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?

My Thoughts on the Conservative Party Autumn Conference 2017 Policy Announcements: Policy Mediocrity Klaxon

I have to start this blogpost on a positive note, by focussing on PM May's keynote speech first. Because yes, for me, it was possibly the only speech at the Tory Conference that filled me with any kind of optimism.....for a future (a "British Dream") that centers itself on being modern and compassionate....a future that I believe does NOT have the current crop of senior Tory MPs at its helm. I would say I would have been surprised by all the Corbyn bashing, Momentum bashing, youth bashing (because according to the Tories, a young person is now anyone under the age of 45....super LOL), working class centre left wing bashing, working class centre bashing and the distinct lack of any rad policies with clout that will truly transform the lives of working class disabled young people like me (well the fact that the Tories don't even want to discuss the 60 recommendations made by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Report is a big giveaway that Tories don't really care much about disabled people who unfortunately find themselves unable to get a job or unable to work because of their condition) but to be perfectly honest, I wasn't.

 Unlike Labour's conference, where activists from across the party (Labour First, Progress, Momentum) genuinely waited with interest to hear Corbyn speak (regardless of their views as to Corbyn's future electability and/or policies RE renationalisation and Brexit),  the anticipation for PM May's speech was rather muted in comparison to the "buzz" that surrounded Bojo with the Barbarian Hair's speech in the conference venue in Manchester only the day before. PM May knew that a confident delivery of her keynote speech would be the best way of convincing the party faithful to remain loyal to her vision for Britain's future and to try and convince sceptical swing voters to listen to her vision and pay attention to the policy platform she offers. What transpired was a speech with a series of unfortunate events and blunders that even a political satirist  like Armando Iannucci or Aaron Sorkin couldn't have dreamt up. Yes, it really was that bad.

To PM May's credit, she had the courage and strength of her convictions to battle through the speech despite being plagued by a rather persistent cough, a ridiculously timed stunt by a comedian who, let's face it, is famous for dead-panned comedic timing (at least he didn't send a P45 addressed to her from THE Lord Buckethead demanding her Maidenhead seat to begin their maniacal conquest I suppose) and a hostile audience at home and in the conference hall who remain unconvinced that PM May's the person to lead the Tory party and the country going forward following the Brexit negotiations. Almost everything that could go wrong, did go wrong. PM May's new signage containing the predictable new slogan "Building a country that works for everyone"disintegrated whilst at the same time her vision was failing to cut through to swing voters such as myself.  Even the quip about  Chancellor Hammond handing out "something for free for once" after he gave her a cough sweet fell flat. But whatever you may think of PM May's policies (and I certainly have been extremely critical of the majority of them in the past and remain so), you cannot dehumanise her by  blaming her for elements of the speech that were beyond her control. There's no way she could have known for sure that her cough would be so persistent it would affect the tone and pitch of her voice. Yes there could have been actions PM May could have taken to try and relieve her symptoms but perhaps beforehand she had felt the cough wouldn't be such a disruptive factor. PM May could not have stopped the "comedian" getting through the extremely stringent security checks system and handing her the fake P45. PM May equally could not have stopped the signage falling apart. PM May battled on and managed to complete her speech despite all of these external factors and she should quite rightly be given credit for that. The "Keep Calm and Carry On" approach is one that I would have taken. It's what many of us who call ourselves determined people who are passionate about our own ideas and beliefs would have done. That's why I believe that critique of the speech should really focus on the policy announcements made, rather than focussing on signage malfunctions and Bojo P45 craziness. If Jeremy Corbyn had been the victim of such a disastrous set of events, I have no doubt that Fartage, Bojo et al would have immediately seized upon the incident as an opportunity to discredit him, calling him "incompetent" or "incapable" or mocking Labour security officials for failing to keep Corbyn safe. I wonder whether Corbyn would have been critiqued as much as PM May for wearing a Winston Churchill brooch on his lapel (would it have been an indication of him betraying his socialist values?) There was so much critique of PM May wearing a Frida Kahlo bracelet, not least from left-leaning commentators who accused May of lacking awareness of Kahlo's own political beliefs. Yes Kahlo was a staunch Communist who had an affair with Leon Trotsky and then decided to disown his political ideas because they were not radical enough and then went on to endorse Joseph Stalin's views towards the end of her life. Was PM May aware of such facts when she decided to wear the bracelet? Or did she wear the bracelet because she admired Kahlo's self-portraits and identified with her determination to fight passionately for a vision that she believed in?

