socio-economic status.

Tackling educational inequality and child poverty should be two of the most important things on any Government agenda, yet instead this one seems utterly obsessed on getting Britain out of the EU and trying to convince folks in Birchwood and many other working class neighbourhoods across the UK that it's the most pressing policy agenda item and that social change will not happen without it. Far Right commentators tell us that social inequality is made worse by “the influx” of migrants that come to live and work in the UK. Perhaps one of the most disturbing things that happened during the Christmas and New Year break was the step up in coverage on illegal migration, with the Government deciding in their infinite wisdom to deem the efforts of a few dozen people coming to the UK illegally via the English Channel (and Mablethorpe) a “major incident”. What absolute claptrap. Ask the folks in Birchwood what they may deem to be a “major incident” or a “national crisis” and you would, I guarantee you, very rarely hear “illegal immigration into the UK” given as an answer. There were 201 confirmed migrant Channel rescues since November 2018 on the British side (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/05/ignoring-difference-legal-illegal-immigration-penalises-migrants/). 201 compared with the situation in Southern Europe in 2015 when more than 10,000 people landed in 1 day in Greece (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/30/uk-migrant-crisis-bears-no-comparison-to-eus-2015-influx). Not exactly a national crisis. I get the importance of distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration for right-wing voters but for me, the UK has to take a compassionate and measured approach by ensuring that people who do attempt the English Channel or North Sea crossings are protected from danger and instead direct more anger towards the people smuggling gangs who are perpetuating those dangerous situations. Nobody can blame people who have experienced economic hardship for many years for wanting to search for a job in a country with better prospects.

Let's talk a little bit more about the Brexiteer argument that migrants are harming the employment prospects and wages of working class people. Contrary to what certain commentators may report, I've only spoken to 3 people in the last year who have expressed a clear concern about immigration along these lines. Most of my neighbours are concerned about keeping their own jobs or actually trying to secure a sustainable job, rather than spending time blaming EU and non EU citizens for the circumstances they have found themselves in. Numerous studies that have been conducted have concluded that immigration has little or no impact on average employment or unemployment of existing workers and where an impact was detected, although a 2018 study by the Migrant Advisory Committee found that “immigration from EU countries during the 34-year period from 1983 to 2017 had reduced the employment rate of the UK-born working age population by around 2 percentage points and increased unemployment by 0.6 percentage points” (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/). I believe that the emphasis needs to move away from painting a picture of migrants being in constant competition with British nationals to ensuring that all people have access to the education and training they need to develop skills to access the jobs market and to ensure that employers provide true equality of opportunity for all job applicants. I know that from bitter previous experience, being non-binary trans and having moderate dyspraxia. Figures from November 2018 state that 393,000 people who have disabilities were unemployed and the rate between July and September was 9.3%. People with disabilities have an employment rate that is 30.1 percentage points lower than that of people without disabilities (https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7540). It's interesting that Brexiteers like Jacob Rees-Mogg seem to be perfectly prepared to align themselves who shout slogans like “British Jobs for British People” but never bothers to question why we have such a large employment gap between disabled and non-disabled people, a gap which I believe will not be closed significantly by stricter immigration rules.
I also recommend people share this article written by Aditya Chakrabortty, retelling the employment experiences of Robert, a Romanian who came to the UK to help others but ended up in insecure low-paid work and his experience at Nestlé’s Fawdon plant as an agency worker- an experience which many, British national, EU national or non-EU national would recognise (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/12/myths-migration-stereotypes-insecure-low-paid-work). The far-right are primarily responsible for the perpetuation of stereotypes and fearmongering towards the small number of migrants who try to reach the UK illegally and I feel we need to fight against such fearmongering in a timely and robust manner. Centering the voices of migrants by encouraging and empowering them to craft platforms to speak out such as through blogging or podcasting is one way of doing this.

