Sunday 24 September 2017

My thoughts on the Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference 2017:

Autumn conference season has started! #Yay! Let it rain down policy love! It's the time of the year when different party factions come together to bang their policy drums and try and convince delegates to support their ideas over the rival faction's ideas. First up, the Lib Dems' Autumn conference, which this year was held in the sunny southern seaside resort of Bournemouth, perhaps a rather interesting choice of venue given that Bournemouth voted to Leave the EU with a 9% majority (50,453 votes for Leave against 41,473 votes for Remain: https://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ElectoralRegister/Elections/eu-referendum/eu-referendum-results.aspx). That aside, the conference seemed to me (watching certain speeches and motions from the comfort of my black and slightly worn out leather sofa) to be generally positive and conducted with progressive policy ideas being put forward throughout. Most mainstream media coverage predictably focussed on Brexit policy; after all the Lib Dems are unashamedly the self-proclaimed party of Remain voters but there was a lot more policy debated than just those related to Brexit issues. A number of motions were passed related to the recruitment and retention of teachers, safe housing standards and the welfare of armed forces personnel and veterans that deserves at least some attention and in my opinion, some praise. So before I go on to talk about my views RE Sir Vince Cable's speech and his references to Brexit, I do think it's fruitful to highlight some of the motions that have been passed by Lib Dem members at the Autumn Conference, bearing in mind that the policy substance contained within the motions does go on to form new Lib Dem policies and re-shape existing ones within the platform:
  •  F4: Learning to Communicate in English: This states that the Government should create a national ESOL strategy in England, with more collaboration between ESOL partners locally and an ESOL national champion appointed. The motion point to the fact that Government funding for ESOL courses has fallen by 60% in real terms between 2009 and 2016 and enrolment in state-funded ESOL courses has fallen by 43%. Also, each local authority should be required to publish a "Language Needs Assessment", that sets out the need for ESOL provision in their area, with state funded schools working with LAs to develop the LNA. Lib Dems believe that asylum seekers and refugees should have access to a minimum of 6 month's free ESOL from the moment they apply for asylum or at least the moment where they are granted asylum and are working in England so they reach the basic standard of English needed to "access the support they need". 
  • F16: Armed Forces Personnel: Recruitment, Retention and Welfare: The Lib Dems want to see a lifting of the 1% pay cap for the Armed Forces, along with "an urgent review into the recruitment of technical specialists across the Armed Forces" so they can help create new initiatives designed to increase recruitment. The Lib Dems also want to include a Veterans box on Census returns, a review into the Career Transition Partnership so that free further or higher education can be provided to all those veterans who served for at least 12 years and more access to mental health services for veterans. 
  • F21: Safe Building Standards: This motion commits the Lib Dems to vote for implementation of recommendations from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. The Lib Dems also want to see fire safety measures implemented in all social and privately rented homes; this includes annual checks carried out by fire service personnel on all tall  buildings (above 4 storeys) in the UK and making fire evacuation drills mandatory in all buildings over 10 storeys "at times of peak occupancy by the end of June 2018". Electrical safety tests should be conducted in all social and privately rented homes. There are also calls for "a complete review of building regulations, especially in relation to cladding and sprinklers".
  • F23: Implementation of Universal Credit: The Lib Dems want to see changes made to the Universal Credit system, including the removal of the 7 day waiting period, ensuring that every claimant on UC are aware they can claim an Advance Payment whilst they wait for their first payment, introducing an online booking system for appointments with the Job Centre and changing the way UC is paid by allowing claimants to decide how they would like it to be paid. Lib Dems have reiterated the need for an end to the freeze on working-age benefits and reversing cuts to the Work Allowance so UC claimants can earn more before their benefits are cut.
  • F24: Defeating Terrorism, Protecting Liberties: This motion argues for a new approach to tackling terrorism, with the Prevent strategy being replaced with a new "Engage" strategy, which is inclusive and supporting grassroots community groups to take the lead in "tackling the dangers of violent extremism". The Lib Dems also want to see the Government scrap proposals to regulate the internet, believing that internet connection records should not be collected universally (is it right that the Government should be able to collect and store every web pages accessed in the UK for 12 months?) and instead want to introduce a Digital Bill of Rights that will enhance confidentiality and data protection in accordance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation. The Lib Dems also want to make sure that the Commission on Counter-Extremism is truly independent and that the UK remains a member of Europol and continue to take part in the European Arrest Warrant programme.  
