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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 4 Grand Challenges are briefly outlined below:

1. Artificial Intelligence and data

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

2. Ageing society

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

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

3. Clean growth

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

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

4. Future of mobility

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

Overarching Thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference 2018

The stringency of the austerity measures....Brexit.......The Housing Crisis.....issues that are discussed by people on a daily basis at the moment, whether explicitly or implicitly. Half the time it can feel like the structural problems connected with our society: inequality of opportunity, wage stagnation, low productivity, a growing demand for public services can seem insurmountable. Disengagement with politics remains an issue, particularly for Millennials and Generation Z (16-35). Hope for a brighter, more equal future flickers rather than burns brightly, which is why it's more important than ever to be engaging with voters and non-voters through the dissemination of an inclusive, ambitious and progressive vision for the country that will try to address our structural challenges head-on. I believe the party that can best articulate such a vision at a grassroots local and national level will have a real chance of winning a majority at the next General Election. The question is, whether there is a party out there who can listen to the electorate AND non-electorate, build political engagement and articulate a vision, in the shadow of disruptive Brexit negotiations.

This Mothering Sunday afternoon I decided to tune into Sir Vince Cable's (the leader of the Liberal Democrats) closing speech to Spring Conference delegates in Southport, which was streamed live via Periscope and also simultaneously disseminated via YouTube and Facebook live. I was probably only one of a couple thousand viewers who made such a decision but I didn't feel it was an entirely wasted activity. Cable came across as clearly passionate about campaigning for an #ExitFromBrexit (i.e. a referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal with an option to Remain in the EU) and well-informed about current domestic issues and the need for pragmatic, wide-ranging solutions. Yet I did wonder whether he was already preaching to the converted, although it is important to empower them to go out campaigning in constituencies across the UK in all kinds of places (including care homes, Mr Cable!!) I also thought his comments RE Leave voters were a little hap-hazard: trying to reduce the reasons why older voters backed Brexit down to one reason: nostalgia for a less diverse Britain isn't founded entirely on evidence- a minority of voters may have done so but they are exactly that, a minority. Hmm...Anyways onto the policy announcements...

Education:

The Lib Dems certainly have a number of policies that I believe would appeal to the electorate at large: protecting per pupil funding in real terms for all pupils including in Further Education, protecting the Pupil Premium, increasing the Early Years Pupil Premium by £700 to £1000 a year, requiring teachers in state schools to have QTS (Qualified Teaching Status) or working towards it and providing at least 50 hours of Continuing Professional Development per year for teachers. In addition to these, the Lib Dems are proposing quite radical changes: abolishing Key Stage 1 and 2 SATs with moderated teacher assessments and a standardisation test, abolishing Regional Schools Commissioners, making local authorities responsible for planning, exclusions and admissions and replacing Ofsted with a new inspection system, looking at emotional wellbeing of teachers and students in addition to test scores. I'm also glad to see SEND pupils' needs mentioned, with a desire to reduce the number of SEND pupils being excluded from mainstream school, and to see the proposal for a named person (a pastoral team lead preferably) who is responsible for craft whole school policies and approaches towards mental health.

I agree with the idea behind “Every Child Empowered”, ensuring that children and young people in constituencies across the country, including in deprived wards and rural villages and hamlets get access to the skills they need to prepare them fully for adult life: who can argue against providing First Aid training in schools and colleges if it means it reduces the amount of unnecessary GP appointments, A&E admissions and calls to NHS helplines? Who can argue with introducing comprehensive LGBTQIA+ Relationships and Sex Education if it helps to reduce instances of sexual assault, abuse, under-age pregnancies or misinformation about gender identities? Who can argue against teaching children about budgeting and debt management if it allows them to make informed decisions about borrowing and reduces the number of people resorting to loan sharks? Financial literacy, First Aid and RSE should all be on the National Curriculum, as part of the PSHE and Citizenship programmes of study and there should be funding given by Government directly to schools to allow for external providers to deliver sessions, taking the pressure off teachers who may not have the time to be researching such topics in depth with students. Such a broad curriculum, a “Curriculum for Life” should be required to be taught in academy and free schools and public schools should be encouraged to reform their curriculum offer.

