Lincoln's Choice GE2017: Why I Will Be Voting For Karen Lee And Labour On Thursday 8th June

Sometimes making a final decision can be surprisingly easy. I was in Lincoln's Primark last Friday shopping with my Mum (she'd not been into town for nearly 2 years and was dead excited to check out the latest styles) and we came across this amazing pair of denim hotpants, which had embroidered detail, paint and slogans all over it. For me, it was love at first sight- I grabbed the Size 20 faster than the Jamaican relay team grasp their batons in an Olympic Final. My Mum took much longer to convince-"oh the fit isn't right.....they're high waisted.....I'm 59 I can't carry off a punk look". 5 minutes later and me and Mum both had a pair in the basket and had moved on to look at a Sex Pistols tee. Although it took a while for my Mum to make her final decision, she made the right decision in the end. Politics wise, that's how I really am feeling at the moment. For weeks I hesitated, I read the manifestos, watched the debates wondering who'd make the best Prime Minister for the UK. There was no danger of me voting for the Tories.....hell no, not after the way they've conducted the Brexit process so far. Who wants to vote for someone whose primary response is to fear our European neighbours, throwing a wobbler over whether Spain will annexe Gibraltar (totally false by the way) and not stand up to the nincompoop President that is Donnie Drumpf when he slandered the Mayor of London by stating that "nobody should be alarmed" when in fact Mr Sadiq Khan was asking London residents to not be alarmed at the increased police presence on the streets and ridiculously pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, an agreement that even Russia remains signed up to. Yet after all the hesitation and analysis, I feel that I have reached the right decision to vote Labour and I'm going discuss why in this blogpost.

Nationally:

At a national level, the main choices for PM seems lacklustre for those amongst us who consider themselves centrists and moderates. Theresa May has got very few leadership qualities of note and her questionable record as Home Secretary is being exposed for all to see. Jeremy Corbyn has been portrayed by the mainstream media as a Marxist, "terrorist apologist" when he can only really be accused of possibly being too much of an ideological dreamer, choosing to pursue expansion of trade union powers and mass renationalisation in what still strikes some as a attempt to bring back 1970's style socialism. Now I certainly have not been a super Corbynista (I have more affinity with the Harriet Harman/ Jess Phillips/ Yvette Cooper side of the Labour party) but I've read the Labour manifesto (evidenced by the number of blogposts I've recently done on manifesto comparisons) and I'd say that the majority of it doesn't strike me as being particularly radical. I may not yet buy into the virtues of mass renationalisation yet (especially with regards to utilities) but even I agree that there is a need to review Sustainability and Transformation Plans and reduce the amount of privatisation in our NHS by repealing the Health and Social Care Act. The NHS was designed to ensure that every person in the UK could receive free treatment at the point of use. As investment hasn't kept up with an increase in population, this aim has been increasingly difficult to achieve. We need more funding, we need more staff and we need to ensure that the NHS is accessible to all and I believe Labour's plans, including pumping in an extra £30bn of investment, scrapping the public sector cap and reinstating the Nurses Training Bursary will help to address issues of under resourcing and help recruit more UK nurses.

Yet the Labour manifesto isn't just strong on the NHS. Some policies that never get any attention on the national news have convinced me to consider voting Labour beyond tactical reasons. For example, Labour have pledged to bring in a Commissioner to ensure that the police, local authorities and organisations adhere to at least a minimum standard to tackle domestic violence and sexual violence. Funding will be made available through central government to help stabilise the budgets of women's refuges and rape crisis centres. Although I'd have liked to have seen a general commitment to helping all survivors of domestic abuse, violence and coercive control, regardless of their gender it is a promising start. This policy has not been discussed in the Sun, The Daily Telegraph or the Daily Mail but it's one that makes me believe that a Labour government will truly work towards improving the lives of the majority of people in this country and not the few. Plus Corbyn has done extremely well with his campaign, making the effort to meet voters of all ages and talking about the need to foster creativity amongst young people. He has a message of hope that is resonating widely amongst the electorate and we still do not truly know what the effect on the vote will be on June 8th.

Locally:

At a local level, my choice has even more difficult but for positive reasons. We've been fortunate in Lincoln to have had two talented, amazing, progressive women running in this election both of which deserve recognition:

• Caroline Kenyon, a successful businesswoman (running a food photography business) and who worked as a journalist and magazine editor and PR guru who has worked with homeless charities and food organisations has truly inspired me to think about what more I can do to help fellow residents in my ward. She's organising a Food Summit that aims to look at sustainably providing food for Lincoln residents who find themselves in difficult circumstances that will take place regardless of whether she wins the election or not. Equally Caroline is working with the University of Lincoln to help establish a Primary Schools programme designed to help lift the aspirations of working class children in Lincoln. I know that it's incredibly important to have access to positive role models who can encourage children to think about their future in an age-appropriate way. I was fortunate to have teachers who saw through my Dyspraxia and encouraged me to read widely which fostered a love of books, especially History books that has never left me. Without that early intervention I would not be writing the blogposts like the one I am writing today. And I want other children, especially those with disabilities, to benefit from positive reinforcement technique and having access to role models they can identify with in the educational sector. 
• Karen Lee has been involved in Lincoln politics ever since 1994, when she became a Labour party member. She was elected as a City Councillor for Carholme Ward in 2004 and has successfully defended her seat at every local election since then. Karen served as Mayor of Lincoln in 2012-13, the 12th woman out of 13 in 811 years. Karen is a nurse and has worked diligently and passionately for Lincoln County Hospital for many years. Karen wants to increase the number of affordable homes in Lincoln by securing additional funding to expand the planned housing programme as well as fully supporting Labour's plans to bring in safe staffing levels in NHS wards and reintroduce Nurses Training Bursaries. Karen is described by the City Council's Labour Leader Ric Metcalfe as a "tireless and passionate local campaigner", which is true given as she was part of the successful campaign to save Lincoln South Fire Station from being downgraded.

Having read the key campaign leaflets (http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/parliamentary-party-candidate-leaflet.html) and 

 listened to both the Bishop Grosseteste Hustings (http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/thoughts-from-listening-to-bishop.html) and the joint Lincolnite and BBC Radio Lincolnshire Debate I feel that our city and surrounding villages of Skellingthorpe, Bracebridge Heath and Waddington East need a real progressive vision in place to improve the lives of all residents who live within the Lincoln Constituency boundary. What does a progressive vision involve I hear you cry? Well, it starts with an understanding that cross party collaboration is key to helping solve key social issues that affect our communities. It's clear to me that Caroline Kenyon's Food Summit project that she has outlined effectively during her campaign is one that the City of Lincoln Council, Lincolnshire County Council, the District of North Kesteven Council as well as the Lincolnshire Association of Parish Councils should get involved in and I have suggested Caroline gets in touch with my local City Councillor, Rosie Kirk because I believe that she'd be happy to participate. Lincoln's MP, regardless of who gets elected on June 9th should commit to working closely with Caroline and certainly attend the Food Summit when it is held. If they really care about reducing poverty levels in Lincoln and ensure that our foodbanks are stocked with healthy food to help disadvantaged families, signalling an intention to attend would not be a difficult act and I get the sense that Karen would be happier than Karl McCartney, our current MP to collaborate on the Food Summit project. Karen has also signalled a desire to work with the Green candidate, Dr Ben Loryman to scrutinise the United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust's Sustainability and Transformation Plan (all STPs are to be halted and reviewed under a Labour manifesto commitment) and examine how best to recruit and retain high quality staff at Lincoln County Hospital. I'd also like to see close collaboration on animal welfare and LGBTQIA+ rights, two areas that have been rather noticeably neglected during Mr McCartney's tenure.

Another key aspect of a progressive vision is a firm commitment to stand up for all constituents, regardless of an MP's own personal views. Now I'm a Lutheran and I believe that my faith should never be used in a negative way to demean people who are members of other Christian denominations or followers of different faiths or who are atheists. Karen on the Lincoln Labour Party website (http://www.lincolnlabourparty.org.uk/karen-lee/) espouses a similar sort of approach to me which was pleasing to see: "I do hold my own views on religion, I was brought up a Catholic and feel that some spiritual belief is a priceless thing, but I think that it is essential to respect the right of individuals to practice their faith in their own way, whatever their religion might be." I get the sense that this means that Karen would be willing to solicit the opinion of Lincoln constituents before voting on an important moral or ethical issue, for example voluntary euthanasia. Unfortunately Mr McCartney used his personal Christian views to denigrate LGBTQIA+ people whilst acting in a professional capacity, stating in a letter to a constituent in 2012 that LGBT people "had exhausted the cause of equal rights" (http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/lincoln-mp-karl-mccartney-defiant-views-sex/story-15918962-detail/story.html) and he had the audacity to put same-sex marriage on the same level as "bigamy and child marriage". Even though same-sex marriage is now legal, there's no indication that Karl has changed his views towards LGBTQIA+ people. In fact, when asked questions on LGBTQIA+ rights during this 2017 Election cycle on Twitter, he has consistently ignored questioners which is extraordinary rude. LGBTQIA+ people in Lincoln are his constituents and most of them and their friends and family will have the ability to vote on Thursday; I have a sneaking suspicion that he won't garner many of them; serves him right! A progressive MP embraces change and accepts people's right to express themselves openly provided they adhere to the laws of the land. I'm all for "following the dictates of one's conscience" but when in public office, you have the thoughts and views of constituents to consider as well as your own and sometimes you have to put your personal views and opinions aside and vote in the best interests of your constituents. Karl just doesn't have a great record of doing that.

