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

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

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

A young lady who works in one of Birchwood's local hairdressing salons (and does a brilliant job) who is skeptical of the EU told me that she just wants to know whether she'd be able to afford basic food and drink for herself and her partner in a No-Deal scenario. Yes she did blame the EU for lack of progress on the deal. But she also made it clear that she didn't want food prices to rise to a point where her diet may become less varied and she doesn't have enough money to afford a lager or two down her local. I think it's so important that proponents of the People's Vote do not just cite a load of facts and figures at voters as an attempt to force them to “see the light”. Listen to what they have to say and then try to address the key issues that come out of the conversation. I've not met any neighbours or voters who would honestly say they are prepared to pay higher food prices as a result of Brexit, yet I've seen a number of tweets from the supposedly more well-heeled members of our society who would be “more than happy” to pay more for food in exchange for “sovereignty”. I wish those people could take a trip down to their local foodbank and talk with people there, who would include fellow Leave voters, some of whom are working 40-50 hour plus weeks to try and keep themselves and their family members from ending up on the streets and still do not have sufficient funds in place to afford basic food and drink in the last week before payday. Nearly 4 million people have stated they have used foodbanks at some point (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/food-banks-uk-how-many-people-adults-poverty-a8386811.html). Foodbank volunteers come from a cross-section of society and include EU citizens and I have massive respect for anyone that gives their time freely to keep them going.

There are many Remain and Leave voters who want to change the situation for low-income families, so they do not have to rely on foodbanks or end up destitute. It's a travesty that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) Report found that more than 1.5 million people, including 365,000 children were classed as destitute in 2017 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/food-banks-uk-how-many-people-adults-poverty-a8386811.html). As we enter an uncertain period, an additional 470,000 people could be living in poverty in 2020/21 as a result of Government decisions to freeze most working-age benefits and tax credits (https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/how-could-brexit-affect-poverty-uk). Under different Brexit scenarios, the JRF also estimates that real wages could fall by between 0.2% and 1.0%, which could lead to an increase in working households in poverty.

I hope that policies can be introduced soon to turn this around and I think they have to include increasing minimum wage rates for all workers to be in line with National Living Wage rates, reducing or banning zero-hours contracts, ending the freeze on working-age benefits and tax credits and ensuring that those who cannot work have the money they need to maintain a comfortable standard of living, including scrapping the draconian Bedroom Tax.

Femi Oluwole, the Co-Founder of the phenomenal campaign group, Our Future, Our Choice, made up of young people who voted Remain and Leave in the 2016 referendum and young people who were too young to vote, really struck a chord with me. I felt he and his team genuinely care about listening to the concerns of Leave voters, especially those that live in the top 10% most deprived areas of the UK. He talked about the residents of Sunderland that he met during his campaigning with warmth and I hope that attendees at the conference listened to him when he said “We need to be angry for Brexit voters, not at them”.

Tone matters a great deal in political campaigning, especially when trying to explore the issue of immigration. Figures compiled by the Migrant Observatory, based at the University of Oxford find that 53% of respondents want to see migration levels reduce: only 13% favour an increase in levels (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/). Personally I am not adverse to keeping Freedom of Movement and I greatly appreciate the overwhelmingly positive contributions that people from the EU have made to Lincoln and Lincolnshire. Our universities- the University of Lincoln and Bishop Grosseteste University would not be as popular with students without them being able to recruit highly qualified, experienced and passionate staff from the EU. Our hospitals and GP surgeries and care homes would be understaffed without people from the EU choosing to come to Lincolnshire and make it their home. We owe a debt of gratitude to the tens of thousands of seasonal migrant workers who have helped to pick and manufacture our excellent Lincolnshire produce (everything from Asparagus and Rapeseed Oil to Lincolnshire Sausages). I believe the majority of Lincolnshire residents and voters, whether they voted to Remain or Leave the EU in 2016 also appreciate the contributions that have been made economically and socially.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on The Industrial Strategy and The "Grand Challenges" PM May Speech

Industrial Strategy: Grand Challenge Missions: Is it such a grand vision for a potential Post-Brexit Britain??

Today PM May unveiled the Government's new approach towards the facilitation of an Industrial Strategy for the UK, one which the PM and others within the Conservative sphere of political influence believe will address some of the key issues affecting people living in the UK today. The 4 Grand Challenges highlighted are meant to be solved with core British industrial sectors being at the centre of each plan with the implication being that encouraging further innovation in these sectors now will lead to a higher quality of life in the future. PM May, in her speech at Jodrell Bank certainly sung the praises of the UK research and development community: “We are ranked first in the world for research into the defining technologies of the next decade, from genomics and synthetic biology, to robots and satellites” (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-science-and-modern-industrial-strategy-21-may-2018). The Government has already made a commitment of 2.4% of the UK's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) going on research and development by 2027, equivalent to an extra £80bn-certainly ambitious. PM May was also right to highlight the need to ensure regulation does not stifle innovation and creativity (wherever possible) and I was glad to hear her reiterate the fact that scientific research can be “a noble pursuit and public good whether or not it leads directly to a commercial application” but I hope that would equally apply to Arts based research, something totally missing from her speech today.

