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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exploring the GE2017 Manifestos: LGBTQIA+ Rights

One of the key election areas that really matters to me is that of improving LGBTQIA+ rights in the UK. Too often, when we consider the positive or negative impact on policies on LGBT people, we forget that non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer, agender, intersex and asexual rights lag far behind those of LGBT people. I'm looking for a progressive, positive, inclusive approach from the mainstream parties towards improving rights across the board, and I feel that the manifesto pledges fall a bit short in achieving this. I guess this might be because I'm a massive fan of the Greens approach to LGBTQIA+ rights and their manifesto is truly radical and bold (you can view my analysis of the Green LGBTQIA+ manifesto here: http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/a-bold-wide-ranging-lgbtqia-manifesto.html).

Nonetheless, there are policies and pledges that are worth exploring and analysing:

Labour:

• Teachers would be given specific training on how to deal with homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in schools.
• New Sex and Relationships Education guidance would be issued that would be LGBT inclusive (but no mention of queer,intersex and asexual lesson plan guidance).
• Labour would make LGBT hate crime an "aggravated offence".
• Labour would ensure that mental health service cuts would be reversed to help LGBT service users (no idea how they'd improve accessibility to those services).
• Labour pledges to ensure that frontline healthcare professionals receive ongoing training so that they can better understand and meet the needs of LGBT service users (what about intersex service users?). 
• Labour will allow the PrEP trial to be concluded in England (and ensure it is concluded ASAP) and then roll out the treatment to all high-risk groups in the hope that it reduces HIV infection rates.
• Labour would amend the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004 and the Equality Act (EA) 2010 by changing the protected characteristic from "Gender Reassignment Surgery" to "Gender Identity" and remove outdated terminology such as "transsexual" (some trans people refer to themselves as transsexual to separate themselves from the transgender label because they want to be recognised differently because they specifically choose to medically transition).
• Labour would appoint "dedicated global ambassadors" for LGBT rights.

Lib Dems:

• The Lib Dems would review SRE in schools, with lessons on consent and LGBT+ relationships (no idea yet as to whether intersex and asexual issues would be discussed in SRE lessons).
• Companies with 250+ employees would be mandated to publish data on LGBT+ employees.
• There would be a push to extend the use of name-blind recruitment processes in the public sector and try and get private sector businesses to adopt the practice.
• The Lib Dems would ask the Advisory Committee on Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs to review the Blood Donation rules for men who have sex with men.
• The Lib Dems would introduce an "X option on passports, identity documents and official forms" for non-binary, gender-fluid and agender people and campaign to extend the X option across the board, including private sector documents (e.g. utility bills).
• The EA protected characteristic would change (like Labour) and the GA would be "streamlined", so that people can change their legal gender without "unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles".
• The Lib Dems specifically vow to remove the spousal veto from the GA "and abolish any remaining marriage inequalities in areas such as pensions, hospital visitation rights (e.g. whether a trans person would be treated in a ward which corresponds to their acquired gender) and custody of children in the event of bereavement". 
• The Lib Dems will oppose any attempt to "water down" the Human Rights Act 1998 or remove us from the European Convention on Human Rights. 
• The Lib Dems would ensure that trans prisoners are put in prisons that reflect their acquired gender identity. 
• The Lib Dems would offer asylum to LGBT+ people fleeing persecution, possible imprisonment, torture or execution on the basis of their gender identification or sexuality and stop them from being deported back to those countries in the future. Detention limits would be put at 28 days and processing times for asylum applications would be speeded up. 
• LGBT+ mental health services would receive guaranteed funding under a Lib Dem government.
• PrEP would be made available on the NHS in England as it is already available in Scotland.
• The Lib Dems want to introduce all-LGBT+ parliamentary shortlists in the future.
• The Lib Dems commit to increase efforts to try and "decriminalise homosexuality around the world and advance the cause of LGBT+ rights".

Conservatives:

• The Conservatives have pledged to tackling hate crime that is committed on the basis of "transgender identity" (I'd have written gender identity and expression).
• The Conservatives would not remove the UK from the ECHR for the duration of the next Parliament and would not make any legislative changes to the HRA (which enshrined the ECHR into UK Law) until the Brexit process has been concluded.