There's a number of policies in the Labour manifesto that could directly benefit Lincoln constituents in a progressive way. There's the obvious pledges of abolishing tuition fees and reintroducing the Educational Maintenance Allowance and university maintenance grants that will help students attending Lincoln College, my old sixth form at the Priory LSST Academy, the University of Lincoln and Bishop Grosseteste University but there are less well known policies too; the banning of unpaid internships that last more than a month, the protection of funding for libraries with money available to upgrade computer software that would benefit Lincoln Central Library and my local Birchwood Library amongst others. There's also a promise to look at accommodation standards for those in Armed Forces accommodation as well as extending the Forces Help-to-Buy scheme and insulating the homes of disabled veterans for free. Labour would ensure every school has access to a counselling service to help students deal with exam stress and anxiety and long term mental health conditions and that would help students who attend Lincoln schools.

Karen mentions specific Labour policies in her campaign poster leaflet, including:

• the proposed rise in Carer's Allowance that would directly  benefit 1,629 carers in Lincoln, giving them more than an extra £500 a year to spend on helping them and their dependent(s) with food, heating and clothing bills. 
• scrapping the bedroom tax which will help 749 people in Lincoln and insulating homes may help some of the 5,089 homes who are classed as being in fuel poverty. 
• protecting the Triple Lock because getting rid of it would affect 17,919 pensioners in Lincoln, one of which would probably be my Dad. 
• reversing cuts to Universal Credit and stopping other tax changes proposed by the Tories so that working families do not need to worry about losing £1,400 a year or have to prove that their third child was conceived as a result of rape through the despicable Child Benefit "rape clause". 

Strangely enough these issues are not mentioned in the Tory leaflet and they haven't been particularly addressed head-on by Karl. Instead, his leaflet focussed on transport infrastructure, apprenticeships and being a part of the "Keeping Sunday Special" campaign, which never really bothers my Mum, who's a care assistant working at least one weekend night a fortnight on her shift pattern and who has colleagues who are more worried about their residency status and wage growth under a future Conservative Government than about whether Sunday is kept special for managers and bankers. It's good that apprenticeships have increased by 6,960 since 2010 but how many of them have gone to those aged 25 and over? How many of them have been available in the creative industries? How many of those places have been filled by LGBTQIA+ Lincolnites? It seems to me that Karl is prepared to only talk about the successes and can't be bothered to put forward a truly coherent progressive plan for the future. What a shame.

An issue that I've heard discussed in the pub and around Lincoln generally is that of funding; funding schools, funding social care, funding recycling services, funding leisure centres and sports facilities, funding libraries and funding Lincoln County Hospital. What has been clear to me over the past few months is that Lincolnshire County Council needs more funding from local government. According to (shock horror) a UKIP leaflet that I received during the Lincs CC elections in May 2017, I found out that Lincs CC is the third lowest funded council in the country. £88 per head (the figure given in the UKIP leaflet is not enough to deliver the services we need as our population begins to age. Council Tax had to go up in Lincs (http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2017/01/council-tax-rise-proposed-as-lincolnshire-police-face-10m-funding-gap/) to help pay towards policing (1.97%) and the Police and Crime Commissioner's Office (we have a Conservative PCC here, Marc Jones) stated that we'd need to see an increase in funding from central government otherwise we'd have a gap in the budget of £10m between 2018 and 2020. This demonstrates to me that Labour are right to highlight that there is a need to increase policing budgets generally to help pay for equipment and the pledge to fund a police officer increase of 10,000 will probably mean that Lincs will see an increase in frontline staff which would be welcome! Yet another reason to consider voting Labour. The total Council Tax rise for those in Lincoln has also included a 1.91% rise in Council Tax precept for the City of Lincoln Council and 3.95% for the Lincs CC precept, estimated to be an extra £53 a year (http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2017/03/council-tax-rise-approved-for-lincoln-residents/). Let's hope the increase may go towards turning the streetlights back on our street or providing decent social care for disabled young adults (that's what a Labour controlled CC would have done).  In his time as Lincoln's MP, Karl has been very quick to ask for money to help complete transport infrastructure projects but has been unable to secure more funding for local government services such as for our police force. Instead Karl blames the lack of influence on being a backbencher and because we rejected a devolution deal Lincoln has harmed its chances of receiving more government investment. In his The Linc interview, Karl said:"it (the devolution deal) will not be quickly forgotten in Westminster and I think we'll be forced to the bottom of the pile for it in the future" (http://thelinc.co.uk/2017/06/the-lincoln-candidates-karl-mccartney/). Such a statement comes from a man who says in his leaflet that  Lincoln is "the most loved City and jewel in the crown of the East Midlands". Does Karl think I and other voters and constituents were born yesterday? How are we going to improve local services with an MP with such a defeatist attitude? I want to see an MP who will fight for us and not moan about being a backbencher.

Equally in The Linc interview I can still see that Karl remains as gender stereotypical as ever: "give a boy a solder and iron and he can do anything"...what about if that boy wants a thread and needle? Doesn't look like Karl believes that creative subjects are good enough for men does he? Epic facepalm moment once again for an MP who says that he cares about education but is far too quick to play into gender stereotypes and offers few concrete policies to help disadvantaged boys. I mean he talks about establishing a vocational scheme but would that be in addition to Conservative plans or a part of them? There are schemes out there which can help young boys foster a love of reading and writing; perhaps Karl if he's returned as our MP (somehow) could look into getting more Lincoln fathers to read to their sons like my Dad did with me and my brother. Has has he spoken to The Fatherhood Institute directly about their Fathers Reading Every Day Scheme? I'd like to see Karl promote awareness of it  (see more here: http://www.fatherhoodinstitute.org/training-and-consultancy/fathers-reading-day-training/). 

I also have something to say about the derogatory comment about parenting Karl has made in the interview because it's an important issue for me. As a dyspraxic person, it took me years to learn how to carry out daily tasks like tying a shoelace or holding a knife and fork. My parents certainly were not guilty of not teaching me how to do it. Sometimes it is the case that school students with learning disabilities need tailored support to help improve their hand-eye coordination skills to the point where they can use a knife and fork properly, hold a pen properly or even tie their shoelaces. I'd even go as far as to suggest that teaching nursery and reception pupils how to hold a knife and fork properly is an inclusive activity and helps students bond with one another. Dentists have also highlighted the fact that teaching pupils how to brush their teeth properly can help to reduce tooth loss and if less children face the prospect of having to wait till their adult teeth to come through to feel confident enough to smile because they've learned how to brush their teeth properly then I'm all for it. Those might seem like "parental issues" to Karl but teachers also care about the welfare of their pupils and they wouldn't have entered the profession if they didn't.  Karl's comments about free school meals in general indicate that he'd like to see them reduced to a bare minimum or even scrapped in the future because he asks the question:"is it the role of the state to feed young people?" Well I'd rather see primary school children have a guaranteed meal whilst at school rather than risk the chance of them not being fed at all whilst at school because their parents cannot afford to provide them with a meal (Karl may say that meals will be there for those that need it but he doesn't seem happy about it) and that's what Labour have pledged to do. Perhaps I'm more of a socialist than I thought and that might not be a bad thing! 

I mean Karl's voting record is embarrassing (voting for the bedroom tax and against same-sex marriage included) but I'd argue that his lack of policy proposals that specialise on helping Lincoln constituents is extremely disappointing and has to be pointed out. Karl's been in office since 2010 and yet he has had very little to say on the Environment, disability rights, renewable energy schemes, Sex and Relationships Education that is LGBTQIA+ inclusive or reducing instances of domestic violence, domestic abuse and coercive control in Lincoln. These are the issues that matter to me as a constituent and will get me to the polling station on Thursday. Yet Karl admits in his The Linc interview that the Conservative manifesto promises (which I've read) wouldn't appeal to a young voter because it's not their "core demographic". Well I'm 28 so I don't think I can be considered particularly young anymore but I believe that once a candidate admits that their manifesto cannot appeal to a particular demographic, they're asking voters in that demographic to vote en masse against them. What a shame that would be! ;) ;)

Whatever happens at a national level when the results are announced on the morning of Friday it is absolutely clear to me that Lincoln deserves a progressive, positive, polite and engaging MP in office; one that will stand up for all constituents regardless of their age, class, disability, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, religious or political belief and one who isn't afraid to work cross-party on issues that matter to constituents. I'm putting my trust in a candidate who can do this and so much more who has a proven track record in campaigning and local politics and really cares about our city. I'm voting for someone who isn't afraid to defend Remain voters and understands the importance of preserving EU export jobs in Lincoln. I'm voting for someone who knows their manifesto inside out and will try and ensure Lincoln benefits from as many of manifesto policy pledges as possible. That person is Karen Lee and I will vote for her unashamedly on Thursday. 

