National LGBT Survey Analysis: Education

Schools, colleges, universities, training centres and other educational establishments should be places where everyone feels safe and supported by staff, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Yet report after report has shown that LGBTQIA+ staff and students do not always feel comfortable being in such settings. The much quoted Stonewall School Report 2017, conducted in partnership with the Centre for Family Research based at Cambridge University highlighted that despite noticeable decreases in overall levels of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in schools, there is still a worrying prevalence of transphobic language and bullying and lack of awareness of differing gender identities in general. There are a number of shocking statistics that stood out: 9% of trans students surveyed for the Stonewall School Report 2017 stated they had been subjected to death threats, 84% had said they had self-harmed at some point and 45% had considered taking their own lives (https://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_school_report_2017.pdf).

A survey conducted by Dr Catherine Lee, head of education and social care at Anglia Ruskin University earlier this year which had 105 responses found that 46% of LGBT+ teachers working at village based schools had taken time off from work because of anxiety or depression brought on as a result of lack of acceptance of their sexual orientation; the figure for teachers based in urban areas was only 5%. Also 40% of rurally based teachers felt their sexual or gender identities had been a direct barrier to accessing promotional opportunities. 30% of teachers had left a role at a village school because they had experienced homophobia, whereas the figure for teachers based in towns and cities was 17%. (https://schoolsweek.co.uk/rural-lgbt-teachers-have-worse-mental-health/). Another survey, conducted for the NASWUT found that 50% of teachers who are LGBT+ felt their school wasn't a safe place to be open about their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The National LGBT Survey asked a number of questions relating to educational experiences, with responses coming from 16 and 17 year olds still in secondary school/sixth form as well as teachers currently based in schools and colleges. 36% of respondents to the survey had been in education in 2016/17, including 98% of respondents aged 16-17 and 64% of those aged 18-24 (p.109).

Many of the responses to the questions reflect concerns already expressed but I feel it's important to explore a number of them in depth to bring home the importance of ensuring educational settings are a place of safety and which nurture a feeling in students and staff alike for celebrating the diversity of human relationships and experiences:

• Respondents who had expressed at the start of the survey that they had a “minority gender identity” (i.e. trans, non-binary, genderqueer, agender etc) were asked a question about how understanding their teachers had been of issues facing trans, gender fluid and non-binary students. Only 13% reported that their teachers and staff had been very understanding or somewhat understanding, and 68% said they had been not very, or not at all, understanding. (p.103) 50% of respondents aged 16-17 and 67% aged 18-24 said that their teachers and other school staff had been not very, or not all, understanding of gender issues (p.103)
• 918 respondents to the National LGBT Survey talked about Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) - “the broader concept of better education in schools regarding sexual orientation, gender identity and being LGBT was the most discussed topic” and when respondents talked about sex education, a number stated that “it is, or was, in their own experience heteronormative, with little-to-no information on any LGBT-specific education about sex and related topics” (p.105). This demonstrates the need for RSE guidance to be LGBTQIA+ inclusive and written by experts who have experience of discussing and researching (and being in) LGBTQIA+ sex and relationships. Knowledge is power, after all!
• 50 respondents to the National LGBT survey talked about the need to discuss LGBT+ history in schools, especially the fight for rights (p.106): this could include lessons on Section 28, the Lesbian and Gays Support the Miners group and the passing of legislation in Parliament.
• Respondents who had reported they were in education stated more often than not that they had not been open with teachers and support staff- 53% of all respondents had not been open with teachers and 61% had not been open with non-teaching staff (p.110).
• 41% of trans respondents had not been open with teaching staff – non-binary respondents were more likely not to be open than trans women and men (p.116). 57% of asexual trans respondents were not open with their teaching staff.
• 18% of respondents who reported they were asexual had not disclosed their sexual orientation to their classmates.
• Only 1.3% of respondents had experienced only negative reactions from others when they disclosed their sexual orientation or gender identity but 31.2% had experienced both positive and negative reactions from others when disclosed
• 21% of respondents who had had experienced mixed reactions to disclosure at school, college or university during the 2016/17 academic year said disclosure had happened without their explicit consent and 19% “received verbal harassment, insults or other hurtful comments” (p.118)
• Over 1,200 respondents had mentioned bullying within education in their survey responses: “There was a consensus that the bullying of LGBT people is still common in schools, and that more could be done by government and schools to tackle it” (p.119).
• 88% of incidents perpetrated against respondents who were in education during the 2016/17 year were perpetrated by fellow students but 9% were perpetrated by teachers or other teaching staff (p.120)
• 11% of incidents of sexual harassment or violence against trans students were perpetrated by teachers and other teaching staff (p.120)
• 83% of the most serious incidents that respondents had indicated had taken place had not been reported by themselves or anyone else (p.121)
• 56% of respondents who had not reported the most serious incident said it wouldn't have been worth it and 37% said it would not have been taken seriously by staff or police (p.122)
• 77% of those whose incident was reported to an LGBT organisation or charity said that they had found them very or somewhat helpful, and 66% of those whose incident was reported to parents/guardians had found them very or somewhat helpful (p.124)
• After incidents had been reported, only 13% of respondents who had reported incidents said that the “negative comments or conduct in question had stopped completely (p.124)
• Catholic schools were particularly cited as being places which are “unsupportive” and respondents noted the lack of appropriate LGBTQIA+ RSE in those schools
• 16 responses were received in relation to being LGBTQIA+ and having special educational needs: “respondents noted that the intersectionality of having special educational needs and being LGBT could be a very difficult experience, in that people may conflate the two, or may not sufficiently understand either” (p.127). This indicates a need for more comprehensive guidance and support for staff supporting LGBTQIA+ students with special needs so they do not conflate and resort to use of stereotypes.
• 170 responses were from LGBTQIA+ teachers: more than 1 in 5 have been outed, a third have had a negative reaction from others towards them after disclosing their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, 6% have been excluded from events held in their educational establishments and more worryingly, 9% of the most serious incidents in school/college were perpetrated by their colleagues (read more here: https://www.tes.com/news/one-five-lgbt-teachers-outed-school)

The statistics outlined above paint a mixed picture of educational establishments across the country. It's important to make it clear that there are schools out there who have taken on board measures to improve LGBTQIA+ equality. Getting the basics right makes the biggest difference to the emotional wellbeing of trans, non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer and agender students:

• Ensuring anti-bullying policy and procedures include references to stamping out transphobic language and bullying by ensuring staff know what their responsibilities are in reporting and disciplining students who have perpetrated such acts
• Ensuring disciplinary and grievance procedures include reference to homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying, harassment and discrimination (with reference to the Equality Act 2010)
• Ensuring administrative procedures for updating the name and title marker for students and staff are made clear to teaching and support staff
• Ensuring ALL staff have received basic gender and sexual orientation awareness training from qualified and experienced professionals
• Marking awareness days, weeks and months in school, including LGBT Awareness Month (February), School Diversity Week (July) and Transgender Day of Remembrance (20^th November)
• Scheduling time in PSHE and RSE lessons to talk about LGBTQIA+ equality, relationships (sexual and otherwise) with students in a clear and non-patronising manner
• Embedding lessons on LGBT+ role models and issues across the National Curriculum
• Providing information to students about access to facilities, including toilets and changing rooms
• Engaging with educational organisations including Educate & Celebrate and Just Like Us
• Signposting students to local, regional and national LGBTQIA+ organisations, including Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence and Stonewall.