When I think of “major incidents” and “national crises” I think about what's happening to families and individuals who are being made homeless. The rise in homelessness rates is a national scandal and something the Government should be thoroughly ashamed about allowing the crisis to arise. According to the homelessness charity Crisis, 24,000 people will have slept rough this Christmas, this after an estimated 169% rise in levels of rough sleeping since 2010 (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/20/homeless-deaths-rise-by-a-quarter-in-five-years-official-figures-show). I read a great letter from The Guardian online from Juha Kaakinen, CEO of Y-Foundation, a key organisation which helped devise the Housing First principle in Finland and help young people at risk of becoming homeless finding an affordable place to live. Juha argues that the supply of social housing in the UK has been sufficient and the Government needs to commit to rectifying this now the Homelessness Reduction Act has passed, using the plan created by Crisis. I read the plan last year which I thoroughly recommend: read it in full here: https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/the-plan-to-end-homelessness-full-version/executive-summary/. It includes limiting time spent by individuals and families in temporary accommodation and building 100,500 new social homes a year for the next 15 years to meet the needs of homeless people as well as funding for local authorities to provide a mandatory set of activities to help prevent homelessness, including family mediation and supporting people to keep their tenancies (https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/the-plan-to-end-homelessness-full-version/executive-summary/). Professor Mike Stein, from the University of York (my alma mater) also highlights the fact that there has been 25% increase in deaths of homeless people since 2015, - up to an estimated 600, partly as a result of lack of funding for preventative measures provided by public services (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/20/homeless-deaths-rise-by-a-quarter-in-five-years-official-figures-show). Many of my neighbours, whether they voted to Remain or Leave, are well aware that life is increasingly tough for people in Lincolnshire who find themselves homeless, especially those sleeping rough on our streets or having to navigate the challenges faced as a result of living in temporary accommodation. I believe leaving the EU will not help one jot to alleviate levels of hardship homeless people face. Do not think that money saved from “paying for membership” will trickle down and lead to the building of more homes for the homeless, more services to help improve the mental and physical health of homeless people or the creation of additional jobs. Besides the Conservative Government could have chosen to relieve the burden of austerity measures on our local councils and allowed them to invest in more services. Instead we have to accept for the moment the drips and drabs funding and praise local councils who are trying to do their best under financial strain. One bit of recent good news is that a homelessness hub will open in Lincoln due to funding allocated under the £100m Rough Sleeping Strategy (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46603795) but much more needs to be done long-term to ensure people do not end up falling through cracks in the system and end up back rough sleeping on the streets. That includes access to skills training, secure long-term council housing tenancies and mental health and emotional wellbeing support.