  • F26: Employment in the 21st Century: Policies put forward in this motion include introducing a "dependent contractor" type of employment status that would be between employment and self-employment (recommended in the Taylor Review), bringing in new legal tests to determine employment status-e.g. looking at the amount of employer control over basic hours or income, ensuring that HMRC and employment tribunals enforce employment rights and changing the burden of proof requirement so that it is the employer, not the individual who has to prove the individual wasn't eligible for their employment right based on their employment status. The Lib Dems also want to see financial products created that can be used by those not in traditional forms of employment, an extension of Universal Credit's "Minimum Income Floor" requirement from 12 to 24 months to allow businesses to establish themselves and any hours  not guaranteed through the contract to have a higher minimum wage rate, set by the Low Pay Commission.  
  • F28: Encouraging Companies to be Responsible Corporate Citizens: This motion acknowledges the public appetite for companies to be more transparent, more accountable for their failings and more diverse in their make-up. Policies put forward include requiring any UK public limited company and private companies with more than 200 employees to have 1 employee representative on their board, who is given the same legal duties and responsibilities of other directors, creation of stakeholder advisory panels and a rebalancing of the Companies Act 2006 so that directors think about the long-term future of the company, "including a duty of care of the common good". The Lib Dems also want to see "an explicit "public interest" test when considering approvals for takeovers of large or strategically significant companies by overseas-based owners" and a strengthening of existing laws regarding "criminal responsibility for harm arising from a blameworthy corporate failure" so companies are fined appropriately.
  • F31A: Emergency Motion: UK Government Treatment of Disabled People: The Lib Dems contend that the Government have failed in their duty to protect disabled people in the UK as they are being denied rights set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), pointing out that the Government has not listened to recommendations made by the UN CRPD committee, the House of Lords Select Committee, the UKIM and reports that have been submitted by disability organisations. The Lib Dems would incorporate the UN CRPD into domestic law, strengthening the current Equality Act so that all disabled people  are empowered to challenge all forms of discrimination and prejudice. The Lib Dems want to see the Government review their policy platform and report back to Parliament within 12 months, demonstrating how they are adapting their policies to adhere to recommendations made in the UN CRPD report and the Lords Select Committee report. 
  • F31B: Emergency Motion: Recruitment and Retention of Teachers With the figures from UCAS showing that the number of graduates who had started teacher training courses in England had fallen by 10% compared with last year, the Lib Dems believe that the Government needs to commission an urgent review to help identify the key factors that have lead to a decline in graduates wanting to enter teaching, as well as continuing to campaign to scrap the 1% pay cap and cuts to frontline state school and college budgets. The Lib Dems believe that the Government should work more closely with higher education providers and organisations such as Teach First to help fill teacher training places with high quality graduates, especially in Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths and the Arts. The Lib Dems want to see the Government working with Ofsted to reform the school inspection programme, with inspectors examining teachers average workload and staff recruitment and retention rates in order to get school senior management to take action to improve the wellbeing of teaching staff if they are failing to meet minimum standards. The Lib Dems believe that all teachers should be entitled to fully funded Continuing Professional Development opportunities. The Lib Dems are also campaigning for the creation of a Royal College of Teachers "to oversee the delivery of CPD opportunities and awarding Qualified Teacher Status". 
  • F32: Protecting Small Businesses: The Lib Dems want to introduce a "Pub Cap" which would see business rate increases for all public houses, restaurants, hotels and cafes limited to 12.5% in England as part of a review into the Business Rate system. 
  • F34: Gun and Knife Crime: The Lib Dems argue that tackling gun and knife crime needs to be a major priority for the Conservative Minority Government, police forces and community groups; there was a 13-14% increase in gun crime in 2016 according to the Office For National Statistics. This motions calls for closer collaboration between police forces and faith organisations to engage with young people to reduce gun and knife crime, funding community groups and grassroots charities such as Redthread and Growing Against Violence (GAV) as well as creating mentoring schemes and conflict resolution and mediation training for all students before they leave full-time education. The Lib Dems believe that amnesties should be created on a regular basis so that people are encouraged to hand over their guns and knives in a safe and secure manner. The Lib Dems also want more funding for local police forces so that they can recruit more Police Community Support Officers who can decide how to use Stop and Search Powers more appropriately.
Cable's keynote speech and Brexit: 
It's true that the Lib Dems have crafted themselves as the only party that is committed to delivering an #ExitFromBrexit. Such a bold disavowal of the Brexit project may attract voters who strongly backed Remain during the EU Referendum last year and despair at seeing some Labour members and MPs and most Conservative members and MPs advocating for a process that appears to have a flawed and dangerous outcome for the UK's economic prosperity and socio-cultural fabric from the outset. For Remain voters and for those Leave voters (no matter how small the percentage might happen to be) who are disillusioned with the process, they now clearly have the chance to vote for a centrist party that undeniably aims to advocate for them.