The situation for trans, non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer and agender students in a school will only improve when there is supportive leadership in place to garner the support from staff, parents, guardians, cares and governors needed to enact the measures. This is particularly the case for faith schools in more conservative, rural parts of England where there may not yet be any openly trans, gender-fluid, genderqueer and agender students or staff. Guidance documents such as the Church of England's Valuing All God's Children can help to further the argument towards celebrating diversity which goes beyond mere tolerance (https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/Valuing%20All%20God%27s%20Children%27s%20Report_0.pdf). The guidance includes Anti-Bullying and Equality and Diversity policy templates which can be adapted for use. Books such as How to Transform Your School into an LGBT+ Friendly Place written by Dr Elly Barnes MBE and Dr Anna Carlile of Goldsmiths University of London, Department of Educational Studies can also help to provide the practical information and guidance needed for headteachers, teachers and pastoral care teams to implement positive change (there's a great section on awareness days, weeks and months for example). Department for Education guidance, issued on an ongoing basis are must-read documents: for example, they just updated the guidance for schools by creating a document on gender separation in mixed schools (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/719398/Gender-separation-guidance.pdf). One has to acknowledge that there will always be a small but vocal minority of Christians and people of other faiths who advocate denying the existence of different sexual orientations and gender identities but through increasing awareness and training, their potency which they use to control the overall conversation on gender and sexuality for others will begin to evaporate and LGBTQIA+ equality will advance further.

The findings of the National LGBT Survey with regards to education do not shock me. I had little exposure to LGBTQIA+ issues and did not learn about the fight to gain LGBTQIA+ rights at primary or secondary school. I knew a few openly LGBT classmates at secondary school and noticed the homophobic, biphobic and transphobic language most of us were subjected to whilst feeling that such language was unwarranted and affected our self-confidence. I think only one of us was out to teachers and they didn't really know how to support us other than to encourage our academic talents. My secondary school wasn't a bastion of hate but I certainly wouldn't exactly call it a haven of LGBTQIA+ awareness and tolerance either.

I hope that as the years progress and the push for improved rights for trans, non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer and agender people gathers steam, whilst LGBTQIA+ inclusive RSE is introduced as part of the PSHE curriculum, that more students and staff feel they can be authentically themselves whilst at school.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-LGBT Hate Crime:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-LGBT+ Hate Crime in Lincolnshire: 

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

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

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

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

Direct and indirect discrimination in daily life: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are Labour facing an "existential crisis" in Lincolnshire? What can they do about it?

The results of the Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election are in and as I suspected, the Conservatives managed to hold onto their majority in the constituency. In fact, they managed to increase their majority by 1.1% despite the turnout being a measly 37.1%. It was winter and it rained on and off during the day but blaming weather conditions for a low turnout kind of ignores an issue we may have with voter engagement following the divisive EU Referendum campaign earlier in the year. I've spoken to 1 voter (Richard) in North Hykeham who said he wouldn't vote yesterday because he thought the by-election campaigns were too Brexitcentric: "calling voters Remoaners and Brexiteers is just childish. The main party candidates didn't convince me that they'd stopped playing on the divides in a vain effort to gain extremist votes so why should I vote for someone who isn't inspiring any level of collaboration". I asked Richard whether he'd consider voting for an Independent candidate but he wasn't convinced...he said that voting away from the main parties would be a wasted vote and a waste of his time. At least Richard was honest with me!

Part of the reason why Dr Johnson won last  night is because she came across as a "safe pair of hands" candidate; someone who wouldn't rock the boat too much in Brexit negotiations but supports the Government's position wholeheartedly. UKIP had tried to slander Dr Johnson by making out she wasn't a "true Brexiteer" because she had "indicated support for the UK to remain in the Single Market" but quite clearly voters in the area thought that it was better to follow the Government's line and trust that they could deliver a plan that would please most voters regardless of how they voted in the EU Referendum. Dr Johnson came across well when it came to 1-1 voter engagement in villages across the constituency. After all, it wasn't just about Sleaford! Another reason why Caroline won was because she seemed to have clear policies when it came to improving transport infrastructure and was willing to work with fellow Conservative MPs such as Karl McCartney to future funding for the area. That coupled with Parliament's recent vote to trigger Article 50 by the 31st March 2017 and having a strong network of councillors in the outlying villages surrounding Sleaford bolstered the vote. Of course that has led to quips that anyone or anything with a blue rosette could win the election is disappointing but such simple responses to the by-election result doesn't do any politico any favours. Especially if the politico happens to be sympathetic to the Labour party's platform.

There's no getting away from it. Labour did appallingly in Sleaford and North Hykeham compared with just a year ago. Under Ed Miliband Labour managed to come 2nd in the constituency with 17.3% of the vote; last night Corbyn's Labour candidate Jim Clarke came 4th with a vote share of just 10.2%. Labour managed to keep their deposit but with the party being beaten by a passionate resurgent local Lib Dem party that managed to gain on actual votes and voter share and a UKIP party that had a candidate with ties to the National Front and a history of outspoken xenophobic attitudes towards  EU migrants and asylum seekers (telling the Govt to "send them back" in 2008) questions have now got to be asked about Labour's credibility in rural Midland areas. Just to think that Labour had a voter share percentage of 34.3% only 20 years ago shows how much confidence in the party has declined in Lincolnshire.

The reason why it matters that Labour came 4th in the by-election  is not because Labour had a chance of taking the Sleaford and North Hykeham seat (it's been solidly Conservative since its creation in 1997) but because Labour has a real chance of taking back Lincoln, the constituency immediately bordering Sleaford and NH. The Lincoln constituency happens to contain a number of rural villages, such as Skellingthorpe and according to plans drawn up by the Boundary Commission, North Hykeham may be incorporated into the Lincoln seat for the next GE expected to be held in 2020. If that is to be the case, Labour needs to understand the specific needs of North Hykeham voters if they are to turn them away from the Lib Dems and Conservatives.

I recently read Owen Jones's article that looked at the possible crisis Labour is facing in Northern England, Wales and Scotland: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/01/labour-would-save-the-nhs-but-the-nhs-wont-save-labour. I believe some of the observations I made from the article pertain to an analysis of Labour's existential crisis in Lincolnshire, especially amongst white working class voters such as myself. Here are my thoughts below:

Owen mentions pollster's Ian Warren's two groups of voters who would "never vote Tory": white blue collar workers, over 40 who Warren classes as "relatively politically engaged" non-graduates from Wales, Northern England or the Midlands and "Generation Renters" who are usually under 40 but rely on private rental market or are in social housing and feel disfranchised from voting in the "Establishment" electoral system in the first place. Some of these voters will have used foodbanks to feed their children; some will have had to make a choice between food and heat/light and some will have had direct experience of Payday loan rip-offs or even door-to-door loan shark intimidation. Both groups of voters are looking for changes to their quality of life and they want more than lip service from their representatives as to how the Government will help to enact this change.

Political tribalism is slowly being eroded away from Northern English regions and from Wales and the Labour Leadership should be rightly concerned that the base they felt they were "entitled" to keep hold of no longer have the blind faith in the Labour party at a local, regional and/or national level that they may once have had. Social media platforms and more transparency access to government plans and documents at a local and national level means that potential voters are now far more aware of political issues affecting their own constituencies and do have the choice as to whether to compare their MPs voting record or comments made through the media with those of their opponents to decide whether their MP is dealing with local issues in an appropriate way. Naturally not every voter has the time or inclination to do this so PR marketing can still help to sway votes to one party or another, provided the messages contained within are concise and effective-i.e. they focus on issues and policies that the electorate care about. Jeremy Corbyn's 10 point plan that he introduced during his second Leadership campaign in the Summer of 2016 is an example of effective PR strategy but Corbyn has to follow through by talking about specific points raised to show a sense of cohesive message. Organising national days of action is one way to highlight awareness and I'm impressed by Corbyn's ability to organise them when it comes to defending Comprehensive Education or the NHS but the odd day of action here and there won't change minds in the long term.  

The hardest to reach members of the electorate are those who feel that their lives won't improve regardless of whichever major party happens to be in power. Major parties for them are Labour, Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. The reason why commentators hear of online tweeters calling members of the Labour party "Red Tory" or members of the Conservative party "Remoaner Traitors" is because these tweeters believe there are too many MPs/commentators who are members of Labour/Conservatives/Lib Dems who represent the centre ground in politics and they see the general convergence in views on immigration as evidence of them being complicit members of the political"Establishment" who need to be thrown out of power. Establishment MPs are "happy to let the working class people rot" because an unequal system benefits them. Of course there are major differences between millionaires and former social workers/domestic violence campaigners becoming MPs but if their views are seen as "too similar", voters who want a radical change will want to get rid of them regardless of their background.  Such proliferation of types of vitriolic online comments can put off potential voters from voting at all because they believe the system is literally too "rigged against them" in favour of London and the South East and voters who share "Establishment values" in the North and Wales. UKIP party members attempt to tap into feelings of inequality, especially amongst white working class voters and suggesting the only way to shake up the electoral system would be by voting UKIP.

