liv: cast iron sign showing etiolated couple drinking tea together (argument)
[personal profile] liv
OK, this is UK party politics, please feel free to skip. In short, I am looking for Labour supporters to convince me to vote for your party.

A lot of people I'm aligned with politically say, a Tory vote is a vote for the murder of disabled people. I have some quibbles with phrasing it like that, but I think this opinion is basically true: the current Conservative party are actively, lethally dangerous. Between attacks on human rights and their atrocious mishandling of Brexit, I really do want to vote in the most effective way I can to defeat them in June. And I see a lot of discussion about what exactly is the most effective way to vote anyone-but-Tory.

But the problem for me is that the most obvious alternative to the Conservatives is Labour. And Labour seem to me to be just as bad on disability, welfare and related human rights issues. Literally just as bad; I'm not saying that Labour aren't my perfect ideal party so I can't vote for them, I'm saying that they have consistently voted with the Tory government to press disabled and other unemployed people into lethal poverty. Labour originally introduced the system of forcing disabled people to undergo repeated abusive tests to prove that they are really disabled, and support "sanctions" in the form of using homelessness and starvation as an extrajudicial punishment for the most minor of bureaucratic errors. Labour voted in favour of the bedroom tax and in favour of the benefits cap. Labour started the process of selling off the NHS by using its assets as collateral for government borrowing and diverting healthcare funding into paying usurious interest rates to the businesses that lent the money. Labour split health from so-called "social" care and essentially removed nearly all funding from the latter.

So, seriously, convince me. I don't care that Labour has the same name as the party that set up the NHS and the welfare state in the 1940s; what have they actually done that is good for disabled people in the past 10-15 years? (I don't really want to go back much further than 15 years because then we get to the party that is massively complict, along with Bush's Republicans in the US, in the deaths of half a million civilians in the Gulf Wars, the party I said I would never vote for again after Blair lied to the electorate to support illegal wars.) In particular, what has Corbyn's opposition voted for that's in any way positive rather than massively detrimental to disabled (and other marginalized) people? I want to be convinced that Labour in power would somehow take a different direction from how they've voted while in opposition, particularly since 2015. But I need to see some evidence, I'm not going to take it on faith that it's a good idea to vote for a party with a terrible track record on issues I care about.

My brothers, who are big Corbyn supporters, say that I only think he's useless because the media is hugely biased against him. And I do agree that much of the news media is biased against Corbyn, which is why I'm asking for the views of Labour supporters. What positive things has Labour done that I've missed because the media didn't report them? I know that every time I care enough about a bill to look up how the vote splits, I see Labour voting with the government.

Things I don't need to be convinced of:
  • The positive value of tactical voting. I'm completely fine with voting for a politician and party I otherwise disagree with in order to achieve a bigger aim, such as, in this case, getting the Tories out. There just doesn't seem to be much point in replacing the Tories with a party who uphold literally the same deadly, dehumanizing policies.
  • Corbyn is basically a nice bloke. I'm sure he's much more pleasant as an individual than Theresa May (not exactly a high bar) and I even admire some of his ideals, such as his consistent anti-war stance. I don't believe he's some kind of Stalinist Jihadist unpatriotic puppy-kicker, and my reluctance to vote Labour is not based on how he's caricatured in the media. I do think he's more focused on Being the Labour Leader than actually doing anything with that position; I'm annoyed with him for messing around with leadership elections when the country was in the middle of a crisis, I'm annoyed with him for refusing to cooperate with any of the other left-of-centre parties. But basically this isn't about Corbyn, it's about whether Labour will actually do anything to reverse the damage the Tories have wreaked to human rights, the NHS and the welfare state.
  • It is worth voting for an imperfect party. I know that the establishment often try to convince left-leaning voters that there is no difference between right and left, because it discourages progressive folk from voting and therefore keeps the nastiest ideologues in power. I am absolutely fine with voting for a party I have major disagreements with (after all, I'd never vote at all otherwise!) This isn't about purity politics, it isn't about looking for perfection. I'm seeking evidence that Labour is better than Conservative at all, in any way, not insisting that they must be perfect before I can contemplate sullying myself to vote for them.
To be more specific about my position, for people who are geeky about these things: I'm resident in two places, so I can vote Labour in a safe Labour seat, which will do nothing very much except increase the national vote share for Labour. The main opposition here are UKIP and obviously I'm voting against them. Or, I can vote in Cambridge Central, a Lib/Lab marginal. If I vote Labour there, I'm probably contributing as much as a single voter can to Labour success in the coming election. I'd be somewhat willing to do that if I thought it would actually improve things.

The third alternative is voting Lib Dem, which is attractive to me in that I generally like Lib Dem policies at least on paper, and I would like to vote for the only sensible English anti-Brexit party. The obvious downside to that is increasing the chance of a Conservative minority government with the Lib Dems in coalition. I definitely believe people like [personal profile] miss_s_b who argue that the Lib Dems will insist on concessions to form a coalition government; of course they will, but the Tories will agree to anything to be able to form a government and then renege on anything they agree to. This means that there is some chance that a Lib Dem vote will indirectly support, rather than opposing, the Conservatives. So if you can convince me that the same is not true of Labour, I really want to be able to make things better by voting for them.

