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

Hey folks - I'm back!

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

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

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

Tory Austerity measures are making life harder for working class families and families who have fallen on hard times, whether that be due to being made redundant or a family member not being able to work because of the severity of illness or having to stay at home to care for a sick or disabled relative. Child poverty is becoming ever increasingly visible. I saw a BBC Breakfast interview with Siobhan Collingwood, a Headteacher from Morecambe who stated that 1 in 10 of her school's pupils came from families that had been forced to access a foodbank (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-46827360). Ms Collingwood isn't alone. Teachers from across England have reported that students in their class are coming into school hungry and worried about the mental and physical health of themselves and their family members. Just last month The Guardian reported findings from the National Education Union which found teachers reported “that a lack of food, poor housing and unsuitable clothes are overwhelming pupils and cash-strapped schools”, with 2 in 3 teachers saying that more families of students attending their school were now unable to afford adequate winter clothing compared with just 3 years ago (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/17/many-pupils-in-england-hungry-and-badly-clothed-say-teachers?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other). Child poverty statistics paint a picture of a Britain that is far from being considered fair and equal. The Child Action Poverty Group has compiled a list of statistics (http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/child-poverty-facts-and-figures) which include the following:

• 9 children in a classroom of 30 will be living in poverty
• Children in large families are at a far greater risk of poverty – 42 per cent of children living in families with 3 or more children live in poverty
• By GCSE, there is a 28 per cent gap between children receiving free school meals and their wealthier peers in terms of the number achieving at least 5 A*-C GCSE grades.

Numerous reports have demonstrated how growing up in poverty can affect a child's chances academically and vocationally. This is particularly the case in the North of England. The 2018 Children's Commissioner report” Growing Up North” found that the most disadvantaged students in England are two years behind non-disadvantaged pupils by the age of 16 and less than a quarter of Northerners possess a Level 4 qualification (https://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/education/opinion-schools-and-colleges-need-more-investment-1-9533033). Educational inequality has soared on this Government's watch, with 3 out of 10 maintained secondary schools now reporting a financial budget deficit of nearly £500,000 (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/17/many-pupils-in-england-hungry-and-badly-clothed-say-teachers?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other). Recent research conducted by Lucy Powell, MP for Manchester Central found that independent schools are putting their students through IGCSE's for their EBacc subjects which are found to be less academically rigorous than the new GCSEs introduced by the Conservatives and which students in state schools have to take because access to IGCSEs is being phased out in those schools: in fact 91% of all entries for the EBacc core subjects were in independent schools this year (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/dec/30/labour-demands-inquiry-into-private-schools-evading-gcse-reform). Labour have quite rightly demanded an inquiry into this and hopefully it may lead to decisive action. Every child has the right to access a comprehensive, challenging academic education regardless of their socio-economic status.

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

Let's talk a little bit more about the Brexiteer argument that migrants are harming the employment prospects and wages of working class people. Contrary to what certain commentators may report, I've only spoken to 3 people in the last year who have expressed a clear concern about immigration along these lines. Most of my neighbours are concerned about keeping their own jobs or actually trying to secure a sustainable job, rather than spending time blaming EU and non EU citizens for the circumstances they have found themselves in. Numerous studies that have been conducted have concluded that immigration has little or no impact on average employment or unemployment of existing workers and where an impact was detected, although a 2018 study by the Migrant Advisory Committee found that “immigration from EU countries during the 34-year period from 1983 to 2017 had reduced the employment rate of the UK-born working age population by around 2 percentage points and increased unemployment by 0.6 percentage points” (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/). I believe that the emphasis needs to move away from painting a picture of migrants being in constant competition with British nationals to ensuring that all people have access to the education and training they need to develop skills to access the jobs market and to ensure that employers provide true equality of opportunity for all job applicants. I know that from bitter previous experience, being non-binary trans and having moderate dyspraxia. Figures from November 2018 state that 393,000 people who have disabilities were unemployed and the rate between July and September was 9.3%. People with disabilities have an employment rate that is 30.1 percentage points lower than that of people without disabilities (https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7540). It's interesting that Brexiteers like Jacob Rees-Mogg seem to be perfectly prepared to align themselves who shout slogans like “British Jobs for British People” but never bothers to question why we have such a large employment gap between disabled and non-disabled people, a gap which I believe will not be closed significantly by stricter immigration rules.

I also recommend people share this article written by Aditya Chakrabortty, retelling the employment experiences of Robert, a Romanian who came to the UK to help others but ended up in insecure low-paid work and his experience at Nestlé’s Fawdon plant as an agency worker- an experience which many, British national, EU national or non-EU national would recognise (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/12/myths-migration-stereotypes-insecure-low-paid-work). The far-right are primarily responsible for the perpetuation of stereotypes and fearmongering towards the small number of migrants who try to reach the UK illegally and I feel we need to fight against such fearmongering in a timely and robust manner. Centering the voices of migrants by encouraging and empowering them to craft platforms to speak out such as through blogging or podcasting is one way of doing this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The UK Government's LGBT+ Action Plan....It's a start?

This week the UK Government released the findings of their National LGBT+ survey, conducted last year. There were 108,110 valid respondents from people living in the UK aged 16 and over. 61% of respondents were gay or lesbian and 26% were bisexual. 13% of respondents were trans, with 6.9% of respondents (7,800) being non-binary, 3.5% being trans women and 2.9% trans men. Interestingly, 2,970 responses were rejected because they were deemed "offensive, abusive, explicitly vulgar or otherwise unreliable"....I'm guessing some of those responses came from Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) spouting discourse against trans people so I'm glad there were robust checking procedures as part of the research collation and analysis. I'm going to be examining the report in depth and doing a number of blog posts over the month on the results of the National LGBT+ Survey but you can read the entire 304 page research report for yourself if you wish to here:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721704/LGBT-survey-research-report.pdf.