I've spoken with a number of Millennials in North Hykeham and Lincoln who are currently unemployed or in low-wage part time work who chose to vote UKIP in yesterday's by-election. I'd never contemplate voting for a party with a reputation for being vehemently anti- asylum seeker, anti refugee and anti-immigration (as well as a lukewarm approach to LGBTQIA issues and almost no policy on improving trans rights) but I wanted to know what drove them to pluck for Victoria Ayling instead of Labour's Jim Clarke.

• Sara, a part time waitress with 2 young children living in North Hykeham said to me: "Why should I vote Labour or Tory or Lib Dem? My situation never gets any better when I vote for them. Rents here in NH are still high and the NLW doesn't pay enough to help me save up for a deposit. I want to own my own home but I can't find full time work in the area.  Nobody speaks up for people like me. I didn't trust the local Tory MP (Stephen Phillips) and I don't trust in Dr Caroline Johnson either. All the Tories ever talk about is transportation and Brexit." Sara was talking about former local MP Stephen Phillips, who happened to be a virulent Brexiteer and even though Sara voted to Leave the UK, she didn't trust in the Tories to improve raise her standard of living. Sara could have voted Labour because she cares about workers' rights, increasing the NLW and tackling high rents. Yet Sara  said that UKIP were the only real party who are non-Establishment: "I want someone who won't lie to us and sugarcoat bad news. Immigrants have got more work than British born young people. Why can't the main parties candidates see that? I think if we reduce the numbers coming into Lincolnshire from the EU then employers might start being forced to recruit in North Hykeham and then maybe I'd get full time pay". Sara may be a bit of a wishful thinker here but there were plenty of voters in Sleaford and North Hykeham who turned away from Labour because Jim Clarke didn't tackle this mistaken view that migrants steal jobs from British citizens and that employers almost always deliberately choose to hire from EU countries first to deny Lincs born workers full time wages. Some may do this but not every employer is guilty of it. Labour needs to talk about the benefits of immigration to the local economy as well as promising to crack down on any employers who discriminate in their recruitment and selection practices so employers do look in the local area for their talent. Labour also needs to show how a crackdown on bad employer practices will help  prevent exploitation of migrant labour because the party should be concerned for the welfare of all working class people in Lincs, not just Yellowbellies
• William, an unemployed 20 year old from Lincoln told me he wouldn't vote Labour again until they put up an inspiring candidate who'd be willing to address issues concerning immigration into the local area.  "I don't know what Labour were thinking when they let Eastern Europeans flood the country like have done over the past decade. Companies seem to be hiring more Romanian and Bulgarian builders and they can't even speak English. Why can't they give me a chance....I have a GCSE grade C in English like employers ask for but when I apply for jobs the employers don't want to know." According to the Annual Population Survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics in 2014, the number of people who had not been born in the UK in Lincoln was 16%, which is actually higher than the percentage in the Boston area (which contains the constituency with the highest Leave vote in the country) at 15%. So I wasn't particularly surprised that British born people in Lincoln expressed opinions regarding immigration levels in the area without having to refer to Boston. I don't detect any malice, any wish to punish EU nationals from daring to move into the area, it was more a frustration with the current Conservative government and the previous Coalition government for not reaching their targets RE non-EU and EU migration that were actually set by Theresa May whilst she was Home Secretary.
• Jim, a 23 year old electrician who lives in my ward of Birchwood told me that he'd only ever vote UKIP now because Labour has been slow in coming up with an alternative to the immigration policies put in place by the Conservatives. His parents both voted to Leave the EU without much hesitation and both have been Labour supporters throughout their adult lives. Yet Jim revealed that many of his parents' friends no longer bothered to vote because neither Labour nor the Conservatives have increased the NLW to an appropriate level for them to live on. And because living standards haven't improved and the economic recovery hasn't stretched to certain communities it has caused an element of discord and a fear of "being left behind". That fear leads some to blame the situation on immigration. Yet there are EU immigrants who have settled in Lincoln, set up businesses and are paying their fair share of taxes as well as employing local British-born working class people in their businesses. I doubt that Leave voters would want to throw these hard workers out of the country based on their nationality or citizenship. It's about raising awareness of the benefits of immigration as well as talking about the Migrant Impact Fund to help address concerns over public service pressures. It's about talking about the missed targets for non EU migration reduction by May and the Home Office during her tenure. As Owen Jones says, Labour parties across the UK should be holding public meetings in village halls, community centres, libraries to openly discuss immigration in a balanced manner, taking on board the concerns of voters and asking them how Labour could "do Brexit differently", if Brexit is required at all. Some Labour votes will be pretty much against Brexit, so Labour has to address their concerns whilst listening to those who voted to Leave. It's a very fine balancing act.

Labour's Crisis: Issues:

NHS:
Labour wins voters over on the NHS. The NHS isn't a battleground issue that many voters in Lincoln, Boston, Grantham, Sleaford and North Hykeham, need to be convinced on by Labour but I feel Labour candidates need to talk in more detail about specific local NHS issues. Ambulance response times in Lincolnshire under EMAS are woeful, patients are waiting longer for essential operations and GP surgeries are under the threat of closure due to lack of adequate staffing. It has been revealed that the GP surgery in Metheringham will be closed, with 1,580 patients needing to be found a new surgery without having to travel 5-10 miles in the car (especially as some residents do not have direct access to a car). Remaining GP surgeries may become over-stretched with patients waiting longer to be seen for minor ailments, which could prompt more of them to attend A&Es in Lincoln and Grantham. Grantham A&E remains closed overnight, putting pressure on Lincoln County Hospital to treat emergency cases and as I've mentioned in a previous blogpost, there are plans afoot to try and close the A&E there by downgrading it to an Urgent Care Centre. Labour needs to oppose the proposed United Lincolnshire Hospital Trust Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) openly if it is to retain voters.  Labour also needs to talk about more than "throwing money at the NHS"; they need to show how the extra funding they are seeking would be spent- whether it would be on improving access to Mental Health Services for young residents or increasing funding for the number of nurses training places in Lincolnshire, restoring the bursary for nurses so they do not need to pay back loans once they are working hard in Lincs hospitals.  Local Labour candidates need to talk about key party policies such as ending Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts that suck money away from frontline services and lead to "privatisation by the back door", something that Jeremy Corbyn is keenly opposed to. Labour voters need to see the connection between local policy ideas and national policy ideas otherwise they won't vote!

Welfare Reform:
I can understand voter concerns on the welfare system. Most Corbyn supporters are concerned about the erosion of the welfare system; the Tories to them appear to lack compassion for the most vulnerable in society and most voters want to protect them from falling into a trap of poverty. That being said, voters in Lincs are sympathetic to the idea of welfare reform; it has to be run efficiently and fairly so as to not "waste taxpayers money". Some in Lincs believe the only way of doing this is by denying in work benefits to recent EU migrants for at least a few years as well as denying EU migrants out of work benefits (such as JSA) if they happen to lose their job within a few years. To me this seems harsh; migrants may lose their job for any number of reasons (illness, staff cuts) and if they happen to have made the effort to get a job in the first place, they should be afforded the same protections as British citizens (I'd also extend the same benefits to non-EU citizens to make sure they do not become destitute). Voters want to see the Government act with a certain amount of compassion. I'm against and against cuts to disability benefits. Nobody that is capable of finding work should be left to rot and be subjected to months or years of economic inactivity which often happens through no real fault of their own, especially if they happen to be disabled or from an ethnic minority. However I think most working class voters do understand and believe in improving the rights of all people in the UK as long as a convincing case can be made to them. They just want to feel more involved in the decision making process. So Labour has to commit to being transparent and accountable to the electorate when it comes to deciding how they would spend taxpayers money to fund benefits.