Thoughts: 

At first glance, it's abundantly clear that Labour and the Lib Dems believe that LGBT+ rights do need to be improved in the UK and they are not ashamed to discuss policies to achieve this directly in their manifestos. I have tweeted and chatted to LGBT people who identify as right-wing though who argue that LGBT+ rights have already improved in the UK and that it's better to focus on policies to improve rights more generally. That being said, most I have tweeted are more concerned about getting the Brexit deal concluded than improving the rights of people in the LGBT+ community who may face barriers different from themselves (e.g. if a trans domestic violence survivor is finding it difficult to access domestic violence and abuse services because there are no LGBT+ services in their local area). What is in the Conservative manifesto is very basic; as a minimum I'd expect a commitment to tackling trans hate crime and not destroying the HRA. What many on the Brexit loving right do not always understand is that being a signatory of the ECHR and being able to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights allowed LGBT+ rights to develop across the UK, including allowing openly gay people to service with pride in our wonderful Armed Forces and legalising homosexuality in Northern Ireland (shame same-sex marriage isn't legal yet!)

The manifesto pledges by Labour and the Lib Dems do seem similar, especially in relation to providing SRE guidance for schools, ensuring that LGBT+ mental services are fully funded and providing PrEP on the NHS in England ASAP. The Conservatives have made a commitment to increase mental health funding, with an extra £1bn pledged by 2020/21 and they did mention the need to have mental health first aid training in schools that could help LGBT+ students directly (the Lib Dems and Labour both agree with this policy and mention it directly in their own manifestos). There's also a pledge from both Labour and the Lib Dems to tackle LGBT homelessness. The Albert Kennedy Trust carried out a study  that up to a 1/4 of LGBT young people are homeless in the UK (http://www.akt.org.uk/webtop/modules/_repository/documents/AlbertKennedy_researchreport_FINALinteractive.pdf) and removing the Housing Benefit for 18-21 year olds is going to have a negative impact on them if local councils try to deny access to the benefit to them (although the Conservatives have promised that Housing Benefit would remain available to those who "desperately need" it).  

I'm pleased to see Labour specifically commit to provide funding for training for teachers on how to deal with homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying. It's alright to allow equality organisations such as Stonewall to bring in diversity champions to talk about HBT bullying to students but teachers need to be able to have strategies in place to confront and challenge the bullies and hopefully change their mind towards acceptance and that takes more than a day visit to achieve. The information that needs to be disseminated to teachers is more technical and complex than the information relayed to secondary school students.

An amazing commitment made by the Lib Dems is to specifically help LGBT+ asylum seekers by offering them a guaranteed place of safety in the UK. If a person is fleeing for their life because they fear they could be murdered because they are openly trans, then I believe we as an open and tolerant country should allow them to come here and be able to live a life that's more secure. We should never deport a trans person who would still be at risk of persecution and we should do everything we can to help them adjust to life in the UK. For the Lib Dems, this means allowing "working age" asylum seekers to look for work if they've waited for more than 6 months for their application to be processed, rather than expecting them to have to subsist on benefits. Giving asylum seekers a chance to gain employment to support themselves in the UK is a positive step forward. 

There is of course the issue of closing LGBT+ venues across the UK that some feel needs to be addressed. According to The Gay UK, 100 gay bars alone have closed in London alone since 2000. Now, I'm not sure whether incentives can be put in place to increase the number of gay bars in the UK so that LGBT people have more safe places to go, but Labour have pledged to "set up a national review of local pubs" that's to get to the bottom of why so many have closed and create a taskforce to look into proposing sustainability measures to stop the declining trend. Of course, it may just be the case that because LGBT people are becoming more accepted by mainstream society, they can go into pubs and bars that aren't LGBT focussed without fear of harassment, bullying or being violently attacked. As activists have pointed out, there is still a long way to go to make the UK streets truly safe for LGBT people and also the fact that LGBT venues allow people to meet and discuss and date. 