Sir Vince Cable said in his keynote speech on Wednesday 20th September (https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/vince-cables-conference-speech-full-text/) that the Lib Dems are not calling for a second referendum on Brexit (what Cable calls "the product of a fraudulent and frivolous campaign led by two groups of silly public schoolboys...reliving their dormitory days"- very sassy Vince) but calling "for a first referendum on the facts". Cable states that UK voters "have a right to change their mind", calling Brexiteers who oppose this idea "masochists" who "believe in the slogan of dictators everywhere: "one person, one vote, once". The Lib Dem's Opposing Brexit motion makes it clear that 16 and 17 year olds, EU Citizens resident in the UK and British Citizens who are resident overseas should be able to vote in this referendum who I thought should have had a say in the initial referendum, since the decision to Brexit affects their lives just as much as mine and those who were eligible to vote.

Cable was right to suggest to PM May to "take the issue of European nationals in the UK and British nationals in the EU out of the (Brexit) negotiations" by declaring the "Right To Stay" right now; it's ridiculous that nothing has yet been 100% agreed and such an agreement would generate some goodwill with our EU neighbours.

Cable was also quite scathing of Jeremy Corbyn's attitude towards Brexit: "If Jeremy Corbyn sits on the fence any longer, he is in danger of being sliced up the middle by the serrated edge". #Ouchie. I have to say that Labour's position has certainly appeared at times as if it's all over the shop but it might be because Corbyn doesn't want to do any irreputable damage to his coalition base of support that he's built up; if Corbyn comes out as anti-Brexit (I'd crack open a bottle of Prosecco myself if he did), it is suggested that pro-Brexit voters in the North would vote Tory in their droves based on wanting to ensure that the Brexit process is completed but if Corbyn comes out as a super Hard Brexit-lover akin to PM May, he'll lose the confidence of Remain voters in marginal constituencies such as Lincoln who are worried about the impact that leaving the Single Market and Customs Union entirely would have on the economy. It's almost as if Corbyn may become a victim of his own success in the end; he will have to disappoint one group of hardline referendum voters in the end but it's remains unclear which group it will be.

Cable made an appeal for the Lib Dems to work with Remain supporters in other parties on a cross-party basis, declaring them the "political adults" in the Brexit debate. As an independent who voted Labour at the last election and was also a strong Remain supporter, I can see the merits of working cross-party to try and convince Jeremy Corbyn to decide to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union and remain a full member of organisations such as EURATOM (and re-join the treaty negotiations currently taking place) but slyly calling Leave voters in other parties not political adults (i.e. political kidults) is probably not going to do anything to endear Cable to them as potential Prime Minister material.

Naturally Cable has received blowback from a variety of Brexiteers and commentators/opinion columnists alike for the comments made in his speech. Rachel Cunliff, comment and features editor at City AM, argues that despite concerns business owners have over "access to the Single Market, regulatory barriers, skills shortages and the precarious state of EU citizens (working in the UK)" , they do not want a second referendum on Brexit or indeed a first referendum on the terms of the deal because business owners are looking now for certainty "over regulations, trade tariffs, visas and law" (http://www.cityam.com/272333/business-does-not-want-second-eu-vote-whatever-vince-cable). To them, Brexit has been settled. Now it's important to mention that there are no stats given in Cunliff's opinion editorial that backs up that claim but the Institute of Directors did call on all UK political parties to not advocate for a second referendum, with Allie Renson, head of EU and trade policy stating that time spent on getting a transitional deal and free trade agreement in place would be wasted if a second referendum result showed a clear rejection of the Brexit deal. Generally, stats from polling surveys do indicate little support for a second referendum currently. What The EU Thinks, a non-partisan website mentions a Survation poll that stated that 36% of respondents want a 2nd referendum but 55% were opposed (http://whatukthinks.org/eu/has-the-election-seen-a-change-in-attitudes-towards-brexit/). However, when a question was asked about the possibility of a referendum after the terms of the Brexit deal is known, 46% supported the idea and 47% opposed it. Much more evenly balanced (http://whatukthinks.org/eu/has-the-election-seen-a-change-in-attitudes-towards-brexit/). Also relevant to note is recent reporting from the Federation of Small Businesses which states that its small business confidence index has fallen from +15 in the second quarter of 2017 to just +1 in the third quarter. 70% of small businesses have reported a rise in operating costs compared to the second quarter of 2016 with payroll costs, rent and taxation all increasing. 1 out of 8 entrepreneurs also said they expect to downsize, close or sell their business (https://www.ft.com/content/5b209b54-9c82-11e7-8cd4-932067fbf946?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6).  However, exporters remain optimistic, with 39% reporting an increase in online sales. It's not all doom and gloom but if small business performance and confidence does not improve as we get closer to the Brexit deal being completed, there may be increasing calls from small business owners for a referendum on the terms of the deal.

