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

Hey folks - I'm back!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

A Labour Remain Voter's Conundrum

Hello folks! It's been a wee while since I last blogged but I've spent the last month buried deep in thought on a whole host of topics and can't wait to start discussing them further!

What's happened since the start of the year is that there have been a number of reports brought out that make for despairing reading: figures in report after report released by third sector organisations, charities and think-tanks have shown the appalling effect that austerity measures, imposed by a Government far too occupied with sucking up to Donnie Drumpf and his “merry” band of “I want to go back to the 50's when we didn't know about pop music and Oreos” Trumpians and placating our own nostalgia loving elements of the electorate (who will never be satisfied until the gates are firmly shut to anyone who doesn't have “Dr” as a prefix or a few bob in their pockets).

Our NHS has been struggling to cope with this year's flu season, given the addition of the Aussie flu strain into the mix. More than 50,000 non-urgent operations have been postponed on the advice of NHS England this winter (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2018/01/towards-eternal-winter-can-nhs-survive) yet PM Theresa May boasted that the NHS had been prepared for winter, stating “there were 3,000 more beds in use and 2.9m more people using A&E since 2010” at PMQs last Wednesday. As Corbyn pointed out when he retorted her point, “14,000 beds in wards have been lost since 2010 and 100,000 patients have waited longer than 30 minutes for an emergency ambulance”. Let's not forget that 17,000 were left waiting in the back of ambulance to get admitted to A&E in the last week of December (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/10/pmqs-verdict-may-holds-up-better-against-corbyns-nhs-attack). More nurses are now leaving the NHS than joining it (more than 33,000 nurses walked away in 2017, a rise of 20% since 2012-13), perhaps because the working conditions are stressful, the pay is not enough given the amount of work nurses are being asked to do, EU nurses face xenophobic language being thrown at that and nursing bursaries, which trainees relied on, have been unfairly scrapped. According to Shadow Health Secretary, Jon Ashworth, “there are 100,000 vacancies in the NHS as of this month” (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jonathan-ashworth-jeremey-corbyn-end-to-carillion-style-outsourcing-in-nhs-and-emergency-5bn-budget-plan-trickett_uk_5a6631c4e4b00228300577d6). Some hospitals are facing an equipment shortage, including a lack of ventilators and oxygen cylinders (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/25/nhs-hospitals-serious-shortages-vital-equipment).

At a more local level, Lincoln's highly rated Walk-In Centre will be shutting its doors at the end of February due to short-sighted decision making by Lincs West Clinical Commissioning Group, leaving Lincolnshire residents and voters feeling concerned about where they can go to be seen for low-level medical conditions without having to wait for hours at an already busy Lincoln County Hospital A&E. 94% of people who responded to the consultation made it clear they did not want the facility to close (I was one of them) and yet Lincs West CCG chose to ignore us but perhaps if the CCG wasn't dealing with the consequences of chronic underfunding from central Government, they wouldn't have had to close it. Our NHS is facing its greatest crisis since the 1990's and it's time the Tories living it up in Westminster faced up to it.

Labour have announced a number of measures that may reduce pressures on the NHS and improve the situation for staff and patients; for example Labour Peer Baroness Chakrabarti stated that Labour would bring “life and death services” like hospital cleaning back into public ownership. Labour would halt the introduction of Sustainability and Transformation Plans “which devolve the national service into local ‘footprints’ with reduced accountability and the potential for marked reductions in healthcare provision, commercial control of both the public estate and the commissioning function” (https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/stewart-player/taking-politics-out-of-nhs-or-constructing-elitist-consensus). Labour have also announced they will provide free car parking for patients, staff and visitors, funded by increasing the private medical premium tax. Labour would also scrap the public sector pay cap on nurses pay, reinstate nursing bursaries and guarantee the rights of EU workers to stay in the UK and continue doing their amazing work. All of which I believe would be broadly welcomed by voters like me.

Another issue that has been discussed in some depth this month has been the increasing number of children living in poverty in English cities. Figures released by the End Child Poverty campaign just this past week state that 4 million children in the UK are now classed as living in poverty, a truly embarrassing and unacceptable statistic when you are reminded of the fact that the UK is the 6^th largest economy globally. There are 4 constituencies in the UK where children are now “more likely than not to grow up poor” with over 50% of children living in poverty: Bethnal Green and Bow, Poplar and Limehouse (where the 1950s and 60's themed Call the Midwife is set), Birmingham Ladywood and Birmingham Hodge Hill.