I couldn't do this blogpost without mentioning the concerns people in my area have about the pressures faced by our local NHS trusts, namely United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust (ULHT), Lincolnshire Community Health Services (LCHS) Trust and Lincolnshire Partnership Foundation Trust (LPFT). I hear far more from my neighbours about waiting times for GP appointments and what they deem to be “unfair” hospital parking charges than I do about whether PM May's deal will lead to us struggling to secure a free trade deal with the US or how the coastline border will be secured. Research conducted by the Nuffield Trust found that people living in the top 10% most deprived areas of England find it harder to secure an appointment with their local GP because “there are markedly fewer GPs per head in poorer areas of England than in richer areas.....There was an average of 1,869 patients on GP lists for each doctor in the most affluent clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), compared with 2,125 in the most deprived” (https://www.ft.com/content/628b25ca-06d1-11e9-9fe8-acdb36967cfc). Emergency admissions are also nearly 30% higher in the 20% most deprived CCGs, compared with the 20% least deprived CCGs (https://www.ft.com/content/628b25ca-06d1-11e9-9fe8-acdb36967cfc). This is partly due to lack of awareness of self-care and prevention strategies for health issues such as smoking and obesity and yet this Government in their infinite wisdom is perfectly happy with presiding over cuts to the Public Health budget by £85m, which “will affect community and prevention services also including ‘stop smoking’ clinics, schemes to tackle obesity, and drug and alcohol misuse services for children and young people.” (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/government-sneaks-out-ps85m-cut-to-public-health-on-last-day-before-parliamentary-recess_uk_5c1bc9bee4b0407e90785176). Then we need to talk about the current state of our mental health services. A survey of GPs which was commissioned by the youth mental health charity stem4 and undertaken by MedeConnect Healthcare Insight found that 99% of GPs asked said that they feared that patients under the age of 18 would come to some form of harm if they faced lengthy delays in seeing a mental health specialist, with 27% stating that they greatly feared this (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/30/inadequate-nhs-services-put-under-18s-with-mental-health-issues-at-risk). 90% of GPs surveyed also stated that existing health and social care services for under 18s is inadequate, with 37% saying they were extremely inadequate (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/30/inadequate-nhs-services-put-under-18s-with-mental-health-issues-at-risk). This is concerning given numerous studies that have indicated a rise in levels of mental health problems among children and young people. The majority of GPs in this survey reported that they had seen a rise in the numbers of 11-18 year olds diagnosed with anxiety disorders (86%) and yet they say it is “impossible or very difficult for young people to get help with anxiety” (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/30/inadequate-nhs-services-put-under-18s-with-mental-health-issues-at-risk). I wish Parliament was focussing their attentions much more on finding solutions to addressing mental health service provision rather than expending most of their energies on pushing forward with Brexit and having to make provisions to stockpile medicines in the event we leave without any deal with the EU. I mean I'm sure nobody could have foreseen that a form of Brexit that hopefully will never happen has led to the need of the Department for Health to buy 5,000 fridges to store medicines. Not to mention increasing concerns regarding staffing levels in the NHS post-Brexit under the Tories because of the policies outlined in their Immigration white paper. Currently there are numerous hospital staff members who do not earn £30,000 a year: “the starting salary for nurses, midwives and paramedics is £23,000. Junior doctors start at £27,000 while healthcare assistants are at £17,000. Most scientific researchers also earn below the proposed threshold” (https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/19/brexit-migrant-salary-cap-devastating-nhs-schools-experts-warn-8266041/). This on top of the fact that our NHS is short of 107,743 staff overall makes me think how ridiculous it is for those middle and upper class Brexiteer campaigners to crow on about migrants taking jobs British people want to do. I'm all for rises in wage amounts but I very much doubt hospital trusts can afford to raise the salary of a healthcare assistant to £30,000 in one go.

In this blogpost so far I've touched on just a few of the key social issues that we will face as a country in 2019. There are many others I could have mentioned – animal welfare, plastic waste pollution, emergency service strains – ambulances and policing, access to legal aid etc. They are issues that many of us, whether we voted to Remain or Leave in the 2016 EU Referendum care about resolving and issues that will need significant funding and fresh idea generation if we are to address socio-economic inequality. Thus far Brexiteers on the far-right of politics have failed to supply an explanation as to why we must leave the EU in order to tackle systemic socio-economic inequality. Those on the left who define themselves as staunch Brexiteer socialists, aka Lexiteers have tended to put forward arguments that centre around the idea that the EU is somehow deliberately preventing politicians in the UK from putting in place policies that could reduce austerity and lead to greater investment in areas such as Lincolnshire. This is particularly the case when it comes to the question of renationalisation of national infrastructure- i.e. the EU would prevent Labour which favours renationalisation of the railways and the energy production network, from renationalising them, because its rules favour the private sector. The State Aid question has been debated by numerous commentators but I find George Peretz's explanation quite helpful. In particular it was interesting to note that “the UK gives much less state aid per head than most EU countries, under-using the scope that it has within the state aid rules to support (for example) industrial training and regional development.” (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/27/four-reasons-jeremy-corbyn-wrong-eu-state-aid?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other) Yet again another decision taken by the Conservatives not to invest appropriately through having an ambitious Industrial Strategy rather than the fault of the EU. The idea that the EU is some kind of “authoritarian state” and we somehow have to leave it because if we don't we can't then create a truly socially democratic UK sounds a bit far-fetched to me. The rules that have come about as a result of EU membership have, on the whole, been widely accepted without significant critique, other than from the usual quarters. I'm thinking for example, of the recent General Data Protection Regulation which has helped to give individuals more control over how their data is used and retained by organisations- e.g. the right to erasure which “allows individuals to request that personal data be deleted or removed in certain circumstances such as withdrawal of consent or when that data is no longer accurate” (https://blog.centrify.com/consumer-privacy-benefits-gdpr/). Being a member of the EU has meant the Government has had to adopt changes and improve rights and I for one think that's great. So when people complain about EU legislation and regulations being imposed on us, I remember the rules that have been adopted, such as GDPR and The Working Time Directive and how they have and are making a positive difference in our lives. So yeah....EU authoritarian state....what absolute poppycock!