Immigration:
Labour candidates need to engage more positively and openly with its working class voters when it comes to discussing immigration reform. Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott is right to say that there is a need to debunk the myth that Labour operated an open door immigration policy; membership of the EU in recent years has meant there had to be an acceptance of its freedom of movement principle but there was no deliberate attempt by Labour to encourage high levels of immigration into the UK. Eurosceptics have said that Labour are to blame for the influx of EU migrants because they did not advocate for restrictions into the numbers of Poles being allowed to come and work in the UK for the first year after Poland joined the EU in 2004. The increase in immigration following the enlargement of the EU was unforeseen and I think that border controls guards and immigration administrative personnel should have been increased in the years following Poland's entry into the EU so that there was better monitoring of numbers.

Labour tried to mitigate the effects of immigration on public services by providing a Migrant Impact Fund, which Corbyn wants to re-establish should he become PM. The fund would be created by introducing modest surcharges on immigration visas, not increasing income tax and would help fund more teaching assistants, more nurses and more GPs in areas such as Boston and Skegness. If more voters knew that the MIF would not cost taxpayers a penny and would help fund more local public services, they may be more support on the doorstep for Corbyn's approach to immigration. He is right to suggest that arbitrary targets dreamt up by Theresa May, current Home Secretary Amber Rudd et al for net immigration post-Brexit are doomed to fail. The focus as Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry has noted should be on upskilling the local population to ensure current skills gaps identified by local SMEs can be addressed without the need to source labour from abroad. Also there has to be an attempt to prosecute agencies and employers who exploit migrant labour by paying them below the National Living Wage and denying them workers rights. If employers realise they must pay the NLW and adhere to the regulations such as making sure workers have access to adequate health care and food preparation facilities, they may be more likely to look for workers from their local area. Again it may seem that Labour are a bit "wishy washy" on promising definitive reforms but at least it is a step in the right direction!

Education:
Whilst there are no grammar schools in the City of Lincoln itself, there are a number dotted across Lincs. It is important therefore that any Labour candidate who stands for election in Lincs shows that they appreciate the work done by all schools in their potential constituency to help students pass key exams and prepare them for their working lives. Labour may oppose Theresa May's plan which seems to favour funding for grammar schools over comprehensive ones but candidates need to tell potential voters what a Labour Government would focus on to improve attainment outcomes, especially for SEN pupils in mainstream schools and working class boys who seem to have been left behind in real years.

Jeremy Corbyn's position seems to be that he wants to create a "national education service" designed to provide learning opportunities "from cradle to grave". Corbyn's a critic of forced academisation because he believes there is no evidence to suggest turning comprehensives into academies helps to improve educational performance and it sounds like he would bring all academics back under local authority control. Local Labour candidates would need to think carefully about whether they agreed with this position. Corbyn also states that he wants to reduce class sizes to under 30, abolish charitable status for private and public schools, abolish tuition fees and reinstating the Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) funding EMAs by increasing corporation tax by 1.5% . Corbyn also wants to fund more adult learning courses such as ESOL for migrants by increasing corporation tax by 2%.  I'd say that reinstating EMA is achievable and would be broadly popular with working class rural voters but they would be sceptical about Corbyn's other policies; they seem too good to be true!

A recent education policy announced by Corbyn was the creation of an Arts Premium for every primary school child in England, an extra £160m of funding to allow working class children an opportunity to learn a musical instrument or engage in more painting/sculpting activities. Whilst I'm glad to see Corbyn take an interest in promoting the need to allow children to develop their creative skills to help shape their social skills, it isn't at the forefront of most voters' minds. Labour do need to make sure they also focus on promoting STEM subjects in schools, ensure that there are enough qualified teachers to deliver a strong curriculum that will allow all students regardless of gender, ability level or social background to achieve their best and ensure that teachers feel able to carry on working within the profession 5 years after they qualify by offering further training and development opportunities and opportunities for promotion. If voters can see that their local Labour candidate values the contribution that all teachers make towards improving educational attainment, they may be more likely to vote for them at a GE.

Transportation:
Labour now seems committed to full scale re-nationalisation of the railways. Quite how this will happen is open to interpretation. Jim Clarke said in an interview with The Lincolnite that it should happen gradually- as each contract ends the Government takes on the responsibility for running train services for the region. I've not heard any MP completely express Labour's transport position to the electorate in plain, clear language so no wonder voters didn't know whether to take Mr Clarke at his word on this. Voters do care about upgrading railway lines to help reduce travel time, upgrade rolling stock so nobody travels in an unsafe carriage and reduce ticket prices to make it more affordable for rural working class graduates to consider entry level posts outside of their area. On the Jeremy Corbyn 4 Labour website, Corbyn claims that nationalisation will allow ticket prices to be cut by 10% yet Labour's local candidate did not even quote this figure in a discussion over transport infrastructure! If Labour is to convince voters that renationalisation of the railways is a good idea, candidates need to point to the example of East Coast which helped deliver £1bn in funding for the Treasury and consistently kept rail fares down until it was reprivatized under the Coalition Government. It may only be one example but it is not talked about enough at the grassroots level.

Corbyn also talks about setting up municipal bus companies that would be run by local councils who can provide more rural bus services for residents who rely on public transport to visit their friends and relatives or do their banking in person. He says that he will provide funding for this by unlocking £500m every year. Voters in Sleaford and North Hykeham talked about the lack of regular bus services between villages and Sleaford and Lincoln and they would appreciate any attempt to increase their services provided that it was deliverable. I do wonder if Mr Clarke had talked about this policy on the doorstep he might have done better with voters?!


Law And Order:
Voters in Lincolnshire are deeply concerned about crime rates in the countryside; the county has the highest rates of rural crime than anywhere else in England; rural crime cost farmers more than £2.4m in 2015. Thefts of Quad Bikes, combine harvesters and livestock are mostly covered by agricultural insurance but this only pushes up premiums for all farmers in the Lincs area at a time when farmers are struggling to keep their farms operational in a globally competitive market. Residents in villages such as Ruskington and Osbournby worry about their safety at night with the increasing number of street lights being turned off by the County Council so are naturally concerned about the visible decline in police presence.  A vote winner for UKIP on the doorsteps of Sleaford and North Hykeham was the promise of more "bobbies on the beat" and advocating for increased funding from Government to fund more rural crime units to keep farmers and villagers safe. Labour at a national level needs to talk tough on rural crime to show that it is committed to protecting farmers. At a local level, Labour candidates need to go beyond talking about funding issues ( voters know that funding cuts have led to at least a 10% cut in police officer numbers and 7% cut in PCSOs since the Tories came to power in 2010). Candidates need to question the way policing issues are being handled by the Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner, Marc Jones;  for example, should Labour oppose the G4S contract that was negotiated by Lincs Police 2012 when it comes up for renewal? If Labour under Corbyn are opposed to privatisation of public services in general, this seems obvious! Should Labour be asking that PCSOs be more involved in tackling speeding crimes and rural crimes, being able to issue penalty notices to troublemakers within their own communities?

Conclusion:

Whilst it is important to keep voters on side RE the NHS, voters need other reasons to turn out and vote for the Labour party. To find out which issues matter to local residents, Labour grassroots members have to continue to knock on doors, organising meetings in community centres, libraries and WIs across Lincolnshire. Labour campaigning cannot just be done online via social media, via articles from activists or relying on Momentum or Progress to take ownership of voter engagement. All "wings" of the Labour party, especially UKIP-Labour and Conservative-Labour converts (if they are even allowed back into the party) should be involved. Voters want contact with their local political parties for more than 5 minutes on a doorstep on a Wednesday morning before an election. Voters in Lincolnshire want to feel that their voices are being heard by "those that matter". Getting more Labour candidates into parish/district councils in Lincolnshire's rural heartlands is key to developing voter engagement strategies. If you don't have a strong, sustained base of support that willingly votes to increase Labour representation at a local level, you're not going to motivate them to go to the polls to vote for a Labour MP at a general election. So those wanting to be Labour candidates have to come from the local area, involve themselves willingly by going out and asking their friends and neighbours for their thoughts and opinions and be prepared to answer any difficult questions that may arise. Be prepared to differ from the Labour leadership but be prepared to give your reasons why you disagree with them on specific policies. Show awareness of Labour's key policies in the first place!