Cunliff goes on in her article to contend that Cable cannot be a leader for Remain voters and a leader for business because being a leader for Remain voters would end up expending his political capital. Instead Cunliff wants to see Cable listen to business leaders and develop "a new industrial strategy and smart, practical approaches to nurture innovation and entrepreneurship"(forgetting that it was the Lib Dems who helped "launch and pursue" the initial Industrial Strategy whilst in Coalition with the Tories. There are plenty of Lib Dem voters who are business owners who may disagree that seeking an #ExitFromBrexit and being pro-business are mutually exclusive. Regardless of your view on Brexit, there is always room in the political arena for sensible business-focussed policies and the fact that the Lib Dems have been working on some has been evidenced by the passed conference motions F28 and F34 that I have referenced above. Perhaps it was fair to Cunliff to suggest that no new industrial strategy was presented at the conference but I have no doubt that there are Lib Dem members and MPs who are helping to craft such an industrial strategy in the event that another election be called before or just after the negotiated Brexit deal is brought to Parliament and is rejected (there is still the possibility that a Brexit deal may be rejected by Labour MPs, if it fails to meet the tests set out by Sir Keir Starmer, Shadow Secretary for Exiting the EU). Besides which, you don't actually have to be a supporter of Brexit to take an interest in developing future trading policies or look at improving transparency, accountability and diversity in corporate boardrooms.

Paris Gourtsoyannis argues in his article in The Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/paris-gourtsoyannis-lib-dems-go-looking-for-lost-voters-1-4563696) that actually not all Lib Dem MPs agree entirely with Cable's Brexit approach. Jo Swinson, for example, stated that an #ExitFromBrexit through a referendum approach may not be possible and that activists need to support a Soft Brexit approach with a long transition deal, with the hope that the UK then reenters the EU at a later date. Alistair Carmichael highlights the pressing need for an in-depth national conversation on the merits of EU membership so that there was at least a chance of a clear majority of voters deciding against the Tory crafted Brexit deal in a future referendum. Some grassroots Lib Dem campaigners are frustrated with a limp Brexit approach, with one member notably calling for Article 50 to be reversed in an attempt to reassert parliamentary democracy. Hmm.

Brexshit Brexshit Brexshit I cry in my head. Luckily, Sir Vince didn't just mention Brexit in his speech. There was his sassy reference to the "Giant Tweeter" Donnie Drumpf who Cable says should have his official state visit cancelled. There was an announcement that the Lib Dems would look to establish a new life-long learning fund, that would be paid for via a tax on wealth, for people to spend when and how they wanted, with the aim of learning new skills that would help their chances of career progression and allow them to diversify to improve their income. Cable also wants the party to explore replacing tuition fees paid upfront with a graduate tax. There was a firm promise to tackle the housing shortage, with a desire to impose "fierce tax penalties" on foreign investors who only buy houses for investment purposes (which probably would appeal to some Brexiteers) and also a tax on second homes (including holiday homes) in rural areas; Cable said that the Lib Dems "must end the stranglehold of oligarchs and speculators in the housing market". Cable also advocated for the lifting of the ban on councils borrowing to build new social  housing. In addition to these policies, Cable reiterated existing policy on NHS and Social Care funding, stating that he still supports increasing the rate of income tax by 1p in the £1  as well as reducing the voting age to 16 and create a fully elected House of Lords. That's good news to voters who argue that there is no need for hereditary peers and Church of England Bishops to have an automatic place to influence political decisions. When other Christian denominations and other religious groups are not represented solely on the basis of religion in the House of Lords, why should we hold onto archaic traditions that seem anti-democratic in the 21st century? 

One can certainly detect a defiantly positive mood amongst some delegates in the Lib Dem party at the moment. Cable's keynote speech was bold, sassy and demonstrated a keen desire to improve the fortunes of the party. Yet it is true to say that the Lib Dems still have more to do to regain the trust of voters, especially amongst students, graduates and business leaders who would be inclined to vote for their policies. I believe that policy announcements on protecting and improving the rights of disabled people, improving the recruitment and retention rate of teachers and tapping into the importance of funded lifelong learning will attract some voters who value the importance of education and training and are passionate about holding the Government to account for their failure to reform their policies towards disabled people but whether such policies are enough to encourage Labour or bright blue remain Tory voters in marginal Tory-Lib Dem constituencies such as Richmond Park (0.04% swing needed) and St Ives (0.30% swing needed) remains to be seen. Fife North East, with only 2 votes between the Lib Dems and the Scottish National Party is certainly one battleground constituency worth watching at the next general election where maybe such policies as announced at this autumn conference and subsequent ones could make all the difference.