I suppose Kahlo would have been horrified that a Conservative would have dared to use her image in such a public way. Yet the image and work of artists such as Kahlo have been through what Deborah Shaw calls "a process of cultural transformation and commodification" (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-frida-kahlo-bracelet-communism-trotsky-stalin-commodification-a7988146.html) to the extent that Kahlo has now become iconic for reasons beyond her political views. Shaw contends that "Kahlo has been transformed to make her less threatening to Western capitalist belief systems", so that art collectors and producers and buyers of merchandise such as the bracelet feel they can identify personally with their understanding of Kahlo's life story. Kahlo certainly did experience pain in her life as Shaw points out and perhaps that's the main reason why PM May identifies with Kahlo's oeuvre. Still, regardless of all that, PM May would still be allowed to wear the bracelet because we have the right to freedom of expression with certain limitations (e.g. it prescribed by law) as detailed in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (if only PM May would now stand up strongly for the HRA rather than try to undermine it I'd be a happy politico!) Equally, I expect that most of us are guilty of consuming some form of cultural commodification. I'm also pretty sure there is at least one artist, musician, poet or playwright who may have had different political views from ourselves; Aphra Behn for example, was a staunch Tory who supported King James II and disapproved of the Glorious Revolution and the Whigs who helped instigate it. That doesn't stop me from admiring her plays or praising her for being a sassy person who fought against convention to carve a reputation out for herself (ironically by erasing large elements of her past). There are Morrissey lovers who are Labour and Green supporters who abhore his UKIP sympathies and xenophobic views. If we attack someone for a bracelet they choose to wear because it's "unexpected", we may be conveniently forgetting our own hypocrisy. Do we always know absolutely everything we need to know about our hero/heroes' political views? Without having done massive research into their lives (e.g. close reading of their autobiography or biographies) we often only have a vague awareness of their political views and that's even if they choose to speak out or have spoken out on a topic/topics in the past. The personal may indeed be political these days but do we really advance political debate by minute analysis of perceived political symbols and slogans rather than analysing and debating in a political speech what really will have an impact on our lives and the lives of our family, friends, neighbours and colleagues- the policy platform? 

PM May's speech (and the conference as a whole) wasn't devoid of policy announcements but in my opinion they were sparse and I must say, a bit tame:

• We now know that the Government intends to "build a country that works for everyone", including investing £2bn to build 25,000 new affordable council houses and affordable homes for rent by 2022 (5,000 a year) as a starting point for a new housing revolution. The typical subsidy has been determined at £80,000 to reach the figure of 25,000. Suffice to say that the plan won't do much to help; 1.2m families are waiting to be housed by councils. The National Housing Federation tried to put a positive spin on the announcement, saying that the investment announcement may unlock an extra £3bn in public and private investment  which may increase the number of homes built to between 50,000 and 60,000 but only if more public land is opened up for development. I agree with Labour; the Tories are offering to build a paltry amount of social housing (Labour pledged to build 100,000 new homes that were "genuinely affordable" in their first term in office) and it won't help many families in areas where rent prices are high. Lord Porter, Conservative chair of the Local Government Association has argued that current restrictions on council borrowing for council housing projects needs to be lifted in addition to keeping "100% of right-to-buy receipts to replace sold homes, certainty over future rents, powers to make sure developers build approved homes in a timely fashion, and adequately funded planning departments so that they can cover the cost of processing applications" (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/oct/04/conservative-conference-2017-theresa-may-to-announce-council-house-building-programme-politics-live?page=with:block-59d4de9de4b00dc5a61c2652#liveblog-navigation). 