My Voice, My Vote. Framework for Contemplation Completion

In less than two days, the UK electorate can finally stroll to the polls and cast their vote for the party candidate they want to see represent their constituency going forward from June 9th. It's been quite an intense campaign, marred by the terror attacks in Manchester and recently in London. Jeremy Corbyn seems to have mounted quite an extraordinary offensive, having turned round a huge deficit in the polls to the point now where the Survation poll has Labour 1 point behind the Conservatives and the YouGov poll having Labour 3 points behind albeit on the predication of a large turnout of 18-24 year olds. When the election campaign started I came up with my "Framework for Contemplation" which was designed to help me make my decision as to who to vote for in the Election. I'd already decided I couldn't vote Conservative because of their handling of Brexit but I was having trouble deciding whether to back the Lib Dems or Labour. Here's my completed framework based on research I've carried out (I'll explain my overall decision in an accompanying blogpost):

The Arts: 

1. Will you match funding currently coming from the EU (including EU Social Fund) for community arts projects? I still don't know whether funding levels would kept exactly as they are but there are commitments to creating Arts Funds which may be used to help fund community arts projects.
2. Will you commit to re-staffing our public libraries and ensuring every library has free computer access for 0-18 year olds? Labour are committed to protecting libraries and upgrading computer services as well as providing Wi-fi access (which I am guessing would be free) whereas the other parties do not mention library services directly in their manifestos.
3. Will you increase funding to Arts Council England and the Arts and Humanities Research Council? Labour would directly increase funding to the Arts Council but no idea as of yet whether funding would be made available to the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Lib Dems and Conservative funding doesn't seem directed towards the Councils.
4. Will you introduce an Arts premium for primary school children in England? Labour would introduce a £160m Arts Premium; the Lib Dems would not. 
5. Will you recognise the importance of Dance and Art to the secondary school curriculum and ensure that arts materials are available to every state-maintained school in England? Labour wants to reform the EBacc performance measure to potentially include Arts subjects as an option and the Lib Dems want to protect access to Arts and creative subjects on the current National Curriculum. 

Choice: Labour.

Health and Social Care:

1. Will you repeal the disastrous Health and Social Care Act 2012? Labour have promised directly in their manifesto to repeal. 
2. Will you pledge to stop signing Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) and find a way to free the NHS from them (e.g. through a National Investment Bank scheme)? Labour do hint at the prospect of reducing privatisation in the NHS and that means they wouldn't enter into any new PFI contracts. Not sure whether the PFI contracts could be ended. 
3. Will the Nurses Training Bursary be reinstalled and the £120 registration fee scrapped for new trainee nurses? Both Labour and the Lib Dems have pledged to reinstate the Nurses Training Bursary but no mention of the registration fee in the manifestos.
4. Will you conduct a national review into mental health services in England, including looking at expanding funding streams to allow for the recruitment of more permanent psychiatric nurses, psychiatrists and psychologists? The Lib Dems would look at reducing waiting times for children and young people so that they don't have to wait more than 6 weeks to treatment for depression or more than 2 weeks for treatment after their first episode of psychosis. The Lib Dems are also looking into introducing a dedicated service for children and young people based on the Australian "headspace model" and end the routine detention of people in police cells. They would ringfence some money from their 1p in the £1 Income Tax increase for the MH budget. Labour would ensure that children no longer need to be treated on adult wards and ensure that every pupil has access to a counselling service. The £30bn NHS spending commitment would include money to recruit more MH professionals and Labour would ringfence the MH budget so it will not be reduced in the course of the next Parliament. 
5. Will you consider launching a national campaign to fight the stigma of loneliness? Labour talk explicitly about tackling loneliness in their manifesto, stating that they would work with businesses, community groups and civil society to help reduce loneliness. 
6. Will public health budgets be protected from further budgetary cuts? The Lib Dems would keep public health within the local government remit but reinstate the funding that was cut by the Conservative Government. Labour would create a £250m Children's Health Fund to improve the health of children and young people in the UK which will include increasing the number of health visitors and school nurses in schools.
7. Will the pay cap on all NHS staff be lifted? Both Labour and the Lib Dems have pledged to do this. 
8. Will the Social Care budget funding be increased beyond the £2bn announced by the Conservatives in the Spring Budget 2017? The Lib Dems believe that the ringfenced revenue gained from implementing that Income Tax rise would be £6bn and part of that would be spent on Social Care; this would allow them to implement a cap on the cost of social care for those who have to pay. Labour will increase the social care budget by £8bn over the next parliamentary term with an additional £1bn provided in the first year. They also admit that an additional £3bn a year every year for the first few years will be needed to create their National Care Service which would be enough to bring in a cap on the cost of care and raise the asset test threshold so that more people can have access to free social care as well as providing free end of life care. Labour would consult with other parties as to how this £3bn extra a year can be raised including the possibility of bringing in a social care levy. 

Choice: Labour.

Young People & Education:

1. Will you commit to lowering the voting age to 16? Both Labour and the Lib Dems would reduce the voting age to 16. 
2. Will you at least protect per pupil funding for state maintained schools in England? Labour have stated that they will reverse the £3bn cuts planned for state schools in England, scrap plans to spend £320m on 120 new free schools and to expand grammar school places and have pledged to reverse the Apprenticeship Levy for schools which would save them £150m a year. £160m a year will be spent on an Arts Pupil Premium in primary schools in England. A fairer funding formula would be brought in but no school would be left worse off as a result of the changes. The Lib Dems pledge to spend £7bn on schools, protecting per pupil funding in real terms by reversing cuts, introducing a fairer National Funding System (along the lines of Labour) and protecting the pupil premium. 
3. Will you introduce LGBTQIA+ age-appropriate Sex and Relationships Education into all schools regardless of faith? Labour has pledged to introduce guidance to make SRE LGBT+ inclusive but haven't pledged to make SRE mandatory in all schools in England (only state maintained ones). The Lib Dems state that SRE will include lessons on LGBT+ issues which seems to me as if that would mean mandatory lessons needing to be planned to be delivered in the first year of SRE rather than relying on guidance alone. 
4. Will you consider introducing Mental Health awareness training, First Aid training and basic accountancy skills into the National Curriculum? The Lib Dems would introduce all of these subjects into the NC but Labour has only pledged to give schools access to counselling services which would cost £90m a year. 
5. Will you conduct a review into the feasibility of charitable status for independent schools? Both manifestos do not mention this but Labour is increasing VAT on independent school fees to fund universal Free School Meals for every primary school pupil in England. 
6. Will you reinstate the Education Maintenance Allowance for 16-19 year olds? Both parties have pledged to reinstate the EMA for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. 
7. Will you consider reducing the Tuition Fee cap from £9,000 back to £3,000? The Lib Dems would reinstate university maintenance grants and look at the sustainability of tuition fees in the long-term. Labour would abolish all tuition fees for all students starting courses from Autumn 2017 and reinstate university maintenance grants for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. 
8. Will the 3,000 places offered for PhDs and fellowships in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) be available to all students, regardless of nationality? There's no mention of the Lib Dems or Labour offering 3,000 PhDs in STEM but both have recognised the need to allow EU nationals to study in the UK and that means that there would still be access to PhDs and fellowships in STEM for the most talented graduates. 

Choice: Lean Lib Dem (because of scepticism over affordability and sustainability of providing free university and FE tuition). 

Employment and The Welfare System:

1. Will you increase the National Living Wage to £10 an hour and/or establish NLW parity between 18-24 year olds and those over 25? Labour would raise the NLW to £10 an hour by 2020 for all workers aged 18 or over. The Lib Dems commit to establishing an independent review on how to get a NLW in place for all sectors but would pay the NLW in all central government departments and agencies, encouraging other public sector employers to do the same. 
2. Will you increase the Apprenticeship Wage? Neither party talks about increasing the Apprenticeship Wage per se but it might be the case that apprentices would get an increase in wages under a Labour Government. 
3. Will you scrap the 1% pay cap on public sector workers and increase their pay by 4% in October 2017? Labour and the Lib Dems both pledge to scrap the cap. 
4. Will you ban exploitative unpaid internships that last over 4 weeks? Labour have promised to ban unpaid internships whereas the Lib Dems want to see unpaid internships avoided wherever possible.
5. Will you ban exploitative zero-hours contracts? Labour have promised to ban zero-hours contracts outright whereas the Lib Dems would "stamp out the abuse of zero-hours contracts" and look into giving employees on zero-hours contracts the right to formally request a fixed contract, with a possible right to make regular shift patterns contractual after an extended period of time. 
6. Will you increase penalties for businesses who refuse to pay the NLW, who refuse to treat their workers with dignity and respect by falling foul of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 or who try to avoid paying the correct amount of tax? The Lib Dems want to encourage best practice in business by introducing a "good employer" kitemark that would include highlighting businesses who pay a living wage or avoid unpaid internships. There's also plans for the independent review into the NLW as mentioned above and larger employers would need to publish data about the number of people being paid below a "genuine" LW in their businesses. The Lib Dems would also mandate large firms to publish data on LGBT+ and BAME employee pay gaps. Labour would encourage trade unions to access workplaces to improve working conditions for employees and enforce all Health and Safety regulations currently in UK Law. Labour would also bring in a civil enforcement system to ensure that there is compliance with gender pay reporting requirements and equalities reps would be given statutory rights so they can spend more time protecting workers from discrimination. 
7. Will you scrap employment tribunal fees and re-introduce "dual discrimination" claims? Labour have pledged to abolish all employment tribunal fees and re-introduce "dual discrimination" claims. The Lib Dems pledge to scrap the fees. 
8. Will there be pay ratios in place for private firms who want to secure Government contracts?   Will they be encouraged to take a minimum of 3 Apprentices on who are British BAME, LGBTQIA+ or disabled to help increase their chances of finding long-term employment?Maximum pay ratios of 20:1 would be rolled out in the public sector and with government contractors under a Labour Government. Labour did float the idea of mandating companies to take on a minimum amount of apprentices but this isn't in the official manifesto. The Lib Dems talk about looking at ratios between top and median pay for information purposes but no mandatory pay ratios would be introduced. 
9. Will you make changes to the late payment system, including making sure all government contractors pay their suppliers within 30 days? Labour have pledged directly to change the late payment system for government contractors in the private sector. 
10. Will you commit to safeguarding EU-derived employment legislation, including the Working Time Directive 1998 and Agency Worker Regulations 2011? Both parties are committed to safeguarding EU Directives in their entirety. 
11. Will you maintain the Capital Requirements Directive 2013, which capped the bonuses of some bankers (the bonus can't be more than the yearly salary but can be extended to twice the yearly salary with shareholder approval). There's no mention of the EU Directive in the manifestos which suggests that the Directive would be maintained post-Brexit.
12. Will you pledge to fully fund nursery places of 30 hours for parents of 3 and 4 year olds in England? If not, will the policy still apply to those working parents earning over £45,000? Labour has pledged that they will fully fund nursery places of 30 hours for 3 and 4 year olds and phase in subsidised provision beyond the entitlement to help those who work longer hours. Labour also wants to extend the 30 hour entitlement to 2 year olds and then make some childcare time available to 1 year olds, with maternity leave extended to 12 months. The Lib Dems would provide 15 hours of free childcare to 2 year olds in England with a view to prioritise 15 hours free childcare for working parents in England with children between 9 months and 2 years. Long term they want to provide 30 hours of free childcare for all parents in England with children between 2 and 4 years old and ensure provision is fully funded and available to parents who work unsociable hours. 
13. Will you scrap the benefit freeze for out-of-work and in-work benefits including income based Job Seekers Allowance? Labour have no plans in the manifesto to lift the free on JSA but pledge to increase the Employment and Support Allowance for people in the work-related activity group by £30 a week. They have pledged to redesign Universal Credit, including ending the six week waiting time and getting rid of the horrific rape clause so that claimants do not have to prove any of their children were conceived through rape- every child would receive money.  The Lib Dems would reverse cuts to Work Allowances and reverse cuts to the Family Element of UC. They would "uprate working-age benefits at least in line with inflation", abolish the rape clause and increase JSA and UC for 18-24 year olds so they are at the same rate as the minimum wages for the age group. ESA cuts would be reversed for those in the work-related activity group. 
14. Will you reinstall Housing Benefit for 18-21 year olds? Both parties would reinstate HB for 18-21 year olds. 
15. Will you review the benefit Sanction system to make sure that it is fair? Labour would scrap the system and change how Jobcentre staff are performance-managed so they can spend more time helping their clients to find work. 
16. Will you reverse the Personal Independence Payment cuts and scrap the bedroom tax? Labour would scrap the bedroom tax and repeal cuts in the Universal Credit limited capacity for work element as well as scrapping the Work Capability and PIP assessments to replace them with a "holistic, personalised assessment process" with every claimant being given a "tailored plan" which will allow them to build on their strengths and address barriers. Labour would also ensure that people with mental health conditions could claim PIP. The Lib Dems would scrap the bedroom tax and the Work Capability assessment with a new system run by local authorities with a "real world test" based on local labour market conditions built into the assessment. 

Choice: Labour.

Law and Order:

1. Will you commit to increasing funding for rural policing areas such as Lincolnshire to recruit more frontline police officers and police community support officers? Labour has a general promise to recruit 10,000 more police officers but there's no to increasing PCSO numbers but there is a promise to provide police officers, PCSOs and civilian staff with the equipment they need to be effective, including to fight cybercrime. The Lib Dems would increase funding for community policing in England and Wales by £300m in an effort to tackle violent crime. 
2. Will you commit to creating a national campaign to raise awareness of hate crime, including homophobic and transphobic hate crime?  Labour would make LGBT hate crimes an aggravated offence and would address the rise in Anti-Semitic hate crime by ensuring there are resources in place to tackle it. The Lib Dems would campaign nationally to reduce levels of intolerance to reduce instances of hate crime and speak out against Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia by working with a range of organisations including the Anne Frank Trust UK and Kick It Out. 
3. Will you review the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to ensure that collaboration between services does not lead to a reduction in effectiveness? There are no plans in either the Labour or Lib Dem manifesto to review the Policing and Crime Act. 
4. Will you provide direct funding to help keep domestic abuse and violent shelters open in England and scrap the Housing Benefit cap on them? Labour would establish a National Refuge Fund to provide stable funding for "rape crisis centres" but unsure as to whether that only extends to those charities that help female survivors of domestic violence and abuse only or whether funding will be available to all shelters. The Lib Dems won't fund shelters directly but have promised funding for a national rape helpline which will have "increased opening hours and advertisement".

Choice: Labour.

Environment and Housing:

1. Will you commit to safeguarding existing EU environmental protection policies, including the Birds Directive, Habitats Directive and Air Quality Framework Directive? Both parties are committed to safeguarding existing EU environmental protections and Labour claims that quality standards can actually be extended- e.g. protecting native bee species by banning neonicotinoids "as soon as our EU relationship allows us to do so".  The Lib Dems would suspend the use of neonicotinoids until they no longer harm bees. The Lib Dems would also pass a Nature Act so that the Nature Capital Committee can set legally binding targets to help improve biodiversity and air quality even as Brexit negotiations continue. 
2. Will you end the Badger Cull? Labour would end the Badger Cull outright whereas the Lib Dems would look at safe and humane ways of controlling bovine TB (investing in vaccine research) so that badgers do not need to be unnecessarily culled. 
3. Will you commit to keeping the ban on Fox-Hunting? Both Labour and the Lib Dems are committed to keeping the ban. 
4. Will you commit to honouring the Paris Agreement on Climate Change? The Lib Dems and Labour both commit to honouring the Paris Agreement and both state that it's important that the UK is a global leader in tackling climate change. 
5. Will you fund new clean renewable energy projects in Lincolnshire? It's unclear as to whether there would be any specific funding for projects in Lincolnshire but Labour says they are committed to renewable energy projects and the Lib Dems would invest heavily in future research and development. Both parties want to see 60% of electricity in the UK being generated by renewable energy sources by 2030. 
6. Will you commit to banning fracking? Both the Lib Dems and Labour are 100% committed to banning fracking and shale-gas exploration in the UK.
7. Will you commit to reviewing the Common Fisheries Policy to ensure that catch allowances can be co-ordinated effectively with our EU and non-EU neighbours? The Lib Dems openly commit to a review of the CFP, acknowledging that it has failed to help fisheries in the UK. They'd make sure fishing rights weren't traded away and encourage everyone to work together to create a sustainable plan for UK fishing. Labour have promised to "reconfigure funds" to support local small fishing fleets and allow EU nationals employed in the fishing industry to remain in the UK and create a Science Innovation Fund to help small fishing fleets adapt to modern trading conditions. 
8. Will you provide more funding for coastal communities to help promote local tourism inside and outside the UK? There's no specific policies to help promote coastal tourism especially but Labour have promised to reinstate the cross-Whitehall ministerial group on tourism which will help come up with policies. 
9. Will you commit to building social housing in England? Labour says they will build 100,000 council and housing association homes a year and ensure they are genuinely affordable to rent. The Lib Dems state they will build 300,000 houses a year, including 500,000 affordable highly energy efficient ones by the end of the Parliamentary term. Local Plans would be drawn up by local authorities to help them plan council housing and the borrowing cap would be lifted. The capacity of Housing Associations to borrow would be increased too. 
10. Will you commit to getting more empty homes in inner city areas back into social housing use, through Compulsory Purchase Orders? This isn't specifically mentioned in the manifestos but both parties in the past have expressed a desire to allow local authorities to issue more CPOs to free up housing stock. 
11. Will you commit to enforcing minimum private tenancy agreements of 5 years? Labour would make 3 year tenancies in the private sector the norm and would look at giving renters in London "additional security" by working with Sadiq Khan (the Mayor) to come up with viable measures. The Lib Dems are looking into providing government backed tenancy deposits for those under 30 to help them find their first home and would promote tenancies of 3 or more years.
12. Will you consider looking at private rent caps in areas of high demand? Labour have pledged to bring in an inflation cap on rent rises. The Lib Dems want to ensure that tenancies have an inflation-linked annual rent rise built into a contract so that tenants have peace of mind and don't have to worry about rent hikes during their tenancy. 

Choice: Lean Lib Dem but a Labour Government would be strong on animal welfare and social housing. 