Lesley Riddoch in her The Scotsman opinion ed offers a glimmer of hope for Lib Dems who want to see the Tories defeated at the next election. Riddoch states quite openly that the party may struggle to appeal to voters looking for radical solutions to inequality alone but if they carried out "bold joint action with Labour to combat inequality", it could be a "real game-changer" (http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/lesley-riddoch-lib-dems-may-have-something-to-offer-after-all-1-4562856). Positive cross-party collaboration on a variety of issues, not just Brexit could be an ideal way forward and I know from experience following the political scene in Lincoln that Lib Dems, Labour, Greens (and sometimes Tories too) can share ideas and work together for the common good; for example, Lincoln's Green Party candidate for the 2017 election, Dr Ben Loryman recently created a petition which calls for rural GPs to be put on the shortage list (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200523) and Caroline Kenyon, the Lib Dem candidate for Lincoln signed and retweeted the petition on Twitter so that others could get involved with the petition. A great example of cross-party collaboration at a local level and a spirit we need to see more of in the UK.

The Lib Dem conference itself seems to have divided opinion. Most conference delegates left believing that substantive policy motions had been passed that would help to attract new voters to the party whilst commentators seem to have focussed on the party's anti-Brexit position without talking about much else. Whilst it's true that support for a referendum on the terms of the deal will not happen without the support of the majority of Labour MPs, at least it's out there on the table as an option. Whether the keynote speech has improved or hurt Cable's chances of expanding the Lib Dems' support base remains to be seen but Cable has started a conversation that certain Brexiteers do not want voters to focus on, with the main question being: "should voters have the final say on the deal and have the option to reject and remain in the EU as opposed to leaving without a deal and relying on World Trade Organisation terms?" Time will tell whether we see huge changes in public opinion.

On a lighter note, I have to say I was well jel of the EU themed berets that were popping up all over the place; if someone can start an Ebay store selling them I'd very much appreciate it! 

Friday 22 September 2017

PM May's Brexit Florence Speech: A masterclass in verbosity and platitudes

PM May delivered her hugely anticipated follow up speech on the UK's general attitude towards Brexit (Lancaster House Speech) on Friday afternoon. Suffice to say it doesn't seem to have had the desired impact at home. Yes the speech was full of platitudes, some warm words for our European allies (the "strongest friend and partner" line reminds me of a couple trying to be amicable but not really meaning it and the reference to the Renaissance (I certainly do not see Brexit as any kind of progressive process) was a naff nod to the fact that Florence was one of the great flourishing centres of art and architecture and how Brexit may see a flourishing in new ideas, albeit in a different form (very optimistic). Theresa May talked about working with the EU to defend human rights in her speech but the record of the Home Office towards asylum seekers such as Samim Bigzad (Amber Rudd could be prosecuted for being in contempt of court after ignoring a High Court injunction and two further orders by judges by putting Samim on a flight from Istanbul to Kabul: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/samim-bigzad-deportation-afghanistan-asylum-seeker-amber-rudd-home-office-violate-court-order-kabul-a7959756.html) demonstrates to me a lapse attitude towards preserving the human rights of people who are not UK citizens. There was the odd bizarre overgeneralization, not least when it came to discussing British attitudes towards the EU (it really is NOT the case, especially amongst young people, that Brits do not feel at home in the EU or feel European...check the Twitter accounts and Facebook accounts of those that do). The "eyes of the world are on us" comment was at best incorrect and at worst evocative of an egotistical imperialist attitude that should have been long consigned to the dustbin of history as well as being extraordinarily ill-timed (North Korean aggression, devastation in the Caribbean due to Hurricanes Irma and Maria are far more deserving of the world's attention currently). I agree with Ian Birrell's sentiment that the speech didn't make "many ripples in Boston, let along Beijing"(https://unherd.com/the-feed-blog/reactions-theresa-mays-speech-brexit/). It was also a speech that in my opinion (and that of others including Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn) didn't really tell listeners anything that they didn't really know before. Anyone who has been paying at least a miniscule amount of attention to the Brexit debate (and let's face it, in the UK it's extremely difficult to ignore when the news broadcasts and newspapers bombard you with coverage) would be aware that PM May and the Tory party had been moving towards the idea of at least a 2 year transitional deal for a while (albeit some Brexiteers thought PM May might be convinced to remove it from official policy) and there has been appetite for an EU-UK security treaty that is "bold", including protecting "high standards of data protection and human rights". Versatility is certainly to be praised but I still cannot fathom what security policies could be brought in that could not be negotiated whilst remaining in the EU. So we had the "biggest defence budget in Europe" boast instead. Hmm.

That being said, it does appear that an air of common-sense harsh realism styleee has set in at Tory Party HQ with regards to the EU divorce bill. May has conceded that the UK will need to pay its fair share with regards to the pre-set EU budget (which lasts 7 years) - a commitment that is estimated will cost British taxpayers 20 million) and has also stated that the UK will "honour commitments (but it doesn't seem to be all commitments) we have made during the period of our (EU) membership". The EU has estimated that this could cost Brexit taxpayers another 40bn. No wonder Nigey Fartage et al are fuming; they thought we could just walk away from payment and still get some sort of free trade agreement. #EpicLOL. However, the EU negotiators have stated much higher sums for the divorce agreement in the past (anything between  50 and 100bn) so better have the defibrillators on standby just in case. 