There are a number of statistics that have come out from the analysis of the LGBT+ survey that I feel need to be communicated widely:

• Trans respondents were much more likely to say that they had a disability (33%) than cisgender respondents (14%)
• Trans people had lower scores for life satisfaction in the UK: trans men scored on average 5.1/10, trans women and non-binary people scored on average 5.5/10 (the average for the UK population at large is 7.7/10)
• Only 37% of trans women, 34% of trans men and 38% of non-binary people said they felt comfortable being LGBT in the UK
• 72% of non-binary respondents had not disclosed their gender identity to their neighbours
• 68% of all respondents (who were lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual or pansexual) said they had avoided holding hands with a same-sex partner in public
• 70% had avoided being open about their sexual orientation because they feared they would face a negative reaction
• 59% of trans women, 56% of trans men and 76% of non-binary people who responded to the survey have avoided expressing their gender identity openly but younger cisgender people were more likely to be open
• 24% of all respondents were not open in any way about their gender identity or sexual orientation with family members they lived with (excluding their partners)
• 40% of all respondents had experienced a negative incident in the 12 months prior to filling in the survey when the perpetrator was someone they did not live with on the basis of gender identity and/or sexual orientation or being perceived as LGBT
• 26% of all respondents had been subjected to verbal harassment in the last 12 months prior to filling in the survey
• 14% of respondents had their LGBT status disclosed to others without their express permission in the past 12 months prior to filling in the survey
• 6% of all respondents had been subjected to threats of physical or sexual harassment or violence in the 12 months prior to filling in the survey
• 2% of all respondents had experienced physical violence in the 12 months prior to filling in the survey
• 2% of respondents had experienced sexual violence in the 12 months prior to filling in the survey
• 11% of respondents had had private sexual images and/or videos shared without their explicit consent in the 12 months prior to filling in the survey
• 94% of respondents did not report the most serious incident they had been subjected to when the perpetrator or observers were people they lived with
• 45% of respondents who reported incidents to the police were unsatisfied with how reports were handled
• 5% of respondents had been offered conversion therapy and 2% had undergone such therapy
• 51% of conversion therapies were carried out by faith organisations and groups and 19% were carried out by a healthcare professional/provider
• 77% of overall respondents said that neither gender identity nor sexual orientation was discussed in their school lessons but this dropped to 54% amongst 16 and 17 year olds
• Only 9% of those respondents who had lessons on gender identity or sexual orientation said their lessons had prepared them for later life as an LGBT+ person
• 88% of the most serious incidents reported by respondents in education were perpetrated by a fellow pupil but 9% were perpetrated by a member of teaching staff
• Only 36% of respondents who were transitioning at school said their school was very or somewhat supportive of their needs
• 21% of respondents who stated they were trans who accessed healthcare services said their needs had been ignored: 18% said they had been subjected to "inappropriate curiosity" and 18% also disclosed that they had avoided treatment because of fear of discrimination
• 87% of respondents who had accessed sexual health services in the 12 months prior to filling in the survey said they had a positive experience
• 80% of trans respondents who accessed or tried to access gender identity clinics said it wasn't easy, with the waiting time being seen as the greatest barrier 
• Only 7% of non-binary people had accessed gender identity services with another 6% trying to access services.
• 23% of respondents had experienced a mixed or negative reaction whilst at work due to being LGBT or being perceived as being LGBT, with 9% being subjected to verbal harassment
• 57% of the most serious incidents reported by respondents as happening in the workplace have been perpetrated by a colleague (junior or at same level).

This short list of statistics will come as no surprise to those of us who have spent our lives trying to navigate challenges that originate as a result of ignorance, fear or blatant discrimination by those in positions of power and influence. My blog posts and those of many other LGBTQIA+ people are testament to that. The question is: how can the Government enact policies and legislation to improve the lives of people like me and the lives of those who may not yet have come out as LGBTQIA+?

The Government LGBT+ Action Plan, announced alongside the results of the National LGBT+ survey today aims to address the concerns of LGBT+ people expressed in the survey and by campaigners aiming to improve LGBT+ equality. There are 75 points to the plan and £4.5m announced to specifically support the enacting of the Action Plan which will be available till March 2020, with an LGBT+ Advisory Panel set up to help deliver it.You can read the full document here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721367/GEO-LGBT-Action-Plan.pdf.

One of the headline policy statements from this Action Plan is that conversion therapy will be banned, whether through passing new legislation or exploring non-legislation (i.e. regulatory) options. Conversion therapy is dangerous whereas affirmative therapy helps to improve the mental and physical health of LGBTQIA+ people who struggle initially with accepting their sexual orientation or gender identity. I hope conversion therapy of any kind on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity will be banned, so that we can particularly protect vulnerable trans, gender-diverse and gender-questioning children and young people from being forced to accept gender identities to "fit in" with parental, religious or other expectations. I'd rather see it banned via the introduction of legislation but will wait to see what is recommended by the Government in the next few months.

I welcome and approve of the announcement of a national LGBT+ health adviser and hope I and many others will have an opportunity to meet them to discuss my concerns about the lack of awareness of trans and non-binary people's specific needs, so that we can improve standards of patient care and make our hospitals, GP surgeries, care homes and other spaces a more inclusive and welcoming place.

I'm happy to see the announcement on addressing body image pressures that LGBTQIA+ young people in particular face and hope there will be funding made available for specific body positivity campaigns at grassroots level so that young people themselves working within third-sector and public organisations can help challenge pervasive cultural body norms.

There is a need to help improve the lives of LGBTQIA+ people who have a learning disability so they have the confidence and freedom to engage in activism, in education and in loving relationships. Training for care professionals and carers is vital and that means updating advice and guidance documents in collaboration with charities and other third sector organisations who work on a day-to-day basis with people with learning disabilities.