The situation for children in Lincolnshire makes for less glum reading but still there should be pause for thought: 5,907 children are classed as living in poverty in Lincoln (which is defined in the report as a household having an annual income below 60% of the average); this means that 26.7% of children living within the constituency boundary are living in poverty. Louth and Horncastle has the highest percentage of children living in poverty for a Lincolnshire constituency (29%), followed by Boston and Skegness (28.6%). Data from Lincoln electoral wards (Jul-Sept 2017) shows 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%). Birchwood happens to be the ward I live in (my parents have had a lovely house here since the Eurodance days of 1992) so to hear that 788 children in my ward are living in households where getting adequate food and clothing is disappointing to say the least.

Benefit freezes imposed by the Tory Government since 2016 (and expected to last another 2 years) have done everything to exacerbate the situation. The Child Action Poverty Group have stated recently that universal credit changes will push 1 million more children into poverty and I fear what will happen to Lincoln residents when the changes are brought in from March. The “Poverty Premium”, which is where low-income families pay as much as £1,700 more per year than wealthy families to buy essential goods and services needs to be tackled but there is very little desire from the Tory party to address the gap; instead they reiterate the tired party line that “employment is the best route out of poverty, and they have cited unemployment statistics which show that there are now 600,000 less children in workless households than in 2010. The problem with their assumption is that having a part-time minimum wage is not going to significantly improve a person's living standards, especially considering the cost of renting flats in the private sector in cities across England (how can someone earning £7.50 an hour for 20 hours a week afford a flat costing £400-£500 a month for themselves and their child??) and the potential price rises which may come as a result of the UK leaving the EU (clothing tariffs on items made in Turkey may increase by 12% from zero for example: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/26/warnings-of-post-brexit-price-rises-unless-uk-can-copy-eu-trade-deals). Doing well at school/university is also no longer a guarantee of future economic stability. Even when a graduate has manged to secure a position or a young person who has left school secures their first job, they may still find themselves living in poverty.

The End Child Poverty figures just add to what we already know about the effect child poverty is having in Lincoln. The number of emergency food parcels (which are designed to last 3 days) delivered by The Trussell Trust funded Lincoln foodback between April 1^st 2016 and March 31^st 2017 was 2,447, up from 2,233 the year before (an increase of 9.58%). The number of food parcels received by children increased by 17% from 813 to 952 (http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2017/04/foodbank-charity-reveals-staggering-rise-in-foodbank-referrals-in-lincoln/). Kate Taylor, in her excellent piece for The Lincolnite back in November 2017 highlighted the Institute for Fiscal Studies projections which predicted that “relative child poverty will increase from 30% to 37% by 2021” (http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2017/11/kate-taylor-poverty-in-lincoln-and-beyond-why-are-so-many-in-financial-insecurity/). I agree with Ms Taylor that there needs to be less time spent on “crucifying people for not being in work and more time helping them out of abject poverty” and that means focusing on more than just funding employability schemes.

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 wards such as Birchwood and St Giles with information about debt, welfare and jobs and a pilot voucher scheme in Bracebridge Heath helping 119 children from low-income families get access to groceries over the summer holidays (6 weeks) during Summer 2016. Details of 2017/18 projects will be discussed at the next Lincoln Against Poverty Conference, which I'd love to attend later in the year.

Labour are very well placed to devise policies that appeal to swing voters on the issue of reducing Child Poverty. In the last election general manifesto, for example, Labour proposed spending £250m a year on the creation and implementation of a Child Health fund, with funding being made available to support the running of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in schools, boosting the number of school nurses so there are more than 1 visit to a school (as seems to be the norm currently) and creating an Index of Child Health, measuring progress on tackling obesity, poor dental health, poor healthcare for under-5s and poor mental health (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-junk-food-adverts-ads-ban-x-factor-hollyoaks-primetime-corbyn-election-manifesto-a7722926.html). For those asking where the money would have come from, Labour would have sought to half NHS Management consultancy fees by half (estimated to cost £538 a year): I don't think many voters outside of the private sector management consultancy sector would have disapproved of that.