The 4 Grand Challenges are briefly outlined below:

1. Artificial Intelligence and data

The Tories believe that it should be a key mission of Parliament to “use data, Artificial Intelligence and innovation to transform the prevention, early diagnosis and treatment of chronic diseases (e.g. dementia, cancer, diabetes) by 2030”. They estimate that better use of AI technology and medical data could lead to “over 50,000 more people each year having their cancers diagnosed at an early rather than late stage” so that 20,000 fewer people dying with 5 years of receiving their diagnosis. Early diagnosis of ovarian, prostate and lung cancers will save lives and this mission will have broad cross-party appeal but will involve investment in equipment and personnel expertise over the next 10 years to come to fruition, which will need to come partly from an increase in government expenditure on science and innovation and health. It'd be great if some Lincolnshire organisations will become involved in this area and receive direct investment to expand to fulfill research demands. It's also important that NHS data is accessible to help with the creation of algorithms that can be used by GPs although I am sceptical about allowing private companies to use NHS data to make for-profit products (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/20/may-to-pledge-millions-to-ai-research-assisting-early-cancer-diagnosis).

2. Ageing society

The Tories have set a mission target of people enjoying “at least 5 extra, healthy, independent years of life by 2035” whilst also narrowing the gap between the richest and poorest people. This will again require significant investment in social care provision to allow people with physical and learning disabilities to live independently in their homes, as well as older people whose physical health may have declined for example due to arthritis. One cannot deny the social care system is already under strain and is facing a £1.5bn shortfall by 2020. Lincolnshire is going to take part in a £1m pilot project alongside Nottinghamshire to help improve the service provided (to ensure that every user of adult social care will have a joint health and social care assessment and care plan) over the next 2 years https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/lincolnshire-take-part-1m-scheme-1363212. Lincolnshire County Council voted to add 2% to council tax bills to pay for social care which came into effect in April but that increase will not help to offset funding challenges forever. Current funding plans suggested by Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Jeremy Hunt, which will mean means-tests for personal home care as well as residential care will include taking the value of homes into account have been branded “costly and unfair” in a joint report by the Kings Fund and the Health Foundation (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/16/social-care-funding-plans-branded-costly-and-unfair). The report argues there should be a cap of £75,000 on the total amount one person will need to pay for care. Another recently published report by the Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC), states that the Government is significantly underestimating the challenges the social care sector is currently facing, with care packages having to be prioritized and packages which support older people who have falls taking longer to put together. Age UK has already stated that 1.2m older people in the UK have unmet social care needs (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/social-care-elderly-disabilities-brexit-government-mps-japan-a8341611.html). There is also a challenge to safeguard the welfare of care workers, who are among the lowest paid workers in the UK and whose self-esteem levels are lower than that of other workers within the healthcare sector (http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2018/05/15/adult-social-care-staff-suffering-low-pay-esteem-report-says/). We'll wait to see the Green Paper on Social Care in the summer for updated details.

Community organisations who develop intergenerational projects to reduce levels of social isolation and loneliness and thus reduce potential for people to develop depression or other long-term mental health conditions need to have access to sustainable funding pots at local authority level and not just rely on donations and community foundations for support. I agree in principle with the idea of developing strategies to help older people access a wide variety of workplace opportunities beyond the official age of retirement as I believe in the principle of creating a diverse and inclusive workplace environment. But I think it's a mistake to purely focus on this and on the development of consumer products and services offered primarily by private sector businesses. Our social carers and care home providers need support to deliver high-quality care to clients and that is where I feel money needs to be spent urgently through increases to local authority budgets and to NHS Trust budgets where there are a high number of patients over the age of 65. That would include East Lindsey which is ranked 2^nd highest in the UK for the highest number of carers caring for 50 hours or more per week and has the highest proportion of people aged over 65 in the UK (http://www.research-lincs.org.uk/jsna-Carers.aspx). We need to ensure sufficient support is provided to carers of all ages to help improve mental health wellbeing. 6.5m people currently care for an elderly, ill or disabled relative. Lincolnshire has one of the fastest growing rates of carers (a 27.5% increase was recorded between 2001 and 2015 when the UK general rate was 6.2%) and the number of people aged 65 and over in Lincolnshire is projected to increase by 25% by 2022. 84,000 carers have been recorded as living in Lincolnshire according to the Joints Strategic Needs Assessment for Lincolnshire on Carers: http://www.research-lincs.org.uk/jsna-Carers.aspx. Innovative strategies should help reduce physical and emotional pressures on them as well as on the person/people that need to be cared for. Yet Lincolnshire County Council are looking to make savings (i.e. reduce) the Carers budget by £0.415m in this financial year and a further £0.0075m in 2019/20 due to reductions in funding (https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/local-democracy/how-the-council-works/finances/budgets-and-financial-strategy/lincolnshire-county-council-budget-2018/19/132217.article).

3. Clean growth

The Tories have stated a commitment to a target of a 50% reduction in the energy use of new buildings by 2030 in the hope of reducing energy bills for public sector organisations, businesses and families. They aim to do this by ensuring new buildings use “clean heating”, encouraging the development of “innovative techniques” to reduce carbon emissions and introducing even smarter technology to help consumers control their energy use. The money to support the fulfillment of the target is coming from a £170m Transforming Construction Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and anticipate that this will be matched by a £250m investment from the private sector.