There's also talk of introducing Personal Education Accounts, one for 16-18 year olds and one specifically for adult learners to help pay for training and skills courses delivered online, at local FE colleges and in community centres and libraries will help people access quality courses and aid their career development. Cable announced in his speech that a Commission on Life Long Learning will be set up to explore this policy idea further.

There's a lot of detailed recommendations and I'd refer those interested in finding out more to check out the policy document here: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/42359/attachments/original/1518080686/Every_Child_Empowered_-_Policy_Paper.pdf?1518080686

NHS, Social Care and Mental Health:

Our NHS remains greatly under-pressure and little practical action has been taken by the Tory Government to try and alleviate such pressures. The Tories may claim that health spending is at record levels but it has not been enough given the rise in demand for services. They and previous governments have failed to prepare adequately for the ageing of our population. A&E waiting times are now the highest they have ever been: only 85% of patients in England were seen under 4 hours. The United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust missed its waiting time target by 25% and has missed every target for A&E and cancer care for every year since 2014. For Lincolnshire residents, this is extremely concerning. The Lib Dems F18: The NHS at 70 motion recognises the pressure that NHS Trusts are under and are calling on the Tory Government to provide £4bn that the NHS will need for 2018/19 financial year, with an addition £2bn of funding given to local authorities to fund social care. Additionally, the Lib Dems want to see the introduction of a special NHS passport to allow 59,000 NHS professionals from the EU an automatic guaranteed right to remain following Brexit and for bursaries for student nurses to be reintroducted to encourage more British people to decide to train to be a nurse and thereby reduce the nursing shortage in hospitals and care homes across the country.

Mental Health care has not improved satisfactory under this Tory Government. Waiting times for referral remain far too long, demand for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services has increased, with 1 in 5 children who have been referred to local CAMHS services being rejected for treatment :that's a total of 39,652 children (https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/news-opinion/1-in-five-5-children-referred-to-local-mental-health-services-are-rejected-for-treatment/). This is concerning given that 1 in 10 children in England between the ages of 5 and 16 suffer from a mental health condition and up to 20% of children will experience a mental health condition in any given year. NHS CAMHS are currently only funded to meet 25% of cases but that is expected to increase to 33% by 2021. The Government has committed to recruiting 1,700 more therapists and supervisors and to ensure that an extra 70,000 children and young people are able to access CAMHS but it is unclear whether such targets will be achieved.

Norman Lamb has been a passionate campaigner for better Mental Health service provision and thus I'm not surprised to see some concrete policy suggestions being offered in F18: the earmarked £1.3bn of spending being brought forward to improve mental health service provision, ending out-of-area placements, very important for people living in rural areas such as Metheringham and the protection and promotion of community pharmacies. Perhaps the most radical suggestion, and one that has been made by Lamb for years, is the creation of a cross-party committee to look at funding the NHS and Social Care system long term. Raising the level of income tax by 1p in the £1 to fund social care short-term would help alleviate funding pressures but there has to be a sustainable long-term solution found and it's in the political interests of all parties concerned to find such a solution. Let's see if that happens anytime soon. I'm not holding my breath.

Housing:

Britain needs a housing revolution in order to ensure that every person has a suitable and safe roof over their head regardless of their socio-economic circumstances. It's ridiculous to think that the peak of house building in the UK was 1968 and that in 2018 we face a situation where 125,000 children are classed as homeless and rough sleepers are dying out on our streets, despite the best efforts of compassionate individuals and organisations such as The Nomad Trust, LEAP and Lincolnshire YMCA to help them. Access to decent housing should be viewed as a human right. A house should be a place to call home, not an investment to feel obligated to upkeep with no families living in it to bring the place to life. Yet the Government (when in coalition with the Lib Dems between 2010 and 2015 and afterwards) more than halved the state housing development budget for local councils and housing associations from £11bn in 2010 to £5.3bn last year. The Local Government Association revealed that local councils and their communities had granted nearly twice as many planning permissions (321,000) as the number of new homes that had been completed (183,000) last year. The issue is not with planning permission being granted, it's with housebuilders not building enough homes once they have planning permission granted.