• PM May announced an independent review into the Mental Health Act 1983 which will be chaired by Professor Simon Wessely (former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists). This review will examine how current use of the legislation (the document supplied the Department of Health accepts that there are concerns about "rising rates of detention", the fact that "detention may be used to detain rather than treat", "the disproportionate number of people from black and minority ethnicities being detained" and "questions about the effectiveness of community treatment orders and difficulties in getting discharged" (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mental-health-act-independent-review/terms-of-reference-independent-review-of-the-mental-health-act-1983). An interim report is expected to by delivered in early 2018 and the final report, with recommendations being released by autumn 2018). Centre for Mental Health has welcomed the announcement, but want the review to be extensive and "look at every aspect of the Act and explore not just the legislation but the context in which it is used" (https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/news/centre-for-mental-health-welcomes-independent-review-of-mental-health-act-announced-by-the-prime-minister-today). It's rather interesting to note that the Conservative manifesto pledged to scrap and replace the Mental Health Act 1983: "the party will reform laws to ensure those with mental illness are treated fairly and employers fulfil their responsibilities effectively and will introduce a new Mental Health Bill putting parity of esteem at the heart of treatment" (p57) so I wonder if the review is the first step in this process or designed to pacify those in the party who want more information before scrapping the Mental Health Act. Mind had asked for a review of the Act before the manifesto commitment was made because they said that a rise in detentions "could be a sign of growing pressure on mental health services" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39832997). 

• PM May, channeling Corbyn's policy (or perhaps in response to the excellent Daily Mirror campaign) on organ donations, announced that everyone will automatically become an organ donor unless they join the opt-out register in order to help the more than 5,000 people on the organ transplant waiting list (this is known as a presumed consent system). As I mentioned in a previous blogpost, as a Christian I believe that organ donation is one way of performing a selfless act of compassion and I haven't heard from many people who would want to sign the opt-out register. It's good to see at least a level of consensus on such an important issue and demonstrates that PM May's speech did have a good policy announcement in it, even if it wasn't an original one. 

• PM May declared that free schools will continue to be built under her Government, repeating her election promise to built 100 new free schools a year. PM May said that this wasn't an "ideological decision" but the National Education Union disagreed, saying that the free schools policy "is highly centralised, unaccountable, bureaucratic and ultimately ineffective" (https://www.fenews.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14802:national-education-union-comment-on-increase-in-new-free-schools&catid=14:sector-news&Itemid=880). The Free Schools policy has not delivered the number of secondary school places needed (125,000 children face missing out on a place by 2022/23) and 19 free schools have closed since the programme began. Equally the proportion of free schools rated as Good or Outstanding by Ofsted is lower than in state schools (85% versus 89%) and the rate of schools that have been deemed "Inadequate" by Ofsted is at 4%, double the state school rate (https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-views/governments-manipulation-data-free-schools-shameless). 

Some words and phrases in the speech were surprising coming from a Conservative; for example, PM May called the NHS "the very essence of our solidarity in the United Kingdom". Solidarity isn't a word that you often hear a Tory minister, let alone the PM, say. It sounds too "comradey" or "leftie" for some. It rather adds to the irony that PM May claimed it was the Tories who have invested the most in the NHS and upheld its principles "through more years in government than any other". Yet it was the Tories who helped pushed through the ill thought out Health and Social Care Act 2012, it's the Tories who are starving NHS trusts of funding which is leading to some of them ending up in special financial measures (such as my local United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust) and Clinical Commissioning Groups closing down successful Walk-In-Centres such as the one in Lincoln under the guise of "efficiency savings" and "fairness". It is the Tories who scrapped the nursing bursaries, imposed an unwanted change in Junior Doctors' contracts and imposed the freeze and then the 1% pay cap on health professionals believing that they were necessary to reduce and then eliminate the deficit; latest figures suggest the deficit is at £5.7bn in August, down 18% on August 2016 (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/21/uk-budget-deficit-philip-hammond-gdp-august but we are nowhere near getting the defecit down to 0). PM May may thank NHS professionals for their dedication but she has done very little to improve the lives of nurses in my local area; so much so one of them decided to run for parliamentary office and eventually became our constituency MP, Karen Lee.