It's also great to hear that the Government will be encouraging organisations to explore how housing alterations can be made to improve the lives of older people who currently live in unadapted housing. The Centre for Better Ageing report Room to improve: The role of home adaptions in improving later life found that more than 90% of older people live in mainstream housing but providing adaptations such as providing wet rooms on ground floors, stair-lifts or even basic adaptations like hand-rails and monitoring equipment to help people living with dementia can make a difference in helping to prevent falls (a 26% reduction in falls that need medical attention and savings of £500m a year for the NHS and Social Care systems) as well as improving mental health (https://www.ageing-better.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-12/Room%20to%20improve.%20The%20role%20of%20home%20adaptations%20in%20improving%20later%20life.pdf).

4. Future of mobility

Once again the Tories have centred the motor vehicles industry within their plans for Post-Brexit Britain, with a commitment to “Putting the UK at the forefront of the design and manufacturing of zero emission vehicles with all new cars and vans effectively zero emission by 2040” (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-strategy-the-grand-challenges/missions). This is all well and good in that it will probably help reduce carbon emissions but I am sceptical as to whether voters want to see taxpayers' money invested in electric vehicle companies when the Government is not investing enough money into social care or youth services or even existing travel services. That being said I agree that it is prudent to invest some money towards innovation in this area -e.g. providing £1bn over 10 years to develop low carbon powertrains (provided there are trains created for use on East Midlands journeys) and grants to help early-adopters to buy ultra low-emission vehicles.

Overarching Thoughts:

I guess I consider myself a sceptic when it comes to the delivery of promises, especially by this particular Government. I am concerned that the targets will not be met without developing truly holistic strategies involving organisations from different sectors, not just the science and research sector or construction and motor vehicle sectors. Encouraging conversations that lead to collaborations to address key challenges will drive change at a local level.

The Government's focus on Technical Skills to boost talent is welcome but we must not promote such skills at the expense of creative arts subjects in schools and colleges. Rigorous Science GCSE's are all well and good but there will need to be tailored support in schools to help students who might struggle to achieve a Grade C at GCSE. I remember having to work extremely hard to remember the scientific concepts and terminology for GCSE Applied Science and that my Physics based papers would always come back at Grade D no matter how hard I tried. If it wasn't for the determination of my Science teacher to provide extra Biology and Chemistry lessons I would not have achieved a Grade B. I understand why the Government wishes to promote Science A-Levels and put more money into attracting science graduates through offering tax-free bursaries but they must remember that innovation doesn't just come from those who study scientific subjects at school.

With Brexit impending, it is vital that researchers from the EU involved in industries across the UK, not just in the science and technological industrial sectors feel they can enjoy the exact same benefits of living in the UK post-Brexit as they do currently. PM May is right to highlight the amazing contributions that researches from around the world have made to improve our quality of life. Yet some EU researchers have decided to leave the UK following the Brexit vote: in January it was reported that there had been a 19%  increase in the level of departures of EU staff compared to before the EU referendum (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-uk-university-eu-academics-resign-immigration-brexodus-citizens-europe-a8143796.html) so it's important that PM May makes it clear their status will remain unchanged under the current terms of the Brexit deal. I also think that paying for membership of existing EU research programmes, including Horizon 2020 and future programmes is important and that this financial contribution has been mutually agreed with all EU member states. The UK cannot just pluck a number out of thin air and then stick to it rigidly or walk away as the ultra Brexiteers like Jacob Rees-Mogg would have us do.

A progressive, liberal vision for the UK would for me be one where we had decided not to leave the EU. However, a Brexit where a deep partnership with the EU on research and development, including arts and social research is vital in helping us to continue to innovate and improve overall quality of life in the UK. Yes we should be excited at the prospect of change driven by innovation, whether you fit into PM May's definition of being “curious...inventive and determined” or not because the UK's been a hub for innovation for hundreds of years. Yet a top-down approach to innovation, driven only by those with expertise in specific fields will not work. We all have a part to play in this, regardless of qualifications or type of job that we do. Carers can be innovative in the way they engage with their clients, care homes can put on social activities with the help of enthusiastic volunteers, community organisations can look at creating intergenerational projects, using recent research to guide practice and administrative assistants can look at ways to promote office exercise or hold meetings to talk about building emotional resilience. Research can also be conducted at a local level by volunteers who want to look at tackling levels of anxiety/stress caused by social isolation and could work with organisations to help fund and promote such research. 

PM May wants her Government to work towards achieving 4 ambitious targets designed to help transform the lives of people living in the UK. Time will tell whether Brexit, if pursued will inhibit chances of achieving those ambitious targets.

Reflections on the Local Elections in Birchwood Ward, Lincoln May 2018

Gosh it's been a long while since I've written a blogpost (some of you may have been relieved) but it's certainly been an interesting period in British politics and following the Local Elections results, there is a need for a period of reflection for all the major political parties, not least Labour. Whilst it's true to say that Labour have gained council seats in England and managed to take Plymouth and Kirklees (West Yorkshire) councils and have managed to elect Dan Jarvis as the first Mayor for the Sheffield City Region (massive congrats to him btw!) in Lincoln it has been a truly mixed picture. On a total voter turnout of only 30.33% (very low but not particularly surprising given only 1/3 of the City Council seats were up for grabs and it was mathematically impossible for Labour to lose overall control of the council) Labour held the central Lincoln wards where the electorate contains younger voters who are more progressive and tend to be more engaged with politics – Carholme ward, for example, Lincoln MP Karen Lee's former ward, saw the election of the incredible and very knowledgeable Laura McWilliams as a Labour and Co-operative councillor who comes from a very similar background to myself- working class, willing to speak Truth to Power and willing to provide a platform to those who often feel they are voiceless in local and national politics. I thoroughly recommend reading her Wordpress blog as she has written pertinent and thought-provoking posts on the nature of the modern Feminist movement, loneliness and unemployment (https://wizardoflozblog.wordpress.com/). I see Laura as a potential future MP, whether that be representing our amazing constituency of Lincoln or another constituency where her talents would be very much appreciated!