LGBTQIA+ Issues:  

1. Will you protect the Human Rights Act 1998 from being eroded post-Brexit, including the right to freedom of expression? Both Labour and the Lib Dems are committed to protecting the HRA in its entirety. 
2. Will you commit to a reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (to remove the Spousal Veto, remove the requirement to have a medical diagnosis, remove the requirement for Gender Reporting Panel validation and allow non-binary and intersex people to use X gender markers on legal documentation?) Labour are committed to reforming the GRA but haven't explicitly stated whether there would be changes to legal documentation. The Lib Dems have explicitly stated that they will introduce an X Marker option on passports, "streamline and simplify the GRA" and remove the Spousal Veto. 
3. Will you commit to a reform of the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that people of all different gender identities and intersex people are specifically protected from discrimination? Labour would amend the EA to change the protected characteristic from "gender reassignment surgery" to "gender identity" and would also remove outdated terminology such as "transsexual" from the EA. The Lib Dems would do the same. There's no mention of intersex people in the manifestos. 
4. Will you commit to reviewing the situation of trans healthcare in England, including preventing transphobic abuse, educating GPs about trans issues and increasing the number of Gender Identity Clinics and specialist staff? Neither party makes a commitment to review trans healthcare in England other than Labour mentioning that cuts to mental health services can harm LGBT people and that those cuts would be reversed under a Labour Government.
5. Will you commit to funding PrEP and the HPV vaccine for high risk groups, including men who have sex with men in England? Labour wants to see the PrEP trial concluded ASAP so that it can be provided on the NHS in England to all those who are deemed as having a high risk of contracting HIV. Labour would also improve sexual-health services and tackle the stigma surrounding HIV by promoting the increased availability of HIV testing. The Lib Dems would make PrEP immediately available on the NHS. There's no mention of the HPV vaccine in either manifesto. 
6. Will you commit to entirely ending the Blood Ban on men who have sex with men? The Lib Dems would ask the Advisory Board on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs to review rules around blood donation "periodically". 

Choice: Both Labour and Lib Dems have good policies.

Other: 

1. Will you pledge to protect Lincolnshire farmers' subsidies beyond 2020? Labour argue that the Tories have no sustainable vision for the future of farming after Brexit. They would be ambitious, reconfiguring funds to support local small farmers and those who engage in sustainable practices with farmers being given access to a science and innovation fund to help develop those practices. Labour wants to reinstate the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme and guarantee EU nationals already working in agriculture the right to remain in the UK. The Agricultural Wages Board would also be reintroduced designed to ensure pay standards are maintained in the sector.  Labour would also expand the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator so that both producers and consumers get a fair deal. The Lib Dems would continue campaigning to reform farmers' subsidies, removing direct subsidies and funding the public goods that come from effective land management such as flood prevention. Local small farmers would be better protected. There would also be a campaign to encourage young people into farming by promoting different types of farm ownership and increase the power of the Groceries Code Adjudicator so that farmers receive the best price for their goods. 
2. Will you increase local government funding for the people of Lincolnshire (currently third lowest in the country at £88)? Labour state that they will provide investment in housing, transport and broadband in rural areas and recognise that rural councils provide services differently so will consider this when redesigning business rate schemes. 
3. Will you commit to safeguarding existing EU consumer protection including the Payment Surcharges Regulations 2012 and Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013? Both parties would maintain Consumer protections derived from the EU. 
4. Will you ensure that money raised from the Tampon Tax does not go towards funding Pro-Life charities? The Lib Dems talk about ending period poverty by ensuring free tampons are provided in every secondary school in England. Labour do not mention period poverty particularly in the manifesto but Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, Sarah Champion and Jess Phillips have talked about the need for any proceeds from the tampon tax to go towards funding women's charities and not anti-abortion ones. Both parties are committed to defending a woman's right to have an abortion. 
5. Will you commit to reviewing immigration policy to ensure that it is fair to non-EU and EU migrants? Labour states that their immigration policy will be fair and "not discriminate between people of different races or creeds." Labour would draft the policy whilst negotiating with the EU and consulting with the Commonwealth and other Non-EU partners. Businesses, trade unions and devolved governments would help to identify skill shortages and controls may be brought in, including employer sponsorship, work permits, visa regulations or a mix. The Lib Dems support the freedom of movement principle and believe any immigration restrictions following Brexit must take into account "the vital importance of EU workers to our economy." The Lib Dems believe strict border control is important and we should allow high-skilled immigration. 
6. Will you review UK Asylum policy so that waiting times for application processing are reduced, LGBTQIA+ people aren't forced back to a country where they cannot be openly themselves and detention facilities are fit-for-purpose with gender-neutral facilities in place for non-binary asylum seekers? The Lib Dems have pledged to end indefinite detentions by introducing a 28-day limit. They want to speed up application processing and offer guaranteed asylum to those who are fleeing persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification when they could be imprisoned, tortured or murdered in their home country. Deportation of LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers would be halted. Labour talks about honouring international law and moral obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers but there are no specific policies in place to speed up processing times or protect LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers within the manifesto. 
7. Will you protect the Foreign Aid budget? Both the Lib Dems and Labour would protect the Foreign Aid budget. 
8. Will you commit to scrutinising the terms of the EU deal and not be afraid to ask for it to be amended? The Lib Dems argue for a 2nd EU Referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal gained from the EU whereas Labour have guaranteed Parliament a free vote (aka a meaningful vote) on the terms of the final Brexit deal and reject "no deal" as a viable option with transitional arrangements negotiated to prevent the UK economy "falling off a cliff edge". 
9. Will you pledge to look at House of Lords reform, to get rid of Bishops and Hereditary peers and use the freed up spaces to increase the number of Crossbench MPs in the House? The Lib Dems would reform the House of Lords so that it has a "proper democratic mandate", Labour argues too that the House of Lords should be a democratically elected chamber but would end the hereditary principle and reduce the size of the House of Lords in the meantime.

Exploring the GE2017 Manifestos: The Arts, Media and Sport

As a satirist and an Arts graduate, I care deeply about improving access to Arts subjects in schools and preserving our cultural heritage for future generations. I also care about improving pay and conditions for creatives who are employed in a precarious "gig economy" where they do not often receive the support from the Government needed to help grow their businesses to give them enough money to be able to live a comfortable life. Accountability in the media is becoming an increasingly important issue, with voters beginning to notice political bias in our mainstream media outlets that is extremely unhealthy for our democracy. I don't want to censor free speech per se (but free speech always has consequences) but for millions of people living in the UK, they genuinely feel that they see little representation of their views in the newspaper and on news programmes. Sports fans also feel their access to their clubs is reducing, with ticketing prices rising on an annual basis and some of them feeling "ripped off" when they obtain a ticket through a third-party. So with all this in mind, I decided to explore the manifestos of the three mainstream parties in the UK (Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives) and benchmark them against the framework that I constructed a few weeks ago (you can view the framework here: http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/uk-general-election-fever-2017.html).


Labour:

• £160m Arts Pupil Premium to invest in projects that support cultural activities -e.g. putting on plays, musical instruments etc. 
• Labour would review the EBacc performance measure, possibly leading to the addition of a performing arts option alongside the modern foreign language option.
• Labour would put in place a creative careers advice campaign in schools so that students are aware of the different kinds of job opportunities that are available in the UK's creative industries and the skills required to enter those industries (including costume design, make-up, theatre production and game design). 
• A £1bn culture capital fund would be established that will fund much needed upgrades to existing cultural and creative infrastructure "to make them ready for the new digital age". The investment would be provided regionally and be administered by the Arts Council, with the fund being made available over the next 5 years.
• Labour are committed to ensuring that creatives are paid fairly for the goods and services they provide so that working class people can consider a career in creative industries. To achieve this, Labour would work with trade unions and employers to "agree sector-specific advice and guidelines on pay and employment standards".
• Labour would maintain free entry to museums and a cultural capital fund would focus on projects to help increase income for museums and galleries so they do not need to resort to charging entry fees to pay for running and maintenance costs.
• Labour would also "reduce the value gap" between those who produce creative content and digital services who may profit from use of that content so that digital artists are rewarded fairly for their work. 
• Labour is committed to "increasing diversity on and off-screen", with the Secretary for Culture, Media and Sport working with the film industry and public service and commercial television and radio broadcasters to improve representation (I hope it includes improving non-binary and trans representation on screen).
• Labour would continue with events to mark the centenary of the First World War, honouring the memory of all soldiers who served in the conflict, including Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and Jews.
• Labour would give local communities more powers to protect their local amenities, including sports clubs and pubs. Labour would also stop the local authority funding cuts in the budget to "support the provision of libraries, museums and galleries".
• Labour would "widen the reach of the Government Art collection" so that more people in the UK get to appreciate and enjoy seeing it. 
• Labour would protect libraries from closure so they are "preserved for future generations" and ensure libraries have wi-fi and up-to-date computers. Library standards would also be reintroduced so that councils receive the advice and guidance from government on how to deliver the "best possible service" to local residents. 
• Labour would set up a review of local pubs to "examine the causes for their large-scale decline" (such as whether the smoking ban has significantly reduced footfall) and would set up a taskforce to look into providing advice to keep local pubs sustainable in the future.
• Labour would also support small music venues, with a review into extending the £1000 pub relief business rates scheme to small music venues and the introduction of a "agent of change" principle in planning law that ensures that any new housing developments can co-exist with existing music venues (i.e. they accept that they are building houses near a music venue and that homeowners would need to understand the level of noise may be higher between 7pm and 3am). 
• Labour would reduce the amount that can be bet on a Fixed Odds Betting Terminal to £2 and "legislate to increase the delay between spins to reduce the addictive nature of the games".
• Labour would keep the BBC in public hands and uphold its independence. 
• Channel 4 would be kept in public hands under a Labour Government.
• The Welsh Language broadcaster S4C would be fully funded.
• Labour would implement the recommendations from part one of the Leveson Inquiry and also "commence part two which will look into corporate governance failures that allowed the phone hacking scandal to occur" in the first place.
• A national review into local media and mainstream media would be held under a Labour Government.
• Ofcom would be given strengthened powers to "better safeguard a healthy plurality of media ownership" and have clearer rules in place on ownership credentials needed before you can own a TV station or radio station.
• Sports club supporters would be given a greater say in how their clubs are run with legislation put forward to create accredited supporters trusts who "are able to appoint and remove at least two club directors and purchase shares when the club changes hands".
• Sports clubs would be asked to "make rapid improvements" to make venues accessible to fans who have physical disabilities.
• Labour would ensure the Premier League does invest 5% of its television rights revenue into grassroots clubs and projects to help support the growth of future coaching and player talent and to help improve grassroots facilities. 
• Labour would "enforce anti-bot legislation" and "implement the recommendations of the Waterson Review" so that fans do have a fair chance of securing tickets to see their sporting heroes. Recommendations include making sure sellers on secondary ticketing platforms fully observe the rules set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (providing necessary information such as the face value of the ticket) and ensuring that traders can be contacted by secondary platform operators providing contact details directly to consumers (see more here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/independent-secondary-ticketing-review-published-today). 