It's good to see the Lib Dems reaffirm their commitment to building 300,000 houses a year in England by 2022 and to scrapping the draconian housing borrowing cap. I agree with the Lib Dems that local authorities must be able to access loans to build and invest in quality affordable and social housing, including “borrowing from the Public Works Loan board to buy land for housing and build affordable and social housing on the same terms they are currently borrowing to purchase commercial property” (https://www.libdems.org.uk/spring-18-f4-local-government-housing). I also believe local authorities should be given the right to scrap Right To Buy in their area, when assessments of local need have been carried out. Any proceeds from the sale of council houses by local authorities should be used to find new social housing for homeless families and I'd argue also to acquire adapted social housing for disabled residents who have been on the council house waiting list for more than 2 years. Councils should also have powers to monitor housing developments, to ensure that “poor door” practices are abandoned. Redevelopment of housing estates must not lead to a decrease in social housing: one of the best ways to prevent this from happening would be to introduce a (I believe legal) “right of return for all residents on the same terms as their pre-regeneration tenancy” (https://www.libdems.org.uk/spring-18-f4-local-government-housing). Such policies would benefit residents first and foremost and help to ensure community cohesion is maintained post the end of regeneration projects. I'd only add that PM May's suggestion of changing the use of empty retail properties in inner city areas would be beneficial to adopt and that the EDMO legislation strengthening should allow local authorities the opportunity to compulsory purchase empty retail property for the expressed purpose of creating social housing for the homeless and low income families with children. Landbanking is also an issue that needs to be resolved: it's not right that developers can be allowed to purchase land for the specific purpose of building new homes and then not start to build them within a 2 year period. Perhaps there needs to be compulsory purchases made if landbanking continued beyond a 2 year slot.

Rural Affairs:

I have spoken to numerous rural voters who do feel the issues that they raise are being ignored by the current Conservative government. In Lincolnshire, we have had streetlights turned off in villages and hamlets across the county and it has made some residents feel too scared to walk to the pub or to visit their friends at night for fear of being mugged, assaulted or worse. The safety of our county's residents has to trump ideologically driven efficiency savings but our Conservative controlled County Council has failed to listen to concerns and reverse the policy in full. I've spoken to rural residents in the Sleaford and North Hykeham constituency worried about the continued closure of Grantham A&E at night and wondering whether it will eventually be downgraded or closed through the implementation of Lincolnshire's Sustainability and Transformation Plans, forcing them to travel for an hour just to get medical attention at Lincoln County Hospital's already under-pressure A&E. I'm pleased to see the adoption of motion F8: A Rural Future: Time To Act by conference delegates, which includes a specific commitment to “increasing the availability of affordable housing” through the reduction of second home ownership (allowing local authorities to increase tax on second homes through a stamp duty surcharge or an increase in council tax rate). The installation of Superfast broadband which is defined as being “over 30 Mbps download speeds and 6 Mbps upload speeds” should continue to be a priority, so businesses and households in Chapel St Leonards have an ability to access the internet at the same speed as those based in Lincoln.

I would like to see the introduction of a Young Person's Bus Discount Card, for all young people aged 16-21 living in rural areas which provides then with 2/3 discount on bus fares. This will allow young people to be able to afford to travel across Lincolnshire, visiting friends, joining community youth clubs and attending training sessions, which will help reduce their sense of rural isolation. I agree with the notion of creating more community centre hubs providing a multitude of services to residents but would like to see investment come from central Government in order to facilitate such creation. Local authorities are overstretched and do not have the financial resources spare to shoulder the majority of the financial burden for these projects.

I agree with proposals to increase Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments to help maintain woodlands and forests, reduce soil erosion and uphold animal rights. Investment in flood prevention in rural constituencies and launching a National Fund for Coastal Change are also sentient policy ideas which clearly demonstrate eco-friendly credentials.