What also gets my goat is how Lexiteers can talk about the EU system being unfair and anti-democratic when we see what our own Parlimentary system is like. How can they honestly say those things with a straight face when we are the ones who still have an unelected House of Lords with hereditary peers and Anglican Bishops being able to have a direct say in our decision making and we have a system which ends up concentrating most of the power in the hands of two parties? I certainly admit that the EU Parliament is far from perfect but maybe we need to consider working on democratising our own Parliamentary system before deciding to mock others for being anti-democratic. On the plus side, if Labour were to be elected in a General Election this year there could be steps taken on long-overdue constitutional reform, not least lowering the voting age to 16 and potentially introducing a referendum on Proportional Representation (I know, “Not Another One”). Such moves would do a lot more to work towards crafting a more modern democratic system than leaving the EU. Mind you, some Lexiteer socialists will just dismiss me as a “neoliberal” or a member of the “metropolitan elite” and consequently dismiss such concerns. It's amazing to think how people on low incomes can be so easily labelled as being members of “The Establishment” these days if they disagree with leaving with the EU and are prepared to do so publicly. Well let me tell you, resurrected eurosceptic Benniteism isn't going to win me or other working class liberal left Labour voters over (yes we do exist!!). 

Instead, I think the focus needs to be on outlining a positive, progressive vision for the UK that aims to address social issues. It's the biggest challenge that a campaign for Remain during a People's Vote referendum needs to overcome. People know that we don't want to Leave the EU but what are we going to offer to improve the lives of voters in Mansfield, Redcar, Lincoln and Preston so that those voters would be sufficiently satisfied to vote for that Remain vision. Commentators and MPs have begun to outline such visions. For example, Zoe Williams in her Guardian article states that A positive vision for the future needs solid answers to urgent questions: climate change, austerity, the erosion of workplace rights, the rise of fascism. All of these feed into one another to create a sense of precariousness and threat, and all solutions involve cooperation across borders. The new remain movement must articulate a future in which opportunities and freedoms expand rather than retract, citizens’ rights ratchet upwards in a race to the top, revivified unions support one another internationally, a green new deal echoes across multiple governments, racism is answered robustly and migration celebrated, and the dreams of the EU’s founders – peace, reconciliation, solidarity, equality – are rediscovered.” (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/23/labour-remain-jeremy-corbyn-brexit). Such a vision encapsulates much of what I believe and there is a lot of policies within the current Labour manifesto that could be adapted- I'm thinking introducing three year tenancies in private sector as standard, safeguarding homeless shelters, scrapping the draconian bedroom tax for starters. I want to see those policies enacted, but I fear it will be more difficult to enact them outside of the EU.

Brexit is neither necessary nor will benefit working class communities. The core systemic social issues that need addressing will not be addressed by a Conservative Government pushing through Brexit in any form, particularly a No Deal Brexit that could lead to further perpetuation of the Austerity Agenda. Once PM May's deal has been voted down in the House of Commons and the vote of no-confidence has failed, I hope more Labour MPs in particular will join the People's Vote campaign and push for the Final Say on any final deal PM May or other Tory leader manages to cobble together. If not, then I hope MPs realise that working class constituents will need their help more than ever as the country deals with any potential economic turbulence resulting from Brexit.

