Political

[liv]

So I have received my ballot for postal voting. I'm going to put in the first post tomorrow morning, so you have approximately 20 hours to convince me to vote for an outcome that you favour, if you like that kind of thing.

I'm registered at two addresses. Yes, this is entirely legitimate, and no, I'm not going to commit electoral fraud by voting twice. I live and pay council tax and use local services in two different places, one where I work and one where my home is.

Constituency A is where I work. It's mostly a deprived, ex-industrial town in the west Midlands, and a safe Labour seat. Constituency B is my home, a thriving university town in the south-east, within commuting distance of London, and with a politically engaged population who tend to the left of the national consensus. It's a Lib/Lab marginal, a heavily targeted constituency and somewhere where it's not implausible a third party might turn up a surprise. I'm anonymizing slightly, not because you can't figure out from reading my journal which constituencies I'm talking about, but because I would like to gather some views without getting stuck in people's preconceptions.

The two options I'm considering most seriously are: 1] Vote Green in constituency A, the Labour safe seat. Or 2] Vote for the incumbent Lib Dem MP in Constituency B.

Option 1 is pretty unlikely to change the eventual make-up of parliament, but it might contribute to the smaller and left of centre parties being taken more seriously in future. It does something to reflect my disillusionment with the two main, and increasingly indistinguishable parties. Given that Option 1 rules out Option 2, it's indirectly casting a vote against the Liberal Democrats. Also, there is a substantial Green presence in the (Labour led, but fairly mixed) local council in A-land, so voting Green in the local elections at least might in fact make it more likely for the Greens to accomplish their goals.

I'm leaning towards Option 2, on the grounds that the incumbent is a really good MP, both locally and in Westminster. He's even voted against the Coalition on several issues that I care about, but not the one that is most important to me, which is disability rights.

In many ways I'm a natural LD voter anyway, on a pure vote-for-policies basis they are the most closely aligned with my ideas. Also I have many friends who are active in the party and at a grass roots level I think they're pretty good. But they have a horrible track record when it comes to actually implementing their policies; they formed a coalition with Scottish Labour when I voted for them in the 2000s specifically against Labour, and they formed a coalition with the Westminster Conservatives after the last election and this coalition abandoned the pre-election promises of both parties. So I feel like voting Lib Dem means essentially saying, either of the mainstream parties is fine by me, whereas in reality I have quite strong reasons to dislike both Labour and Conservatives.

I disagree with some of the Green party's policies; they're economically way to the left of me, for a start. But there's nothing in their manifesto that horrifies me the way I'm horrified by the Conservatives' attacks on disabled people (which the Lib Dems have never effectively opposed, even my "good" local MP in constituency B, and have often actively supported), and Labour's stated intention of making our already horrific immigration system even worse. I am not prepared to vote for more killing of disabled people or more killing of migrants, refugees and foreigners. The problem is that I don't see much way to vote against these things, in the current system; I only wish I had the luxury of voting based on things like economic policy or science funding, let alone little things like copyright terms.

I find myself very strongly in agreement with nanila's wishlist. I mean, unlike her I am not myself an immigrant and I am white, and I want to be very careful of being the sort of annoying white liberal who claims to be targeted by xenophobic policies because their grandfather immigrated from Canada or something. But equally I am Jewish, and yes my recent ancestors were immigrants, economic migrants who primarily came here looking for opportunities for a better life, which only incidentally included a slightly lower chance of anti-semitic violence, they were in no way refugees. I find it impossible to believe that a political consensus towards denying rights to Muslims and Eastern Europeans (many of whom are, you know, at least as white as I am), or even removing them from the country or encouraging racist violence against them, is somehow going to continue to be safe for Jews. And quite apart from the fact that I have loved friends and relatives who are disabled, it's pretty clear to me from history that once you start thinking of PWD as just a drain on the economy and not as people, you make space for dehumanizing other out groups too.

I mean, it's not just disablism and xenophobia, this so-called austerity (which really isn't) system is leading to plenty of white, British, able-bodied people being deliberately driven into extreme poverty, starvation and homelessness. The Lib Dems have been somewhat effective in making things better for poor but stable working class people, with things like the raised income tax threshold, free school meals etc. Labour also have some stated policies that might be good for this demographic. I think the unlikely event of Lib Dems or Greens holding substantial power in the next parliament would make things somewhat better for middle class people like me and somewhat slow down concentration of wealth in the hands of the ultra-rich, and maybe I should vote for that. But there's no party I can see who are actually going to end this system of punishing people who can't earn enough to live on through their own labour; Labour have overtly distanced themselves from people who receive benefits, which really negates any motivation I might have had to vote Labour (or refrain from voting against Labour) as a better alternative to the Tories.