Whilst the Conservatives mentioned LGBT rights 0 times in the manifesto (let alone queer, intersex and asexual rights) PM May did take part in a Q&A with PinkNews to answer questions put to her by LGBT readers (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/05/18/qa-prime-minister-theresa-may-answers-all-your-lgbt-questions-ahead-of-the-general-election/) and in the interests of fairness it's important to highlight the pledges PM May herself made during the interview, including:

• Providing LGBT+ guidance to make SRE lessons inclusive (despite the fact that the Tories voted down an amendment to legislation that would have made LGBT+ inclusive SRE mandatory in all schools and I believe it should be)
• Not forcing Northern Ireland to make same-sex marriage legal (because she says it is a devolved issue yet she know full well the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) oppose same-sex marriage and vetoed it whilst in government)
• Raising the issue of LGBT+ rights with the Russian government (I've not heard the Tories being vocal on this) and supporting calls for a "thorough and independent investigation to take place" examining human rights abuses against LGBT+ people in Chechnya
• Reviewing the GRA, including moving the system away from "medical checks"
• Signing up the European Convention on Human Rights for another 5 years (which was in the manifesto) and promising the "commitment to equality for LGBT people is unequivocal and will not change" as the UK exits the EU
• Carrying on with the large-scale PrEP trial in England with £10m allocated over the next 3 years for it (but Labour wants to see the PrEP trial conclude ASAP)
• Make possible changes to passports and legal gender identity but only after conducting a review of gender requirements on government forms and passports (which is part of the Transgender Action Plan)
• Maintain the memorandum of understanding between therapists and NHS England to condemn gay cure therapy (but not commit to making it illegal)
• Encourage local authorities to work with the Albert Kennedy Trust to reduce LGBT homelessness
• Continue "hosting representatives of LGBT groups and Pride organisers from around the UK at Downing Street".

The question I have for the Conservatives is: why didn't they feel confident enough to mention the review of the GRA in their manifesto? Were they afraid of upsetting potential older Tory voters who may be transphobic or could they not be bothered to mention it? It sends out a very negative message to floating voters who may be active in the fight for LGBT+ rights. Equally, there was no commitment made by PM May to implement the Trans Inquiry Recommendations in full which is disappointing considering Nicky Morgan and the Women and Equalities Committee Chair Maria Miller, both Conservatives, made those recommendations to David Cameron in 2016. 

Another issue that will need to be addressed in time for the next General Election is access of trans people to the voting process. Currently there are a number of trans people who have reported that they were unable to register to vote because their National Insurance number hasn't been updated to reflect their change in gender identity; apparently you need to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to prove legally you have changed gender before your NI number can be used. However, no guidance can be offered to local authorities on this by the Electoral Commission, meaning that socially transitioned voters feel locked out of the system: (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/05/21/trans-voters-are-being-blocked-from-registering-in-the-uk/). Perhaps a change in the GRA will allow for these discrepancies to be ironed out and allow for easier GRC obtention. 

The Conservatives' Workers Plan: Not Really That Progressive...

Today Prime Minister Theresa May set out a new vision to improve workers' rights in the UK prior to the Brexit process being completed in 2019. It's rather timely that PM May has decided to try and address inequalities in employment legislation head-on given that many Millennial workers and employees are worried about job security and pay; of course she's trying to appeal to centre and centre-left voters such as myself. However, when you get into some of the detail, the plan doesn't look as enticing as it should be. In fact, I'd say that PM May is playing to the gallery without being as as wholly progressive as a forward-looking, positive, progressive party should be.