Unfortunately my home ward of Birchwood swang from Labour to the Conservatives. The full result is displayed below:

Birchwood Ward (Lincoln) Results:

Alan Briggs (Con) - 786

Adam Carnie (LD) - 68

Paul Gowen (Lab) - 654

Dr Ben Loryman (Green) - 49

Warde (UKIP) - 100

In some respects this result comes as no surprise: Birchwood was an area where Brexiteers were particularly vocal during the 2016 EU Referendum and the amazing campaigner for community cohesion and youth empowerment, Rosanne Kirk lost her County Council seat to the Tories in last year's Local Elections (although she still holds a City of Lincoln council seat). It was great to have Lib Dem and Green candidates standing in the ward and from what I managed to find out about their platforms, I was interested in their ideas, especially Adam Carnie's suggestion to set up a “tidier neighbourhood scheme” which would include promoting vegetable growing schemes (https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/you-need-know-candidates-lincolns-1481125). I hope that the newly elected Tory Councillor may work with Adam to help create community gardening projects to ensure green spaces are maintained as well as providing opportunities for people from different socio-economic backgrounds and life experiences to come together, facilitating conversation and reducing levels of social isolation. There was a small UKIP vote in the ward, which I must admit given the history of voting here, wasn't very surprising. I have to say that Paul Gowen has been and continues to be a great anti-poverty campaigner for Birchwood whose personal story, of being a carer in the city and understanding the challenges that carers face in their day-to-day lives is inspiring. I hope that he will continue to campaign for better local authority services for the people of Birchwood in the future.

Yet Birchwood is exactly the kind of ward where Labour should be looking to gain votes at the moment, especially amongst hard-working families who have been described by the Tories as “Just About Managing”. We are an area where levels of deprivation remain high: data from Lincoln electoral wards for Jul-Sept 2017 showed that the percentage of children defined as living in poverty when housing costs are taken into account is highest in Glebe (34.13%) followed by Birchwood (34.12%). To hear that 788 children in my ward are living in households where getting adequate food and clothing is disappointing to say the least. I appreciate the situation in Lincoln could have been much worse, were it not for the Labour-led City of Lincoln Council's Anti-Poverty Strategy, which has been in place since 2014. The Strategy has a number of objectives, including “increasing money management skills and confidence, supporting families to feed and clothe their children and helping those facing poverty due to illness” (https://democratic.lincoln.gov.uk/documents/s26370/Lincoln%20Anti-Poverty%20Strategy%20-%20Appendix%201.pdf). Campaigns that have been run by Lincoln Against Poverty, the organisation overseeing the implementation of the strategy include The Living Wage Campaign (encouraging employers in Lincoln to pay their employees and workers at least the Living Wage, with employers being recognised and recommended by the City Council for doing this) and the Helping Hand Campaign, which is designed to get debt and budgeting information and advice to residents who need it (http://www.lincolnagainstpoverty.co.uk/us/). Projects delivered by the City Council included running 5 “Survive the School Holiday” sessions which provided adults in Birchwood with information about debt, welfare and jobs. I myself have never heard of local Tories talking about this scheme and yet it is a scheme all councillors should be promoting in a positive light. Equally the promotion of the Living Wage Scheme and provision of help for families who are being affected as a result of being put onto Universal Credit are policies that Labour councillors should be proud of.

Only a few days ago I heard of the decision to close Birchwood's only Youth Club, Generate, which has provided a number of much-needed support groups and activity groups to disadvantaged children and young people for years because the County Council cannot seem to attract an alternative provider to run the centre. The assistant director for Children's Services at the County Council has said that any gap in service should be kept to a minimum but with the County Council having made cuts since 2011 to youth services funding and there being no statutory requirement for the Tory controlled County or City Council to provide such services, it may be very difficult to attract a suitable provider.I was glad to hear our Library won't be closed, although Greenwich Leisure Limited are quoted as willing to provide only temporary assistance. (https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2018/05/birchwood-youth-club-close/) It's a disgrace: our library services and youth services should not be subject to such uncertainty but at least we still have Birchwood Boiler Community Hall running youth groups and perhaps there is room to facilitate more groups at this venue in the coming months.

I don't know how many Birchwood residents were aware of the Generate closure but perhaps it wouldn't have made much of a difference to the final vote tally if they had. Birchwood residents were particularly interested in Tory promises to scrap green bin charges (currently £36) and provide one hour's worth of free parking for city centre car parks. My Dad, who's never been political in any way (other than on Brexit) told me that neighbours on our street wanted to see green bin charges being scrapped and were clearly drawn in by such a promise because they believe it is money they should not be paying out. Birchwood residents who are lucky enough to have front and back gardens, like me and my parents, are incredibly keen gardeners. However I don't think Labour adopting the policy would have gained the extra votes they needed to retain this council seat.