I want to vote for a party that will actually help disabled and long-term sick people, people who live in areas with chronic job shortages at their skill level, children, retired people, people who use their labour for caring for children, disabled and elderly family members rather than for companies who pay them a wage, people newly arrived in the country who don't yet speak English well or have contacts to help get jobs and support. People who are marginal and at risk of severe poverty, not just ruddy "working families," those who have a low but dependable income and a strong social network. That's the point of having a state after all, if we can't even manage that basic minimum of food, shelter and medical care for everybody, why should the government take a big chunk of my money in tax and interfere with how I live my life?

Oh, and the NHS. Is there any party at all that's (realistically) going to reverse the current asset-stripping of the NHS and head even vaguely in a positive direction of preserving a nation-wide, publicly and sensibly funded health service?

So, given that's how I feel, and that's my particular voting situation, how should I vote? I should note that the least effective kind of arguments for me are along the lines of how "people like us" have always voted Lib Dem or have always hated the ebil Tories. If I have a political identity at all, it's as a swing voter, I see myself as someone who considers the issues and the current situation and doesn't just pick the team they've always picked.

I am increasingly feeling like things have got bad enough that I need to get politically active beyond just voting, which I am reluctant to do because I'm very busy and I don't like politics. It's starting to feel like a moral obligation to do something more direct against attacks on disabled people and immigrants, though. That should probably be another post, because it's way complicated; let's start with casting my vote in the most useful way available to me and see what happens after next week.

My predicted outcome for the election: Labour plurality, no party achieves a majority, everything ends up in chaos even worse than in 2010 because we basically suck at coalition-based governments. I predict that everybody will step down from their ridiculous blustering about how they're going to win the election outright and refuse to consider any coalitions with anybody, because any chance at (shared) power is always going to be too strong a motivation to stick to that nonsense. Which makes it even harder to know how to vote because it's really hard to tell what compromises the small parties will make if my prediction is true. Or how the regional nats will play into this; I have talked about England cos I'm voting in England, but I think Plaid Cymru and the SNP will likely be important in the mess that I predict to ensue once votes are counted. I only hope that whatever emerges out of this doesn't end up giving power to UKIP or other extremists.

As I'm thinking along these lines, I do recommend smhwpf's very interesting analysis of the current hung parliament situation in Sweden, including discussion of where the UK is similar and different.

Comments

[davidgillon]

Really good analysis. And if it's the sitting Lib-Dem I think it is, then I'd rate him best of a bad bunch, but I still wouldn't vote for him.

My analysis:
UKIP - this way lies extremism and horror.
Tories - this way lies slightly less extremism (or better disguised extremism?), but a horrific stepping up of the austerity agenda, no matter the cost in disabled lives.
Labour - significantly to the right and significantly more authoritarian than I am (I do like the Political Compass's left-right/authoritarian-libertarian two axis analysis of parties), and I don't think their disability policies do nearly enough to correct the damage they and the Tories have caused via ESA etc. I'm dismayed by their shift to the right on immigration, but hope that will be watered down in power.
Lib-Dem. I know a lot of people here are Lib-Dem supporters, and that there is a distinct step change between attitudes in the grass-roots members and the actions of the parliamentary party, but that can't get me past the fact I despise them for allowing everything the Tories have done, and that I despise them even more for the 'it wasn't us, it was the Tories, that's the cost of Coalition' argument. If you don't have the moral courage to accept responsibility for the things you enable, and every single act of the Coalition was enabled by the Lib-Dems allowing it to form, then how can I believe you would have the moral courage to act wisely in any other situation?
Greens: I'd love to be able to vote Green, as a symbol of my discontent with Labour's shift to the right/authoritarianism, but when I look at their defence and foreign policies I see policies I consider actively dangerous to the country. They're dangerous not in the way of dragging us into extremism, as is the case with UKIP, but in dragging us into a situation where our national security is essentially dependent on every other nation state being similarly good willed, and with Russia lurching back into extreme nationalism, that isn't a place we can safely go (ditto in a different way with ISIS - which is not to say I'm comfortable with the current surveillance state response). I genuinely think that whoever wrote the Green's defence policy didn't have even a basic understanding of our vulnerabilities as an island nation.