Policies announced at the Tory Autumn Conference:

The problems of relatability and of a bold (dare I say radical) policy platform dogged this Tory Conference. It seemed as if the speeches were geared more towards trying to placate the party faithful rather than to appeal to the additional voters the Tories desperately need to get on board if they are to have any chance of regaining marginal seats such as Lincoln at the next general election.
Here's some of the key policies that I took notice of:

Education:

A review has been announced into "university funding and student financing" but in the meantime plans to raise student fees have been scrapped and instead the maximum amount chargeable has been  frozen for the 2018/19 academic year. The income threshold for student loan repayments will be raised from £21,000 to £25,000, which will apparently save some students on average £360 a year. The student loan reimbursement pilot scheme for science and modern foreign language teachers in the early years of their career in areas of the country where there is a chronic shortage (such as the North East) could provide some incentive for MFL graduates in particular to consider a career in teaching and it's estimated that a teacher in the 5th year of the scheme would save £540 (http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/here-policies-announced-conservative-conference-13702320) but the Government really needs to start promoting the value of students learning a MFL in a post-Brexit world. The Government also wants to increase the recruitment of maths teachers and have announced that they would pay maths graduates a £20,000 lump-sum when they become a teacher and a £5,000 retention payment in the 3rd and 5th year of teaching. Finally, schools who find it difficult to recruit and retain teachers would be able to access a £30m fund focussed on providing the money needed for Continuing Professional Development training.

I'd have much rather have seen a commitment to freezing or reducing interest rates on student loan debt for ALL students or have seen a crystal clear commitment to reintroducing university maintenance grants for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to help them with the cost of books, equipment, clothing and rent but perhaps this will be announced in next month's Budget (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/maintenance-grants-government-uturn-bring-back-poorer-students-education-justine-greening-university-a7981976.html) Time will tell.

Housing:
£10bn will be invested in the Help to Buy Scheme (where you only need a 5% deposit to access a mortgage for a newly built home because the Government provides a low-interest equity loan which is 40% of the value of the home in London and 20% elsewhere) which will help an estimated 135,000 people to get on the property ladder. Liam Halligan in The Sun has already attacked this policy, stating that Help to Buy helps "stoke up demand" without addressing supply issues, only really benefits unscrupulous housing developers and is also "very difficult to access", meaning that young people are forced to pay a higher rent in high-demand areas. Halligan rightly argues that more social housing needs to be built to meet the growing demand: "If the UK is to build the 250,000 new homes needed each year, that needs to include 50,000 to 100,000 units of social housing, required each year".

With regards to tenants, the Tories will require every landlord to be part of an ombudsman redress scheme, designed to give tenants access to an effective conflict-resolution mechanism. As programmes such as "The Week The Landlords Moved In" and Nightmare Tenants, Slum Landlords" have demonstrated, landlords do need to make sure they are fulfilling their legal obligations so that the housing stock they provide is fit for human habitation and allow tenants to challenge fees. A mechanism may make it easier for tenants to complain but what would actually happen if landlords failed to fulfill their duty? What types of penalties would be provided? I think a Tenant's Charter would bring in additional legal protection that is necessary to protect tenants from having to put up with slum conditions.  The incentives for landlords to offer longer tenancies (Javid says that they will be at least 12 months) to me seems a bit of a bribe. I'd rather see 5 year tenancies introduced as standard, as has been suggested by Labour.

Letting agents should have been regulated years ago so it's good to see the Tories commit to requiring agencies to have appropriately qualified and experienced staff and ensuring there is some form of professional oversight, as there is in professions such as Accountancy and the Law.