Tories also promised residents that they would “only support future housing developments which come with school places, better roads and health facilities” (https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/you-need-know-candidates-lincolns-1481125) yet they didn't seem to have much to say as to how they could guarantee this in areas like Birchwood where services such as Generate are closing and residents now cannot use the Lincoln Walk-In Centre when they need medical help out-of-hours

because the County Council supported the decision by Lincs West CCG to close it despite respondents to their consultation being overwhelmingly against the decision. Neither has there been much discussion in Birchwood about the set-up of a council owned construction company or the investment plan being put in place to build new council homes: policies that residents should be fully aware of when they go to vote in local elections. It's also important to note that some Birchwood residents were aware of the council's decision to invest £13m in the new Travelodge Hotel being built in the centre of Lincoln, which was done with the hope returns will go towards maintaining council services and suffice to say, they were not happy with such a decision being made (https://www.lincoln.gov.uk/your-council/news-and-media/latest-news/city-of-lincoln-council-invests-in-new-city-centre-hotel/). I'm a sceptical voter at heart so the newly elected Tory councillor, Mr Briggs will have to demonstrate to me and other Birchwood residents how this particular promise can be kept. His answers to questions in the Lincolnshire Live piece were in my view a bit vague and “management speakese” to say the least but let's see if he does actually manage to secure more funding for Birchwood for more community projects and whether he will work with representatives from Labour, Lib Dems and Greens to campaign for this funding.

Residents I've spoken to also said they wanted to see street-lighting turned back on at night in our streets and pot-holes being repaired on our roads. Street-lighting is unfortunately currently out of the City of Lincoln Council's remit and well nearly every party in Lincoln promises to fix pot-holes as they know the state of some of Lincoln's roads are not exactly ideal. The parties also had broadly similar policies when it came to reducing anti-social behaviour in order to reduce instances of crime and to raise the issue of dog-fouling on Birchwood streets. So even making residents aware of these policies may not have made much of a difference to the final vote tally.

Much is being made of the impact of voters' opinions towards Brexit on their choice. I remember speaking to two residents who were undecided at the time but were floating with the idea of voting Conservative in the local elections because they believed (rather passionately) that doing so would help send a signal/message to the City Council not to ignore the wishes of Leave voters. Whilst it is true to say that Local Authorities have very little say over how Brexit will be delivered and have been somewhat quiet about the impact certain versions of Brexit may have on their ability to deliver services, especially if the Local Authority budget is cut centrally in the months following Brexit, these voters were determined to send their message and for that message to be heard. This made me very nervous in the days leading up to Polling Day and did in some respects convince me to vote Labour because I knew, based on past experience, how tight the seat may be.

The national policy platform may have an impact, especially when the attitude towards the platform creates a desire amongst local residents for radical change in the make-up of a council or constituency. One can see that in Richmond-upon-Thames, Kingston-upon-Thames and South Cambridgeshire, where the Lib Dems managed to gain control of the council and decimate the number of Tory councillors on it. I have no doubt that Labour have the ability to enact such dramatic change at the next local elections, but I hope that in Lincoln at least, the City Council will remain predominately Labour at those elections and takes back seats from the Tories in wards such as Birchwood. Time will tell.

A number of residents have talked to me in the past about language they have seen being used on social media accounts in particular to describe floating voters who do not necessarily agree with all of Labour's policies or indeed with Jeremy Corbyn's leadership style. Calling life-long Labour moderate supporters or floating voters or indeed even Labour MPs “Red Tories” is not really going to help improve Labour's reputation. Thinking the worst of voters who have had to choose another party this time round because of the appearance of lack of inaction by the leadership to tackle Anti Semitism or the party's ambiguous approach to Brexit, especially if they have decided to vote Tory isn't going to win them back either.

Policies designed to appeal to working class voters also definitely need to be better promoted, both local and national policies. For example, most of the residents on my street had no idea that Labour were on course to build 350 new homes by the end of 2018/19 and only a few had heard of Labour's national policy to cap the total amount of money that people will pay in overdraft fees or interest repayments, “imposing a limit of £24 per month per £100 borrowed” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43943854). That being said, I would guess that residents would be interested in hearing more detail. Momentum activists, Labour activists and members of the general public who are pleased by the policy platform all have a role to play in the dissemination of information, as evidenced by council seat gains for example in Wandsworth and Westminster. I don't want to see the passion for progressive policies lost but at the same time, there needs to be a real clarity of position from the Labour leadership regarding Anti-Semitism and Brexit. I am socially liberal and I do not define myself as a socialist but I do like most of the elements of the Labour policy platform that has been established and I have been willing to listen to those who are proponents of socialism hence why I decided put my cross in the box for Labour.

Labour has always been and should always be a broad church, especially in marginal constituencies and councils. Lincoln Labour relies on socially liberal, progressive voters who would ordinarily vote Lib Dem or Green in a strong Labour constituency (e.g. Islington North) to vote Labour to ensure they keep hold of seats. Labour also relies on Tory-Labour swing voters to make a calculated decision to back them, based on local policy and whether they are enthused to vote for a local candidate. A number of political commentators and activists, including Owen Jones, have pointed to the need to engage younger voters, who are more likely to be Labour supporters, to consider voting in local elections. I

admit it would have been wonderful to see more young residents in Birchwood (and more residents generally) coming out and voting in the Local Elections, as they did in Carholme ward. I think it's important to read papers and listen to others on how to increase voter engagement from a non-member, apolitical stand-point. I certainly feel and I want to engage with more non-voters and floating voters in Lincoln more generally and use my blog as a platform for them to discuss concerns but also promote the positive things that are happening in Lincoln. Sometimes accentuating the positives and talking about progressive and innovative policy ideas can be much more effective in helping a particular party to gain votes.