• Introducing a legal entitlement for employees to take up to 52 weeks off to look after disabled dependents who require full-time care seems like a good idea on the surface. Employers will need to keep the job open for employees on leave for the full period and provide any training (e.g. payroll updates for HR/Payroll Administrators) necessary to help the employee adjust effectively when they come back from leave. The major problem with this policy is that the leave has to be taken UNPAID. I can't think of many working class people in my local ward, Birchwood, who are subsisting on or earning just over the National Living Wage who'd be able to afford to go on care leave and it's not clear whether they would be entitled to Carers Allowance or any form of financial assistance whilst on this leave (at the moment Carers Allowance is not means tested but if you earn more £116 a week, you are not entitled to it). Plus this policy isn't a "firm" guarantee; the Tories state that they will "consult with carers, businesses and employees" to decide on the "right length and nature of leave". This means that proposals could be watered down if many Small and Medium sized businesses particularly object. We already have 6 million unpaid carers in the UK and they save the UK taxpayers £132bn a year according to Carers UK. Only 800,000 out of the 6 million claim Carers Allowance, meaning that many are juggling the stress of having to bring money into the household to ensure that bills get paid with the stress of helping their disabled partner, parent(s) or child/children with day-to-day tasks required to keep them healthy and safe. What we should be doing as a country is providing adequate resources to support them; there's nothing so far in Tory proposals that would see an increase in the number of carers entitled to the Carers Allowance or an increase in the amount a person receives from the Allowance. Labour wants to increase Carers Allowance by 17% (an extra £10 a week) to bring it in line with Jobseeker's Allowance (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/17/labour-to-promise-unpaid-carers-17-allowance-increase). 
• Improving rights for self-employed people and those in the "gig economy", including bloggers, creatives and consultants is long overdue. Labour had already suggested providing statutory paternity and maternity leave for temporary workers (because they promise in their 20 point plan to give every worker, whether temporary or permanent, full-time or part-time the same employment rights from day 1 of their employment) so the Tories really are playing catch-up. There should be an expansion of rights for temporary workers that includes the ability to take an employer to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal and statutory minimum notice periods. As for the self-employed, I would imagine a Labour government would be more than willing to make statutory paternity and maternity leave and pay available. 
• Not many voters would be against bringing in a statutory child bereavement leave of 2 weeks, provided that the leave was paid (at least 90% of pay should be provided). Introducing such leave IS NOT dependent on us leaving the EU, as PM May seemed to be claiming when she boasts of improving employment rights "thanks to Brexit opportunities" and I can't see any reason why Labour or any other party would not consider introducing Child Bereavement Leave. 
• PM May has guaranteed to keep all employment protections currently enjoyed by employees that derive from the EU, including the Working Time Directive 1998. Other parties have already committed to such a guarantee so the PM and the Tories are a bit late to the party. Also, remember that May has not yet guaranteed the right to remain for the 3 million EU nationals who work just as hard as British citizens, especially in the agricultural sector, adult social care sector and the NHS. I won't trust the Tories because they are unwilling to guarantee status to all of our workers and employees in this country. 
• "Returnships" to help mothers and long-term carers back into work sounds like a good idea in principle but how would they work in practice? Would they be fully funded? How would they be structured? Which employers would be able to provide them? Surely the public sector organisations should lead the way and create programmes that allow people to update their skills to get them readily employable, especially in an office environment? Wishy washy.
• "Time off for training" (which must be requested from employers) again sounds good in principle but most businesses in the private sector already provide time off for their employees to attend mandatory training courses and time off to study and sit key exams and these training days tend to be paid. One question to ask is whether the commitment made here goes beyond industry-specific and employer-related training. Would an admin worker be given time off to study for her AAT qualification or a HR qualification to help expand her skillset, for example? What about a scaffolder who needed time off to study for an ECDL computer qualification? At the moment employers can turn down a request for training time off if they believe such training wouldn't benefit the business, would run up extra running costs for the business or if the employer can't find anyone to cover the employee's workload. That means at the moment it is likely that an employer would turn down the scaffolder's request but perhaps not the admin assistant's request (https://www.gov.uk/training-study-work-your-rights/employers-decision-and-responsibilities). Would PM May's guarantee change or remove the training restrictions? Another question is whether May's proposal will actually extend to agency workers and to those employees who have been with an organisation for at least 26 weeks (the current mandatory threshold)? 
