Confidence(ish), Progress and Hope

Gosh it seems like an age since I wrote my last blogpost! Time flies by when your diary and/or reading list is full to the brim. I can't really complain: I've met with many interesting and intelligent people who share my passion for creating a more equal, inclusive society through delivery of progressive policies and social action projects. One thing I can say for definite is that our young people in Lincolnshire have a plethora of genuinely game-changing ideas to share with the world and it's important, now more than ever, to do what we can to help cultivate platforms for them to share such ideas. It shouldn't matter what a young person's socio-economic circumstances happen to be- if they have something engaging and thought-provoking to say, they should have a space where they can express themselves openly and frankly and a space where they can listen to others doing the same thing, in the hope they collaborate and bring transformative ideas to life.

I wish I had had more opportunities to build the self confidence I needed to express my thoughts and share my ideas out of the school environment. I think my teachers and peers appreciated the contributions I did make in lessons like PSHE and Religious Studies but I never felt comfortable with the mechanics of it all. I guess I felt partly judged but also that I didn't want to be seen to be hogging the limelight or wasting my peers' time. When you are seen as a bit of a social outcast or the “weird one”, it can make you feel like you have to be quieter, so that you don't draw more attention to yourself than the attention sought of you by the teacher. The reality of the situation may be completely different to your perception of it- peers may be feeling nervous themselves and would love to hear someone being bold and being prepared to share thoughts with them to help spark conversations, especially when challenging conversations need to be had in the classroom. The Heads Together Mentally Healthy Schools page states that anxiety can become an issue for students when “their fear or worry seems out of proportion to the problem, it leads to unhelpful and unrealistic thoughts about themselves and others and/or when it interferes with their ability to take part in activities” (https://www.mentallyhealthyschools.org.uk/mental-health-needs/the-anxious-or-worried-child/). I certainly felt overwhelmed by social situations at school and whilst I was never without friends, it wasn't easy to engage in ordinary school activities. There were times when I found it difficult to concentrate, especially as exams neared and there was many a time when I'd come back from secondary school in floods of tears having received a module report, parent's report or exam grade and feeling like I'd not done well enough, even though the majority of my effort grades over the 7 year period I was there were in the A-C range. My parents or teachers never felt that I ever needed specialist pastoral support and some of my teachers thought as long as I was doing reasonably well in their subject “I would pull myself together” before the exams and pass them and then be less anxious as a result. Perhaps they didn't fully understand how emotionally draining it was for me, to cope with expectations, to over challenges I faced as a result of dyspraxia and my body confidence issues. As for my gender, they just had no real clue or at least they didn't want to be vocal about it. Maybe I should have spoken up more and said how I was feeling. I got through school life but it was hard at times.

So you see some young people will never feel like they can be completely themselves at school and that's why fostering spaces for discussion outside the school environment can be vitally important.

The tentativeness approach to life that took hold at school seemed to ebb away at the University of York. I felt freer to be more myself...maybe it was because I met more folks who seemed like me – dyspraxic, gender stereotype breakers, feminists, shopaholics (I do love a charity shop vintage clothing or jewellery bargain and still frequent them today) but even when at my most uninhibited, I still felt I couldn't be entirely expressive of my opinions in Philosophy seminars. It was really strange that I could quite easy lead a seminar on discussions of gender identity and stereotyping and breaking Regency social mores in Jane Austen's work but didn't feel confident to discuss the differences between dualism and monism in the philosophy of mind (Descartes vs Spinoza....worth looking up if you have the time and inclination: https://psychologenie.com/dualism-vs-monism-in-philosophy). It was partly a fear of being seen as lazy if I got some element of the theory argument wrong (in English Literature it was more about remembering historical dates where my long-term memory doesn't seen to desert me) and partly because I never saw myself as a capable debater or philosopher...unsurprisingly this is still pretty much the case today. I enjoyed more listening to the views of my peers in philosophy seminars so would only contribute when required/prompted by the tutor and then came the slipping up of words, the tentativeness, the uneasiness and the patronising/sympathetic looks and nitpicky comments, usually from the ex public schoolboys who chose Philosophy because they thought it was a “liberal conservative chic” subject to take and they'd probably have a cushy job or internship to look forward to. Alright for some I guess. I'd smile back but it was a front to mask my anxiety, my fear of having to bear being subject to the charge of being inane. Being arcane has it's advantages but fear of being inane is one cross you seem to have to bear, especially if you're a dyspraxic student. Thank God I could escape to the local Cat's Protection charity shop for a natter with the local manager who literally gave the best and most frank life advice ever: “Wear your craziest 80's leggings to the next seminar and show you don't give a f**k about their patronising tone” she said once. I did....and I said what I thought to the bitchy ex public schoolboys and yes, it made me feel a million times better. Self-care is so important. Sometimes you just have to rebel. Suffice to say my tutor for the course was quite taken aback by it all. But then she was a social conservative and I don't think she or any of the liberal Tories in that group had met someone like me. Learning experiences are good for all concerned, regardless of background so I hope it helped them in some way....well they may know what 80's leggings look like. That's a start...