The BBC 's projected national vote share places Labour and the Conservatives on even-stevens at 35% a piece. Labour activists should be proud of the gains they have made nationally, especially in Wandsworth and Westminster but there is no room for complacency. The main tasks are to rethink youth voter engagement in local elections and rebuild trust amongst voters who have turned to alternative parties for both local elections and general elections to come. These tasks are far from being hopeless and should be tackled with gusto and with the input of all who share a vision for a country that is progressive and inclusive and fair.

Bojo's Valentine's Day “Unity” speech....went down like a lead balloon with Remainer Me

The arch Brexiteers on Twitter have been quite quiet of late. It seems almost as if some of them have accepted that trying to shoehorn Remainers like me into accepting their form of Brexit without trying to put forward persuasive arguments has backfired on them. PM May's credibility level is far from glowing and with the rift between moderate, liberal Bright Blue Tories and Mogglodytes becoming ever more transparent, there's a desperate scramble to try and convince the electorate at large that the Tory form of Brexit will be far removed from a Faragiste one. What do the “nationalists but not UKIP nationalists”decide to do when the chips are down? They wheel out the “liberal” unifier in chief/bumbling buffoon Boris Johnson, the man who is famously prone to using flowery rhetoric to say the most facepalm cringeiest of things.

The speech, delivered at the right-wing Policy Exchange was not exactly packed to the rafters with substance. There was some recognition of the anxiety that Remain voters have felt with regards to Brexit: I have experienced both economic and cultural anxiety and none of the reports released by Brexiteer leaning groups have eased my feelings of anxiety. The recent revelations emanating from the Brexit Impact Assessments makes me even more fearful of what might happen, not less. There was no new information with regards to economic policy or trade negotiations going forward (surprise, surprise) nor were there any new commitments with regards to Irish border arrangements. Bojo talked about the potential for a few giveaways for voters, namely cutting VAT on “domestic fuel and other products” as well as simplifying planning procedures by cutting the number of environmental impact assessments done

(he must have been speaking to his frenemy Gove about that one). Of course there was no mention about getting rid of the tampon tax or reducing VAT on products as a whole, arguments have been advanced by socialist proponents of Brexit. Then again there was no mention of the additional VAT burdens that businesses may face following Brexit, when an estimated 130,000 may be expected to pay VAT upfront for the first time on goods imported from the EU. As Nicky Morgan, MP for Loughborough remarked last month, the implications of Brexit on the tax system “are yet to be fully explored” (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/09/brexit-government-urged-to-stop-cost-of-vat-rule-change-hitting-uk-firms).

The “Take Back Control” narrative was trotted out, albeit cloaked in philosophical liberal idealism with what may appear at first vague sentiments about national common sympathies and ensuring that citizens consent to being ruled by the Government that serves them. Bojo has interpreted Mill's words as meaning that only the UK as a nation, can be seen to be “united” amongst ourselves “by common sympathies (feelings) which do not exist” between ourselves and others that can legitimise the work of the state. This ties in with the idea that the Leave vote was a withdrawal of consent to be involved in the making of EU regulations and directives thereby rejecting membership of the Single Market.

John Stuart Mill's concept has been applied in discussions about sovereignty for donkeys years. Mill did believe that nationality primarily comes from political identity and a common national history. The success of the European Union comes, as Simon Glendinning has argued, “from cultural and national diversities across the continent”. Mill's liberal theory has been used to discuss the possibility of a federal Europe: I read an excellent article by Corrado Morricone from Durham University where he argues that “whilst Mill thinks, as a general rule that free institutions are only possible in a country constituted of a single nationality, (Mill) leaves room for the possibility of a sort of multinational state” yet such a state would be very difficult to achieve and may even go against the idea of the EU being diverse and liberal

(http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/02/13/the-work-of-js-mill-shows-the-importance-of-a-common-identity-to-the-principle-of-european-federalism/). It's not an idea that has gained traction in European countries despite what Brexiteers may be stating.

I can understand the desire for self-determination, that some people want to believe that laws should only be passed by MPs (and helped by the Lords, who, are ironically not elected by the UK electorate at large but in my eyes should be). Yet it is pure fallacy to argue that EU regulations and directives would necessarily be any less understandable because they may be drafted in more than one language or that voters would not be able to understand the motives of MEPs who help draft regulations and directives. It's also rather strange that Johnson seems to suggest that EU laws are worse because they are “expressly teleological...there to achieve a political goal”. There are plenty of UK laws that may be interpreted as being in place to achieve a political goal (censorship laws, anyone); it depends on how you define what a “political goal” happens to be.

As for Bojo asking people to name their MEP, I conducted a survey in Lincoln back in 2016 asking people on the High Street to name the MP for Lincoln (who at the time was Leave supporting Karl McCartney) and 60% of the people I asked had no idea who the MP was. That should indicate that increasing political engagement through more community engagement is important for national and European elections (should we have anymore in the future): I'm sure if more voters had understood how the European Parliament worked and had gotten to meet their local MEP candidates, the higher the participation rate in European elections would have been.