Monday, 10 September 2018

Thoughts on the Great Northern Stop Brexit Conference 8th September 2018

I was fortunate to be able to go along with my fellow staunch anti-Brexit friend Caroline Kenyon to the Great Northern Stop Brexit Conference, planned and facilitated by Leeds for Europe and put on at the very plush Principal Met Hotel, in Leeds Central. I listened to a number of passionate activists, campaigners and political figures talk about the current situation facing the UK, the level of campaigning needed to get the People's Vote referendum campaign on the final Brexit deal to the point where MPs and MEPs from all political parties are willing to openly support it and then the level of campaigning needed to convince voters from across the UK to cast their vote in favour of Remaining in the EU and spearheading the reform programme needed to make the UK and the EU more prosperous, healthier and happier. If People's Vote campaigners want to secure a convincing majority in any future referendum on Brexit, they will need to appeal to voters living in Northern constituencies, both urban and rural. Constituencies in the East Midlands like Mansfield, which voted 70.9% to Leave in 2016, Erewash, which voted 63.3% in 2016, Derbyshire South, which voted 60.4% to Leave in 2016 and my own constituency of Lincoln, which voted 57.3% to Leave in 2016. Best for Britain and HOPE not Hate published a report last month which showed that 112 constituencies would now vote to Remain in the EU if a referendum were to be held. Voters in constituencies like Gedling (56.2% Leave in 2016, 52.4% Remain now) , Broxtowe (52.4% Leave in 2016, 53.3% Remain now), Derby North (53.7% Leave in 2016, 52.0% Remain now), Leicester West (51.7% Leave in 2016, 55.4% Remain now) and Leicester East (53.2% Leave in 2016, 54.3% Remain now) seem to have shifted their view from Leave to Remain. That's great but none of the constituencies I have mentioned before have shifted decisively. 64.0% of Mansfield voters would still choose to Leave the EU, 57.1% of Erewash voters would still put their X in the Leave box, 55.5% of Derbyshire South voters would still say Non and 52.5% of Lincoln voters would still vote Leave. The percentage of Leave voters may have decreased in these areas but there will still be a hefty number of voters who will come out and oppose the Peoples Vote vision for the future of the UK. In Lincolnshire there is currently no constituency that would vote to Remain in the EU. So the question that People's Vote campaigners have to ask is this: how do we convince voters from working class communities, those who are Just-About-Managing, as well as middle class rural mild Eurosceptics to back the premise behind the People's Vote?

Saturday's conference I think attempted in part to address this question. I believe that first of all, campaigners need to be prepared to engage in frank, honest and open dialogue with Leave voters, as well as people who chose not to vote or were too young to vote in the 2016 referendum. I understand the palpable anger that exists: voters in my local ward of Birchwood, in Lincoln are overwhelmingly frustrated at the lack of progress being made by PM May's Tory Government on securing a final Brexit deal and they are equally concerned at the recent plethora of bad news stories which have made it clear what could happen in the event of the UK failing to secure a deal with the EU (the “No Deal” scenario). Two Lower Layer Support Output Areas (LSOA's) in Birchwood in the 2015 Indices of Deprivation were identified as being among the 10% most deprived in England. LSOA 007C is ranked 237 out of 32,844 and LSOA 007A, where I live currently, is ranked 2,397 out of 32,844 LSOA's. Believe me when I say people here do not have an awful lot of disposable income that they would be able to divert to cover a sudden increase in food prices in the shops. If the Tory Govt fail to secure a deal with the EU after March 2019, prices of even basic foodstuffs could be set to increase. A former boss of Waitrose (which I very rarely shop in btw) and former Tory trade minister, Lord Price stated last month that imported fresh food, including fruit and veg (which accounts for around 75% of all fruit and veg consumed) could see the sharpest price rises (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44966961). An anonymous supermarket chairman stated that he thought the UK operating on WTO rules after leaving the EU would lead to tariffs on food products, with imported cheese having a 44% tariff, chicken a 22% tariff and grapes a 20% tariff, which would probably lead to a 10% general price rise (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-no-deal-uk-business-city-trade-eu-leave-a8499621.html).