Voter Engagement and Equality and Diversity:

Cable talked of the need to improve diversity within the Lib Dem party in his speech, a comment which I respect him for making and one which I hope will be taken on board. The Lib Dems are doing well in local council by-elections across the country at the country at the moment, with residents listening to key policy ideas and buying into their vision for an open, tolerant and inclusive society. Credit for this success has to go to local campaigners, councillors and candidates who engage with voters and current non-voters on the doorstep, listening to their concerns and not immediately judging them their Brexit vote. This work needs to continue to grow in order to increase the number of MPs at the next General Election. Increasing awareness of the policy platform is half the battle. I'd argue that Lib Dems should set up more central meetings, held at village halls and community centres, liaising with local third sector organisations and allowing people to be honest, open and frank about their views. Organising meetings in care homes would be innovative and demonstrate that the party cares about all voters: after all, Brexit may lead to a reduction in sustainability staffing levels which will then affect them directly.

It was great to see a renewed commitment to advocating for electoral reform, making the case for the introduction of a right to vote for 16 and 17 year olds and supporting the private members bill put forward by Labour MP Peter Kyle. There's also a campaign being run to raise awareness that EU citizens can vote in local elections. More campaigning should be done on the need for House of Lords reform to build support for the creation of an elected House of Lords (or change of name...e.g. to a Senate or something similar). Supporting devolution of powers to local authorities (including those on housing proposed under F4) should be a priority too and may win over more skeptical voters.

It was amazing to see via Twitter and by watching some of the Spring Conference via YouTube the wealth of speakers who had been invited to talk about their personal experiences and ideas for the future. A motion put forward by Jess Insall, a member of LGBT+ Lib Dems on gender neutral school uniforms, arguing that schools should present uniform options that can be worn by pupils of all genders was praised and passed by delegates for being inclusive and feminist. There was no mainstream platforming of transphobic views masquerading as real feminism by trans exclusionary radical feminists. The party can build on their record for inclusion through further engagement with working class rural people, especially in constituencies such as Sleaford and North Hykeham, Gainsborough, Grantham and Stamford, Boston and Skegness and Louth and Horncastle. Engagement with habitual Conservative voters through promotion of rural policies and building up a reputation for economic credibility will also prove fruitful, as will engagement with suburban voters particularly with a number of young, passionate and thoughtful candidates standing in this year's local elections.

Back Away from the Brexit:

Of all the policy suggestions and motions passed at this year's Spring Conference, perhaps the one which will garner the most attention from ordinary people and the mainstream leader is the Lib Dem's commitment to an Exit From Brexit. I've spoken to voters and non-voters across Lincolnshire over the past few months about their views towards Brexit and it's clear there is still a lot of passion emanating from Remain and Leave voters, with no overall consensus as to the best way forward. Non- referendum voters feel that the debate hasn't moved on since June 2016 and a number are concerned about the potential economic and cultural effects Brexit may have on Lincoln and Lincolnshire. Even the most ardent of Leave voters I have spoken to have occasionally expressed their concerns. I remember talking to a very forthright retired plasterer, who believed in the need to take back control of sovereignty from Brussels but worried about whether his pension contributions could decrease if the Tory government did not secure “ more beneficial” free trade agreements with the US Trump administration or Commonwealth member states. A young lady, who works at a care home in Lincoln and voted Leave in 2016 told me that she was worried her workload may increase if the home couldn't replace the carers who had decided to leave the UK or were thinking of leaving the UK once Brexit happens afters March 2019. A young guy who is a very committed Conservative didn't like the fact that food prices may rise following a No-Deal situation, where the UK will have to rely on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules in order to keep our economy alive. For certain elements of the mainstream media and Tory Brexiteers to deny such levels of anxiety about the potential consequences of Brexit exist, even in Leave voting areas such as Lincoln, is to deny the reality of the situation. It is inevitable that some voters will decide to change their mind, and would vote Remain in another referendum. More importantly though it is vital that the main political parties have strategic plans in place that will help mitigate any potential negative economic and cultural effects of Brexit. The Tories never talk of such plans, only making passing references to their Impact War Chest and hoping that a deal can be secured that allows them to maintain a veneer of economic competence. The Lib Dems have spelled out some policies but I personally feel more work needs to be done to craft policies that can be enacted in the event Brexit does happen. Better to be prepared and hope that Brexit doesn't happen in a No Deal form or even better, doesn't happen, than to fail to prepare for the No Deal Brexit. Perhaps such policies will be formulated and announced once a draft trade deal has been secured by Double D et al. But don't hold your breath that they can secure a trade deal, let alone a good one.