Any areas of consensus referred to in the speech were pretty much to be expected: most voters on both sides of the Brexit debate would have expected the Tories to state openly that they will continue to co-operate with our allies in the EU on national security matters and very few voters would disagree with the UK continuing to participate in academic exchange schemes, with the University of Lincoln hopefully working with European counterparts. That being said, Bojo wants to see the UK diverging from EU policy with regards to medical research, stating Britain will require a new “regulatory framework, scrupulous and moral, but not afraid of the new” that embraces new stem cell technology. What that actually means in practice is far from clear.

The comment about Brits continuing to be European “both practically and psychologically” probably didn't go down all that well with UKIPpers but nonetheless it is the truth. There will always be Brits, like myself, with European heritage who will always define themselves as British European. My Twitter handle even points out I am half Irish, half Norwegian-Swedish. Yet Bojo couldn't leave the subject alone. Ever the hypocrite, Johnson follows the comment with some bizzare diatribe about British people living abroad as being akin to God's chosen people in the 21^st century, the “points of light scattered across an intermittently darkening globe” (let's not forget Bojo compared Theresa May to Moses in the speech....I'd say she was acting more like Rod Hull trying to look for a pledge of loyalty from Emu). Such an example of Brexiteer arrogance. Then again throughout the speech I couldn't help but raise a smile and think how absolutely up his own arse Bojo and Brits like him must be, thinking they are the best at nearly everything and screw everyone else. I'm prepared to admit us Brits are amazeballs but let's not pretend we're free from fault when being abroad. The recent disturbing Oxfam revelations unfortunately prove otherwise.

It infuriates me to see Bojo claim he's not against immigration per se and yet not only does he boast about rich French people spending money in London when he was Mayor but he chooses only to praise the EU migrants who enter the country who are doctors when he should also be praising EU migrants who come to this country to help care for older and severely disabled people in nursing homes and clean his hotel rooms when he checks out. It reinforces the notion that his form of Brexit and the people he and his lot represent, is going to benefit the richest in our society at the expense of the most vulnerable and most hard-working families of this country. It makes me sick to my stomach.

Bojo boasts that the fortunes of UKIP have “gone into a long deserved eclipse” and yet conveniently forgets the record of certain Conservatives when talking about immigration. Remember PM May's 2015 speech to the Conservative Conference where she told delegates that immigrants could make society “less cohesive” and peddled the myth of immigrants job-stealing, something she was critiqued for by the Institute for Directors: “The myth of the job-stealing immigrant is nonsense. Immigrants do not steal jobs, they help fill vital skill shortages and, in doing so, create demand and more jobs.” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-immigration-policies-speech-conference-2015-tory-conservative-party-views-a7209931.html) Then let's not forget that leaked disgusting draft immigration policy document that was being touted as Britain's position post-Brexit the final version of which we will not see until Autumn 2018. Conservative members are determined to see reforms to the system which will limit the amount of so-called “low skilled” workers from coming to the UK which is pretty much the same as what Farage wants to see. Lord Green for example, chairman of MigrantWatch UK, moaned that EU migrants cost the UK taxpayer £4.4bn in 2014/15 (https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/12/andrew-green-the-immigration-policy-that-we-need-after-brexit.html) yet would never dream of openly stating he'd be in favour of cutting the working age benefits of British workers. Remainers liberals like myself who are in favour of maintaining freedom of movement will never be swayed by such banal immigration arguments. Then again Bojo and his brigade must think voters have short memories. Not quite that short, Bojo!

For Brexiteers, the Brexit process is grounded in a politics of hope. Remainers, Leavers, people who couldn't vote and those who didn't want to vote all share a hope for a brighter, more prosperous future, one where there is enough money to pay for appropriate NHS and adult social care. Bojo wants PM May and the Cabinet to present an optimistic vision and believes that “it is the government's duty to advocate and explain the mission on which we are now engaged”. It has to mean more than “going global”....the Government needs to explain how its mission is going to effect our domestic policy, not just our trade policy. Bojo and his “merry” band of Brexiteers defend the Government's record reasonably well. John Redwood, MP for Wokingham has claimed that voters should be cheerful when it comes to the long-term economic outlook for the country. The level of growth has been sluggish: preliminary figures released by the Office for National Statistics showed that growth in 2017 was 1.5%, compared with figures released by Eurostat which confirm that the Eurozone grew by 2.7% in 2017 (http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-uk-economy-grew-slower-than-europe-for-the-first-time-since-2010-2018-2). The UK's economy is now growing more slowly than the Eurozone economy and yet Brexiteers think leaving the EU will somehow solve our economic woes. LOL. If that doesn't make you grit your teeth, it's important to point out that last month the International Monetary Fund has downgraded the UK's economic growth forecast down to 1.5% for 2019 (down 0.1%), whereas Germany's growth has been upgraded from 1.5% to 2% for 2019 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-economic-growth-imf-forecast-brexit-leave-eu-g7-international-monetary-fund-a8172231.html). These Tory Brexiteers claim their policy platform already allows for the economy to boom, yet the figures do not back that claim up. And yes, talking about the current Tory policy platform matters in discussions on Brexit. The effects of years of austerity on our public services and community cohesion is clear for all of us to see, yet there are voters are prepared to continue to back the party responsible for that austerity because they think Brexit will help reverse some of those austerity measures is quite frankly baffling. They are prepared to trust the same party who has presided over ridiculous cuts to local authority budgets: the Bureau of Investigative Journalism examined the finances of 150 councils and found the average deficit to be £14.7m, with many councils under the greatest financial pressure being under Tory control (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/08/john-mcdonnell-councils-used-human-shields-funding-cuts). Our public services are being underfunded, our wonderful public service staff are becoming increasingly demoralised and yet it's strange how Brexiteers just want to focus on getting more legislative powers for Parliament and not lift much of a finger to help local authorities, NHS Trusts, Police Forces, Ambulance Trusts and Fire Services, many of whom are struggling to keep themselves afloat.