So I'll be voting Labour, on the grounds they'll do least damage, and my argument for you would be that even one extra Labour MP might keep the Tories out of power, whereas one extra Lib-Dem, even one we know is one of the best of the bunch, probably can't be guaranteed to have the same effect.

[liv]

Thanks, davidgillon; I was a bit surprised at how pro-Labour you sounded in a previous discussion but this comment seems much more balanced and I find it informative and helpful. I do agree that even the current, right-shifted Labour would probably be less awful on disability and welfare than the Conservatives. They've said they're not the party of people on benefits, and it's true that not all disabled people receive benefit payments but as a group disabled people are likely to be most severely affected by further benefit cuts and a government that is willing to abandon if not actively punish that demographic. Likewise they already did a lot of harm to the NHS in the previous government and have made very weak commitments on fixing the damage the Tories have compounded; again, there are plenty of people who are basically abled and need the NHS to treat acute illnesses and accidents, but destroying the NHS has and will continue to have the worst effects on disabled people.

So I think their record and commitments on issues related to disability are nowhere good enough to outweigh the truly horrifying anti-immigration platform. I mean, I wouldn't vote for UKIP because they've promised to repeal the Bedroom Tax, which is about the most useful pro-disability policy I've seen from any party, because I'm not willing to buy disability rights at the expense of more migrant deaths. Labour's immigration policy will kill people, so I could only contemplate voting for them if I were absolutely certain that they're going to stop killing disabled people and even then, it's hardly an attractive choice.

Plus our Labour PPC in constituency B thinks Nazi jokes are funny, which doesn't exactly endear him to this Jewish voter. The incumbent in constituency A is a reasonable Labour MP as they go, but voting Labour in a Labour safe seat will do nothing to challenge the Tories.

[davidgillon]

I can't really argue with any of that, my political instincts are pretty thoroughly traditional Labour, so we'll come at things from slightly different angles, but as I say, my assessment this time is based on which party I think will do least damage, and I think Labour are likely to be marginally better on disability and NHS, while no worse than the Tories on immigration. Equally I think any coalition is liable to make a Labour-led government better, while a Tory-led government worse.

our Labour PPC in constituency B thinks Nazi jokes are funny, which doesn't exactly endear him to this Jewish voter

*headdesk* or this disabled one. And there was that slightly unfortunate suggestion from the Tory candidate if I have the constituency right.

[liv]

Yes, that makes sense, in a Lab/Con marginal I'd vote Labour for exactly that reason, that they're marginally better on health and welfare and everybody is so racist that they don't stand out as being more racist :-( But I prefer to vote against Labour in a seat so safe I'm pretty confident my preference won't affect Parliament.

As for the B-ville situation, well. Even dyed in the wool Tories are flocking to the LibDem incumbent because the national party have selected an insultingly useless PPC as they have little expectation of winning the seat. Not to mention that she's exactly the person you're thinking of who proposed making people with mental illnesses and neurodivergence wear identifying badges. And the Green PPC is the guy who thinks transphobic comments will help him win the feminist vote. So there's more than enough headdesk to go round.

My option 1, voting Green in the safe Labour seat in A, would I think support Labour (as far as any single vote can) as it makes it more likely that Labour will end up with MPs in both A and B. But equally, option 2, voting for a really good incumbent MP, and one who has in fact voted against the coalition more often than almost any other LibDem, against a bunch of headdesky candidates standing for the other parties, seems like it's making more of a difference.

Can you expand on your idea that any coalition is liable to make a Labour-led government better, while a Tory-led government worse? Because if what I want is a Labour-led coalition that's less awful than Labour, maybe what I should do is vote for the minority parties that are likely to form sensible coalitions with Labour. And of the options available in England, I think Greens are probably the likeliest.

[davidgillon]

Can you expand on your idea that "any coalition is liable to make a Labour-led government better, while a Tory-led government worse"?

Arrgh, my original reply seems to have gone astray.

Likely Tory Coalition partners: UKIP, DUP, Lib-Dems. UKIP and DUP are both openly bigoted against various other groups, so would clearly drag a Tory government further into the mire. Meanwhile we've actually seen how much influence a Lib Dem coalition has (little to none), and their likely loss of seats as a result will reduce that further.