Health:
It's positive to see that more than 5,000 new training places on nurses training courses each year will be created and allowing health service assistants to train as nurses through a 4 year apprenticeship scheme also sounds like a good idea in theory but will sadly not address current shortages (there are 40,000 vacant nursing positions already according to the Royal College of Nursing). I'd have liked to have seen nursing training bursaries reinstated for those enrolling on undergraduate courses.  Introducing flexible working arrangements is a no-brainer in 2017 and allowing existing nurses the opportunity to pick up extra shifts will help reduce some agency costs in the short-term. Allowing staff first-refusal on homes built in affordable housing schemes located near the hospital which are built on NHS land which is sold for development also sounds sensible. However, NHS professionals who are living in expensive private rental accommodation and who rely on foodbanks to get the food to give them the energy to carry out their duties competently desperately need a substantial increase in basic pay now so I believe it isn't good enough that the Tories are not prepared to scrap the cap now, provide a small increase as a gesture of goodwill and then implement fully the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies.

The Armed Forces:

Sir Michael Fallon has suggested that Britain should increase the amount of GDP spent on defence beyond the 2% NATO target in order to address "growing threats from terrorism and states such as North Korea and Russia" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/03/britain-should-raise-nato-2-defence-spending-target-says-michael/). The Tories have already committed to increasing the budget ahead of inflation on an annual basis and I could see an argument for increasing spending if it went towards cyber security but personally speaking I do not believe we should waste money on a ballistic missile system (I remain highly sceptical that we would face attack ourselves from North Korea and we should be focussing on strengthening the diplomatic response anyways) or be wasting money on replacing all 4 Trident submarines (I would like to see the nuclear submarine fleet cut by 50% down to 2). In terms of actual funding policy announcements, Fallon told the Conservative conference that £1bn will be pumped into the Royal Navy to invest in maintenance contracts for vessels including the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are fit for purpose so they spend more at sea post-Brexit. Well the Tories have always seen themselves as "global leaders in defence" and the policy goes down well with the base and if it helps to safeguard jobs, then it's a policy that will be beneficial regardless of whether Brexit actually ends up happening or not.

I have no issue with the expansion of cadet units in state schools.  I can understand the desire to give more state school students the chance to participate in activities that will help build their confidence and allow them to develop vital interpersonal skills (Fallon says the Government aims to establish 500 cadet units by 2020...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/michael-fallon-cadet-unit-expansion-state-schools-uk-defence-secretary-social-mobility-conservative-a7980046.html). It's also good that the £50m of funding is coming from the Libor fine.

Making all positions available in the Armed Forces to women is a long-overdue decision but a welcome one; demonstrating a commitment to true equality of opportunity that we should all get behind regardless of political affiliation.

The Environment: 
Michael Gove announced that the maximum sentence for the most vile acts of animal cruelty will be increased from six months to five years; charities such as the RSPCA have been calling for tougher sentences for years and it is good to see the Government finally listen to them.
The Government are also looking to bring in a reward deposit return scheme for drinks bottles, with the working group charged with examining the proposal expected to report back early next year. I agree that such a policy would encourage people to recycle and reduce the amount of plastic in our seas and oceans.

Further Thoughts: 
I would be wary of dismissing the Tory conference in Manchester as an unmitigated PR disaster. Among some elements of the party, there is a defiant, forward-looking attitude persisting with a desire for a "successful Brexit" determining their optimism.  There are some Tory members who are not fussed by the idea of leaving the EU without a deal; for them Britain would thrive and weather any economic storm immediately following such an exit. Many of those members are turning towards fringe Brexiteer figures for answers; Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP for North East Somerset may have some reprehensible (at best old-fashioned) views on abortion and equal marriage (he doesn't speak for all Catholics or indeed all Christians in Britain btw) but to his "Moggmentum" fan club, he's seen as a credible leadership candidate. 600 people queued up on Monday 2nd October to hear him speak about the future of the UK post-Brexit. Not only did Mogg not disappoint the attendees with regards to bigging up the Brexit process (he compared the significance of Brexit with Magna Carta, the Burgesses entering Parliament, the Great Reform Act 1832, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the battles of Agincourt, Waterloo and Crecy and repeated his "we should give no more money to the EU" line), Mogg also decided to openly praise the activists for coming up with credible ideas and bemoaned the current party, structure, stating that MPs treat party activists "appallingly" (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/04/moggmentum-behind-jacob-rees-mogg-stirs-activists-tory-conservative-party-conference). By identifying so markedly with the base, Mogg is suring up his support should an opportunity arise for a ministerial position. Mogg's current and potential influence should not be underestimated by activists on the left or indeed, in the centre; he offers his sycophants a vision steeped in hope, one which they feel they desperately need to sustain their passion for social as well as fiscal "Classic" Conservative values. That includes the values that I'd rather see consigned to the dustbin of history such as telling women they can't have free access to abortions without abortion being seen as a crime. I completely agree the British Medical Association that all criminal sanctions related with the procedure should be abolished; abortion is a medical issue, not a criminal one (https://www.bma.org.uk/news/2017/june/doctors-back-decriminalisation-of-abortion). I suspect the Moggster and his fan club disagree with moi on that one.