After uni, I became more withdrawn and felt more and more my views and the ideas I espoused didn't really matter. This week the Social Housing Green paper was released and in it there was a chapter dedicated to talking about social stigma faced by social housing tenants. All of the engagement events conducted with residents as part of putting the paper together included discussions about social stigma. The paper highlights research conducted by Shelter earlier this year which found that “24% of families in social housing feel looked down on because of where they live, compared with only 8% of families who are private renters or homeowners” (https://england.shelter.org.uk/media/press_releases/articles/shelter_launches_new_social_housing_commission). It's interesting how the Tory Government now seem more willing to state they need to recognise the contributions made by social housing tenants towards improving community cohesion. They need to do far more to “value the diversity of residents in social housing-from the most vulnerable who need support, to the majority of adult residents working and those supporting vital services like the NHS” (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/733605/A_new_deal_for_social_housing_web_accessible.pdf). That means changing perceptions with social housing tenants leading the way by telling their stories and sharing their ideas for such change.

I can tell you from personal experience there are folks who are in HR and Recruitment roles in Lincolnshire who can have an bias against applicants from certain areas where social housing is prevalent. This bias is often not expressed in words but is noticeable through changes in vocal tone and body language. You can have all the qualifications you need to enter a career sector but if they take one look at your address and make an assumption, that's it.....they'll exchange pleasantries, ask the questions they need to ask to fill in their sheets but come selection process time, you just know they'll find the excuse not to hire you. It's the quiet tut, the glancing of eyes or avoidance of eye contact that gives such people away. It's disheartening, it can make you less willing to be open and it can put young people off from applying for jobs in certain sectors.

I've met numerous young jobseekers who have been long-term unemployed who are engaging, passionate about particular issues (e.g. reducing homelessness and improving the housing sector) but who feel like they never get a chance to air their views and showcase their ideas and even when they do get a rare chance, they never feel like they've not been listened to by those they perceive to be in positions of power. I believe we need to do far more as a society to provide meaningful engagement opportunities and provide funding to encourage those who share their ideas to test them through the creation of social action projects. Grassroots self-improvement projects will help participants to build their self-confidence, improve communication and interpersonal skills and give them a chance to shape their own future path. Some of the people deemed “hardest to reach” by professionals have the most interesting ideas and rather than taking a restrictive, punitive approach with them or mollycoddling them, let them take charge of their destinies through creating their own volunteering social action projects and for goodness sake ensure they have money to be able to follow through with it.

I'm very lucky to now be in a position where I can begin to work with young people from low-income backgrounds, young people with low-level mental health conditions like social anxiety, young people who are experiencing long-term unemployment (NEETs) as well as young people who feel like they are social outcasts from urban and rural areas of Lincolnshire. All have the potential to come up with transformative, progressive ideas and I want to work with them to co-curate a platform they can access and contribute to to share those ideas. This will be done in a multitude of ways and I, for one, am excited at what progress could be achieved. My own passion for writing has been continually renewed and inspired by daily conversations, long and short. I'm beginning to feel more confident once again about speaking in public too, which is a positive development and who knows, I may be speaking at events across the country one day, sharing my own thoughts and those of others who have a progressive, hopeful vision for their communities and for the UK as a whole. I may still be tentative Matti at heart, but I'm growing in knowledge, experience and awareness every day and I'm really grateful for that.

The #ComeOutForLGBT Stonewall campaign matters. Here's why:

Last week, Stonewall published a new report into reported and unreported hate crime against the LGBT+ community. The "LGBT in Britain-Hate Crime and Discrimination" report was put together after Stonewall created an online survey that was disseminated by YouGov, to respondents in England, Scotland and Wales. 5,375 people responded to the survey. Being trans non-binary, I wanted to look at the report primarily from that perspective. Therefore it is important to note that out of the 5,375 respondents, 14% identified as trans, 4% said they "were unsure of whether they are trans or are questioning their gender identity", 8% identified their gender in "a different way" (including non-binary, genderfluid and genderqueer). 35% of all respondents to the report were disabled and 6% of respondents are from a British black, Asian or minority ethnic (BAME) background.  I'd argue that this high percentage of LGBT+ disabled participants means that particular attention should be paid to statistics relating to LGBT+ disabled people, including those who are non-binary (and genderfluid, genderqueer and agender).