Likely Labour Coalition partners: SNP, PC, Greens, Lib Dems. SNP and PC are both to some degree closer to traditional Labour sentiments, so likely to drag 'new' Labour back towards its roots. The Greens have areas of policy I disagree with, but they're in areas they're unlikely to have substantial influence (defence and foreign policy), whereas areas they might influence Labour, such as support for renewables, are areas where I'm more comfortable with their position. And similarly for the Lib Dems.

[liv]

Ah, right, with you. I completely agree with this analysis, it's a matter of looking at who the likely coalition partners are. Though I can imagine a horrible monster of a Lab-UKIP alliance if the numbers work out that way; it's just possible that Labour are too Europhile for it to work even if they are prepared to support UKIP's xenophobia.

[alextfish.livejournal.com]

Obviously reading this thread after the election is very different. And obviously nobody was expecting the eventual result we ended up with. Just wondering whether you still held to "we've actually seen how much influence a Lib Dem coalition has (little to none)" given the new Conservative majority government's plans now they're free from Lib Dem meddling.

[davidgillon]

It's the difference between utterly disastrous and utterly, totally disastrous. if you're at ground zero, as I and many disabled people are, it doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference. I already had zero eligibility for benefits before the election (time-limited contributory ESA), it's difficult to make that worse.

[liv]

I'm interested, though not surprised, to learn that you find the Greens weak on defence. They're a bit random and on the whole negative on science and education too, and I really don't like the idea of an explicitly anti-growth economic platform. But right now I want to vote against killing poor, foreign and disabled people and once we've moved away from the increasing consensus that hatred is a good way to save money, then I can worry about things like defence and research and economics.

[davidgillon]

I'm interested, though not surprised, to learn that you find the Greens weak on defence.

Probably inevitable, given my professional background, and that also means I likely give defence a greater weight than most people. (Ironically it also makes me less likely to vote Tory, as the Conservative record on defence is actually pretty dire and has been since at least the '50s).

[seekingferret]

Vote the rascals in.

[liv]

Heh, nice advice :-)

I think the Greens are more like the rascals in this scenario given that they've never held any real political power in the first place. Shifting the political consensus towards minority parties might be more important than voting in a way that's more likely to affect directly who gets into parliament on this occasion. It would be nice to be able to vote the Greens out in 2020, if they turn out to be rascally in Parliament, rather than being stuck with endless rotations of the same people changing colour from red to blue once a decade or so.

[seekingferret]

"Vote the rascals in" was author Norman Mailer's campaign slogan when he ran a quixotic campaign for mayor of New York City in the '70s. My grandmother aleha shalom gifted me one of his campaign buttons. It's a joke at once universally funny and very specific: The 'rascals' of incessant campaigns over the prior 50 years to "vote the rascals out" had been the Democratic machine at Tammany Hall, who had been repeatedly voted out and replaced by 'reformist' leaders to little apparent effect.

[liv]

Ooh, really interesting! I knew the phrase but not the historical context for it.

[jack]

*hugs*

the current hung parliament situation in Sweden, including discussion of where the UK is similar and different.

Oh, that's fascinating (and a little positive and also a little depressing).

It reinforces my habit of describing parties by general type (centre-left, extreme right, etc) rather than trying to remember all the acronyms as there are notable similarities between many parties in different countries. Although obviously, only up to a point, there's often parties which combine policies in ways you don't usually get in this country, but can be approximated with a slightly longer description.

I'm boggled by the idea of SNP as a pariah. I've heard that second hand, but it's really creepy to see people and press actually pushing it :( But I sort of assumed that it was in Con's interest to scaremonger, and Lab's and SNP's interest to deny they'd ever work together -- but also that after the election, they WOULD be willing to work together (if not a formal coalition). It's true, if parties actually stick to their pledges not to work with various other parties, no government at all may be possible, but I didn't think it was actually very likely.

[liv]

Yes, I basically agree that all this "we'd never work together" nonsense will evaporate once we actually have an election leading to a hung parliament. And I don't think Unionist bloc and the general English political scene really hate the SNP as much as most politically active Swedes hate the Sweden Democrats. Which is a good thing in both directions, cos the SNP are really not that weird whereas SD are actively racist.