On policies and strategies for the NHS, on policies to reduce homelessness, Labour have the upper hand. Corbyn's most recent announcement of buying 8,000 homes for homeless families as soon as his party wins the next General Election paints him as a compassionate figure in tune with the needs of the most vulnerable members of our society. With the rate of homelessness having increased by a shameful 169% since 2010, the number of rough sleepers up by 15% during 2017 (4,751 people bedded outside) and the number of people in sheltered temporary accommodation rising by 60% between 2011 and 2017, I don't think that the Tories can deny the seriousness of the problem any longer, particularly with regards to street homelessness in our inner cities. The heralded Homelessness Reduction Bill should help to alleviate the situation but if the Government had really wanted to address the issue, they could have provided ring-fenced funding for Local Authorities to prevent families becoming homeless in the first place (by paying outstanding rent arrears). As Zoe Williams so succinctly puts it:“Local government officials are now in a situation so impossible-statutory duty on one side, insufficient resources to meet it on the other-that they have to conceive the homelessness problem as a set of practical tasks to execute, rather than a series of human interactions” (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/24/why-are-councils-so-creative-in-making-life-unbearable-for-homeless-people). We have people who are forced to endure night after night sleeping on cold doorsteps, getting little to no treatment for their mental health issues and we have amazing people, who work for organisations such as LEAP and the Nomad Trust who want to do far more but feel their hands are tied by a lack of funding (again a failure of the Tory Government to provide adequate investment for our Outreach services).

With such a bleak picture painted of a Britain struggling under the grip of Austerity loving Tories, it should make sense to a centre-left equal opportunities voter like me to turn to Labour once again and give them a chance to improve the lives of the most vulnerable people. But one aspect of the Labour leadership's view (and I am guessing the ongoing policy platform) is troubling me: that is the approach towards Brexit. When I voted for Labour back in June 2017, I did so with my eyes wide open; I knew that the likelihood of the Brexit vote being quashed entirely was next to zero and I knew at that time that support for a 2^nd referendum, or even a referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal was insufficient to encourage the leadership to consider altering their mindset towards Brexit. I had read the manifesto section which stated quite clearly that “Freedom of movement will end when we leave the EU” but I questioned in my mind whether we'd get to the point where we actually left the EU (naïve maybe?) What I did think may happen was in any clarification of Labour's position, Mr Corbyn would decide that membership of the Single Market, along EFTA(European Free Trade Association) lines, would be the best possible deal for the UK given the limited amount of options on the table. I'm glad that Labour has, along with the Lib Dems, the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party seemingly managed to convince PM May to change tact and agree that a transition deal was needed and had to be one where the UK retained membership of both the Single Market and the Customs Union. But I can't say that I'm not worried about the future of the UK outside the Single Market. I'm disappointed in Corbyn's claim that the EU cannot be reformed (ask the Nordic Greens and ALDE whether EU reforms are impossible and they'd rebuff Corbyn straight out of hand) and I am equally frowning at his blanket dismissal of the possibility of a 2^nd referendum or even a referendum on the terms of the deal. That being said, Corbyn favours “some kind of Customs Union” but not the current version. Corbyn also doesn't want to be a member of EFTA either but wants to work with EFTA countries such as Norway (http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/jeremy-corbyn-second-referendum-1-5372112). There's been some references made as to what immigration policy will be like after Brexit but Sir Keir Starmer was the latest to comment, back in December, when he said “the end of free movement doesn't mean no movement. Of course we would want people to come from the EU to work here, we would want people who are here to go to work in the EU” (https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/what-is-labour-policy-on-brexit). Confusing policy remains the order of the day, you betcha!