The approach towards reporting and responses to reports of LGBT+ hate crime needs to be improved so that LGBT+ people have more confidence in the police and the overall system. I appreciate the announcement of a refreshed Hate Crime Action Plan and look forward to reading the recommendations regarding training of police officers and raising awareness of hate crime reporting routes in the local community. It's good to hear that "The Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will... fund a bespoke training package available to all police call handlers to help ensure victims are correctly identified and supported at this critical first point of contact" (p.17) and that the Crown Prosecution Service will work with their partners to improve reporting procedures for LGBTQIA+ victims of domestic abuse, rape, sexual assault and hate crime. However I'd like to see the Government adopt Labour's proposal for making LGBT+ hate crimes aggravated offences to deter perpetrators and send a clear signal that such crimes will not be tolerated.

I'm cautiously optimistic at the recommendations in the Action Plan to increase support for LGBTQIA+ survivors of domestic abuse. Police forces need to ensure that LGBTQIA+ people are aware of the support services they can access and that the review of domestic abuse services will highlight gaps in provision and provide recommendations to improve support packages. The non-legislative package of support which is being created to align with the Domestic Abuse Bill needs to fully consider the needs of LGBTQIA+ survivors. Increasing awareness of Sexual Assault Referral Centres for LGBTQIA+ survivors is also extremely important and I hope that any resulting marketing campaign will be created in full consultation with LGBTQIA+ organisations and the participation of survivors. 

LGBTQIA+ teachers, support staff and pupils all deserve to feel safe and secure whilst attending school or college. More school and college leaders should be encouraged to create or update their policy and procedures and ensure that all staff attend appropriate training which improves awareness of LGBTQIA+ issues but also provides practical, sustainable techniques and measures that can be used to improve LGBTQIA+ equality. Relationships and Sex Education, (when it is eventually introduced) must include LGBTQIA+ awareness and equality and guidance needs to be issued to schools and colleges which is fact-based, comprehensive and easy-to-understand. I'm also pleased to see a commitment from the Crown Prosecution Service to update their LGBT Hate Crime Schools Pack and will do so with the input of LGBTQIA+ young people and the Government's Equalities Office will work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to produce comprehensive guidance to support trans, gender-diverse and gender-questioning children and young people.

It's good to see a commitment by the Government's Equalities Office to provide employers with free training materials to help them create a more inclusive working environment as well as creating an employers' working group to discuss key issues. I hope a range of organisations, large and small from across the UK can contribute to this working group and help with the creation of training materials.

I appreciate that non-binary people will have the opportunity to contribute towards a specific Call for Evidence so that ministers and decision makers alike can hopefully improve their awareness of issues that affect us but I hope they will continue to or begin consulting with experts who have extensive experience of working with non-binary people. The Gender Recognition Act needs radical reform to improve access to legal recognition for non-binary, agender and gender-fluid people and there needs to be appropriate and safe opportunities provided for non-binary, agender and gender-fluid people to contribute to the Gender Recognition Act (2004) consultation, without fear of being subjected to verbal abuse and harassment from opponents. I also welcome the attempts that will be made to make it easier to make changes to gender markers (which I hope will soon include non-binary ones) legally through a "Tell Us Once" type service. It could reduce the bureaucratic cost and ensure all documents are kept up-to-date as per current General Data Protection Regulation and Gender Recognition Act requirements.

Intersex people deserve to have their right to be protected from direct and indirect discrimination, victimisation and harassment enshrined within our legislative framework. The Equality Act (2010) should therefore be amended to include intersex as a protected characteristic. The National LGBT+ Survey had 1,980 responses from intersex people living in the UK and one important statistic that came out was that 16% respondents said their GP didn't know where to refer an intersex patient for further advice and guidance. It's important therefore that healthcare professionals receive appropriate training as part of their Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirement so they have more awareness of intersex advice organisations and provide the right advice and guidance to support patients. Equally there needs to be a bill brought before Parliament to ban unnecessary cosmetic sex assignment surgery on intersex infants and young people and procedures brought in so that intersex people have the undeniable right of access to their medical records to find out what surgical interventions they had been subjected to.

I must say I am disappointed to see a firm commitment to bringing marriage equality to Northern Ireland, but given the current political situation with Brexit, and PM May's reliance on the votes of DUP minsters, I am not surprised. LGBT+ people in Northern Ireland deserve to enjoy the same rights as those living in London or Lincoln and I hope that the next Labour Government will push more fervently for reform if this current Tory Government fails to do so. That being said, the Government has now committed itself to putting on an international conference on LGBT+ issues so I hope that will provide an opportunity to address LGBT+ discrimination in Commonwealth countries (there are still 37 countries where homosexuality is still criminalised). There is also the idea of the UK bidding to co-chair the Equal Rights Commission in 2019 so we shall what happens with that in the next few months.

I'm also disappointed at the lack of detailed policy reform to support LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers who come to the UK to escape persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. We need to end the hostile approach (which has led to what has been dubbed the "Rainbow Rush scandal") and do this by bringing to an end the detention and deportation of LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers and speed up the application process for all asylum seekers so that they can all begin to rebuild their lives knowing they have a safe place in which to do so. It is good nonetheless to see a commitment to reviewing guidance for caseworkers and reviewing the training of professionals dealing with asylum claims across the board. Let's demonstrate our compassion and fight for and protect the rights of all LGBTQIA+ people living in the UK, whether they are British citizens or not.

There are policies to be commended in the LGBT+ Action Plan and if implemented in full, it will lead to improvements to the lives of LGBTQIA+ people across the UK, through the dissemination of knowledge, increased participation opportunities for engagement on policy and a systematic shift in the way key societal institutions view LGBTQIA+ equality. As Dawn Butler, Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities highlighted in her response to the LGBT+ Action Plan, there is a need for sustainable funding so that policy actions and consultations can take place. It's a reasonable start, but no campaigners would deny there is still much to do.

The spectre of Section 28 still lingers on but there's hope for better LGBTQIA+ equality in the UK...