Here's the positives from the speech that I took on board:
  • PM May's tone was at least conciliatory and that did seem to make a positive impact on Michel Barnier, who called the speech "constructive"
  • There was a suggestion from PM May that the UK would continue to heed EU regulations and directives, continue accepting decisions from the European Court of Justice and allow freedom of movement of EU citizens during the transitional period. However, EU citizens would be forced to register post-Brexit (i.e. from the 19th March 2019 onwards)
  • PM May reiterated a wish for tariff-free trade to continue with the EU post-Brexit somehow
  • Suzanne Evans has argued that PM May is deliberately keeping the UK tied to the EU till the next general election when there will be "a clear opportunity for the referendum result to be reversed" (https://unherd.com/the-feed-blog/reactions-theresa-mays-speech-brexit/). If only Corbyn would back staying in the Single Market and Customs Union and then move towards a firm Remain position. That'd be glorious but currently unlikely.
Here's the negatives from the speech that I noticed:
  • The Tories still want to take us completely out of the Single Market and Customs Union after the 2 year transitional deal has ended; PM May has ruled out a European Economic Area solution a la Norway. I agree with the SNP's Brexit Minister Michael Russell that PM May needs to change the Tory position on Brexit further and "commit to a long-term future in the Single Market and Customs Union, not just a transitional arrangement"
  • PM May has ruled out undertaking a trade deal like the one that was negotiated between the EU and Canada because she believes it'd take too long to implement
  • We'll have no input into the European laws passed during the transition period but will have to accept them regardless
  • It appears that the Department For Exiting the EU hasn't planned for the worst-case scenario (where we leave the EU without a free trade agreement or security treaties or membership of EURATOM or Europol and relying on World Trade Organisation rules and some kind of goodwill); this may be because Sir Jeremy Haywood believes that PM May's threat that "no deal is better than a bad deal" is vacuous and would never pass muster with the electorate (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/21/civil-servants-highlighting-brexit-concerns-official-emails/). Other civil servants aren't so relaxed, having written emails detailing their concerns over the Brexit to guard themselves against critique should a Brexit negotiation inquiry take place in the future 
  • PM May still hasn't taken the decision to unilaterally guarantee the rights of ALL EU citizens currently living in the UK to stay in the UK- if she did it would generate further goodwill in the negotiations and encourage the EU negotiation team to agree to do the same- EU citizens are not bargaining chips. However, there appears to have been some progress. PM May agrees that EU citizens should be able to enforce their rights with the rights written directly into the withdrawal treaty as it would be fully incorporated into UK law taking into account ECJ judgements "with a view to ensuring consistent interpretation" but Barnier still wants the ECJ to be the "ultimate legal guarantor of the agreement",and PM May is probably unlikely to accept that post Brexit
  • Negotiations on Northern Ireland were not referred to in-depth in the speech other than a vague reference to "no physical infrastructure at the border"
  • PM May was far from creative in her speech; she didn't offer a single new creative idea on the free trade agreement or on how we can organise co-operation between the UK and EU on international crime and terrorism. 
As you can see, the negatives from the speech outway the positives for me. It's sad that the Tories seem to believe that the UK cannot be a truly great global trading nation whilst remaining part of the EU. I agree with Clare Moody, Labour MEP for South West England and Gibraltar who says that "we are already a global trading nation because of our membership of the single market- not in spite of it." PM May's speech didn't offer any substantive detail on how different the free trade agreements with countries such as Canada would be compared with the EU agreed deal, other than stating it would be "creative". Moody is right to point out that "Japanese car manufacturers built their factories in the UK because of the ability to trade with Europe, and that is at risk because of potential tariff and nontariff barriers" (http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/09/21/may-s-florence-speech-can-t-hide-her-brexit-indecision).  Moody is also right to argue that the Government needs to consider what specific plans will need to be put in place regarding customs arrangements: "five thousand new staff at our borders, new agencies for customs and immigration, new IT systems (and all the government problems that entails) as well as the road capacity to deal with parked lorries on the way to Dover and the Channel Tunnel". We have no idea how much it will cost to put such custom arrangements in place; the Government hasn't even guestimated the cost yet. 