Here are some of the overall key statistics from the report that you should be aware of:

1. 21% of LGBT+ people have experienced a hate crime or incident in the last year because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity
2. 81% of anti-LGBT+ hate crime and incidents go UNREPORTED and there are an increasing number of young LGBT+ people who state that they are reluctant to go to the police because they believe that the hate crime or incident will not be thoroughly investigated (only 12% of LGBT people aged between 18 to 24 reported a hate crime or incident to the police)
3. 10% of LGBT+ people who were looking to rent or buy a home in the past year were discriminated against
4. 10% of LGBT+ people have experienced homophobic, biphobic or transphobic abuse online that was targeted at them IN THE PAST MONTH. 
5. 17% of LGBT+ people who have visited a cafe, restaurant, bar or nightclub in the past 12 months were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity
6. 24% of black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) LGBT+ people were discriminated against by social services on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity
7. 28% of LGBT+ people who visited a place of worship have faced discrimination in the last year
8. 10% of LGBT+ people who attended a live sporting event (football match, tennis match etc) experienced discrimination in the last year based on their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

In terms of trans, non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer and agender people:

1. 40% of trans people have experienced a hate crime or incident in the past year because of their gender identity 
2. 18% of trans people have experienced a hate crime or incident in the past year because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation 
3. 39% of non-binary people have experienced a hate crime or incident in the past year because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, compared with 19% of LGBT who define as male or female
4. 26% of trans people online directly experienced transphobic abuse IN THE PAST MONTH
5. 26% of non-binary people online directly experienced personal online abuse IN THE PAST MONTH
6. 25% of trans people were discriminated against when looking to rent or buy a home in the last year
7. 33% of trans people who have visited a cafe, restaurant, bar or nightclub in the past 12 months were discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity
8. 35% of trans people who have visited a department store or shop were discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity 
9. 29% of trans people were discriminated against when accessing social services
10. 25% of trans people contacting the emergency services (through call centres) were discriminated against
11. 38% of trans people who visited a place of worship in the past year have been discriminated against 
12. 38% of trans people avoid going to the gym or take part in grassroots sport because they fear being discriminated against. 

In terms of LGBT+ disabled people such as myself (I'm dyspraxic):

1. 27% of LGBT+ disabled people have experienced a hate crime or incident based on their sexual orientation and/or gender identity in the last year and they are 10% more likely to experience such hate crime or incidents than non disabled LGBT+ people.
2. 13% of LGBT+ disabled people feel unsafe in their ward
3. 21% of LGBT+ disabled people have been discriminated against when visiting a cafe, restaurant, bar or nightclub in the last year
4. 10% of LGBT+ disabled people have been discriminated against when accessing bank services or visiting an insurance company in the past year
5. 18% of LGBT+ disabled people have experienced discrimination when accessing social services in the last year
6. 17% of LGBT+ disabled people avoid going to the gym or participating in grassroots sporting activities because they fear being discriminated against
7. 16% of LGBT+ disabled people going to the gym or participating in grassroots activities have faced discrimination. 

These statistics are shocking and demonstrate the need, in my view, to argue strongly against those who believe that "enough" LGBT+ equality has been achieved in the UK. People like Steve H who tweeted: "They (LGBT+ people) have equal rights now. They have single sex (he means same-sex or equal) marriage. Enough is enough. This tiny minority should just shut up and be happy". So much is wrong with Steve's tweet. For starters, non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer and agender people like me cannot get married without having to put a binary gender marker on a marriage certificate. Then non-binary people like me cannot get our gender identity recognised on official legal documentation such as passports. Then we face indirect discrimination in recruitment as some employers refuse to recognise the validity of  different gender identities (or lack thereof) and then find another reason not to hire you so they do not fall foul of employment legislation and the Employment Tribunal system. Then there is the issue with access to NHS Gender Identity Services services because such access isn't guaranteed;some GPs are indirectly discriminating against non-binary patients by refusing to carry out a referral although this may change with the introduction of new specifications for Adult Gender Identity Services. We are far from achieving real equality of opportunity in the UK.