Today marks 30 years since Margaret Thatcher decided to enact Section 28, a draconian and discriminatory piece of legislation designed to stop education professionals in schools across the UK from discussing non-heteronormative sexual orientations in the classroom (with a specific focus on stopping gay and lesbian people, including teachers from talking about their sexual orientation and life experiences with students) with the ultimate aim of reducing the “promotion” of LGBTQIA+ lifestyles. Local authorities were also prevented from such “promoting”, with libraries being forced into not stocking literature or films that contained primarily gay, bi or lesbian themes, although Jeanette Winterson's Oranges are Not the Only Fruit (1985) was a notable novel read by students and studied for GCSE and A-Level exams which allowed young people to read about the life experiences of a young lesbian growing up in a deeply religious (Pentecostal) community.

I feel I owe a huge debt of gratitude to the LGBTQIA+ campaigners who fought against the introduction of this despicable clause from the off. For example, Joe Summerlad in his article for the Independent mentions the three amazing lesbian activists, calling themselves the “Lesbian Avengers” managed to gain access to the public gallery of the House of Lords and abseiled down to the chamber, an act which gained them and the anti-Section 28 cause national attention (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/section-28-explained-lgbt-education-schools-homosexuality-gay-queer-margaret-thatcher-a8366741.html) Mancunians also made their feelings towards the legislation clear with the “Never Going Underground” demo which took place on the 20^th February 1988, and which attracted at least 20,000 demonstrators from around the UK and had speakers including Jimmy Somerville (http://www.gayinthe80s.com/2018/02/section-28-feb-20th-1988-never-going-underground-demo/).

Thatcher used her Christian conservatism to attack openly gay and lesbian people. She never acknowledged publicly (to my knowledge) the existence of bisexual people and I don't even want to contemplate what her views towards openly non-binary trans people like me would have been. The Tories pretty much backed her all the way, claiming that it was Labour who were determined to bring pro-LGBTQIA+ books into school to challenge “traditional values”. The Tories capitalised on

on the fear rhetoric perpetuated by the right-wing press, just like the social conservatives and trans-exclusionary radical feminists do today with regards to their attitudes towards trans activists and further trans equality. As Ruth Hunt points out in her very pertinent article, “shocking levels of misinformation and scaremongering are cruelly attacking trans people's right to exist, as well as publicly questioning their identities. Deeply misleading headlines about the GRA (Gender Recognition Act 2004) and young people “being turned trans” echoes exactly the way LGB people were talked about under Section 28” (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/section-28-school-sexuality-education-gay-lgbt-trans-rights-thatcher-a8366751.html). Editorial teams based at The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express, New Statesman and The Spectator in particular need to look very carefully at the way they choose articles to include in their newspapers but I'm guessing they probably won't reform their processes given their desire to provide clickbait for the right-wing masses.

I went to primary school, junior school and the first 3 years of secondary school with Section 28 still being in place in England. It's no wonder that teachers, teaching assistants and pastoral staff were reluctant to talk about being gay, bi or lesbian to students like me in front of other students because they had not had the freedom to do so in the years before I entered the state education system.

Homophobic and biphobic language was commonplace in the junior school playground and I never heard such language challenged by the playground assistants. I have no doubt that young people I knew in my classes at secondary school internalised feelings of fear and believed the stereotypes being perpetuated and it made them feel they could not be proud of their sexuality, even after they decided to come out.

LGBTQIA+ rights have improved somewhat since the repeal of Section 28 under Tony Blair's Labour Government in 2003, not least with the introduction of the Equality Act in 2010 and the Same Sex Marriage Act 2013. However, the legacy of Section 28 still lingers on today. Just Like Us, an organisation who recruit LGBTQIA+ students to go into schools to champion LGBTQIA+ equality and that has created Schools Diversity Week to “empower schools across the UK to tackle homophobia, biphobia and transphobia” have recently reported that “almost 90% of young LGBTQ people still hear homophobic language in schools and 50% self-harm” (http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/news/106845/school-diversity-week-2018/). The Stonewall School Report 2017 found that 45% of LGBT respondents (and 65% of trans respondents) have experienced bullying at school and the statistics highlight that LGBTQIA+ people of faith and people of colour are more likely to experience bullying and hate incidents whilst at school (https://www.stonewall.org.uk/school-report-2017). Meanwhile we have radical feminist dominated organisations such as Transgender Trend who claim they are “gender critical” advocating for trans people not being given the opportunity to talk about their life experiences in school for fear of “turning children trans” (an out and out lie on their part) and we have some education professionals who have a socially conservative mindset still fiercely resisting calls to introduce LGBTQIA+ Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) into all schools in England. They cite freedom of conscience, religion and expression as a legitimate basis for their objections. Yet in their efforts to defend “traditional British values”, they fail to acknowledge the liberal, modern values that we should all possess, either as British Citizens or residents of the UK or as I like to think, as Citizens of the World. Compassion and love of diversity are values central to a liberal, progressive outlook. So are tolerance and reverence for the Rule of Law. Any programme that can reduce instances of hate incidents and hate crime motivated by homophobia, biphobia and transphobia should be endorsed wholeheartedly. Any programme that promotes love and understanding for one another over misinformation and mistrust is one that I cannot help endorse as a Lutheran Christian. Yet worrying evidence collated by Dr Laura Watt and Professor Mark Elliot from the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles carried out by 1990 and 2010 have shown that acceptance of same-sex relationships percentages has slowed down since 2000, with 60% of 16-44 year olds who attended at least 1 religious service a week viewing homosexuality as always wrong when asked in 2010 (only down by 8% from 1990 figures) (http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/peak-acceptance-of-homosexuality/).

Demonstrating freedom of conscience and expression, the things that religious conservatives bang on about so often means that every student has the right to explore diverse life experiences through finding out about LGBTQIA+ role models. Students of all ages have the right to explore their own feelings towards sexuality and gender through access to age-appropriate RSE sources. Just as students should have the opportunity to find out about multiple faiths in their Religious Education lessons, free from teacher judgment/bias. To me therefore it is illiberal for social conservatives to even object on the grounds of conscience or religion to LGBTQIA+ people being encouraged to come into local schools and talk about their life experiences, just as it would be illiberal to object to faith representatives coming into schools to talk about their experiences.