A young lady who works in one of Birchwood's local hairdressing salons (and does a brilliant job) who is skeptical of the EU told me that she just wants to know whether she'd be able to afford basic food and drink for herself and her partner in a No-Deal scenario. Yes she did blame the EU for lack of progress on the deal. But she also made it clear that she didn't want food prices to rise to a point where her diet may become less varied and she doesn't have enough money to afford a lager or two down her local. I think it's so important that proponents of the People's Vote do not just cite a load of facts and figures at voters as an attempt to force them to “see the light”. Listen to what they have to say and then try to address the key issues that come out of the conversation. I've not met any neighbours or voters who would honestly say they are prepared to pay higher food prices as a result of Brexit, yet I've seen a number of tweets from the supposedly more well-heeled members of our society who would be “more than happy” to pay more for food in exchange for “sovereignty”. I wish those people could take a trip down to their local foodbank and talk with people there, who would include fellow Leave voters, some of whom are working 40-50 hour plus weeks to try and keep themselves and their family members from ending up on the streets and still do not have sufficient funds in place to afford basic food and drink in the last week before payday. Nearly 4 million people have stated they have used foodbanks at some point (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/food-banks-uk-how-many-people-adults-poverty-a8386811.html). Foodbank volunteers come from a cross-section of society and include EU citizens and I have massive respect for anyone that gives their time freely to keep them going.
There are many Remain and Leave voters who want to change the situation for low-income families, so they do not have to rely on foodbanks or end up destitute. It's a travesty that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) Report found that more than 1.5 million people, including 365,000 children were classed as destitute in 2017 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/food-banks-uk-how-many-people-adults-poverty-a8386811.html). As we enter an uncertain period, an additional 470,000 people could be living in poverty in 2020/21 as a result of Government decisions to freeze most working-age benefits and tax credits (https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/how-could-brexit-affect-poverty-uk). Under different Brexit scenarios, the JRF also estimates that real wages could fall by between 0.2% and 1.0%, which could lead to an increase in working households in poverty.
I hope that policies can be introduced soon to turn this around and I think they have to include increasing minimum wage rates for all workers to be in line with National Living Wage rates, reducing or banning zero-hours contracts, ending the freeze on working-age benefits and tax credits and ensuring that those who cannot work have the money they need to maintain a comfortable standard of living, including scrapping the draconian Bedroom Tax.

Femi Oluwole, the Co-Founder of the phenomenal campaign group, Our Future, Our Choice, made up of young people who voted Remain and Leave in the 2016 referendum and young people who were too young to vote, really struck a chord with me. I felt he and his team genuinely care about listening to the concerns of Leave voters, especially those that live in the top 10% most deprived areas of the UK. He talked about the residents of Sunderland that he met during his campaigning with warmth and I hope that attendees at the conference listened to him when he said “We need to be angry for Brexit voters, not at them”.
Tone matters a great deal in political campaigning, especially when trying to explore the issue of immigration. Figures compiled by the Migrant Observatory, based at the University of Oxford find that 53% of respondents want to see migration levels reduce: only 13% favour an increase in levels (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/). Personally I am not adverse to keeping Freedom of Movement and I greatly appreciate the overwhelmingly positive contributions that people from the EU have made to Lincoln and Lincolnshire. Our universities- the University of Lincoln and Bishop Grosseteste University would not be as popular with students without them being able to recruit highly qualified, experienced and passionate staff from the EU. Our hospitals and GP surgeries and care homes would be understaffed without people from the EU choosing to come to Lincolnshire and make it their home. We owe a debt of gratitude to the tens of thousands of seasonal migrant workers who have helped to pick and manufacture our excellent Lincolnshire produce (everything from Asparagus and Rapeseed Oil to Lincolnshire Sausages). I believe the majority of Lincolnshire residents and voters, whether they voted to Remain or Leave the EU in 2016 also appreciate the contributions that have been made economically and socially.

The problem comes when the conversation turns to two immigration topic subareas which are a) a perceived lack of high-quality, highly paid job opportunities for British-born residents and b) the strain placed on existing public services and infrastructure as a result of “mass” migration. People's Vote campaigners need to be able to proffer a nuanced opinion on one or both of these in order to demonstrate that they are comfortable with discussing the topic openly and frankly. We need to rebut the charge made by far-right Eurosceptics that we are unwilling to discuss such “difficult” topics. It starts by recognising that more rural businesses in particular, have to, wherever possible, invest in creating and promoting more intermediate, advanced and degree level apprenticeship opportunities for local residents who are over the age of 25, ensuring they receive the knowledge and skills training needed to sustain that role going forward. Promotion of opportunities needs to be done in an innovative way and include use of social media platforms. I also believe that the Government needs to ringfence funding for apprenticeships for over 25s to support businesses willing to create opportunities. Such apprenticeships should be available to UK based residents first, before being advertised abroad. Apprenticeship pay rates may need to be revised to be as close to the Government's National Living Wage as possible.