Anti-LGBT Hate Crime:

Figures revealed in this new Stonewall report demonstrate quite markedly that trans people and non binary people remain targets for hate crime, with young trans and non-binary people (aged between 18 and 24) being at greatest risk. 56% of trans young people have experienced a hate crime or incident in the past year. At a time when society is meant to be more open-minded and tolerant of different gender identities, the fact that young people are most likely to be targeted is uncomfortable. Even worse for me is reading that 27% of LGBT+ disabled people have experienced hate crime or incidents that were because of their sexual orientation or gender identity in the past year. I am dyspraxic and I have been openly insulted by people in the street based on my walking (I've been called a waddling penguin, "Collywobbles" and a clumsy oaf) as well as being insulted and harassed based on my gender identity and presentation (the usual slurs that do not need to be repeated here). Trans, disabled people from BAME backgrounds are discriminated against on multiple levels in daily life and are far more likely to face hate crime and incidents on the basis of gender identity, their disability and their race than someone like myself. A holistic, intersectional approach should be adopted by the police, local authorities and businesses and organisations in the private sector so that racism, xenophobia, ableism and transphobia are all tackled head on from an early age to help debunk stereotypes and fight prejudice if we are going to reduce hate crime and incidents overall.

The report states that the most common type of hate crime experienced by LGBT+ people are ones where victims were insulted, pestered, intimidated or harassed (87%). Attitudes towards stereotyping of LGBT+ people, especially trans, non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer and agender people needs to continue to be challenged head-on. Unacceptable homophobic, biphobic and transphobic language needs to be called out, any insults being excused as just "banter" should be condemned by LGBT+ people and their allies in offices, gyms, sports clubs, religious buildings, shops, restaurants, bars and banks across the UK. Street harassment against LGBT+ people should be reported to the police whenever and wherever it occurs.

More disturbingly, the YouGov polling revealed that 26% of LGBT+ people polled had experienced unwanted sexual contact, 21% had been threatened with violence and 11% had been physically assaulted (with or without a weapon). No LGBT+ person should accept being touched in their genital area by a person without consent. No LGBT+ person should accept being slapped on the bottom.
No LGBT+ person should face being threatened with violence or be physically assaulted by malicious bigots.  And yet, 81% of LGBT+ people have not reported hate crime and incidents such as these to the police. Trust in the ability of the police to thoroughly investigate hate crime seems to have been eroded, especially with young people. Polls and research I conducted myself on hate crime last year on this blog backs up such a sentiment. The Lincolnshire Hate Crime Strategy (discussed further in the next section) refers to a variety of research on transphobic hate crime, including a study into "the underreporting of transphobic hate crime and police interactions with the Trans community" by Greater Manchester police between 2013-15. The report found that 38.8% of trans people didn't believe the incident was serious enough to report, 35.8% thought the police officer at the station would perceive them as time wasting, 28.4% didn't want to inform police officers about their status and 22.4% feared being outed by police. However, the report did find that 65.9% of trans respondents to the report would have reported the transphobic hate crime through a third party organisation. Recommendations from the report included creating inclusive and engaging targeted campaigns to inform trans people about how to report hate crime and for frontline officers to demonstrate more empathy when dealing with victims of transphobic hate crime. Pretty much the same recommendations that are still being made by Stonewall in this latest report!

What else can be done to increase reporting rates and improve trust with the police? I agree with Stonewall's key suggestion that HR staff in local police forces need to ensure that training for frontline staff is robust so they have clear and concise instructions to follow when they need to make a report of LGBT +hate crime and incidents. Bias and stereotypes need to be debunked, so that all frontline staff are aware of the importance of recording all information received in an impartial manner so there is more of a chance of perpetrators being prosecuted. All police forces should sign up to a diversity programme such as Stonewall's Diversity Champion Programme (25 are currently members) so that training can be designed and delivered effectively with the input of local LGBT+ members. There should be a commitment in the police forces' mission statement or organisational strategy to tackle anti-LGBT+ hate crime in their force area and raise awareness of third party reporting centres that can be approached if the LGBT+ victim is afraid of reporting the crime directly. More importantly, data relating to LGBT+ hate crime should be analysed on an annual basis with reports being made public (released on the police force website) wherever possible and any recommendations to improve the organisational strategy clearly stated in the report.