Initial Reactions and Observations from Sleaford and North Hykeham candidate interviews by The Lincolnite

It's quite exciting to have a by-election taking place in the constituency neighbouring mine. I'm pretty sure the spotlight shone on Sleaford and North Hykeham (NH) has never been so bright, mainly due to the shock by-election result that happened in Richmond Park on Thursday night (more on that in my next blogpost). I know the constituency pretty well. I went many times to North Hykeham as a young child to visit my grandparents who had a lovely bungalow at  that they lived in between 1966 (when newly built) and 1998. I've visited the Heckington Show, which happens to be the largest village show in England and which will (hopefully) celebrate its 150 anniversary next year. I've enjoyed buying craft materials from the National Centre for Craft and Design and enjoyed Lincolnshire sausage and bacon buns whilst at the Farmers Market in Sleaford, made from produce gathered from across the county. Metheringham, Ruskington, Eagle, North Scarle, Kyme, Billinghay, Bassingham...there are so many lovely villages to visit. RAF Cranwell falls within the constituency boundary and Lincolnshire residents are extremely supportive of our veterans and active RAF personnel stationed in the county. I care deeply about how all Lincolnshire residents are treated by the Government and the lack of funding for public services from our County Council is abysmal. It's important that an appropriate candidate is therefore chosen to represent Sleaford and NH. So I decided to have a listen to a series of Facebook interviews conducted by Stefan Pidluznyi, a journalist from the Lincolnshire Reporter (in connection with The Lincolnite) with the main candidates for the Sleaford and NH by-election. You can watch the interviews here: http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2016/12/watch-sleaford-north-hykeham-election-candidates-brexit-nhs-transport/

The thoughts I offer below are the initial reactions and observations made from having watched each candidate interview in turn. The main 4 candidates are discussed in slightly more detail.
Whilst not intended to be an attempt to influence voting intention, I hope it does spark some debate and most importantly, if you are a voter, encourage you to go to your local polling station on Thursday!

Victoria Ayling -UKIP.
Lincolnshire County Councillor, stood in Lincolnshire Police and Crime Commissioner Elections and took an active role in campaigning for Vote Leave in the East Midlands area in the EU Referendum.

Brexit/Immigration:

• "Passionate, proven Brexiteer"...tough on crime.
• Repeal European Communities Act rather than invoke Article 50.
• Firm tone, authoritative...not sure describing Lincoln Christmas Market traffic as "interesting" is good considering how much money is brought into the local economy through accommodation/increased tourism figures and also for money for Small Business owners who have stalls at the market.
• A bit spiel orientated in terms of immigration...can't reduce everything down to immigration. Targets missed by Government rightly highlighted. Why attack Remainers? Why do you HAVE to have a Brexiteer as an MP. People do want change...but can UKIP offer positive change for all constituents regardless of their EU vote? Ayling lives in Boston....Caroline lives in Sleaford. No mention of stats by Ayling on population figs; how  many Poles live in the Sleaford and NH constituency? According to ONS's Non UK Born Population Survey from 2014, only 7% of the population in North Kesteven and South Kesteven were born outside the UK, whereas the figure for Lincoln is 16%. Glad that Ayling agrees that Poles are hard-working. Poles angry about Romanians and Bulgarians...playing one Eastern European country off against others? Volume of immigrants is an issue yes but what will you do about it? Why only focus on EU immigration? There aren't many illegal immigrants in Lincolnshire. Health insurance? What about Brits abroad who use health systems for free...what about Brits in Spain? 
• Unconvinced by Ayling's description of the effectiveness of Australian points system. Need more evidence to back up claims.
• Stefan right to argue that farmers need freedom to move between UK and Eastern Europe due to seasonal nature of farming. Ayling replies that "If there is a need for unskilled labour...it'll be covered" but who'll do it? Do local people want to work in the fields? Job centre staff I've spoken to in Lincoln who live in NH have told me that NEETs (18-24 year olds Not in Education, Employment or Training) would not be prepared to pay to travel to farms to work in the fields or live on site. My brother, who is unemployed, laughed at me when I suggested the possibility of doing agricultural work. EU seasonal workers won't automatically get the right to return to the UK after spending off season back in their home country. Ayling states that it would depend on market conditions...whether there is a genuine "shortage" and then re-apply to do that specific job, ensuring they meet some form of (currently unspecified) criteria. The Application process could be open to religious/nationality/race bias depending on the types of border control/immigration control workers hired to do the Admin. Ayling mentions Seasonal Workers Programme as an alternative but not sure going back to old schemes is appropriate.
• "Hospitality being abused"....anti refugee stance? Control Control Control. Fear Fear Fear on immigration won't be encouraging me to vote UKIP!
• Ayling doesn't give concrete examples of EU legislation that she'd like to remove, only to remove "freedom of movement policy" and then mentions silly rule/regulation on toothbrooth construction to instill a sense of ridicule against EU Directives as a whole.
• "They need us more than we need them" stance on EU trade is a bit confrontational. UK may have provided 5.6m jobs inside the EU but that doesn't mean we can afford to be arrogant around the negotiating table. Playing hardball doesn't win you valuable allies. Tariffs could be imposed on us if we leave the Single Market in a huff and Ayling doesn't acknowledge how UK citizens based abroad in the EU may be affected in terms of their own employment status, health status, education costs etc. Don't think many Brits in Spain would like the idea of having to pay to use the Spanish health service or to have British products imported from the UK to Spain.
• Ayling wants to cut Health and Safety Directives but which ones does she identify as nonsense and which are essential...her definition of "common sense" may differ from mine. Anti PC.
• Transgender discrimination was not in place before we joined the EU....would a transgender employee who gets abused at work by a manager be seen as a "genuine grievance" or would they be seen to be using the Employment Tribunal as a "cash cow"? What is the definition of "rogue employee"? SMEs who break current employment legislation- e.g. not paying owed holiday pay/sick pay/maternity pay to employees must be held accountable for their actions and the Employment Tribunal acts as a mechanism for justice for those workers who have been harassed, abused taken for a mug by an organisation, no matter how small that organisation may be.
• EU= "glorified communist megastate"....nope sorry as Nordic Green Left supporter whilst we still are members of the EU I can say such sweeping statements are vacuous...if the EU was socialist, Jeremy Corbyn would have been its most vocal supporter.

NHS:

• Ayling wants  to reopen Grantham 24 hour A&E but also realises that GP surgeries are overstretched. Ayling feels that less red tape is needed- GPs shouldn't have to manage their practices and attend conferences to fill in paperwork. Does that mean reforming the NHS to back away from Commissioning Group control? Does that mean more Admin Managers need to be recruited to ensure essential paperwork (after "red tape" has been removed) is completed, freeing up GPs to look after patients? Where's the money from Local Government/NHS services to do this? Good point-re GP AND Nurse training places need to be increased.

Law and Order/Funding:

• Ayling right to identify voter apathy in Lincs re Conservative majority control...7 Tory MPs and a Tory PCC (I voted for a Labour one but Marc Jones was my second choice).
•  Runding needs to be improved for Sleaford and NH. Visible policing-"bobbies in the beat" is a popular solution and Ayling believes that there is a need for a local police officer for every village. Ayling points out that we can't rely on PSCO's and volunteering schemes but whilst funding levels for local Government and policing remain low for Lincs, Mr Jones is making the most of the resources available, including advocating for a joint base for Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue and Lincolnshire Police at Nettleham to allow the services to collaborate.

Score: 5/10.

Ross Pepper-Liberal Democrat.
Warm, Yellowbelly. Message of hope tone to his narrative. Councillor for Skellingthorpe. Former  Lincoln Parliamentary Candidate, 2015.