 A "status-quo" transitional deal isn't as good as deciding to permanently stay in the Single Market and Customs Union. Then again, it may not be possible to do both without staying in the EU anyways, unless the UK accepted a Norway-type deal, which would result in the UK having no say over EU legislation. Perhaps I need to adopt the slightly more optimistic tone of Ian Dunt, who states in his analysis of the Florence Speech that a lengthy transitional period may allow Remainers the chance to "change the debate" so that a clear majority of voters vote to rejoin the EU in a future referendum (as we will be legally out by March 2019) but even then the EU may not allow us back in as full members without joining the Eurozone and Schengen agreement, which will be strongly resisted by Tory and UKIP Brexiteers alike (http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/09/22/florence-speech-may-kicks-the-brexit-can-two-years-down-the). 

What's interesting is that there appears to be signs in the polling that the majority of Brits are starting to turn against Brexit. A survey carried out by BMG Research for The Independent, with 1,447 adults (but "weighted to reflect the profile of GB adults") found that 52% (the same figure as the EU referendum result) backed staying in the EU, with 48% still in favour of leaving the EU. It's still not a conclusive result but there has been a shift of 2% towards Remain since the survey was last conducted in July 2017. If the poll is taken in 2 months time and it demonstrates another shift in the direction of Remain, this will give more credence to calls from the Lib Dems and the Greens for a referendum on the terms of the deal. Then you have to wonder whether Labour will finally harden their Brexit position and join calls for such a referendum in the future, with Corbyn then having to take a gamble on voters in hugely Leave-leaning constituencies such as Kingston upon Hull East and Doncaster North (Ed Miliband's constituency) to put aside their grievances against the EU to vote for popular anti-austerity policies. At the moment, it remains to be seen whether such a gamble would pay off (35% of Labour voters in the June 2017 general election had voted Leave in the 2016 EU referendum according to George Eaton: https://www.newstatesman.com/2017/09/how-will-labour-manage-its-brexit-divisions) but it is important to note that in the 2017 general election YouGov poll survey (https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/07/11/why-people-voted-labour-or-conservative-2017-gener/), there was no mention of the Brexit process alone as being a key reason why voters chose Labour (28% of 645 voters voted Labour based on the manifesto/policies which of course include Brexit) whereas supporting the Brexit process was the key reason why voters went for the Conservatives (21% of 521 Tory voters polled). Jeremy Corbyn currently enjoys a higher public satisfaction rating with the UK electorate than PM May (the Ipsos Mori poll conducted between the 15th and 18th September 2017 found that Corbyn had a 43% favourable rating compared with a 46% unfavourable rating whilst PM May had a 37% favourable rating compared with a 54% unfavourable rating). 66% of respondents to the Ipsos Mori poll said that PM May is out of touch with British voters, compared to 32% who said Jeremy Corbyn is out of touch. Those figures may increase as dissatisfaction with PM May's domestic policy agenda combined with her Brexit policy approach convince voters to abandon the Tories and look for a suitable alternative party (which might benefit Labour in the long-term). 

Therefore I'll be watching the Labour conference in Brighton with much interest this year to see whether there are any indications in a liberal change in Labour's Brexit policy. I'm not naive enough to firmly believe that Labour delegates would overwhelmingly vote for a referendum on the terms of the deal or for continued membership of the Single Market and/or the Customs Union. There will be "a parallel motion brought by Young Labour at the Conference which will commit Labour to supporting continued freedom of movement" post Brexit, which would be binding if passed (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/21/labour-leadership-under-pressure-to-support-free-movement-after-brexit). This motion is being put forward after a report, put together by Another Europe Is Possible , concluded that the right to freedom of movement should be maintained alongside "better protections for workers' rights" (they call this "free movement-plus") in order to prevent EU workers from being exploited post Brexit. There could be risks with alternative systems where migrant workers given a time-limited work visa may end up having to stay with a particular employer regardless of working conditions for fear of being told to leave the UK if they decide to resign from their job based on poor working conditions: "the ability to move between different jobs is a fundamental right that makes a free labourer less exploitable than someone being forced to work against their will". The report does however suggest using existing EU regulations to stop new arrivals from job seeking indefinitely and bring in "new safeguards such as a ban on "foreign only" recruitment" and more inspections in sectors where there are a high level of unskilled jobs such as the agricultural sector. Sounds reasonable to me but probably not to hardline Brexiteers within the Labour party. Let's see how such a motion fares this coming week. 

Brexitshambles may be continuing to dominate our politics for some time to come with PM May and her motley crew in charge. But staunch Remainers must continue to oppose a Hard Brexit at all costs, ensuring that workers' rights are protected (and enhanced wherever possible) for ALL workers in the UK whilst at the same time trying to move the general debate forward towards a referendum on the terms of the Brexit Tory deal that is being negotiated in Brussels. PM May's speech has made it perfectly clear that the Tories will not listen primarily to the concerns of EU workers and their families, nor the concerns of those small and medium sized business owners who rely on importing and exporting from the EU and may worried what trading conditions may be like outside the Single Market and Customs Union. PM May may have aimed to offer clarity and certainty in her speech today but apart from the positive, constructive tone, a few buzzwords, the odd sensationalist comment and the odd shock or two for Brexiteers on the divorce bill and EU citizens rights jurisdictions, there was little substantive policy announcements on future trade agreement plans with the EU, the Irish border or on the security treaty. Perhaps the touted Brexit creativity stage is yet to come or perhaps we're entering a new tautological stage, moving from "Brexit is Brexit" to "CreativeBrexit Is CreativeBrexit". Time will tell. 