Numerous organisations have highlighted the lack of LGBTQIA+ RSE within the PSHE curriculum post the repeal of Section 28. A survey by Stonewall found that only 13% of respondents had learned about healthy same-sex relationships, 1 in 5 had learned about consent law in relation to same-sex relationships and 20% have learnt about keeping themselves safe in same-sex experiences. Fewer students have learned about trans people's experiences of sex. As for exploring asexual (ace) experiences in the classroom, very few teachers have the awareness necessary to facilitate discussions, despite more young people coming out openly as ace whilst at secondary school (although much more research needs to be conducted to highlight this).

There are increasing numbers of LGBTQIA+ graduates entering the teaching profession and education sector as a whole and an increasing number of teachers coming out. Teach First has collated data on the number of LGBT+ teachers between 2014 and 2018 and found there had been a 4% increase. The Independent (who has really led the way on coverage of LGBTQIA+ issues I think) has an article where several LGBT teachers who have been part of the Teach First programme talk about what actions they have taken to improve awareness inside the classroom. For example Laura, a teacher based in London decided to hold LGBT+ assemblies, run clubs, and taken her sixth form students to London Pride to march. I love Laura's passion for empowering her students to be positive about their own sexuality and gender identity and agree with her that her students “will continue to strive for a more accepting and equal society (https://www.indy100.com/article/lgbt-teachers-section-28-sexuality-education-schools-8363746).

It's great that we now have more role models like Laura for students to look up-to but there still needs to be changes to attitudes in the workplace to ensure that trans, non-binary, genderqueer, gender-fluid, and agender people feel they can enter and thrive in the teaching profession. A real-time poll, carried out by the NASUWT of attendees at their LGBTI Teachers' Consultation Conference, held in Birmingham (https://www.nasuwt.org.uk/article-listing/not-doing-enough-to-promote-lgbti-equality-.html) found that:

• 43% of respondents have experienced discrimination, bullying, harassment, or victimisation in the last 12 months because of their LGBTI identity
• 29% of respondents stated that levels of anti LGBTI bullying and language have increased or stayed the same in their school in recent years
• 86% of respondents said they do not believe that the Government is doing enough to communicate the importance of LGBTI equality to schools and colleges
• 56% of respondents said their school wasn't committed to LGBTI equality for staff and pupils
• 4% of respondents said their school had a programme of activities to mark LGBT month
• 1/3 of respondents said their school or college wasn't a safe space for LGBT teachers
• 49% of attendees said they wouldn't recommend teaching as a career to families or friends.

In the same vein, a 2018 British Social Attitudes survey found that whilst over 8 in 10 British people described themselves as not being “prejudiced at all” towards trans people, only 4 in 10 had said that trans people who had the qualifications needed to become a primary school teacher should “definitely be” employed in that role (http://www.natcen.ac.uk/blog/how-do-british-people-feel-about-transphobia-and-transgender-issues). This is concerning and highlights the work that needs to be done to debunk stereotypes that have pervaded about trans people and the interactions they may have through positive engagement work with governors and parents in schools.

It must be remembered that schools and colleges (and local authorities for that matter) are bound under the Equality Act to help improve LGBT+ equality. Under the Public Sector Equality Duty, schools must ensure they pay “due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any conduct that is prohibited under the Act; to advance equality or opportunity between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not and to foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not” (https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/Valuing%20All%20God%27s%20Children%27s%20Report_0.pdf). If schools and colleges do not adhere to this Duty, they can face enforcement action brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. So what more could be done by schools to further fulfill the Public Sector Equality Duty? Well for starters, every school needs to check their Equal Opportunities/Equality and Diversity policy to ensure they are trans-inclusive. A specific commitment to tackling homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying should be contained within the Anti-Bullying policy. Forms should be reviewed to ensure students can reflect their identity openly but only information that is absolutely necessary should be collected. An Equality and Diversity steering group with student representatives would be a great way of reviewing and amending such policies.

Teachers should feel empowered to follow clearly defined procedures in the event of students using persistant transphobic language in the classroom and address that language as soon as they hear it. There should be LGBTQIA+ clubs available to students to attend at lunchtime or after school with activities, support and advice being offered.

Access to training on trans awareness should be available to all members of staff and volunteers as part of their Continuing Professional Development, with that training being delivered by qualified and experienced people. Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence are examples of organisations that have offered very effective training but there are a diverse range of trainers located across the UK, including those who are trans, non-binary, genderqueer, gender-fluid or agender who could be counted upon to deliver appropriate training. Members of the community who are LGBTQIA+ should be invited to deliver assemblies, attend RSE/PSHE lessons and/or work with students on Pride celebrations.

RSE and PSHE leads should have the opportunity to attend LGBTQIA+ specific conferences and network with organisations so they can have access to the research and support network they need to deliver truly LGBTQIA+ inclusive RSE. I hope more conferences will be created for RSE professionals as the subject is made a statutory part of the curriculum from next September.

Making provisions to celebrate key awareness days and awareness weeks would also help to raise the profile of LGBTQIA+ people in schools (aside from LGBT month in February).

A list of key dates that I'm aware of are listed below:

• Zero Discrimination Day: March 1^st
• International Transgender Day of Visibility: March 31^st
• Lesbian Visibility Day: 26^th April
• International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia: May 17^th
• School Diversity Week: July 2nd-8^th
• Bisexual Visibility Day: September 23^rd
• Asexual Awareness Week:
• National Coming Out Day: October 11^th
• Hate Crime Awareness Week: October 15^th- 22^nd
• Intersex Awareness Day: October 26^th
• Intersex Day of Remembrance/Intersex Solidarity Day: November 8^th
• Transgender Awareness Week: (Second week of November)

The results of the LGBT survey, commissioned by the Government last year and which has had over 100,000 responses is due to be released in a few weeks time. PM Theresa May has promised to create a strategy designed to reduce the prevalence of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia and advance LGBTQIA+ rights. I hope that such a strategy will include more funding for trans awareness training in schools, statutory LGBTQIA+ inclusive RSE guidance and a move towards self-identification of legal gender. A bold approach is needed if society is to continue the fight to improve LGBTQIA+ rights and equality in the UK. Let's hope those changes I've highlighted above will spearhead that bold approach.