I also agree with Stonewall's recommendation to the Home Office that they should make anti-LGBT+ hate crime aggravated offences. This recommendation was also made in the Trans Enquiry Report, published by the Women and Equalities Select Committee last year, which also notes that "there are no offences relating to "stirring up hatred against trans people, as there are for race, religion or sexual orientation under the Public Order Act 1986" (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf p.59). Currently, CPS guidance (updated August 2017) states that the prosecution have to rely on applying section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 uplifts. Section 146 makes it clear that judges have a "duty to increase the sentence for any offence that involves the offender demonstrating hostility based on the sexual orientation or transgender identity (should be gender identity) of the victim (or presumed sexual orientation or transgender identity) or the offence being motivated by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation or transgender identity" (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homophobic_and_transphobic_hate_crime/). Hostility may be defined as "ill will, ill-feeling, spite, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike" but evidence of this hostility must be provided in order to gain a successful conviction.

The report has also highlighted the fact that there are many LGBT+ people do not feel safe when walking on Britain's streets. 44% of trans people avoid certain streets so they do not become victims of targeted harassment. 14% of trans people do not feel safe in the area they live in. 40% of trans people have said they have changed the way they dress to avoid street harassment. Police officers and Police Community Support officers should engage directly with trans people in their local area and try and find out why they feel unsafe and come up with action plans or "specific interventions" to try and reduce the level of harassment.

The issue of online abuse has received significant attention over the past year and the figures from this latest report continue to demonstrate the need for social media platforms to take decisive action to help protect trans social media users from transphobic behaviour. Non-binary LGBT+ people face more targeted discrimination than binary LGBT+ people (26% of non-binary people experienced online personal abuse compared to 10% of men and 8% of women). 23% of young people have been subjected to homophobic, biphobic and transphobic online abuse, with young trans people most affected (34%). Young LGBT+ people are also more likely to witness online personal abuse targeted towards others in the LGBT+ community; 72% witnessed online abuse in the last month. Nobody deserves to be confronted with misgendering, threats of physical violence or death threats when using social media platforms. Stonewall has recommended that social media platforms take "swift action", keeping  tweeters informed of the progress and letting them know what actions will be taken following the outcome of the case. Blocking and muting functions available on accounts are usually effective until a tweeter decides to make up another account to troll you with and then keeps doing it on a regular basis...i.e. targeted harassment. This is why I wholeheartedly agree with Stonewall's recommendation that social media platforms "work with the police and with the Crown Prosecution Service to develop more effective responses to anti-LGBT+ hate online, in consultation with LGBT+ people and organisations". Strengthening of IT education in schools to include lessons on internet safety should help empower young LGBT+ people to report cyberbullying on social media platforms more regularly but LGBT+ people and allies online should be prepared to call out and report targeted cyberbullying and harassment whenever they see it occurring. This will send a strong message to social media platforms that they should continue to address targeted cyberbullying and harassment, especially against trans, non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer and agender people.

Anti-LGBT+ Hate Crime in Lincolnshire: 

The report has revealed that 19% of LGBT+ people based in the East Midlands have experienced a hate crime or incident due to their gender identity or sexual orientation in the past year. A Boston Standard article from February 2017 highlighted an increase in reported hate crime, with LGBT+ people and disabled people reporting more hate crime and incidents (http://www.bostonstandard.co.uk/news/lincolnshire-force-sees-rise-in-recorded-hate-crime-but-not-in-the-aftermath-of-brexit-1-7822438). In Lincolnshire, there is a Hate Crime Strategy which has been in place since 2015, with agencies working together to tackle underreporting rates. The strategy, put together by the Lincolnshire Community Safety Partnership, highlights that there were 37 hate crimes recorded as hate crime against LGB people on the basis of their sexual orientation and 24 hate incidents recorded against LGB on the basis of their sexual orientation and 11 hate crimes recorded as hate crime against trans people in 2015/16 and 6 hate incidents recorded in 2015/16 (file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Lincolnshire%20Hate%20Crime%20Strategy%202016-18.pdf).