To rebut the idea that migrants should be the ones who are blamed for strains on public services and housing and transport infrastructure, I think it's essential to bear in mind that decisions made by the Government since 2010 have contributed to pressures on local services. Local authorities have seen their grants cut by 49.1% in real terms between the financial years 2010-11 and 2017-18. The Migrant Impact Fund, introduced by Labour to help increase capacity in local public services in areas which had seen a dramatic increase in the number of migrants, such as Boston, was scrapped in 2010. The Tories then introduced a Controlling Migration Fund in 2016, providing £100m to local authorities over 4 years. £19m of this was released back in June and included £1.75m to help refugees enter the workplace and £1.1m to help victims of modern slavery access local services after leaving central-government funded support (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/19-million-funding-for-councils-to-boost-integration). Great projects but still not enough money to reverse local authority cuts. Not when house building levels seem to not be keeping up with general level of demand, there are just not enough council houses for families who are classed as being in greatest need (there are consistently over 1 million households on local authority waiting lists), local hospital services are being scaled back (Grantham's A&E service used to be 24 hours but this was reduced by closing overnight due to difficulty in recruiting specialist staff). My neighbours feel fed up of having to wait 1 week, 2 weeks or more in some cases to book an initial GP appointment and unfortunately, some blame this wait on an increase in residents who are EU citizens, rather than recognising demand for GP services more generally is rising. A recent survey of 760,000 paients found that 27.9% had found it difficult to get an appointment, up from 18.6% in 2012 (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/09/doubling-long-waits-see-gp-record-pressures-ae-revealed/) Data regarding A&E attendances also demonstrates the amount of pressure our NHS is under: figures from July show that the total number of attendances was 2.17m, the highest figure ever recorded. The recent decision to close the Lincoln Walk-In-Centre has led to increase pressures on A&E services in the county and happened as a result of lack of additional funding being available to local NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups, against the wishes of local residents (http://www.healthwatchlincolnshire.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/GPappointmentreportfinal-2.pdf). Such pressures are not the fault of migrants, they are partly the fault of the Government and they should take more responsibility for their actions.

Some academics have argued that concerns over immigration cannot be rebutted simply by recourse to economic arguments alone. Residents of Boston for example may be happy to hear about intended increases in funding to reduce pressure on public services and infrastructure post a People's Vote but may still be concerned about “an influx” of migrants coming into their area. Overall attitudes towards immigration have softened but there are still voters who will openly differentiate between accepting highly skilled, English speaking migrants and low-skilled, non English speaking (or those with a low standard of English) migrants. Heath and Richards, in their 2018 research, found that British people attach high importance to skills, but lower importance to skin colour and religion (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/). This may indicate that talking more about what EU migrants are doing to make their chosen constituency/local area better may help to change opinion as it demonstrates a willingness to integrate and appreciate perceived British cultural traditions. I think grassroots social action projects involving Remain and Leave voters and EU citizens should continue to be set up in constituencies across the North and could help to grind down hardened attitudes.

I feel proud of being a Lincolnite and proud of being a Yellowbelly (a resident of Lincolnshire for anyone unfamiliar with our dialect) in addition to being the child of an extremely hard-working Norwegian Citizen. I don't believe that we owe the success of our agricultural industry or any industry to membership of the EU alone but I do feel that we have benefitted from it. Greater Lincolnshire as a whole has benefited from being allocated £41m of EU funding in the 2014-20 period. Euromove Lincs found that the Education and Skills Funding Agency received £12.9m for Lincolnshire and Lincolnshire County Council received £6.3m (https://www.euromovelincs.org.uk/lincolnshire_benefits_from_41m_of_eu_funding) which has helped local businesses to expand their capacity (e.g. through the Lincolnshire Business Digital Growth Programme). 1,397 farmers based in the Lincoln area benefited from £53,480,052 of funding from the EU (https://www.myeu.uk/#/area/LN) in 2017 alone and the EU has invested £18,017,536 in 64 research projects! Most residents I have spoken to had no idea that the EU had invested such large amounts in local businesses and whilst I'm not sure it would change people's minds decisively, it does help to change the overarching narrative of opinion on the EU, from that of grabbing money from British taxpayers to one where the EU invests in skills programmes and businesses to try and help improve job opportunities for local residents. Please check out the My.EU website which has more information on projects and organisations in your local area that have been funded by the EU: https://www.myeu.uk!