Brexit/Immigration:

• Pepper wants to be a representative for all regardless of preference over Brexit. Harness positivity from constituency.
• Clear plan for Brexit needed before voting for Article 50; defending the interests of constituents who voted to Remain and Leave voters in Sleaford and NH who do not feel their views have been represented adequately by the Conservative Government.  
• The Conservatives lurching to the far-right in terms of policies to placate the Brexiteer wing has put off some Remain voters.
• Pepper is a proud Europhile...wants a 2nd Ref which would be on the terms/plan put forward by the Conservative Government. Would calling for a General Election once the Conservatives have worked out a plan and presented it to the British people actually be more appropriate? Ensure that May has to present the finalised plan for approval to Parliament and then call for the election if the plan isn't deemed workable for your own constituents.
• Pepper respects the results of the 1st Referendum (Good).

NHS:

• Mentions Grantham A&E, closure of Metheringham surgery in the New Year which is extremely disappointing to hear about...but not entirely unexpected given current GP recruitment and GP surgery funding crises.
• Pepper feels there is a need for more nurses and doctors but believes that we should look to the EU to try and entice nurses and doctors to come and work in Lincolnshire rather than wait for training to be set up. That being said, Pepper supports the idea of the establishment of  Lincoln Medical School that will train doctors as well as nurses at the University of Lincoln.
• Retention of medical staff is an important issue for Pepper, pointing to the "brain drain" that goes on in the NHS. I think that the "brain drain" has continued in the private sector, with single graduates choosing to go to major cities to further their careers because SMEs are less willing to hire them (because they could pay Apprentices less to do the same job). Bosses have talked about the need to make sure grads and school leavers have basic employability skills in place prior to applying for a job- e.g. appropriate IT/Numeracy skills.  Grads also move to improve their quality of life or to get a better salary.
• Ambulance times are certainly critical and linking to the inadequacy of road network in the constituency was clever. I think Pepper would need to speak to EMAS to work together with them to address constituents concerns...e.g. trying to get them to update processes to prioritise most urgent cases or support an education campaign to get more constituents to use the 101 service rather than dial 999 straight away.
• I'd have liked more nuance on Grantham issue from Pepper though...how many Drs are needed? Has he spoken to nurses/doctors about their concerns?

Transportation:

• Duel the Eastern Bypass would have improved access to Lincoln County Hospital for Sleaford and NH Constituents. Short term investment that focuses on getting a single carriageway was not the right answer.
• A15 missed out on funding...but definitely needs improvement to ensure drivers using the road feel safe and secure on that road regardless of conditions.
• Pepper didn't really mention £2.5m potholing funding that had been sourced by Karl McCartney? Credit where credit's due?
• How much more funding would be needed to improve rail infrastructure? Rolling carriage stock issues very good to highlight. What about ticket prices? Franchises to work together rather than nationalism and sort out connectivity issues is a good policy idea...waiting at stations for hours on end frustrates passengers trying to get to work who can have their pay docked as a result of being late.

Funding/ Constituency Cohesiveness:

• Lincolnshire needs to be at "the front of the queue" for funding...Pepper believes that the Conservatives or Labour won't bother investing in the county because they've never bothered before. Stefan pointed out lack of inaction during the Coalition Government...would the Lib Dems push for more funding should they ever get into Government again?
• Large constituency but it's not about playing villages off against each other in terms of funding/attention. Pepper will work with neighbouring MPs to get the "best deal"...make sure that includes praising them for existing work done on transportation :P
• I'd have liked a nod/mention to Jo Cox here- "more that unites us than divides us" message does resonate with progressive voters.
• Hmmm is Witney really a similar constituency....it did vote to Remain after all?

Score: 9/10

Dr Caroline Johnson - Conservative
Firm tone which seemed quite rehearsed at times. Yellowbelly. Rural awareness through marriage to
farmer. Real life work experience in the NHS as a consultant pediatrician.

Brexit/Immigration:

• Leave voter...but repeats Government mantra line "Brexit Means Brexit" ad infinitum...have to keep some cards close to chest but even a rough timetable/plan would help.
• Brexit is an opportunity to make deals with Non-EU countries...would that include encouraging local businesses to trade with China/India? Would that mean more secondary students in the constituency should be encouraged to study Modern Foreign Languages such as Mandarin or Spanish to be able to increase likelihood of trade deals progressing past initial planning stages?
• I'd really like to know whether we are going to leave the Single Market and how will that affect farmers and local small businesses in Sleaford and NH? Dr Johnson mentions no details on EU legislation that might be repealed post Brexit or whether there would be extra funding streams available for Lincolnshire post-Brexit. I'm not sure that lack of detail will impress Conservative Leave or Remain voters.

NHS:

• Dr Johnson mentions how Grantham Hospital helped save her husband's life twice and she values the service that he received.
• Dr Johnson wants to see Grantham A&E service reopened ASAP as long as the A&E can be fully staffed.
• Recruitment and Retention is important...improve training opportunities for British nurses and doctors...encourage more students into wanting to become Lincs based GPs. Should have asked a HR Assistant in your local hospital to gain in depth understanding of procedure perhaps...such as the laws pertaining to recruitment from abroad?
• Dr Johnson believes the Junior Doctors industrial action has now finished and they have accepted the proposals to finalise contracts as laid down by Jeremy Hunt. Some Junior Doctors would disagree that the matter has been resolved to their satisfaction.
• Dr Johnson is not sure whether establishing a Lincolnshire Medical School would add much to the training system...most medical schools are trained at a tertiary centre and they have a rota system to visit a number of different hospitals in the area.  
• Dr Johnson seems to suggest that NHS service providers in Lincs, including United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust (ULHT) and Lincs Community Hospital Services (LCHS) are "receiving enough money" but why do hospital staff talk about lack of funding being a driving factor in the stress of NHS services?
• Pledge on the bus was an out and out LIE...just admit that....it'd improve your credibility with Leave voters who want to trust in the party of Government to deliver an honest Brexit.

Transportation:

• Collaboration with fellow Tory MPs is a good selling point for Dr Johnson. She's stated that she'll work with Karl McCartney on transport schemes and to secure funding for them. Eastern bypass and improvements West of Grantham will benefit constituents but I'd have liked Caroline to mention A15 and to have heard more about the smaller road schemes proposed within the constituency.  
• Dr Johnson mentions the fact that a rail forum has been organised by local Conservative MPs so that they can discuss the frequency of rail services in the constituency...nothing about improving rolling stock though!

Other Notes:

• I was pleased that Dr Johnson mentioned her 5 point plan towards the end of the interview, mentioning policies already scheduled to be implemented by the Government according to the Autumn Statement announced last month:
•  Fast Digital Broadband,
• Rural Crime prevention,
• Support local shops and small businesses, 
• Sustainable, Sensitive Housing Schemes, 
• Transport links. Not much mentioned RE Farming though. Disappointing.

Score: 8/10

Jim Clarke- Labour
Passionate Labour Party member who is a local refuse driver with a degree from the "university of life". Likeable cheeky chappy attitude.

Brexit:

• Remain voter but prepared to invoke Article 50 because he understands the need to respect the views of all constituents.
• Clarke mentions Ayling's continued use of the vacuous term "red tape" to describe any legislation/regulation/directive that doesn't fit with her view of "common sense" laws. We don't really yet know what she means. There is certainly a need to protect Health and Safety Laws, from possible Brexiteer attacks post Brexit.
• Clarke is right to mention worries about price inflation and erosion of workers rights. There is concern that the recent NLW increase and income tax threshold rise will not being enough to offset a rise in basic food prices. Equality Act, Working Time Directives/Maternity/Paternity rights/ right to protest/belong to a Trade Union and right to go to an Employment Tribunal if you have been discriminated against have got to be protected.
• The lack of plan/action from May is extremely concerning. Clarke doesn't expand on what he believes the plan should be, other than to wait and see what the EU offers the UK before deciding on whether to leave the Single Market.
• Fear has been creating division, especially when it comes to worker solidarity. Wage stagnation/undercutting isn't acceptable. Clarke says that voters shouldn't "blame the exploited, blame the exploiters." Yes there is evidence to suggest that agencies have been exploiting Eastern European migrants who work in agriculture...they don't get paid the NLW, they don't get to decide whether to join a trade union etc.
• Clarke remembers Jeremy Corbyn's national line RE the Migrant Impact Fund; it shouldn't have been scrapped. 
• Clark believes that we should negotiate on freedom of movement alongside trade deals...that way countries may be more sympathetic to our view point RE immigration and may reform the central policy to provide necessary immigration controls.