Thoughts on the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference 2018

The stringency of the austerity measures....Brexit.......The Housing Crisis.....issues that are discussed by people on a daily basis at the moment, whether explicitly or implicitly. Half the time it can feel like the structural problems connected with our society: inequality of opportunity, wage stagnation, low productivity, a growing demand for public services can seem insurmountable. Disengagement with politics remains an issue, particularly for Millennials and Generation Z (16-35). Hope for a brighter, more equal future flickers rather than burns brightly, which is why it's more important than ever to be engaging with voters and non-voters through the dissemination of an inclusive, ambitious and progressive vision for the country that will try to address our structural challenges head-on. I believe the party that can best articulate such a vision at a grassroots local and national level will have a real chance of winning a majority at the next General Election. The question is, whether there is a party out there who can listen to the electorate AND non-electorate, build political engagement and articulate a vision, in the shadow of disruptive Brexit negotiations.

This Mothering Sunday afternoon I decided to tune into Sir Vince Cable's (the leader of the Liberal Democrats) closing speech to Spring Conference delegates in Southport, which was streamed live via Periscope and also simultaneously disseminated via YouTube and Facebook live. I was probably only one of a couple thousand viewers who made such a decision but I didn't feel it was an entirely wasted activity. Cable came across as clearly passionate about campaigning for an #ExitFromBrexit (i.e. a referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal with an option to Remain in the EU) and well-informed about current domestic issues and the need for pragmatic, wide-ranging solutions. Yet I did wonder whether he was already preaching to the converted, although it is important to empower them to go out campaigning in constituencies across the UK in all kinds of places (including care homes, Mr Cable!!) I also thought his comments RE Leave voters were a little hap-hazard: trying to reduce the reasons why older voters backed Brexit down to one reason: nostalgia for a less diverse Britain isn't founded entirely on evidence- a minority of voters may have done so but they are exactly that, a minority. Hmm...Anyways onto the policy announcements...

Education:

The Lib Dems certainly have a number of policies that I believe would appeal to the electorate at large: protecting per pupil funding in real terms for all pupils including in Further Education, protecting the Pupil Premium, increasing the Early Years Pupil Premium by £700 to £1000 a year, requiring teachers in state schools to have QTS (Qualified Teaching Status) or working towards it and providing at least 50 hours of Continuing Professional Development per year for teachers. In addition to these, the Lib Dems are proposing quite radical changes: abolishing Key Stage 1 and 2 SATs with moderated teacher assessments and a standardisation test, abolishing Regional Schools Commissioners, making local authorities responsible for planning, exclusions and admissions and replacing Ofsted with a new inspection system, looking at emotional wellbeing of teachers and students in addition to test scores. I'm also glad to see SEND pupils' needs mentioned, with a desire to reduce the number of SEND pupils being excluded from mainstream school, and to see the proposal for a named person (a pastoral team lead preferably) who is responsible for craft whole school policies and approaches towards mental health.

I agree with the idea behind “Every Child Empowered”, ensuring that children and young people in constituencies across the country, including in deprived wards and rural villages and hamlets get access to the skills they need to prepare them fully for adult life: who can argue against providing First Aid training in schools and colleges if it means it reduces the amount of unnecessary GP appointments, A&E admissions and calls to NHS helplines? Who can argue with introducing comprehensive LGBTQIA+ Relationships and Sex Education if it helps to reduce instances of sexual assault, abuse, under-age pregnancies or misinformation about gender identities? Who can argue against teaching children about budgeting and debt management if it allows them to make informed decisions about borrowing and reduces the number of people resorting to loan sharks? Financial literacy, First Aid and RSE should all be on the National Curriculum, as part of the PSHE and Citizenship programmes of study and there should be funding given by Government directly to schools to allow for external providers to deliver sessions, taking the pressure off teachers who may not have the time to be researching such topics in depth with students. Such a broad curriculum, a “Curriculum for Life” should be required to be taught in academy and free schools and public schools should be encouraged to reform their curriculum offer.

There's also talk of introducing Personal Education Accounts, one for 16-18 year olds and one specifically for adult learners to help pay for training and skills courses delivered online, at local FE colleges and in community centres and libraries will help people access quality courses and aid their career development. Cable announced in his speech that a Commission on Life Long Learning will be set up to explore this policy idea further.

There's a lot of detailed recommendations and I'd refer those interested in finding out more to check out the policy document here: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/42359/attachments/original/1518080686/Every_Child_Empowered_-_Policy_Paper.pdf?1518080686

NHS, Social Care and Mental Health:

Our NHS remains greatly under-pressure and little practical action has been taken by the Tory Government to try and alleviate such pressures. The Tories may claim that health spending is at record levels but it has not been enough given the rise in demand for services. They and previous governments have failed to prepare adequately for the ageing of our population. A&E waiting times are now the highest they have ever been: only 85% of patients in England were seen under 4 hours. The United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust missed its waiting time target by 25% and has missed every target for A&E and cancer care for every year since 2014. For Lincolnshire residents, this is extremely concerning. The Lib Dems F18: The NHS at 70 motion recognises the pressure that NHS Trusts are under and are calling on the Tory Government to provide £4bn that the NHS will need for 2018/19 financial year, with an addition £2bn of funding given to local authorities to fund social care. Additionally, the Lib Dems want to see the introduction of a special NHS passport to allow 59,000 NHS professionals from the EU an automatic guaranteed right to remain following Brexit and for bursaries for student nurses to be reintroducted to encourage more British people to decide to train to be a nurse and thereby reduce the nursing shortage in hospitals and care homes across the country.