• Workers' pensions should be protected, especially those that come from private sector companies. Nobody wants a repeat of the BHS scandal where it took an enquiry to get Sir Philip Green to provide the money required to secure the pensions of BHS workers and he wasn't even the owner of BHS at that point. There are very few organisations that would have an ex-owner realise his previous obligations to employees and pay up. Introducing new powers to the pensions regulator so they can inspect takeovers to see how it would impact "the sustainability of a pension fund" does sound a bit like Labour's own policy that was announced in their 20 point plan a few weeks back. At least we all seem to agree that reckless company owners should face fines and criminal charges for illegal behaviour though! 
• The Equality Act 2010 should most definately be extended so that it protects employees and workers who have mental health conditions such as anxiety or bipolar from being directly and indirectly discriminated against, especially if the condition is short-term (less than 1 year). However, there's also a need to extend the Equality Act so that non-binary, gender-fluid and genderqueer employees are also protected from such discrimination; the way to do that would be to change the protected characteristic from "Gender Reassignment Surgery" to "Gender Identity"and removing outdated language such as "transsexual". Intersex people's rights should also be protected by including "intersex" as a protected characteristic. If you're going to amend the Equalities Act, let's do it comprehensively. 
• Increasing the NLW "in line with median earnings" for the duration of the next Parliament again sounds OK but it's not a new announcement. The Tories had already confirmed their target for the NLW is for it to "reach 60% of median hourly earnings by 2020", which is £8.75, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. There is the concern that NLW increases may be smaller than expected if the economy does not grow as we deal with the immediate aftermath of Brexit. Why should those on the lowest incomes suffer minimal wage growth even if they are still working as hard or harder than they did prior to the EU referendum? We need to be paying our hard working cleaners, retail workers and entry-level admin assistants more, not less. That's why Labour's proposal to ensure the NLW reaches around £10 an hour by 2020 sounds extremely tempting. However, I do believe in the need to keep the Low Pay Commission an independent body and follow guidance for rises from them wherever possible but the 1% public sector pay cap is unfair and needs to be scrapped. There's also no commitment from the Tories to bring the Apprenticeship wage or the NMW for under 25's in line with the NLW, meaning that young people continue to face stark choices between heating and eating and cannot save up enough money to afford to get a deposit to rent a flat or house whereas their older counterparts may be able to. We need to end such pay inequality. 
• The Conservatives keep telling us that they are the party of the working class, yet they seem unwilling to make the changes necessary to create a fairer workplace for all. It seems ridiculous that executives continue to earn vast amounts even when their performance may have been seen to be merely satisfactory at best. Theresa May promised when she took office in July 2016 that she would tackle excessive executive pay head-on. Yet there's no mention of it in her plans. That's despite the CBI suggesting that shareholder power should be strengthened, with CEOs mandatorily facing a binding vote on remuneration policy at the next Annual General Meeting (AGM) if "they lose the vote on pay from the shareholder advisory committee" or "if 25% or more vote against the directors' remuneration report for two consecutive years" (http://www.cbi.org.uk/news/strengthen-shareholder-power-to-curb-excessive-executive-pay/). Labour meanwhile have proposed a pay ratio for firms who wish to obtain or have obtained Government contracts, where the executives can earn no more than 20 times what an entry-level employee earns. That sounds perfectly rational to me, so why are the Cons so reluctant to include a similar proposal in their plans? Are they worried they might get blowback from their multi-millionaire donors? 
• Employees should have more of a say on how an organisation is run by having representation at board level. They are one of the major stakeholders within a firm and their concerns should be listened to. Listed companies should have stakeholder advisory panels who can then nominate a "non-executive director" or a direct worker representative to the board of directors. PM May has suggested that she would not make employee representation on boards in the boardroom a mandatory requirement yet I believe it is essential that every listed company should be forced to comply. It doesn't matter whether that person happens to be a member of a trade union or not but clearly even listed companies have to liaise with trade union officials when disputes occur and perhaps a worker representative would be able to act as that key point of contact to ensure that disputes were resolved quickly and effectively. Employees should certainly have access to the same level of information regarding the future business activity of their organisation as other stakeholders and perhaps this policy would facilitate that. 
• Extending gender pay gap reporting obligations to take account of ethnicity does again sound like a plausible policy. Large companies need to do more to improve representation, especially at executive level and to ensure that employees are being paid fairly, so that there is no discrimination on the basis of ethnicity. Under this proposal, large companies who employ more than 250 employees would need to provide information about how much they pay workers from each ethnic group, with the findings displayed on the employer's website and on a Government site so they are freely accessible to the public.