NHS:

• Clarke is in favour of re-instating 24 hour Grantham A&E service.
• Clarke blames the Tories for the staffing problems saying that if they had wanted to increase personnel to prevent A&E service from having to close overnight, the local MPs would have lobbied for more funding.

Law and Order:

• Clarke wants to see more "bobbies on the beat" and blames Marc Jones for not asking for a fairer funding deal from central Government now that May has taken office. Clarke is in danger of appearing too partisan in his attacks and I do think that more awareness of Marc Jones's successful campaigns would have gone down better. For example, Mr Jones has worked hard to help promote the  "Ask for Angela" campaign created by Domestic Abuse and Violence lead Hayley Child; it has been widely praised and versions can now be seen in London and as far afield as Sydney and New York.
•  Costings needed...ask one of the MPs! Perception that rural crime isn't being tackled due to reduction of bobbies on the beat.

Transportation:

• Clarke wants to re-nationalise the railways once franchise contracts end. Very true East Coast trains was more efficient when nationalised and Virgin has made services slower.
•  Clarke mentions the need for A17 to get investment and he believes it should be a dual carriageway. Clarke also wants to look at getting investment for Southern Bypass which would prove popular with voters...but he needs to make sure such campaign pledges can be fully budgeted for.

Other:

•  I got the sense from the interview that Mr Clarke seemed unable to expand on issues to fully explain policy. I was happy that he mentioned the Migrant Impact Fund but I'd have liked to have seen him talk about housing strategies, proposed increases in the NLW to at least £9 an hour and the need to scrap the bedroom tax. In terms of his answers on the NHS, I think mentioning strain on Mental Health services and Social care could have possibly strengthened his appeal because constituents do care about whether there are enough care workers in Sleaford and NH to help look after elderly residents or those with disabilities. I'm not sure whether more briefing by Jeremy Corbyn/John McDonnell before the interview would have helped but I hope the party will help Mr Clarke with researching policies thoroughly should he be elected as MP on Thursday.
• Positively speaking, I was glad that Mr Clarke mentioned Equality and Social Justice right at the very end of the interview. Some sceptics would say this was a bit of an "add on" that was intended to enthuse Labour voters.

Score: 7/10

Sarah Stock-Independent Part of Fight for Grantham Hospital Campaign (F4GH)
Cancer survivor, wants to have her voice heard to talk about vital need for Grantham A&E services to be available 24 hours a day. Dedicated campaigner. Very authentic voice. Silent majority-apathy...think we can't change things...woken up from anesthetic. We feel like we have nothing.

NHS:

• Stock mentions a National Directive created Hit list from 2010 when 66 hospitals in the UK were classified as needing to be closed or downgraded to fall in line with the Austerity measures proposed by George Osborne. Since 2010, over half have been closed or downgraded.
• Stock believes that the 2012 Health and Social Care Act split the ULHT and NHS Lincs services in general into too many different areas, which has now left an accountability gap.
• Stock points to failures by management, especially HR staff to adequately plan their recruitment and retention. She believes that ULHT should have actively recruited earlier. Budgets should have contingency planning in as standard and if the NHS is meant to be more "business like" in how it conducts its activities, there has to be a tightening of policies and procedures and a cultural change.
• The fact that there are only 3 hospitals in Lincolnshire worries Stock and her supporters. Waiting times at Lincoln County Hospital are "unmanageable" so can't really take the strain of diverted patients from Grantham. Boston has "long been on the hitlist for downgrading", which means that Lincoln County could end up with a massive increase in patients without any promises of extra funding. Lincoln can't be a superhub for the whole of Lincs without extra funding and extra staff. 

Transport:

• Stock is critical of recent funding allocations to Lincolnshire to help ease congestion and improve transport infrastructure. She points to the £3 million transport money only becoming available after the by-election was called, so perhaps this was done to "placate" current Tory voters in the constituency.
• Stock wants county-wide plan to upgrade road infrastructure, more than the "breadcrumbs" being offered by the Government.
•  No figs for no of ambulance staff, bobbies, firefighters needed...a bit wishy-washy. Training important. Airforce mentioned...Cranwell families need good local public amenities!

Brexit:

• Stock classifies herself as a moderate Leave voter whose main issue was with the foreign aid budget. I think there are voters who believe that the aid budget should be reduced, with the money diverted to Local Government funding.
• Stock agrees that there wasn't a fully-fledged plan put in place prior to the EU referendum result being called and that the lack of certainty in how Brexit will be delivered has lead to increases in fear rhetoric which can manifest itself in hatet tweets/bullying from both extremes. Panic/fear driven rhetoric has been divisive and detracts from looking at possibilities outside the EU.

Score: 8.75/10

A few details about other candidates in the Sleaford and NH Election:

Marianne Overton Lincolnshire Independents
Lincolnshire Independents are a network of councillors and members who work together to try and come up with practical solutions to improve the lives of residents by listening to them. As an independent group they are not subject to whips etc. Overton stood as a candidate for Sleaford and NH in 2015 and currently works as a District Councillor/ County Councillor. She is also Vice Chancellor of Local Government Association with a responsibility to upskill local councillors across the country. Marianne sounds like the perfect person to have to represent Lincs at a local level...is it better for her to stay on the County Council.

NHS:
Overton was quick to mention the importance of upgrading Adult social care in the Lincs area and it sounded like it is a major issue that comes up on the doorstep. Overton also talked about the frustration constituents have about Grantham A&E overnight closure and the fact that ambulance pressures are increasing about EMAS's response time (something mentioned in the news a lot in this past week).

Funding:
Overton believes that too much council tax is being kept in the coffers of central Government. There's been too many cuts to local services because reserves are now essentially depleted. Overton mentions that Lincs County Council will have a funding gap of £57 million next year, which is very concerning considering the cuts that Lincs CC have already made. Council leader Martin Hill has already talked about £40 million needing to be cut from the budget, which he intimates would come from closing some local parks, firing park rangers and considering charges for museums and art galleries. 30 libraries across Lincolnshire have already been turned over to voluntary organisations. The reason that Lincolnshire bears the brunt of funding crises according to Overton is that safe seating has allowed a lapse attitude to set in at Parliamentary level towards Lincolnshire...this seems to be a common thread adopted by all candidates in this election.

Transportation:
Overton is the only candidate that talks about the need to improve pavements...she says that elderly residents are at risk of falling. Overton believes that the pothole funding allocated to Lincs is not enough and should have included improvements to paving. The lack of scheduled funding over a long period for pothole repairs has made the situation worse.
Overton agrees with Mr Pepper that the Eastern bypass should have been duelled and there is a need for considering a Southern bypass. Overton also says that North Hykeham is "very congested" and there is need for another road in the area to ease pressures but admits substantial funding would be needed to "make this happen".

Brexit:
Overton admits she is a Leave voter who made her decision based on the limited resources the UK has on offer to support people currently here in the UK. She says this despite the fact she is a Europhile and that her son is currently studying in Utrecht (the Netherlands). Strangely sharing a position akin to some UKIP voters, Overton argues that public service pressures in Germany and hardening attitudes  might lead to refugees attempting to come to the UK to find work in places like Sleaford and this could lead to our "small island sinking". Overton believes that work permits need to be granted to people coming into the area and you need to have a job before you come to the area. However, what would happen to a migrant family if the father/mother lost their job and they have children enrolled in local schools? Would Overton be OK with forcing them to go back to "their own country?"
With regards to EU legislation, Overton tells us that she's currently charged with looking at 500 pieces of EU legislation on both a local and national committee to look at how the UK can easily take back control in the months immediately following Brexit. Overton's priority is to reduce funding for the EU so the money can be used locally to pay for street paving or housing. Overton argues that environmental protections (clean air/beach quality) need to maintained post Brexit. Interestingly, Overton wants to change the laws regarding procurement of local government service contracts so that they do not need to offered to businesses in the EU as part of "equal opportunity" business rules. She gives the example of her fight to get Leadenham Recycling site re-opened; she had the funding in place from the Council but the lack of co-operation from the contractor (based in Spain) meant the project couldn't happen. Overton says that the procurement system lacks accountability and it would be better to use local contractors who could be held accountable to the Council and constituents. My only question is...why didn't Ayling talk about the fact that local councils are already looking at EU legislation to keep/cut? If she had discussed this in more detail, I bet she would gain more votes.