Mental Health care has not improved satisfactory under this Tory Government. Waiting times for referral remain far too long, demand for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services has increased, with 1 in 5 children who have been referred to local CAMHS services being rejected for treatment :that's a total of 39,652 children (https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/news-opinion/1-in-five-5-children-referred-to-local-mental-health-services-are-rejected-for-treatment/). This is concerning given that 1 in 10 children in England between the ages of 5 and 16 suffer from a mental health condition and up to 20% of children will experience a mental health condition in any given year. NHS CAMHS are currently only funded to meet 25% of cases but that is expected to increase to 33% by 2021. The Government has committed to recruiting 1,700 more therapists and supervisors and to ensure that an extra 70,000 children and young people are able to access CAMHS but it is unclear whether such targets will be achieved.

Norman Lamb has been a passionate campaigner for better Mental Health service provision and thus I'm not surprised to see some concrete policy suggestions being offered in F18: the earmarked £1.3bn of spending being brought forward to improve mental health service provision, ending out-of-area placements, very important for people living in rural areas such as Metheringham and the protection and promotion of community pharmacies. Perhaps the most radical suggestion, and one that has been made by Lamb for years, is the creation of a cross-party committee to look at funding the NHS and Social Care system long term. Raising the level of income tax by 1p in the £1 to fund social care short-term would help alleviate funding pressures but there has to be a sustainable long-term solution found and it's in the political interests of all parties concerned to find such a solution. Let's see if that happens anytime soon. I'm not holding my breath.

Housing:

Britain needs a housing revolution in order to ensure that every person has a suitable and safe roof over their head regardless of their socio-economic circumstances. It's ridiculous to think that the peak of house building in the UK was 1968 and that in 2018 we face a situation where 125,000 children are classed as homeless and rough sleepers are dying out on our streets, despite the best efforts of compassionate individuals and organisations such as The Nomad Trust, LEAP and Lincolnshire YMCA to help them. Access to decent housing should be viewed as a human right. A house should be a place to call home, not an investment to feel obligated to upkeep with no families living in it to bring the place to life. Yet the Government (when in coalition with the Lib Dems between 2010 and 2015 and afterwards) more than halved the state housing development budget for local councils and housing associations from £11bn in 2010 to £5.3bn last year. The Local Government Association revealed that local councils and their communities had granted nearly twice as many planning permissions (321,000) as the number of new homes that had been completed (183,000) last year. The issue is not with planning permission being granted, it's with housebuilders not building enough homes once they have planning permission granted.

It's good to see the Lib Dems reaffirm their commitment to building 300,000 houses a year in England by 2022 and to scrapping the draconian housing borrowing cap. I agree with the Lib Dems that local authorities must be able to access loans to build and invest in quality affordable and social housing, including “borrowing from the Public Works Loan board to buy land for housing and build affordable and social housing on the same terms they are currently borrowing to purchase commercial property” (https://www.libdems.org.uk/spring-18-f4-local-government-housing). I also believe local authorities should be given the right to scrap Right To Buy in their area, when assessments of local need have been carried out. Any proceeds from the sale of council houses by local authorities should be used to find new social housing for homeless families and I'd argue also to acquire adapted social housing for disabled residents who have been on the council house waiting list for more than 2 years. Councils should also have powers to monitor housing developments, to ensure that “poor door” practices are abandoned. Redevelopment of housing estates must not lead to a decrease in social housing: one of the best ways to prevent this from happening would be to introduce a (I believe legal) “right of return for all residents on the same terms as their pre-regeneration tenancy” (https://www.libdems.org.uk/spring-18-f4-local-government-housing). Such policies would benefit residents first and foremost and help to ensure community cohesion is maintained post the end of regeneration projects. I'd only add that PM May's suggestion of changing the use of empty retail properties in inner city areas would be beneficial to adopt and that the EDMO legislation strengthening should allow local authorities the opportunity to compulsory purchase empty retail property for the expressed purpose of creating social housing for the homeless and low income families with children. Landbanking is also an issue that needs to be resolved: it's not right that developers can be allowed to purchase land for the specific purpose of building new homes and then not start to build them within a 2 year period. Perhaps there needs to be compulsory purchases made if landbanking continued beyond a 2 year slot.

Rural Affairs:

I have spoken to numerous rural voters who do feel the issues that they raise are being ignored by the current Conservative government. In Lincolnshire, we have had streetlights turned off in villages and hamlets across the county and it has made some residents feel too scared to walk to the pub or to visit their friends at night for fear of being mugged, assaulted or worse. The safety of our county's residents has to trump ideologically driven efficiency savings but our Conservative controlled County Council has failed to listen to concerns and reverse the policy in full. I've spoken to rural residents in the Sleaford and North Hykeham constituency worried about the continued closure of Grantham A&E at night and wondering whether it will eventually be downgraded or closed through the implementation of Lincolnshire's Sustainability and Transformation Plans, forcing them to travel for an hour just to get medical attention at Lincoln County Hospital's already under-pressure A&E. I'm pleased to see the adoption of motion F8: A Rural Future: Time To Act by conference delegates, which includes a specific commitment to “increasing the availability of affordable housing” through the reduction of second home ownership (allowing local authorities to increase tax on second homes through a stamp duty surcharge or an increase in council tax rate). The installation of Superfast broadband which is defined as being “over 30 Mbps download speeds and 6 Mbps upload speeds” should continue to be a priority, so businesses and households in Chapel St Leonards have an ability to access the internet at the same speed as those based in Lincoln.

I would like to see the introduction of a Young Person's Bus Discount Card, for all young people aged 16-21 living in rural areas which provides then with 2/3 discount on bus fares. This will allow young people to be able to afford to travel across Lincolnshire, visiting friends, joining community youth clubs and attending training sessions, which will help reduce their sense of rural isolation. I agree with the notion of creating more community centre hubs providing a multitude of services to residents but would like to see investment come from central Government in order to facilitate such creation. Local authorities are overstretched and do not have the financial resources spare to shoulder the majority of the financial burden for these projects.

I agree with proposals to increase Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments to help maintain woodlands and forests, reduce soil erosion and uphold animal rights. Investment in flood prevention in rural constituencies and launching a National Fund for Coastal Change are also sentient policy ideas which clearly demonstrate eco-friendly credentials.