There are several elements to the Hate Crime Strategy. The first relates to available reporting routes.
If you are a victim of anti-LGBT+ hate crime or incident in Lincs, you can report the hate crime or incident directly to Lincs Police if you want, or you can report the hate crime or incident through a number of third party organisations who have agreed to support Lincs' Hate Crime Strategy. These include Lincoln Catch 22, Lincs YMCA, Total Voice, Lincoln Central Volunteering Services, Boston College and Boston Centrepoint. Individuals within those organisations have been specially trained to report hate crimes and incidents to Stop Hate UK, an independent charity which "offers service users immediate practical and emotional support" and operates a 24/7 service, which can be accessed through phone, email, web-chat, online form on their website or through post. Referrals to Stop Hate UK can be made anonymously but Stop Hate UK can also pass on details to Lincs Police with the consent of the victim. Just Lincolnshire, the "single equality organisation" that aims to champion equality and tackle discrimination across the county can also help with reporting hate crime and incidents. If you fill in their online form (http://justlincolnshire.org.uk/assets/downloads/Interactive_reporting_form.pdf) or call in and make an appointment with the wonderfully helpful team (who can help you compile the report), the report can then be passed on to Stop Hate UK and/or Lincs Police. Lincs police's website makes it clear that they will investigate all cases thoroughly and gives advice as to the types of evidence needed to help build the case, including providing a diary format for victims to use to record ongoing incidents of stalking, harassment and anti-social behaviour (https://www.lincs.police.uk/reporting-advice/hate-crime/). The victim may be also asked to "provide a statement to account for what has occurred" whether in written or video-recorded form. Even if the case investigation is then closed, it doesn't mean it will be closed permanently; if more evidence comes to light, Lincs Police pledge to review the case and carry out further investigations. Victims may also get support through Victims Lincs, including "access to a dedicated Complex Case Worker".  The City of Lincoln Council website makes it clear that anyone can report a hate crime, including visitors to Lincolnshire and still encourage hate crime and incidents to be reported, even if there were no witnesses to the crime or incident.

The Hate Crime Strategy also states that the "Home Office has supported the development of a website to encourage the development of a website to engage greater reporting of transphobic hate crime and incidents (http://www.tcrime.net/)". I'm sure that Lincs police are making use of this reporting tool and will continue to do so in the future.

It's important therefore that all Lincs residents are aware of what the definition of hate crime entails, how they can report the hate crime and what actions will be taken by the police force to pursue the perpetrators and bring them to justice. I believe this includes talking about hate crime as part of key Equality and Diversity training in public, private and third sector organisations across Lincolnshire and talking to secondary school children, college and university students about hate crime as part of pastoral care. I believe the more knowledge a person has of hate crime and the reporting system, the more likely they will be to report the hate crime and incident. Education, as is so often the case, is key.

Direct and indirect discrimination in daily life: 

Much of the hate crime and incidents in the UK are taking place in public spaces. 33% of trans people have faced discrimination whilst visiting a cafe, restaurant, bar or nightclub. 47% of young trans people (aged 18-24) have faced such discrimination. 51% of trans people avoid venues because they fear being discriminated against. 35% of trans people have faced discrimination when in a department store or shop. 26% of trans people were discriminated against when visiting a bank or insurance company. 48%, nearly 1 in 2 trans people feel uncomfortable using public toilet facilities. These statistics make it clear that trans people face routine discrimination when trying to carry out day-to-day activities. The testimony from trans people in the survey makes grim reading: 21 year old Flynn has had people asking about their sex and genitals in inappropriate situations and he was sexually assaulted in the street in public with people grabbing their crotch and 28 year old Dylan was being barred from both male and female changing rooms because they "were not perceived as male or female enough to use them". Such behaviour exhibited by customers and staff needs to be combatted and every customer-facing organisation should have an Equality and Diversity policy which makes it clear that the organisation will not tolerate anti-LGBT+ hate crime and incidents being committed on their premises. I agree with Stonewall's recommendation that staff should learn how to treat LGBT+ customers, especially trans, non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer and agender ones with respect. At the very least, all employees should be aware of the need to use a person's correct pronouns (especially if a trans, non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer or agender person mentions the pronoun at the beginning of the conversation) and avoid asking any unnecessary or inappropriate questions. Any insults or inappropriate language uttered by employees should be investigated and disciplinary procedures followed stringently, including the use of formal written warnings, suspension and dismissal for repeat offenders.  More organisations in Lincolnshire are beefing up their organisational policies and procedures but anti trans, non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer and agender attitudes within the team need to be addressed head on and employees and customers alike should not be allowed to air their views during business opening hours. There are organisations in Lincoln who will support Lincoln Pride, including Siemens, Bond Housing Group and Lindum Fire Services (http://www.lincolnpride.co.uk/about) but it'd be good to see even more local organisations getting involved and showing solidarity with LGBT+ customers and employees.