Score: 8.5/10

Peter Hill - Iconic Arty Pole Monster Raving Loony Party
Magazine article writer. Suave. Hill talks about the usual policies..99p coin, passports for dogs, 24 hour pubs and protection for Unicorns. Well I have unicorn earrings so yeah I'm in solidarity with that. Hill does go on to talk about more constituency focused issues...for example he mentions that Sleaford and NH are the 8th largest constituency in terms of number of voters, so why do they get less money than almost any other constituency in the UK? I thought that Hill was great at pointing out that most constituencies in Lincoln have a Conservative vote share that's above 50%, especially in places such as Boston and Skegness and Gainsborough.

Social Housing:

Hill is frustrated at the fact that nobody's really talking about social housing in the by-election; he says it is due to the fact it is a touchy feely" subject. An interesting part of his argument is that he believs the number of homeless people in Lincs equals the number of
empty properties in Lincs, give or take 5%....60/70 houses low cost in one hamlet not good but smaller affordable housing schemes as percentage of total village/hamlet would avoid creation of "ghettos".  Estate creation is not the solution for Hill but I'd warn him to be careful not to denigrate residents living in estates as all having unkempt properties...some do but not the majority.
Hill believes that 2/3 houses in villages to begin with is the best way forward, so that those who move in can assimilate into village life but how much would this cost and would working class people be able to afford to live in those houses? I thought it was madness that Hill lives in a village which has no current bus service but a lovely bus shelter!

Brexit:

Hill voted Leave (out) to "shake it all about"...I think he did it to annoy Eastern and Southern European bureaucrats but can't be sure? I did agree with Hill that constantly moving EU members from Brussels to Strasbourg every few weeks is wasteful. I was a little concerned about Hill's understanding of  red tape"...he doesn't like "paperwork" but he'd have to get to grips with tonnes of it if he became MP. I'd have liked to have heard examples of Health and Safety laws that he didn't believe were nonsensical.

NHS:

In terms of the situation at Grantham Hospital, Hill was stunned to learn that they were 17-20 doctors short before they decided to close the  overnight A&E service...it exposes a real lack of HR strategic plan. Hill believes it's more to do with the Tory Government's overarching interest in
privatisation and as agency staff increase, there is less financing available to provide full time, permanent contracts for local residents. Hill believes there is a need for a "nice and good" teaching hospital in Lincolnshire...a medical school based in Lincoln? Overall

Actually impressed by Hill's closing argument that more people in the Sleaford and NH constituency need to exercise their right to vote, something no other candidate bothers to mention during their interview.

Score: 7.5/10

David Bishop- Bus Pass Elvis Party
Humorous candidate with an interesting backstory as to why he decided to run in the election...he is a Nottingham resident and founder of the "Church of Militant Elvis". I think he does tap into the rebel attitude of the Baby boomer generation.
Bishop is a Green party supporter and is against factory farming. Bishop initially wanted to run for Sleaford and NH constituency to stand against milk producing factory farm at Nocton in 2010.

Key policies for Bishop include mounting a campaign to save rural buses, save public lavatories from closure and scrap HS2 to use the money to fund local train and bus services. I do agree with Bishop that there is a need to either ban air guns or ensure that people are licenced to carry them; Bishop talked about an incident that happened when two young guys shot him in the back and it's clearly unacceptable to use air guns to shoot beloved pets or animals.

Brexit:

Bishop is a Remain voter who voted to Leave in 1975. His main reason for voting Remain was to ensure that environmental protections are not eroded. Bishop doesn't trust that the Government will honour the Paris Agreement after we formally leave the EU, despite many non-EU countries such as China and Norway already having signed and ratified the agreement.  UKIP are really the only party I've heard about who might try and scrap environmental protections given in EU legislation.

Sleaford Decline:

Bishop talks about there being more empty shops and pubs in Sleaford than 2 years ago...a constituent actually told Bishop that they believed Sleaford was a "dying town". One solution that Bishop offers to reverse the decline would be to legalise brothels and then turn local pubs into brothels? Are there many sex workers in Sleaford? What are the provisions available for them to practice their trade safely? "20% discount for OAPs to use brothels"....seemed a bit too flippant on sex worker issues.

The real question for me is why didn't Bishop decide to stand for the Green party in Sleaford and NH? I don't understand why Bishop didn't think Green voters might have rallied around him. He did admit that the Green party might have a lower chance in the East Midlands but surely that's a rallying cry to get constituents more interested in the party? If Bishop has such a defeatist attitude towards the popularity of his policies, would this attitude dog his possible term as an MP?

Score: 6/10

Paul Coyne: Independent-
Local Government Officer and then Sleaford Town Councillor from 2015.
Coyne is a lifelong die-hard Conservative voter who feels he is not able to vote for Dr Johnson. Coyne is not a Conservative party member because he didn't want to be subjected to the party "whip". Many staunch Conservative voters have told Coyne on the doorstep that they can't bring themselves to vote for Dr Johnson because she is the "wrong candidate"...but does that mean that they will necessarily vote for you? They may end up voting for UKIP! Coyne moans at the fact that Dr Johnson is even considering giving up her part time job...it's a "loss to the NHS that they cannot afford". If she does become an MP Coyne believes that Dr Johnson would be a "part time MP who can't give them their full representation". At least Coyne is honest about mixed feelings of Conservative constituents.

Coyne talks about a "genuine choice" being available to voters in Sleaford and NH because of the nature of the election. He states that in a General Election there is a sense that voters will vote for the
status quo and there is the certainty of nothing changing. Coyne wants voters to use the by-election to send a message to the Government that they need to address chronic underfunding in Lincolnshire...they need to put more money into public services across the board...not just transportation or the NHS...i.e. adopt a multifaceted approach.

Transportation:

Coyne wants to duel the A17, A15 and to establish a Southern Bypass with roundabout system. He feels this would then make more large scale housing developments proposed for Sleaford for 1400-1500 houses more feasible. However Coyne didn't offer any costings to show how much funding would be needed to improve road infrastructure and I think for independent candidates, having a viable budget plan to share with voters is important.

NHS:

Coyne seems to be for re-opening the 24 hour A&E service but he used the issue to attack Dr Johnson. I do agree that hospitals do need to be able to provide a basic service and I'd say that that
paediatric medicine is a basic service that must be provided at Grantham. That being said, the £350m promised for the NHS by Vote Leave would be more than enough to entice new staff to Grantham and Coyne shouldn't just see it as "just a bolt-on" that should be ignored...Leave voters in the area did vote based on it! Coyne also dismisses Sarah Stock as a Stock as one-issue campaigner, saying there is "no weight behind her" but having listened to Stock's arguments, I'd disagree with this.

Brexit:
Coyne is a Leave voter and he says he voted because the EU didn't volunteer "to radically reform bureaucracy.  Coyne didn't offer any EU legislation that he'd want to repeal or save....seemed a bit misinformed. That being said, he did talk about the fact there are no workplace pension protections at EU level so there is no way of preventing company bosses from raiding pension pots. Should the ECJ have legislated or should the UK Government have taken the initiative?

Score: 6.25/10.


Rankings:

1. Ross Pepper- 9/10
2. Sarah Stock - 8.75/10
3. Marianne Overton- 8.5/10
4. Dr Caroline Johnson- 8/10
5. Peter Hill- 7.5/10
6. Jim Clarke-7/10
7. Paul Coyne-6.25/10
8. David Bishop-6/10
9. Victoria Ayling- 5/10