Voter Engagement and Equality and Diversity:

Cable talked of the need to improve diversity within the Lib Dem party in his speech, a comment which I respect him for making and one which I hope will be taken on board. The Lib Dems are doing well in local council by-elections across the country at the country at the moment, with residents listening to key policy ideas and buying into their vision for an open, tolerant and inclusive society. Credit for this success has to go to local campaigners, councillors and candidates who engage with voters and current non-voters on the doorstep, listening to their concerns and not immediately judging them their Brexit vote. This work needs to continue to grow in order to increase the number of MPs at the next General Election. Increasing awareness of the policy platform is half the battle. I'd argue that Lib Dems should set up more central meetings, held at village halls and community centres, liaising with local third sector organisations and allowing people to be honest, open and frank about their views. Organising meetings in care homes would be innovative and demonstrate that the party cares about all voters: after all, Brexit may lead to a reduction in sustainability staffing levels which will then affect them directly.

It was great to see a renewed commitment to advocating for electoral reform, making the case for the introduction of a right to vote for 16 and 17 year olds and supporting the private members bill put forward by Labour MP Peter Kyle. There's also a campaign being run to raise awareness that EU citizens can vote in local elections. More campaigning should be done on the need for House of Lords reform to build support for the creation of an elected House of Lords (or change of name...e.g. to a Senate or something similar). Supporting devolution of powers to local authorities (including those on housing proposed under F4) should be a priority too and may win over more skeptical voters.

It was amazing to see via Twitter and by watching some of the Spring Conference via YouTube the wealth of speakers who had been invited to talk about their personal experiences and ideas for the future. A motion put forward by Jess Insall, a member of LGBT+ Lib Dems on gender neutral school uniforms, arguing that schools should present uniform options that can be worn by pupils of all genders was praised and passed by delegates for being inclusive and feminist. There was no mainstream platforming of transphobic views masquerading as real feminism by trans exclusionary radical feminists. The party can build on their record for inclusion through further engagement with working class rural people, especially in constituencies such as Sleaford and North Hykeham, Gainsborough, Grantham and Stamford, Boston and Skegness and Louth and Horncastle. Engagement with habitual Conservative voters through promotion of rural policies and building up a reputation for economic credibility will also prove fruitful, as will engagement with suburban voters particularly with a number of young, passionate and thoughtful candidates standing in this year's local elections.

Back Away from the Brexit:

Of all the policy suggestions and motions passed at this year's Spring Conference, perhaps the one which will garner the most attention from ordinary people and the mainstream leader is the Lib Dem's commitment to an Exit From Brexit. I've spoken to voters and non-voters across Lincolnshire over the past few months about their views towards Brexit and it's clear there is still a lot of passion emanating from Remain and Leave voters, with no overall consensus as to the best way forward. Non- referendum voters feel that the debate hasn't moved on since June 2016 and a number are concerned about the potential economic and cultural effects Brexit may have on Lincoln and Lincolnshire. Even the most ardent of Leave voters I have spoken to have occasionally expressed their concerns. I remember talking to a very forthright retired plasterer, who believed in the need to take back control of sovereignty from Brussels but worried about whether his pension contributions could decrease if the Tory government did not secure “ more beneficial” free trade agreements with the US Trump administration or Commonwealth member states. A young lady, who works at a care home in Lincoln and voted Leave in 2016 told me that she was worried her workload may increase if the home couldn't replace the carers who had decided to leave the UK or were thinking of leaving the UK once Brexit happens afters March 2019. A young guy who is a very committed Conservative didn't like the fact that food prices may rise following a No-Deal situation, where the UK will have to rely on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules in order to keep our economy alive. For certain elements of the mainstream media and Tory Brexiteers to deny such levels of anxiety about the potential consequences of Brexit exist, even in Leave voting areas such as Lincoln, is to deny the reality of the situation. It is inevitable that some voters will decide to change their mind, and would vote Remain in another referendum. More importantly though it is vital that the main political parties have strategic plans in place that will help mitigate any potential negative economic and cultural effects of Brexit. The Tories never talk of such plans, only making passing references to their Impact War Chest and hoping that a deal can be secured that allows them to maintain a veneer of economic competence. The Lib Dems have spelled out some policies but I personally feel more work needs to be done to craft policies that can be enacted in the event Brexit does happen. Better to be prepared and hope that Brexit doesn't happen in a No Deal form or even better, doesn't happen, than to fail to prepare for the No Deal Brexit. Perhaps such policies will be formulated and announced once a draft trade deal has been secured by Double D et al. But don't hold your breath that they can secure a trade deal, let alone a good one.

Whichever way Brexit is spun, whether it's a “take back control” or a “jobs first” type, it looks like it is going to lead to a contraction of the economy and potentially further cuts to our public services. As Mr Cable made clear in his speech, such measures would hurt the most vulnerable in our society who rely on effective public service provision for support. Jeremy Corbyn has pretty much committed the Labour Party to leaving the Single Market, remains very cagey about what a Customs Union that's not the current EU Customs Union would look like and has dismissed out of hand calls for a referendum on the Brexit deal. I don't know whether the Labour position will evolve as we get closer to the day of Brexit but one positive advantage for the Lib Dems is that they have a very clear Brexit position and are not afraid to stick to it.

Conclusion:

The Lib Dems have a lot of work to do if they are to regain seats at the next General Election. The Survation poll currently puts them at 9%, whilst Labour have seen a surge in support, placing them at 44% (http://uk.businessinsider.com/survation-labour-popularity-surge-7-point-lead-poll-conservatives-2018-3). Such poll numbers may be optimistic in both cases and may change upwards or downwards as the nature of the Brexit deal becomes clear. The motions passed at the Lib Dem Spring Conference, and the passion for a liberal future expressed by speakers, including Mr Cable may go some way towards changing voters' minds. It'll be interesting to see what new policies are developed in time for the Autumn Conference....unless a General Election happens before then. Who knows in our currently unpredictable political climate?