It's perfectly acceptable (in fact it's preferable) to be optimistic and to hope for a better future for ourselves, our families, our communities and our nation. But the Tories cannot ignore the true extent of the massive structural issues that exist in the UK that have gotten worse under their watch, based on the dubious premise that Brexit will somehow help reduce or even resolve the majority of those issues within a few years following the conclusion of the process. Take for example the UK's productivity issue. Productivity levels have fallen for the second quarter in a row; the Office for National Statistics recorded a 0.1%  fall in the output per hour per worker between April and June which comes directly after a 0.5% decrease between January and March. We still produce as much per person as we did in the last quarter of 2007. According to the Financial Times, "UK workers produced 15.1% less per hour than workers in other G7 countries" in 2016 (https://www.ft.com/content/1c57dcb0-aa89-11e7-ab55-27219df83c97). This is extremely disappointing and indicates that Tory economic policy and the Industrial Strategy has failed to have the desired effect. Equally the UK has a huge productivity gap between the service and manufacturing sectors; service output per hour grew by 2.2% but manufacturing output per hour fell by 1.3% despite an increase in overall hours worked. Whilst the economy has grown (thanks to workers deciding that any job is worse than no job and being prepared to work long hours for minimal pay increases), the productivity issue needs to be addressed so that economic performance can improve further and the wages of young people, struggling to afford their rent, food and other life essentials can be raised without causing a huge inflation rise. Will the targeted £23bn worth of investment in infrastructure, research and housing already announced make a difference? Is it enough? More crucially: what effect will leaving the EU Single Market and Customs Union have on productivity growth levels?

The key issue that I feel has to be addressed urgently is housing. The Tory policies implemented between 2010 and 2017 have done little to help abate the crisis. Housing associations and private developers are only building 40,000 homes currently; that's less than the more than 50,000 homes built in 2011 and 2012 during the Coalition years (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/04/how-did-the-crisis-in-uk-social-housing-happen). According to Saville Research, in Lincoln, the average annual income needed to buy a 1,000 square foot home is £30,000; in London it's 68,000. Young people between the ages of 18 and 34 are spending more than 1/3 of their income after tax on rent or mortgage payments. It was only 5-10% back when my Dad was growing up in the 1960's. That's before you even talk about home ownership. The problem is that I don't aspire necessarily to owning my own home, I want a home in the future (when I eventually have to move out of my parents which is probably not going to happen till I hit the big 40 at this point) that is secure, fit for human habitation and has an affordable monthly rent. The Tories still seem to be obsessed with home ownership at the expense of private renters because of their focus on the Help to Buy scheme. Equally social rented housing  construction numbers have reduced from 36,000 in 2010/11 to 3,000 in 2011/12 (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rob-warm/theresa-may-housing_b_18190624.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&ir=UK+Politics) which a pitiful amount really. That being said, there have been changes made to the rent that can be set by housing associations from 2020 (a new rent formula) which apparently will increase the number of social homes built. These are small baby steps policy wise when what's needed for Generation Renters is a bolder, more radical policy platform with strong protections built in for tenants, such as rent controls and end to social cleansing in the name of gentrification. You know where those policy announcements have been made? That's right....by Jeremy Corbyn in his speech in Brighton.