Lib Dems:

• The Lib Dems are committed to reducing the "proliferation of betting shops" and capping the maximum amount that can be bet on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals to £2 (same as Labour).
• The Lib Dems want to ensure that students can still choose to take Arts and creative subjects in the National Curriculum and "remove barriers to pupils studying those subjects" (although no information is given as to what the barriers may be and how they may remove them). 
• The Lib Dems would support growth in creative industries by continuing to support the Creative Industries Council,  provide tailored industry-specific tax support and provide solutions to address barriers that Creative SMEs face in accessing finance to expand their businesses,. Creative skills would also be promoted.
• The Lib Dems want to see more modern, flexible forms of patent, copyright and licencing rules.
• The Lib Dems would maintain free access to museums and galleries.
• The Lib Dems would encourage football clubs to introduce "Safe Standing" across the board, with the Sports Ground Safety Authority preparing guidance on how best to introduce the policy.
• The Lib Dems would protect the independence of the BBC as well as setting up a "BBC Licence Fee Commission".
• The Lib Dems would keep Channel 4 in public hands.
• The Lib Dems would maintain funding levels for Welsh language broadcasters and respect their editorial independence.
• All sports and arts funding provided by the National Lottery would be protected.
• Current Intellectual Property standards would be protected, working with the EU to continue territorial licensing of rights. 
• The Lib Dems would create "creative enterprise zones" to help regenerate cultural output across the UK.
• The Lib Dems would "examine the available funding and planning rules for live music venues and the grassroots music sector" with a view to protecting venues from any further closures.
• The Lib Dems would commence part two of the Leveson Inquiry "as soon as is practicable". 
• The Lib Dems would order Ofcom to conduct an investigation into UK mainstream media plurality and review the "fit and proper persons test" (like Labour) and see whether "the communications regulator and the Competition and Markets Authority really have the appropriate powers in place to deal with over-concentration of power in the digital economy." 

Conservatives:

• The Conservatives say they want to protect people who are working in the "gig economy" but are awaiting findings from the Taylor Report commissioned to look at changing labour market conditions before they make any firm commitment. 
• Mobile phone customers will be informed by companies of the date when they have paid off the cost of their handset. 
• The Conservatives would continue to support S4C because they understand the importance of promoting Welsh language and culture and point out that a Conservative government first protected it.
• Channel 4 would continue to be publicly owned with the headquarters "being located outside London".
• The Conservatives would work with "the nation's most eminent museums and galleries to ensure their works and expertise are shared across the country" (does this mean that the Government Art Collection would be made more accessible across the country too?)
• The Conservatives would "maintain free entry to the permanent collections of our major national museums and galleries". That means local galleries and museums and special collections within major national museums and galleries will still be able to charge an entry fee.
• The Conservatives would continue to promote British culture around the world by placing the BBC World Service and British Council "on a secure footing" (how much funding would be given to each?)
• The 2nd phase of the Leveson Inquiry will not take place under a Conservative government.
• The Conservatives would repeal Section 40 of the Crimes and Courts Act 2014 so that newspapers do not need to pay their opponent's legal costs related to libel and privacy actions even if they win in court if they aren't signed up to an officially-recognised regulator. 
• The Conservatives would ensure that online content creators are "appropriately rewarded" for the content they put online. 
• The Conservatives would ensure that most of the funding they provide "is based outside of London" including introducing a "new cultural development fund to use cultural investment to turn round communities" (but there is no idea of how much that fund would be).
• The Conservatives want to hold a Great Exhibition of the North in 2018 to "help celebrate achievements in innovation, the arts and engineering" (but again no idea of how much it will cost to hold the event).
• The Conservatives want to help a UK city make a bid to host the Commonwealth Games in 2022 (maybe Cardiff or Belfast?)
• The Conservatives would "support the development of the new Edinburgh Concert Hall" to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Edinburgh Festival.

Thoughts:

The Arts do get a mention in the manifestos but there are differences between Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives on how they wish to help protect Britain's cultural heritage and expand the creative industries sector in the UK. The Lib Dems talk about protecting all funding for the arts and sport that comes from the National Lottery as well as setting up "creative enterprise zones" in areas across the UK to help creative small and medium sized businesses to grow. I like the idea of a future Government continuing to work closely with the Creative Industries Council and the proposal to bring in industry-specific tax support sounds great in theory. There's also a proposal to help live music venues and grassroots music clubs that will go down well with independent music venue owners. However there's no funding available to help expand Arts provision in primary schools and no real information given on how they would remove barriers to access to the creative industries for aspirational students (for example, would there be specific careers advice services/work experience placements/paid internships to be made available to students from disadvantaged backgrounds or under-represented groups?)

What's very clear from reading the manifestos is that the Conservatives are more than a little weak when it comes to talking about sport. There's no mention of Safe Standing or asking the Premier League to invest in grassroots football or improving the accessibility of venues to help disabled people. To me that's quite a shocking omission. Another aspect of the Conservative manifesto that seems odd to me is the lack of costing given to key policy proposals. For example, voters have no idea how much it will cost to hold a Great Exhibition of the North 2018 and no idea whether funding for existing arts projects would be squeezed to pay for it. Voters certainly do not know how much it'll cost to create the cultural development fund and whether the Great Exhibition of the North would be paid out of that. I guess the idea of helping a UK city make a bid to host the 2022 Commonwealth Games is a nice one but I wonder whether English cities would get preference or whether Wales or Northern Ireland may be given a chance to take on the bid. The 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth Games were a great spectacle and residents loved hosting the event. 

Another omission from the Conservative manifesto that warrants attention is that there's no talk about the urgent need to address Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. Surely it would be better to reduce the risk of addiction and risk of people falling into debt by reducing the maximum they can bet on a terminal from £100 to £2? There are far too many betting shops on our streets and I agree strongly with the Lib Dem's suggestion that there needs to be a reduction, whether that being capping the number of betting shops that can be on one street or in one town or city. The Tories claim they want to help break the cycle of addiction but put no real policies in place to address it!

Labour have the most policies to offer voters who want to see improvements to Arts funding. There's a clear commitment to introduce a £1bn cultural capital fund and I love the idea of there being a £160m fund to ensure that schools can provide primary school children in England with real access to the Arts without having to worry financially. On top of that, providing tailored careers advice to secondary school and sixth form college students could help expand the horizons of working class students who may never have dreamed of considering a career in gaming or theatre production. Labour's promise of banning unpaid internships could help improve access to the creative industries and creative industry Apprenticeships could become more prevalent as our creative industries continue to expand under a Labour Government. There's also commitments to protect local libraries by stopping local authority budget cuts and undertaking a national review into local and national media, along with the guarantee that the second part of the Leveson Inquiry, looking into unethical media practices will take place. Finally, there is a commitment to try and help small music venues by extending the pub relief business rates scheme and changing planning laws. That's before we even get to the possibility of sports fans having more of a direct say on how their club is run (although I am sceptical of whether allowing them to directly appoint or remove 2 directors is practical or a good thing).

On the positive side, all three parties have committed to a publicly owned BBC (with Labour and the Lib Dems stating it will remain independent) as well as keeping Channel 4 in public hands although the Conservatives want to see the studios move out of London. Channel 4's chief executive David Abraham has said that the Conservatives demand would be "highly damaging to their business model" and diminish their investment in creative industries (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/28/channel-4-will-not-be-sold-off-but-could-be-moved-out-of-london). Abraham instead suggested that more commissioning of programmes outside of London would help improve representation, yet Channel 4 already has more than 50% of its original programming coming from outside London. All three parties have also committed to funding S4C, which means that viewers will be able to access Welsh language programming.