The importance of talking about the constitutional future for constituencies and counties following a People's Vote was made clear by numerous speakers at the Great Northern Stop Brexit Conference, including the impressive Diana Wallis, who talked about the need for a future Government following the People's Vote to explore further devolution of powers as well as ensuring that more funding was provided to increase housing stock (social and otherwise) in areas where demand is high. Constitutional Reform is certainly a topic area of increasing interest. When I think of “sovereignty” I find it to be a very abstract concept and yet I am very supportive of seeing more tax-raising powers and control over education and health policy being devolved to Lincolnshire. There's a question as to whether devolution should be to the Greater Lincolnshire area or just to the current districts represented by Lincolnshire County Council Councillors. A deal had been proposed in 2016 but was voted down by the County Council over concerns about the bureaucracy surrounding additional powers the elected mayor would have accrued but a plan may be revisited soon (https://lincolnshirereporter.co.uk/2018/05/greater-lincolnshire-devolution-deal-could-be-revisited/).

Voters in Lincoln I have spoken to have also expressed a desire for changes to the House of Lords. One very outspoken retired small businessman told me that we need a democratically elected Senate, with hereditary peers and Bishops losing their entitlement to seats and other Peers choosing to stand in elections for a constituency seat in that Senate. Another person who was very much a Brexiteer Tory said that he only wanted to see numbers of seats available in the House of Lords reduced and that as the UK is still a Christian country, the Bishops and existing hereditary peers should retain their seats. They both agree the system needs to change but are clearly split on how such change should be enacted. The Electoral Reform Society believes the key to reform is to go down the full election route but they would like to see a proportional system used, such as the Single Transferable Vote (find out more about it here: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/single-transferable-vote/) which means that the strength of each party would match the strength of feeling of voters and they can choose which party candidates or independents (crossbenchers in the House of Lords) they want to vote for to represent their constituency/local area. The details of course need to be worked out but it certainly sounds more democratic than the system we have now. It would truly demonstrate a practical application of the “Take Back Control” spirit embued in many people across the UK.

The vote to Leave the EU was partly a vote to rile up the Political Establishment; a vote designed to force MPs to take the concerns of ordinary voters more seriously and to fashion a vision for the UK that will benefit the many, not the few. Thus far, ardent Brexiteers in Government and Brexiteers within other parties, as well as those MPs who favour a Remain and Reform approach, have failed to adequately outline a clear, progressive vision for life for UK residents in a post-Brexit scenario. Whilst I am now slightly more confident that there is a possibility of Corbyn choosing to recommend to Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) that the party backs a People's Vote as official policy and also more confident there could be a potential shift in PM May's position should no deal be agreed in principle by December, I am also conscious of the need to harness the amazing energy of grassroots campaigners to enact positive social change in local communities regardless of the eventual outcome politically. There are friends, neighbours and strangers who would appreciate support now, more than ever. Our country needs a positive, progressive and inclusive vision, which encourages our residents, wherever they have come from and whether they are a British citizen or not to adopt an internationalist, outward looking outlook. We need policies that unashamedly focus on improving the standard and quality of life. It's not about increasing handouts or disenfranchising Leave voters, it's about giving a helping hand to communities to encourage sustainable, real change. It has to be grassroots led. As the fabulous Natalie Bennett, Sheffield Central candidate and former leader of the Green Party said at the conference: “Politics is something you do, not (something) done to you”.

For me, that means continuing to speak out about levels of inequality prevalent in our society. It means helping to empower local people from different socio-economic backgrounds to speak about their own life experiences and work together to explore possible social action they can take to improve quality of life for themselves and others. I think we all need to use whatever platforms we can to promote and celebrate the diverse nature of our local communities, including celebrating contributions made by people from around the world. We should choose strength in hope together. Hope for a prosperous, healthier and happier future. Remaining in the EU can be one part of helping to shape that future but not the only policy decision that can make a difference.