Bojo may talk about the lack of opportunities for British born young people. Yet it is his party that has failed to invest adequately in growing the number of highly-paid job opportunities, especially in the North East and it is his party that has been far too slow off the mark to encourage businesses to invest in high quality apprenticeships not just for 16-24 year olds but also for those workers who want and need to retrain in order to access a more secure career. Bojo wants international students to be able to come to the UK but they need to be able to do so without fear of being deported within a few months of finishing their course (and we need to take students out of the migration figures too). Bojo talks about wanting to change Britain from “a low wage, low productivity economy to a high wage, high productivity” one yet it was Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had the audacity to blame an increase in the number of disabled workers for low productivity growth in the economy. It's his party who refuses to ban exploitative zero hours contracts, to ban unpaid internships lasting over a month or introduce a living wage that would allow people to afford to pay their rent without breaking into a cold sweat every 5 minutes. Why can't Bojo and his lot talk about social housing or the NHS with the same level of enthusiasm as Brexit?

What's even more baffling is there are still Labour voters who think leaving the EU will somehow reduce the level of austerity. I remember reading in The Guardian back in 2016 Frank Field using the same language as Bojo used in his speech today with regards to immigration, praising highly skilled migrants but failing to acknowledge the hard work done by care staff and housekeepers. Dennis Skinner, the “Beast of Bolsover” considered a hero by socialist Labour party members, attacks the Tories quite rightly on their record in Government, yet fails to realise the dangers posed by deregulation; instead he dreams of the possibility of a socialist state becoming a reality under Corbyn, a dream looking increasingly unlikely given the drop in support in the polls for Labour. At least Skinner has been consistent in his opposition to the EU- he's voted consistently against every treaty, including the Maastricht one. His disagreement with the EU is based on worker exploitation (despite the introduction of worker-friendly policies like the Working Time Directive 1998). Yet I'm surprised Skinner, Field et al don't feel at all nervous about the EU Withdrawal Bill becoming a Tory power grab or them being in the driving seat during this Brexit process but then as long as we're out of the EU I guess he's not particularly that bothered. More fool him and Field and Labour Brexiteers in general I say.

Another issue with the speech was the implicit indication that the Government would be prepared to preside over a “bonfire of regulations”. A consistent narrative used by those who favour a Clean Brexit (i.e. free trade agreement or at worst using World Trade Organisation rules) is one that a deregulated Britain would automatically be a better Britain for businesses. One person who commented on Paul Goodman's Conservative Home article Why our European neighbours think we're a basket case, stated that Brexit shouldn't happen unless there was deregulation (https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/02/why-our-european-neighbours-think-were-a-basket-case.html). It didn't take long for business organisations to rebut any assertion implied from Bojo's speech that businesses agree with mass deregulation. John Foster CBI's Director of Campaigns for example, which is trying to encourage members to ditch Remain and Leave labels used his response to make it clear that some businesses value the current regulatory framework they operate in: “our aerospace, automotive and chemical sectors, to name a few, all have highly integrated European supply chains that benefit from consistent regulation” (http://www.cbi.org.uk/news/businesses-aren-t-looking-for-a-bonfire-of-regulations/).

Brexiteers are terrified at the prospect of a referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal gaining traction with voters. Bojo dismissed the wishes of such Remainers, saying any referendum would be “a disastrous mistake.....bringing another year of wrangling and turmoil and feuding in which the whole country would lose”. Nothing new there then!

This speech was really about Bojo showcasing his leadership credentials in readiness for a potential Tory leadership election. He may have demonstrated his unwavering loyalty towards PM May in public, stating that she is someone who “can do a great Brexit deal” but that's only because she's prepared to stick to the idea of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. Bojo knows he can rock the boat if he wants to and he'd love to be given another chance to become Tory leader and PM in one foul swoop. I'm far from alone in coming to this conclusion. The New York Times ed on Bojo's speech talks about Bojo hankering for another chance to become PM: “Mr Johnson may be sensing another moment of opportunity, as Mrs May struggles to control her cabinet amid calls from some of her own lawmakers for her to step aside”. Of course Bojo faces stiff competition from Mr Victorian, himself, Rees-Mogg and a Tory leadership election would no doubt be absolutely fascinating to watch unfold but the end result of any such election should be that a general election is called: we don't want yet another undemocratic pass with the Tory leader automatically becoming PM without facing the electorate at large.

Valentine's Day may have left plenty of couples feeling the love, but I can hazard a guess Bojo failed in his aim to unite the Remain and Leave camps behind a Tory Brexit vision. I don't think he'll be particularly heartbroken but the whole debacle demonstrates just how difficult it will be for any political leader to articulate a vision for the future that is hopeful and inclusive. The Remain vs Leave debate remains very much alive in constituencies across the UK.