Have the parties answered my framework questions?

1. Will you match funding currently coming from the EU (including EU Social Fund) for community arts projects? I still don't know whether funding levels would kept exactly as they are but there are commitments to creating Arts Funds which may be used to help fund community arts projects.
2. Will you commit to re-staffing our public libraries and ensuring every library has free computer access for 0-18 year olds? Labour are committed to protecting libraries and upgrading computer services as well as providing Wi-fi access (which I am guessing would be free) whereas the other parties do not mention library services directly in their manifestos.
3. Will you increase funding to Arts Council England and the Arts and Humanities Research Council? Labour would directly increase funding to the Arts Council but no idea as of yet whether funding would be made available to the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Lib Dems and Conservative funding doesn't seem directed towards the Councils.
4. Will you introduce an Arts premium for primary school children in England? Labour would introduce a £160m Arts Premium; the Lib Dems and Conservatives would not. 
5. Will you recognise the importance of Dance and Art to the secondary school curriculum and ensure that arts materials are available to every state-maintained school in England? Labour wants to reform the EBacc performance measure to potentially include Arts subjects as an option and the Lib Dems want to protect access to Arts and creative subjects on the current National Curriculum. The Conservatives do not mention Arts subjects in their education plans; a glaring oversight. 

Based on the manifesto commitments I've seen and the 5 questions I originally had when it came to the Arts, my vote would go convincingly to Labour. The funding commitments are great and there are innovative ideas to try and help the creative industries to grow across the UK. A "Great Exhibition of the North" may sound like a nice idea from the Tories but there's no costing estimates attached and no idea of what types of arts projects would be included. That and the lack of commitment to reforming gambling and improving Arts access in schools and abandoning the second part of the Leveson Inquiry would be reason enough not to even consider voting for them. 

Queer Trans Acting Needs No Mansplaining Lookism: Why We Need To Embrace Gender Differences In Film And On TV

So cue the #AggravatingYawn Creatives Klaxon: yet another cis gay man's been cast to play a transwoman character in a so-called "mainstream" movie that's designed to heighten trans character representation and "normalise" it for the heterosexual, geriatric censors and their bemused audiences. Cue the trans liberal ironic community's "no tolerance"tutting reaction, avidly declaring on social media platforms that the "man in dress" trope is being unfairly reinforced whilst unconsciously making "passability tests" cool and groovy again within the cinematic community because somehow not "passing" as a woman is now seen as the ultimate act of evil if you want to be a trans female actor. The agony, the irony, the hypocrisy of it all! We seem to go through the same rhythms year in, year out. Sweeping changes that those who self-identify as part of the trans, queer, non-binary and gender-fluid community have wanted to happen to the Arts community, particularly in Hollywood haven't yet come. Who's really to blame for this lack of change? Trans actors, casting agents, film companies or the tastes of the viewing audience? Where do queer/non-binary, gender-fluid, intersex and asexual actors fit into the debate? Why haven't their narratives been given much credence? Are we focussing too much on improving representation through increasing trans actors on screen? These are the sorts of questions I'm hoping to try and address below.

When Trans Actors can't quite cut the mustard (say most mansplaining casting agents)

It's certainly true that seeing a cis-gay man play a transwoman role in 9 out of every 10 times a play/script that has been created involving a trans female character could be interpreted by many who are living through the narrative being portrayed on screen as perverse, pedantic, parody or even demeaning. I've seen social media reactions to the decision to cast Matt Bomer as a transgender woman and they show that there are plenty of trans women actors out there who would bite a casting agent's hand off to be given a chance to play a lead trans role in a Hollywood movie. So why aren't those trans actors being listened to?

Julia Serano has recently waded into the murky waters of the trans representation debate in a new essay: " Expanding Trans Media Representation: Why Transgender Actors Should Be Cast in Cisgender Roles" (May 2016). This essay highlights a number of important points which I aim to critique a little here.

• Serano makes a very important point in her essay when she addresses the "men in dresses" trope currently doing the rounds on social media platforms: "Well, there are quite a few trans people out there — such as those who cannot afford or choose not to physically transition, and those who have physically transitioned but do not "pass" or "blend in" as cisgender — who probably do strike the average trans-unaware person as "men in dresses." If a person identifies as a transwoman and has body hair which is difficult to remove because it causes blistering of the skin and they cannot yet afford the treatment to permanently remove the body hair and want to be involved in a trans production, should they be banned from doing so because producers might fear they "reinforce a stereotype"? Equally, should depictions of such a trans woman be banned from appearing in creative media for the same reasons?
• Serano argues that audiences who are unaware or unwilling to learn about trans issues will not care a jot whether a cisgendered man, trans woman with body hair or a fully transitioned woman plays the role, because in their minds they will still see them as a "man in a dress". A response to Serano's article by a supposed casting agent, Gregory Smith, shows how engrained such views remain even within a supposed liberal Arts community: "casting a male to female transgender is tricky if they have an Adam's apple. If I need a woman, she better look like a woman. If I need a man, the same deal." Yet despite his opinions he tells trans actors to "try their luck" but not expect "Hollywood to celebrate diversity"; so basically if you have to act for him, you'll have to rely on your looks and voice to "pass the test" but you've probably got a cat in hell's chance of being picked. Same old bigotry, same old passivity pass-ability test. The only way we will truly get over such hurdles is to change the culture within the casting industry and one way to achieve that would be to convince trans or trans inclusive people to consider a career as a casting agent. Conservatives may think that means liberals will gain a foothold within the industry but I feel that if they are unprepared to disregard their "mansplaining lookism" and see the person in front of them as having potential talent to play the role regardless of biological gender or appearances (provided they haven't been specified) then they need to be challenged for their casting agent job. Simple as that.
• Equally what happens if trans people wish to have gender reassignment surgery but cannot because of medical reasons- e.g. if undergoing vaginaplasty might lead to bladder/kidney issues they already have being exacerbated or if they had diphtheria as a child which has weakened their heart to the point where going through 6-7 hour surgeries might stop their heart from working. It isn't their fault they cannot fully transition so if they label themselves as trans and the usual mansplainer suspects don't agree, is it right  that they get locked out from media and creative representation by trans people as well as cisgender people? Are we all really going to be as heartless as those who continue to deny a "trans identity exists"?
• Depictions of trans people within mainstream drama sitcoms and soaps has certainly improved over the last decade - EastEnders and Hollyoaks have led the way in the UK during the past year with the introduction of a regular transman and transwoman character who happen to be from different age groups, social backgrounds and sexualities.(Riley Carter Millington plays a young transman who is a talented chef in EastEnders who met his sister Stacey for the first time last year and Annie Wallace plays the sassy headmistress Sally St Claire in Hollyoaks and was revealed as gay character John Paul's biological father).  
• What's amazing is that casting agents in the UK are taking more of a chance with trans creatives by hiring trans actors to play these roles and writers and producers on these shows have created characters and storylines around those actors to help give an air of authenticity to their narrative. Equally there are comedies around dealing with trans relationship issues by providing a sympathetic, lighthearted portrayal of how trans people deal with their day to day lives and the issues that they are confronted with; for example Boy Meets Girl with the fab Rebecca Root (another trans actress) in the lead role of Judy tells of an age-gap relationship which develops as a result of a chance meeting and ends with Judy being given a "White Wedding" day to remember in the final episode of the second series, shown in August 2016.
• However, there haven't been any trans actors in primetime hit TV shows in the UK, especially crime dramas. There's been no lead crime fighting character who has been trans- no Mrs J B Fletcher, Poirot or Miss Marple being cast in the title role. There's been no sports drama dealing with a rugby playing teenage "guy" going through transition to become a man!
• Trans writers shouldn't be dissuaded from wanting to tell cisgender stories that intrigue them. I'm annoyed that the first female playwright to be published in English and to have her plays performed on the stage - Aphra Behn has not received the recognition from mainstream drama channels (like BBC) and Hollywood that she deserves. Anyone can read The Rover Part I and II and see how gifted a satirist Aphra really was (even the great Restoration satirist John Dryden celebrated her works and her plays were second only to his during the 1670's and 1680's!) Yet her story has languished in the classrooms of Gender Studies and English Literature lecture halls for decades whilst Jane Austen is universally celebrated as a witty romantic whose novels are regularly adapted into period drama. I'm intrigued by Aphra's story because she refused to conform to traditional notions of femininity; she refused to let mansplaining satirists like...get to her. Queer trans people in particular can identify with that kinda narrative.
• Writers should never create a trans character "for the sake of increasing trans representation", especially when they need to be incorporated into existing rigid storylines in the vain hope of boosting flagging ratings. With a TV series dealing with the abolition of slavery in Jamaica, would a writer be convinced enough that creating a trans character would add anything to the story? There were no well known activists who were self-identifying as non-binary, let alone as wanting to live in their "opposite biological gender". Most people would point to the idea that trans operations didn't exist prior to early 20th century (as we know from the now well publicised story of Lili Elbe) and argue that trans characters shouldn't be wrote into these types of historical narratives even though gender theorists know that the ideas/thoughts/feelings/emotions of wanting to live differently within an existing dual-binary understanding of gender existed well before the late 19th century. However, this doesn't mean that a transwoman could not be considered for a cisgender female part in the drama. As long as they have the talent and passion that the casting agent, producer, director and writer are looking for, it shouldn't matter whether that person had identified as a man, woman or chicken in the past. Julia Serano prophesises of a day when this might happen in an endnote to the second edition of Whipping Girl: "Personally, I’d rather see the focus of this debate shift to championing trans actors being cast to play cis roles — this would provide trans actors with far more opportunities while simultaneously challenging societal cissexism (i.e., the notion that our genders are inherently inferior or inauthentic)."  If casting agents, directors, writers and the Arts community at large finally accept trans people have the talent to play cisgender characters, it will finally give trans people hope that they can be involved in a competitive yet rewarding community.
• It would seem nonsensical to introduce a transwoman character into a TV series that was dealing with an adaptation of Lord of the Flies unless you were deliberately choosing to present a radical re-interpretation of William Golding's novel, as has happened with Shakespearian plays since the mid 1960's. It seems the attitude for such radical projects hasn't yet been ignited and perhaps we do need to start trying to make radical series and films to present to a mainstream audience. But where's the funding streams to allow this to happen?  Radical projects need to be adequately funded so they can "get off the ground". Crowdfunding may only go so far to pay for the basics- i.e. finance staff, clothes, some acting and filming time but if creative trans teams wanting to tell trans stories cannot attract funding from the British Council, British Film Institute (BFI), BBC or even Film 4, then how will they get their project off the ground? Does there need to be a level of positive discrimination shown by these organisations to focus on getting trans creative team made films and TV series into production and dissemination on screen ASAP?