Whichever way Brexit is spun, whether it's a “take back control” or a “jobs first” type, it looks like it is going to lead to a contraction of the economy and potentially further cuts to our public services. As Mr Cable made clear in his speech, such measures would hurt the most vulnerable in our society who rely on effective public service provision for support. Jeremy Corbyn has pretty much committed the Labour Party to leaving the Single Market, remains very cagey about what a Customs Union that's not the current EU Customs Union would look like and has dismissed out of hand calls for a referendum on the Brexit deal. I don't know whether the Labour position will evolve as we get closer to the day of Brexit but one positive advantage for the Lib Dems is that they have a very clear Brexit position and are not afraid to stick to it.

Conclusion:

The Lib Dems have a lot of work to do if they are to regain seats at the next General Election. The Survation poll currently puts them at 9%, whilst Labour have seen a surge in support, placing them at 44% (http://uk.businessinsider.com/survation-labour-popularity-surge-7-point-lead-poll-conservatives-2018-3). Such poll numbers may be optimistic in both cases and may change upwards or downwards as the nature of the Brexit deal becomes clear. The motions passed at the Lib Dem Spring Conference, and the passion for a liberal future expressed by speakers, including Mr Cable may go some way towards changing voters' minds. It'll be interesting to see what new policies are developed in time for the Autumn Conference....unless a General Election happens before then. Who knows in our currently unpredictable political climate?

A Labour Remain Voter's Conundrum

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

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

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

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

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

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

The situation for children in Lincolnshire makes for less glum reading but still there should be pause for thought: 5,907 children are classed as living in poverty in Lincoln (which is defined in the report as a household having an annual income below 60% of the average); this means that 26.7% of children living within the constituency boundary are living in poverty. Louth and Horncastle has the highest percentage of children living in poverty for a Lincolnshire constituency (29%), followed by Boston and Skegness (28.6%). Data from Lincoln electoral wards (Jul-Sept 2017) shows that the percentage of children defined as living in poverty when housing costs are taken into account is highest in Glebe (34.13%) followed by Birchwood (34.12%). Birchwood happens to be the ward I live in (my parents have had a lovely house here since the Eurodance days of 1992) so to hear that 788 children in my ward are living in households where getting adequate food and clothing is disappointing to say the least.

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

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

I appreciate the situation in Lincoln could have been much worse, were it not for the Labour-led City of Lincoln Council's Anti-Poverty Strategy, which has been in place since 2014. The Strategy has a number of objectives, including “increasing money management skills and confidence, supporting families to feed and clothe their children and helping those facing poverty due to illness” (https://democratic.lincoln.gov.uk/documents/s26370/Lincoln%20Anti-Poverty%20Strategy%20-%20Appendix%201.pdf). Campaigns that have been run by Lincoln Against Poverty, the organisation overseeing the implementation of the strategy include The Living Wage Campaign (encouraging employers in Lincoln to pay their employees and workers at least the Living Wage, with employers being recognised and recommended by the City Council for doing this) and the Helping Hand Campaign, which is designed to get debt and budgeting information and advice to residents who need it (http://www.lincolnagainstpoverty.co.uk/us/). Projects delivered by the City Council included running 5 “Survive the School Holiday” sessions which provided adults in wards such as Birchwood and St Giles with information about debt, welfare and jobs and a pilot voucher scheme in Bracebridge Heath helping 119 children from low-income families get access to groceries over the summer holidays (6 weeks) during Summer 2016. Details of 2017/18 projects will be discussed at the next Lincoln Against Poverty Conference, which I'd love to attend later in the year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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