Monday 11 September 2017

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

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

Here are some of the overall key statistics from the report that you should be aware of:
  1. 21% of LGBT+ people have experienced a hate crime or incident in the last year because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity
  2. 81% of anti-LGBT+ hate crime and incidents go UNREPORTED and there are an increasing number of young LGBT+ people who state that they are reluctant to go to the police because they believe that the hate crime or incident will not be thoroughly investigated (only 12% of LGBT people aged between 18 to 24 reported a hate crime or incident to the police)
  3. 10% of LGBT+ people who were looking to rent or buy a home in the past year were discriminated against
  4. 10% of LGBT+ people have experienced homophobic, biphobic or transphobic abuse online that was targeted at them IN THE PAST MONTH. 
  5. 17% of LGBT+ people who have visited a cafe, restaurant, bar or nightclub in the past 12 months were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity
  6. 24% of black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) LGBT+ people were discriminated against by social services on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity
  7. 28% of LGBT+ people who visited a place of worship have faced discrimination in the last year
  8. 10% of LGBT+ people who attended a live sporting event (football match, tennis match etc) experienced discrimination in the last year based on their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
In terms of trans, non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer and agender people:
  1. 40% of trans people have experienced a hate crime or incident in the past year because of their gender identity 
  2. 18% of trans people have experienced a hate crime or incident in the past year because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation 
  3. 39% of non-binary people have experienced a hate crime or incident in the past year because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, compared with 19% of LGBT who define as male or female
  4. 26% of trans people online directly experienced transphobic abuse IN THE PAST MONTH
  5. 26% of non-binary people online directly experienced personal online abuse IN THE PAST MONTH
  6. 25% of trans people were discriminated against when looking to rent or buy a home in the last year
  7. 33% of trans people who have visited a cafe, restaurant, bar or nightclub in the past 12 months were discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity
  8. 35% of trans people who have visited a department store or shop were discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity 
  9. 29% of trans people were discriminated against when accessing social services
  10. 25% of trans people contacting the emergency services (through call centres) were discriminated against
  11. 38% of trans people who visited a place of worship in the past year have been discriminated against 
  12. 38% of trans people avoid going to the gym or take part in grassroots sport because they fear being discriminated against. 
In terms of LGBT+ disabled people such as myself (I'm dyspraxic):
  1. 27% of LGBT+ disabled people have experienced a hate crime or incident based on their sexual orientation and/or gender identity in the last year and they are 10% more likely to experience such hate crime or incidents than non disabled LGBT+ people.
  2. 13% of LGBT+ disabled people feel unsafe in their ward
  3. 21% of LGBT+ disabled people have been discriminated against when visiting a cafe, restaurant, bar or nightclub in the last year
  4. 10% of LGBT+ disabled people have been discriminated against when accessing bank services or visiting an insurance company in the past year
  5. 18% of LGBT+ disabled people have experienced discrimination when accessing social services in the last year
  6. 17% of LGBT+ disabled people avoid going to the gym or participating in grassroots sporting activities because they fear being discriminated against
  7. 16% of LGBT+ disabled people going to the gym or participating in grassroots activities have faced discrimination. 
These statistics are shocking and demonstrate the need, in my view, to argue strongly against those who believe that "enough" LGBT+ equality has been achieved in the UK. People like Steve H who tweeted: "They (LGBT+ people) have equal rights now. They have single sex (he means same-sex or equal) marriage. Enough is enough. This tiny minority should just shut up and be happy". So much is wrong with Steve's tweet. For starters, non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer and agender people like me cannot get married without having to put a binary gender marker on a marriage certificate. Then non-binary people like me cannot get our gender identity recognised on official legal documentation such as passports. Then we face indirect discrimination in recruitment as some employers refuse to recognise the validity of  different gender identities (or lack thereof) and then find another reason not to hire you so they do not fall foul of employment legislation and the Employment Tribunal system. Then there is the issue with access to NHS Gender Identity Services services because such access isn't guaranteed;some GPs are indirectly discriminating against non-binary patients by refusing to carry out a referral although this may change with the introduction of new specifications for Adult Gender Identity Services. We are far from achieving real equality of opportunity in the UK.

Anti-LGBT Hate Crime:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-LGBT+ Hate Crime in Lincolnshire: 

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

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

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

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

Direct and indirect discrimination in daily life: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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