Why are non-binary, queer, gender-fluid characters "left on the shelf?"
Trans activists have hit the nail on the head when it comes to lack of representation within the Arts community. Yet it makes me think if trans actors, directors, writers, producers and costume designers find it so difficult to get work on a mainstream film or TV series, what about those who oppose the dual gender binary in the first place. Where can they fit into the discussion? I'm not really aware of many characters who have self-defined as non-binary or gender-fluid in Hollywood films. I remember a character in Hollyoaks in the mid 2000s (Kris Fisher) who was bi and non-binary but played by a cisgender actor (Gerald McCarthy). Part of the reason why non-binary, gender-fluid or queer actors may be unable to find roles even in British soaps is because the arguments over their gender classification are "much less rigidly enforceable" because there is no need for an indication of a biological change occurring in the character. The casting agent of Mr Smith's ilk would argue that it doesn't necessarily matter whether the actor identifies as man, woman or other outside the studio provided the actor is prepared to immerse themselves in the character's backstory whilst they are filming. Casting agents are fickle, notoriously difficult to please and they wouldn't rest during casting sessions until they find the right individual to play the role. So unless we have casting directors and agents in place who may be more sympathetic to getting trans, queer, non-binary and gender-fluid actors hired into lead roles, the likelihood of these actors increasing their presence on screen reduces dramatically. Equally if there aren't producers, directors and writers who identify openly as gender-fluid prepared to create stories that feature gender-fluid, queer and non-binary characters, the likelihood of their interesting narratives being presented on-screen is greatly reduced, just because there is still a stigma attached to those who wish to challenge the dual gender binary.

However there are instances where non-binary, queer and gender-fluid actors should have an advantage over trans actors:

• Period dramas are more problematic for trans actors because the notion of transgenderism didn't exist in its modern form prior to the late 19th century. However there were people who would have been openly seen as "different" to their peers, hence opening a space for the creation of queer/gender-fluid and non-binary characters. Trans actors may be able to audition for such roles but only alongside those who identify as queer/gender-fluid and non-binary.
• Audiences are becoming more aware of theories challenging traditional notions of masculinity and femininity alongside multifaceted forms of gender identity. This means they are more likely to be receptive to innovative, challenging films and dramas which focus on telling an authentic story from the past, present or the future. Millennials in particular would be more likely to watch  period dramas which have queer characters appear as leads.Trans and queer writers have to be prepared to tell these stories and write them in such a way that would appeal to talent scouts within television and film companies. There are a number of areas such a writer may wish to focus on to create a great screenplay; I'm reminded of tales from the Molly Houses of the late 17th and early 18th century where gay men would actively dress up as women and marry each other in disguise behind closed doors and the story of Margaret Clap (or Mother Clap), one such Molly House proprietor who was raided by the venomously conservative Society For The Reformation Of Manners is one that requires more exposure on the TV screen (despite the great play Mother Clap's Molly House written by Mark Ravenhill and performed to great acclaim in 2001).  The story hasn't yet been properly told but it's just as juicy as reading Fanny Hill or Moll Flanders.
• Sports films haven't yet fully dealt with the notion of queerisation; I feel that audiences who are receptive to trans authentic narratives would also enjoy watching a short TV episode about a male gymnast who cross-dresses behind closed doors yet dreams of presenting his true gender-fluid self to the world without being ridiculed for his preferences. Such episodes wouldn't need to focus on his sexuality as being part of the reason why he cross-dresses, but he may go to a club where crossdressing is fetishistic/sexual based to contrast with his own feelings of it being innocent/ for himself as opposed to pleasing others in a sexual way. EastEnders recently introduced a new storyline for undertaker Les Coker, who is revealed as having an alter ego Christine which he had kept secret from his wife Pam for many years. They showed how Pam came to terms with Les's "outing" and the terrible types of abuse, including financial (blackmail) can ensue when a secret comes out into the open. I believe this storyline shows how non-binary/gender-fluid/queer characters can exist even if their alter-egos or gender identity expressions are not brought out into the open until the character's other storylines have progressed. Some non-binary, queer and gender-fluid activists would say Les is not an example of how they live their lives but it did show audiences how elderly characters may have had to deal with their gender expression prior to acceptance of the disintegration of the dual gender binary. Conservative moralists still don't accept gender fluidity so showing such stories on screen is important, relevant and authentic. It's a start!

What about intersex and asexual characters?
Intersex people are rarely referenced to by mainstream media outlets let alone on TV and in films. The recent case of Caster Semeyna proved that most sports viewers were unaware that men and women can have natural hormone imbalances let alone the fact that a man may have been born with a womb and uterus even if they are unable to procreate. Most intersex actors will not reveal that they are intersex at a casting call because it's something that the agent cannot see. They are happy to present as a woman or man depending on what gender role they have grown up in. Intersex people certainly aren't all trans yet they can be labelled as such and then denied a cisgender role based on the "mansplaining lookism" mentioned earlier. Intersex characters do provide an intriguing basis for a captivating narrative and there is plenty of room for these characters to discuss the notion of intersex with their friends/family and present characters who criticise them because they believe intersex isn't true. If a film, TV drama or soap character provides an access point for audience members to discuss intersex issues then the film/TV drama/ soap has succeeded in raising awareness without it feeling forced or inauthentic.

Hollywood is awash with "sexualised propaganda" according to ultra conservative outlets such as Breibart. How ironic is it then that asexual actors and characters are amongst those who feel the most left out of debates on artistic representation. Most casting agents cannot understand why asexual people can't describe themselves as "celibate" and fake sexual acts on the camera just so they can compete and get the lead roles in films. Somehow if you are as ripped as Daniel Craig or Aidan Turner you are meant to be sexually promiscuous and be prepared to strip at a moment's notice. Sexual desire isn't a tap that you can turn off or on at a moment's notice just to suit the whims of the filmmakers. So no wonder asexual actors feel there is a need for better understanding of their feelings and more writers prepared to tell their stories. I'm looking forward to the story of famously asexual Smith's frontman Morrissey being presented to British audiences next year so they can see that sex doesn't have to be hinted at or be at the heart of adult TV drama storylines to be of interest to an audience. And the fact being asexual doesn't make you any less interesting, subversive, sassy or beautiful, beating those myths peddled by jealous detractors right down into the patriarchal dustular remains.

Conclusion:
Mainstream media and creative output has progressed in the right direction during the last decade and most members of the LGBTQIA community who self define as trans have appreciated that their narratives are being taken seriously. Much work still needs to be done to improve the career prospects of trans actors and whilst trans women's voices have seemed to occupy the spotlight, trans male characters are still relatively rare. As a queer trans woman I'm also glad that the narratives are presented that question the inherently solid idea of dual gender identity. However for me, there is a LOT of work that needs to be done by Hollywood and British BBC producers alike to improve representation of queer, gender-fluid, non-binary, intersex and asexual people on screen and behind the cameras. We need to break through the idea that gender should only be seen through a dual binary prism, that it is interesting creatively to present characters who refuse to ascribe to normal stereotypes and do not wish to change their bodies just to fit in with the gender-binding fashions of the day. Casting agents need to go beyond lookism and consider all candidates for a role based on engaged, detailed discussion with the whole creative team, including writers. We need to encourage more LGBTQIA writers, costume directors, producers, directors even grips and production accountants to consider a career in the film and TV industry and make it easier for them to gain the experience and skills needed to convince major companies to take a chance on their projects. Those LGBTQIA creatives already in the industry must do all they can to support new talent. Funding organisations need to be prepared to look "outside the mainstream box" and consider funding films that may appear as if they come out of a "Pandora's box" of talent to find the next Steven Spielberg or Ken Loach. So let's be supportive, let's be passionate and prepared to engage in finding new narratives and creating more.