Even if you're no fan of Corbyn's policies, take the advice of Larry Elliott. Elliot has suggested that a housing market crash may be on the way due to the severe mismatch between supply and demand and those households who have gained a mortgage through the Help-To-Buy scheme may find it difficult to make the monthly loan interest repayments if the Bank of England interest rate increases because their disposable income has already been squeezed as a result of stagnant wage growth. The median house price in England in 2016 was "7.72 times average earnings", with the figure being 12.88 times average earnings in London. Those whose incomes fall in the bottom 25% in London now expect to pay "13.52 times their average earnings for a property in the cheapest 25% bracket"(https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/08/the-uk-housing-markets-perfect-storm-and-five-steps-to-avoid-it). These figures are truly shocking and bold policy decisions need to be taken to prevent this Elliot argues that the Help-To-Buy should be scrapped, changes made to the council tax system and to land banking regulations and increasing supply  e.g. "identifying large sites abutting urban areas and acquiring them at a modest premium to the value of their existing use". Elliot also believes that the Bank of England should raise interest rates using a "kid glove approach" designed to help to "engineer a gradual fall in real (inflation adjusted) house prices".

Then there is the undeniable feeling that people who find themselves in strained circumstances through no fault of their own are not being supported adequately by this Government.; PM May's reluctance to order a review into the Universal Credit rollout to address the 6 week waiting period demonstrates her continued adherence to an austerity agenda that is hurting the most vulnerable in society. A Guardian reader, Mhari talked about how her first payment amount was incorrect and overdue and even when £250 was issued to her, it turns out that it was issued in error and she has to pay that back. Mhari is now at a point where she feels she is "existing" and wrote that if she "had two doors in front of her marked life and death", she'd "walk through the death door in a heartbeat". The UC changes are literally damaging people's mental health to the point where they are deciding they'd rather be dead than alive (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/08/i-cant-even-charge-my-wheelchair-the-impact-of-universal-credit-delays). UC is meant to "make work pay" whilst at the same time safeguarding disabled people from poverty and despair. 2.5m families will be on average £2,100 worse off as a result of the UC changes. Shame on the Government for pushing on with this ill-thought out UC rollout.

Conclusion:
Home truths time. The fact is, PM May and Tory frontbenchers, voters need real Jam today, not Jam tomorrow (i.e. significant investment which may require an increase in Government borrowing for a short period). We're not going to tackle structural issues such as the productivity puzzle or the Housing Crisis unless we have a party of Government that is prepared to deliver a radical, progressive vision for our country which is backed up by bold but clear and deliverable policies that can work regardless of whether Brexit actually happens in the form being moulded by Double D and his motley Brexiteer crew. I am not exactly Corbyn's biggest fan when it seems he is advocating for a Brexit which involves leaving the Single Market and Customs Union post the transitional deal or renationalisation max but I appreciate his progressive views on domestic policy. I'm much closer to the Lib Dems with their proposals for a referendum on the terms of the deal along with calls for mandatory sprinkler systems, annual checks by fire service personnel on buildings above 4 storeys and making fire evacuation drills mandatory in all buildings over 10 storeys "at times of peak occupancy by the end of June 2018". PM May never once mentioned such measures in her speech and yet tenants have been asking for such measures in the hope of improving fire safety following the Grenfell Tower fire and such requests have been made by people across the country, across racial, gender, age and yes, even Brexit outlook/voter divides. You see a desire for demonstrable progress is one which transcends such barriers. Yet the vision that has been outlined by PM May and her ministers is one of continuity, one of "Keep Calm and Carry On", a rose-tinted vision that is ultimately unsustainable.

If PM May and her cabinet do not devise more radical policies to address the housing crisis, to help the  most vulnerable in our society whilst at the same time enabling social mobility and a spirit of aspiration, I have no doubt that some independently minded swing voters will have no choice to vote for a party that offers at least an exciting, radical vision and a set of bold domestic policies....a party like the Lib Dems, the Greens or Labour.

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.