Direct and indirect discrimination against LGBT+ in the housing market is equally unacceptable. Flatshare ads are being disseminated with statements such as "No Gay People" or "Preferred Housemate:Straight" (Marlow, 31 years old states that such ads are "quite common" in London). Estates agents are getting away with misgendering trans people and landlords are making completely inappropriate sexual remarks. Estates agents, as with any other customer-facing businesses definately have to ensure that internal Equality and Diversity training is delivered, with managers or team leaders undertaking a specific course such as the NCFE Level 2 in Equality and Diversity (a formal qualification which is nationally recognised and could count towards the Continuing Professional Development annual requirement). This will help boost the reputation of the estate/lettings agency as LGBT+ friendly as clients may recommend the agency online through review websites or social media and this could then lead to more LGBT+ clients choosing to go with the agency in the future. Housing associations must remind all residents of the need to treat fellow residents with respect and dignity and that includes refraining from using homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) language. Targeted HBT bullying and harassment must be dealt with quickly, with perpetrators losing their right to continue the tenancy if they refuse to moderate their behaviour and encouraging victims of hate crime or incidents to report the perpetrators to the police as soon as possible so the case can be investigated meticulously.

The fact that LGBT+ social service users, especially from a British BAME background are being discriminated against is quite frankly unacceptable. Every person in the UK has the right to access social services free from being negatively stereotyped and judged and I am wholeheartedly behind Stonewall's recommendation that "mandatory training should be delivered to all social services staff to tackle anti LGBT+ discrimination and meet the specific needs of LGBT+ service users". The aim of the training should be to debunk stereotypes is essential and LGBT+ people should be involved in the creation of training materials and where possible, delivery of the course. Policies and procedures need to be updated by each local authority so that employees understand how to treat trans service users with respect and dignity. Employees who refuse to follow the new policies and procedures should be disciplined and offered the opportunity to undertake targeted training and if they refuse to take that training up, their position should be considered as it is not acceptable for public service members to continue discriminating against service users on the basis of their gender identity or expression/presentation. I also agree with the recommendation for local authorities to design and put up posters or disseminate leaflets that demonstrate to all service users that they are treating LGBT+ service users with respect and dignity. Such activities do not take much time but effective learning materials can really communicate a positive message, especially if LGBT+ social workers and other local authority employees have been involved in the production process.

From a personal point of view as a trans, non-binary Lutheran Christian, I am disappointed to see that LGBT+ people still face discrimination when attending a place of worship in the UK. Drilling down into the report figures, you find that 45% of BAME LGBT+ people have faced discrimination in places of worship compared to 26% of white LGBT+ people of faith. 38% of trans people who attend places of worship also stated they had faced direct discrimination. 27% of LGBT people believe that their religious community doesn't make them feel welcome and lesbians are less likely to feel welcomed than gay men (37% of lesbian respondents and 24% of gay respondents in the YouGov poll said this). These findings demonstrate the need for local faith leaders to play their part in welcoming LGBT+ people and calling out homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) language and bullying, especially if they are aware of bullying taking place in their youth and community groups. Christian vicars, pastors, priests, churchwardens, deacons, rectors, sextons, vergers, vestrymen, elders and lay leaders for example should help to debunk stereotypes and support young and old LGBT+ parishioners alike. Giving sermons on Jesus' acts of compassion and reminding parishioners of His message of unconditional love for everyone (Matthew 5:12, Matthew 22:37-39). Unfortunately there are faith leaders and representatives who believe it is their right to make disgusting comments. I'm reminded of David Robertson, the former leader of the Free Church of Scotland who believes that LGBT+ inclusive Sex and Relationships Education  at primary school age would lead to "state sponsored child abuse" because children would be taught age-appropriately about gender identity (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/01/19/church-leader-claims-lgbt-inclusive-sex-ed-is-a-trojan-horse-for-child-abuse/comments/#disqus_thread). His views are vile and aim to spread fear and division rather than a message of love and compassion. He's not a role model to be followed. Instead, LGBT+ faith leaders should encourage the teaching of LGBT+ inclusive SRE as a way of reducing instances of HBT bullying in school and thus reduce the likelihood of those school students becoming perpetrators of anti LGBT+ hate crime in the future. Equally, if any HBT bullying happens during a Sunday School group session, the teacher should call it out straight away and reprimand the bully for not following Jesus' compassionate example. LGBT+ Christians should be aware that there are a number of faith organisations out there they can approach regardless of their denomination, including:

• One Body, One Faith, the Lesbian and Gay Christian movement founded in 1976 and whose aim is that "human sexuality in all its richness" be accepted as a "gift from God gladly to be accepted, enjoyed and honoured as a way of expressing and growing in love". One Body, One Faith (a quote from 1 Corinthians 12:12) advocates for trans, non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer and agender Christians too, with Christians embracing the diversity of sexual orientation and gender identity "present within the body of Christ to enrich that mission to be agents of transformation for all (http://www.onebodyonefaith.org.uk/). 
• The Evangelical Fellowship for Lesbian and Gay Christians (EFLGC) set up in 1979 whose aims are to make LGBT+ Evangelical Christians and their allies welcome, valued as people and aware of God's presence and blessing. EFLGC welcomes Christians of any sexual orientation and any gender identity. EFLGC organises regional weekend conferences every spring and autumn and there are regional groups in some areas of the UK. EFLGC members also get two existing members who can provide information and advice (https://www.eflgc.org.uk/). 
• Diverse Church (DC), set up by Reverend Sally Hitchiner, an Anglican priest in 2013 after meeting many young LGBT+ Christians who had experienced conversion therapy in an attempt to "cure" them of their homosexuality and others who had become depressed because  they had experienced rejection and ridicule. DC won the 2016 award for "Most Innovative Youth Work" at the Christian Youth Work Awards. There are now "over 350 members between the ages of 18 and 30 in the UK and the Republic of Ireland" and they communicate over social media platforms and organise local and national meetings (http://diversechurch.website/)

Christian denominations across the UK are slowly becoming more welcoming towards LGBT+ people, with the Church of England General Synod recently voting to affirm, not just welcome trans people. According to Tina Beardsley, the fact that the Synod vote was so decisive "signals that this church, as an institution, is ready to align itself with the evidence base that endorses trans people's reality and their right to self-determination" (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/11/church-of-england-trans-gay-clergy-parishioners?CMP=share_btn_tw). However, Beardsley did recognise that non-binary people still face discrimination because we dare to challenge the gender-binary norm openly but she hopes that that non-binary people will eventually be accepted as well as trans binary ones.

Discrimination against LGBT+ people in sports participation and viewing has been highlighted in several reports over the last decade. The YouGov polling only adds to that existing body of evidence. 22% of trans people have experienced discrimination when attending a live sporting event and 51% of non-binary people said that they do not feel welcome attending sporting events. 38% of trans people avoid the gym or participating in grassroots sports groups and of those that do attend, 28% were discriminated against. Stonewall's recommendations include gyms and sports organisations making sure they have in place anti-bullying and harassment policies that are LGBT+ inclusive and look into potentially providing gender neutral changing facilities and(or at least) toilets so that trans, non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer and agender people can change without fearing being insulted, harassed or physically/sexually assaulted. I agree with Stonewall that local sports venues need to do more to promote local and national LGBT+ sporting role models to encourage more LGBT+ people to consider joining their club and/or attend matches.

Conclusion:
As this new Stonewall report has highlighted, there is still a long way to go before we truly achieve equality of opportunity and acceptance of differing sexual orientations and gender identities in the UK. It's incumbent on LGBTQIA+ (I prefer LGBTQIA+ to just writing LGBT+ myself) people such as myself and those who consider themselves allies to speak up against those who believe it's OK to commit hate crimes and incidents in the name of "free speech" or "freedom of expression". Insults should be call out, harassers and bullies reported to the police through third reporting channels or directly, employees should stand up for their colleagues and customers and report HBT language to their line manager so appropriate disciplinary action and faith leaders should continue standing up for their LGBTQIA+ parishioners by preaching a message of love and compassion and empowering them to become active members of their faith community. The #ComeOutForLGBT campaign, launched by Stonewall after they analysed the YouGov polling, shows that the LGBTQIA+ community has plenty of celebrity allies but also allies from all walks of life and from all social backgrounds. Let's continue working together to reduce rates of anti LGBTQIA+ hate crime in the UK and empower more individuals to feel free to truly be themselves in their public as well as private lives.

My Voice, My Vote. Framework for Contemplation Completion

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

The Arts: 

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

Choice: Labour.

Health and Social Care:

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

Choice: Labour.

Young People & Education:

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

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

Employment and The Welfare System:

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

Choice: Labour.

Law and Order:

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

Choice: Labour.

Environment and Housing:

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

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

LGBTQIA+ Issues:  

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

Choice: Both Labour and Lib Dems have good policies.

Other: 

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

Exploring the GE2017 Manifestos: The Arts, Media and Sport

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


Labour:

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

Lib Dems:

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

Conservatives:

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

Thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

Have the parties answered my framework questions?

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

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