Remember, there's nothing in the Conservative plans to:

• Increase Access to Justice; employment tribunal fees would remain in place and dual discrimination cases could not be brought even if an employee has been discriminated against on the basis of two separate protected characteristics
• Reinstate Third Party Harassment legislation (because the Tories got rid of them in 2013) 
• Expand the Access to Work Programme to help more disabled people get into sustainable employment
• Double Paternity Leave (and no indication of whether paternity pay would be brought into line with maternity pay) 
• Ban zero-hours contracts
• Ban exploitative unpaid internships (that means that working class young people will continue to struggle to gain access to the professions, especially in media and the law, without financial assistance)
• Increase the number of bank holidays (but that's not of vital importance to me....still 4 extra days off is nothing to be sniffed at)
• Scrap the 1% public sector pay cap 
• Hold an inquiry into blacklisting so that companies cannot discriminate against contractors, workers and employees on the basis of trade union membership or political party membership or views
• Strengthen protections against unfair dismissal for pregnant women and mothers

Naturally the Tories have no wish to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016 either, which wouldn't win over many trade union members or activists who believe the rules contained within the Act are unfair and designed to restrict freedom of union representation. The Tories hail the Act as a means of protecting "millions of people from the effects of undemocratic strike action" (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/trade-union-act-measures-come-into-force-to-protect-people-from-undemocratic-industrial-action). Whilst I'm ambivalent with regards to increasing trade union rights (because I'm not a member of a trade union), I do understand the concerns that trade union representatives and members may have. The good news is that the Tories seem reluctant to make any further changes to the Act (such as trying to bring in restrictions that were already withdrawn from the Trade Union Act when in the consultation stage, such as restricting trade union use of social media or picket supervisors being forced to wear an armband to identify themselves which could lead them facing discrimination). Liberty have raised concerns about the possibility of the Tories bringing in secondary legislation as a result of the passing of the Act, including the possibility of allowing employers to bring in temporary staff to cover staff on strike (https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigning/trade-union-act-2016).

Labour have made improving Trade Union rights a significant part of their 20 point plan (see: http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/labours-workers-plan-can-it-be.html). There does remain the issue of whether Labour's 20 point plan will appeal to as large a cross-section of employees, workers and the self-employed as perhaps the Tory plan may do. For example, SME owners may be far more comfortable with the idea of having to allow an employee leave to care for a disabled relative than having to recognise trade union representation from their employees. Strengthened training rights may sound enticing to workers who wish to retrain or upskill to improve their career prospects. The "iron-clad" guarantee from the PM to protect all EU employment directives may make it easier for Conservative remain voters to stick with the party. However, I'm just not convinced that the policies that will be offered in the Tory manifesto will be progressive enough to enact real change in our workplaces. Employees and workers aged 25 and under will not see a much needed increase in their NMW and Apprenticeship Wage. Unpaid internships will remain in place, meaning that some professions (especially PR and the Law) may remain off-limits to working class graduates filled with aspiration for a productive, happy working life. Zero-hours contracts that leave workers feeling insecure could go up following Brexit as employers struggle to improve productivity levels and secure contracts from EU businesses. Public sector workers will continue to feel the squeeze, even though they are working harder than ever to ensure that every service user has their needs met. The Royal College of Nursing Union has just overwhelmingly voted to go on strike for the first time in their history over the 1% pay cap with a ballot being held soon to guarantee strike action in the summer. When nurses have seen a 14% cut in real wages since 2010 and low pay being given as the reason why tens of thousands of nursing positions are not being filled, I don't blame them. PM May has comprehensively said she will not lift the cap. So why would public sector workers even contemplate voting for the Conservatives when they will continue to face real-term cuts in their wages? Do the Tories think a vague promise on "returnships" and a right to unpaid care leave is going to sway those voters?

Voters have a real choice at this election. They can choose to prop up a Tory party that makes vague promises on improving employment rights but refuses to carry out the actions needed to make the UK workplace fairer for all, including guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals currently employed in UK businesses to remain in the UK or they can take a chance on a Labour party with a policy platform that genuinely aims to improve rights "for the many", not the few. At the last General Election I was very sceptical of the Labour platform to improve workers' rights. I thought that the rights we currently enjoyed were enough. That's because I didn't know much about the true scale of workplace issues in the UK. Now it seems rational to me to that we should see wages improve for those under 25 and to help those in the public sector by scrapping the pay cap. Austerity measures have failed to grow the economy effectively. Improving the pay and working conditions of everyone who contributes to the economy should be a primary goal of any progressive government. Of course that that doesn't just mean focussing on trade union representatives and members. Self-employed people deserve to have more stability, especially when they need time off to have a child or look after them. The Tory promise of introducing Statutory Maternity and Paternity Leave will appeal to self-employed voters who are thinking of starting a family but I believe that a Labour Government may go further and give them access to Statutory Pay and double the length of Paternity Leave at the same time. That's an example of a truly progressive policy. So yes, I appreciate the Tories trying to reach out and soften their image with voters who are worried about their pay and conditions reducing after Brexit but I don't think their platform is likely to win over many sceptical voters over. "Nice try but no cigar" as my Lincoln carpeting small business owning Granddad Albert Colley used to say.