Other issues apart from disability: I think the current Labour party has somewhat better under 18 education policy than the mares' nest of Academies and Grammar Schools and free market bullshit coming from the Conservatives (their Higher Ed policy is shit, but there are bigger things at stake than tuition fees right now). I think their economic policy is the usual incoherent tax-the-rich thing, but the Conservatives' economic policy at the moment is basically non-existent, so this isn't a big downside for me. Another issue causing me to lean Lib Dem is that they're a lot more international and pro-immigrant; Labour campaigned on a xenophobic platform in the last election, but I am reasonably prepared to accept that Corbyn's party is slightly less awful in this direction. Foreign policy: Corbyn is consistently and committedly anti-war, so if I were more convinced he could actually bring the rest of his party along with him this would be a big point in Labour's favour. And yeah, the Labour party are authoritarian and pro government spying and making everybody present their papers all the time, but the Conservative party have completely abandoned the traditionally right wing ground of minimizing state interference in people's private lives, so I could live with that if it really meant fewer disabled people being killed.

I will of course be researching all this stuff for myself, but I really want to be convinced, which is why I'm asking people who are pro Labour to guide me in where I should be looking. And to take the opportunity to counter the media bias against Corbyn. I do kind of like that he doesn't toady to Murdoch, but being willing to insult the Daily Mail isn't enough if he then goes and votes for terrible policies.

(no subject)

Date: 2017-04-21 11:33 am (UTC)
cjwatson: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cjwatson
Can you point to an explanation of how the rules around the "triple lock" on coalitions have changed? I found the current Article 22 of the constitution, and I spent some time the other night trying to work it out or find a changelog of the constitution or something, and all I could dig up were Lib Dem Voice posts debating some of the details of the changes as they were in progress, which was all very well but very very difficult to decipher afterwards. I think what I really want is just a list of the constitutional amendments that passed, but couldn't find it.

(FAOD I'm an LD member and very low-level activist; not trying to snooker you in some kind of rhetorical game here, it just seemed like the sort of thing that the LDs are generally good at publishing and so I was surprised not to be able to dig it up.)

(no subject)

Date: 2017-04-21 11:45 am (UTC)
miss_s_b: (Default)
From: [personal profile] miss_s_b
"the sort of thing that the LDs are generally good at publishing"

*hollow laughter*

On the one hand. yes, we publish EVERYTHING.
On the other hand, publishing it in tagged and searchable format has, in the past, been absolute anathema. The bits you are looking for will be buried in a conference daily from some conference in 2011, 2012, or 2013.
They're all PUBLISHED and available on the website, but actually finding the content means sitting and reading each one individually, and I haven't got time for that today, sorry.

(no subject)

Date: 2017-04-21 11:46 am (UTC)
miss_s_b: (Default)
From: [personal profile] miss_s_b
I should add that making all policy and constitutional documents searchable and much more user friendly is a WIP at head office, which I have been banging on at them about for ages (and I know Sal Brinton has as well), but obvs that is going to take a back seat for the next few weeks as it will be all hands to the election pump.

(no subject)

Date: 2017-04-21 03:05 pm (UTC)
cjwatson: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cjwatson
Fair enough, I'll have a dig. Thanks for the pointer!

(no subject)

Date: 2017-04-21 07:01 pm (UTC)
cjwatson: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cjwatson

OK. Sources:

As I read it, the previous rules were that "any substantial proposal which could affect the Party’s independence of political action" required:

  1. A 75% (semble of the total number eligible to vote, not just of those voting) majority approval by both the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons and the Federal Executive; or
  2. Failing a), a two-thirds majority approval by those present and voting at a Special Federal Conference; or
  3. Failing a) and b), a simple majority by those voting in a Membership Ballot.

... while the current rules are that if the Commons Party (after negotiation and consultation) decides to support a coalition government, then it shall seek the approval of a special conference and the motion requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting at conference to pass.

If I'm reading that right then it is indeed a significant tightening: a two-thirds majority of conference is now absolutely required, whereas previously the Commons Party and Federal Executive could act alone if they had a 75% majority among themselves. Do let me know if I've egregiously misread anything, though.

(no subject)

Date: 2017-04-21 07:05 pm (UTC)
cjwatson: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cjwatson
Also, sorry [personal profile] liv, I realise this is kind of not much to do with your original request for Labour supporters to persuade you, but it was a convenient hook! (I'm interested in answers to that request too.)

(no subject)

Date: 2017-04-21 07:13 pm (UTC)
miss_s_b: (Default)
From: [personal profile] miss_s_b
No, that sounds dead on to me.

As I recall it, there were a tiny number of noes kart time, but the nature of lib dems is that we went away and thought "hang on, what if it HAD been close?"

That's the kind of sods we are.

(no subject)

Date: 2017-04-21 09:55 pm (UTC)
cjwatson: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cjwatson
Thanks for the check. I've reposted this with a bit of editing on my own journal, so that I can point people at it without inflicting any resulting comments on [personal profile] liv!


Miscellaneous. Eclectic. Random. Perhaps markedly literate, or at least suffering from the compulsion to read any text that presents itself, including cereal boxes.

Page Summary

Top topics

April 2017

2345 678
161718 19 202122

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Subscription Filters