I guess I should be grateful for any kind of clarity being offered by Corbyn on the party's official position but I do feel that crucial votes may end up being lost as a result of a lukewarm approach towards the EU. Take the most recent poll on Brexit support. The YouGov poll conducted back in December 2017 for The Guardian and Best For Britain campaign found that voters intending to vote Labour at the next election still are unsure as to what Labour's overall Brexit position happens to be: 23% believe Labour is “completely against Brexit” and 10% “didn't know”. The most recent Guardian/ICM poll, with over 5,000 respondents, shows that 39% of Labour leavers are now in favour of a second referendum with 65% of Labour backers overall wanting voters to have the final say on a Brexit deal (only 19% now oppose it). That being said, in the Midlands region (including Lincolnshire), 52% of voters polled would still vote to Leave the EU and that is despite 45% of voters thinking the decision will have a negative effect on the economy (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/26/labour-brexit-rethink-second-referendum-guardian-icm-poll). Students are also increasingly likely to vote for Remain (74%..up 16% since 2016...although the rise comes from those who could not vote in 2016) and women are more likely to vote to Remain in another referendum (53% to 47%). What may give any future Remain campaign a win is the fact that 51% of voters aged 38-64 would now vote to Remain.

Other results from the poll make for interesting reading. For example, when asked what impact Brexit will have on their personal finances, 36% of respondents said negative and that includes 50% of Labour voters. This stands in stark contrast to Tory voters, with only 18% stating that Brexit will have a negative impact on their finances. When it comes to asking about the impact of Brexit on culture, 42% of DE voters (unskilled and unemployed) said that it would be positive, compared to only 34% of AB (managerial and professional) voters. 57% of Labour voters stated that Brexit will have a negative impact on British culture, compared with 20% of Tory voters. There is clearly a sharp divide socially and politically here, although it would also come as no surprise to learn that 54% of voters aged over 75 believe leaving the EU will have a positive impact on the UK whereas only 24% of 18-24 year olds and 29% of 25-34 year olds agreed with them. What these figures reveal is the difficulty every political party has in adopting a unifying approach policy wise; there will be a significant section of the population worried about the social and cultural as well as economic effects of Brexit and they may feel politically homeless if the Labour party decides to align themselves with a harder form of Brexit. Nonetheless, the ruling out of a referendum on the terms of the final deal seems to be a foolish decision by Corbyn, given that 77% of potential Labour voters and 58% of overall respondents want to have that chance. Hmm.

Corbyn is set on gambling on the idea that Brexit voters in the North, in constituencies where Labour lost their seat, such as Mansfield (which went from having a 5,315 majority for Labour to just a 1,057 majority for the Tories) and Stoke-on-Trent South (which went from having a 2,539 majority to Labour to a 663 majority for the Tories) will be so convinced by Corbyn's commitment to Brexit that they will back him and vote Labour at the next election and that their votes would offset any votes lost with liberal pro-EU voters like myself choosing another party to vote for (e.g. Liberal Democrats) in marginal seats. It's certainly an interesting assumption. If you look at the figures from the poll for Northern voters especially, 54% would now vote Remain, 60% want a say on the final deal and 52% of voters think Brexit will have a negative effect on the economy. Who would have predicted that back in June? Anyways time will tell whether Corbyn is right to gamble Brexit policy wise and we shall see the effects at the next election.

Perhaps what is giving Labour the edge in polling at the moment is a desire to enact social change to help improve the lives of the most vulnerable. After years of policies favouring individualism and consumerism, there's a sense that voters are now realising the need to look after our public services after years of lack of proper investment in them. The lowering of taxes may have helped boost the economy but wage growth has stagnated and voters are increasingly fearful of the prospect of being homeless; most of us have next to no savings, which means we are often only one or two paydays away from finding ourselves on the street. That realisation should make us more compassionate towards those who have found themselves in dire straits. We should not be living in a country where more families have to make a choice between heating their home for a week or buying healthy meals for a few days. We should not be asking parents to fork out for expensive bits of clothing just because they have to have the right style of school logo on them. We should not expect single parents and parents who have found themselves with a reduced income as a result of illness or long-term disability to have to routinely deny their children access to leisure activities because they can't afford the bus fare or the petrol to take them. How can the Government continue to justify their approach and squeeze funding for Local Authorities to the point where they cannot afford to fund schemes that could reduce child poverty and empower young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to aspire to be in their dream jobs?

The question now is whether Labour leaning Remain voters put aside their concerns over Corbyn's muddled policy platform and trust in Labour's overall vision or whether they look for a party that showcases the referendum on the final deal as a central policy?