I do think something very odd is going to happen between Labour and SNP; UK-wide, Labour have always relied on a certain amount of seats in Scotland, which is why the party were so emphatically pro Yes in the Scottish referendum. As a result they've hugely alienated the Scottish electorate, so there may in fact be an SNP landslide in Scotland, and then what? SNP alone can't govern because even if they get literally every Scottish seat (as some polls have predicted) that's still a pretty small proportion of the House of Commons. English Labour alone can't govern, not even with the support of Welsh Labour (which seems to be in less dire straits than Scottish Labour, at least). I think the SNP genuinely won't ally with the Conservatives, that bit's probably not just talk; they'd lose all credibility.

What will happen with the smaller English parties, who knows? I think the Lib Dems will fight very hard to be in any possible coalition that looks like it might end up in whatever power is going, and they of all the parties at least have coalition building experience. But then again they might get so few seats it doesn't really matter. Greens seem an unknown quantity to me, they've talked of working with the regional nats but I doubt that even all three parties together will be able to do much without entering into a further coalition. They're probably more natural bedmates for Labour than Con but who knows.

UKIP, who I hope won't get any seats anyway, but if they do, I think they'd probably at least offer to work with whoever gives them the best deal, thus probably pissing off all the voters who might go for them because they're fed up with the Lab/Con centre. But I don't think UKIP really have any principles at all and I really hope they don't end up holding the balance of power, because I dread the consequences of "we'll vote with you in parliament as long as you leave the EU and kick out the foreigners", it's bad enough with Labour and Con courting UKIP voters.

So all this makes me feel I have very little idea how my vote will affect the eventual outcome. I wish all the parties, including the big two, would be damn well honest and actually talk about what coalitions they're willing or not willing to countenance, but that's not what our political system is set up for.

[davidgillon]

*claps*

[marymac]

The DUP will hold more seats than UKIP, unless something very odd happens, and will be the Unionist/conservative bloc kingmakers. This is cold comfort, I know, but at least the political wing of the 17th century don't think letting people die for want of food is a good plan, so there's that at least.

[liv]

That's a very good point. I probably shouldn't have left the Irish parties out of my prediction, but shamefully I don't know enough about them to comment intelligently. Pointing out that the DUP are anti starvation does indeed make me feel a tiny bit more hopeful, though not much.

[marymac]

It's been an interesting ride, watching them find ways to wriggle out of implementing the welfare cuts while keeping in with our lords and masters but not appearing to work with Sinn Fein.

Mostly they're opposed because they are fully aware that we need approximately 300% more investment to even start being able to move people out of benefits, but also they have a healthy fear of their constituents coming round with pitchforks and torches. Something I suspect the English parties could do with more of.

[liv]

That is fascinating, so they're actually willing to take political risks for their anti-starvation platform, I so didn't know that.

And I am starting to think about judging when the time for pitchforks has come, I think we're honestly not far off, though that thinking doesn't at all come naturally to me, I'm much more prone to try working within the system for probably too long before I'm willing to try actual violence.

[marymac]

I've spent the last three years really confused by the lack of it, honestly. When you think how Thatcher had them out on the streets over the poll tax and such, and then this government run roughshod over basically everything on a similar scale and nobody's even been egged.

I am not encouraging rioting, as such, but there's been such a lack of reaction among the general public that it's getting slightly eerie.

ETA: Re: DUP, they are, unfortunately, also racist, sectarian, homophobic, and generally unrepentant bastards, but yes, not starving people is the one point all our parties are agreed upon.

[naath]

It is my understanding that you can vote in *council* elections at both addresses, but only once in general or EU elections.

I would go with 2. But I'm obviously biased, having been trudging around delivering leaflets; not because I think the Lib-Dems have been shining beacons of righteousness for the last 5 years; but because I think that Westminster needs more people with a science-y background.

[liv]

Thank you! Do you have a cite for being able to vote in both places for the council elections? Cos I'd definitely like to do that if it's kosher.

And thank you for being civic and helping with leafleting for everybody's favourite scientist! I would like more scientists in Westminster, especially ones I like personally. It's just that evidence-based policy on things like drugs of abuse and transport and the internet are all lovely things to have, but I don't feel like I can make that stuff a voting priority when there are people dying because they can't afford the electricity to refrigerate their insulin, or killing themselves because a bureaucratic error in yet another episode of the humiliating assessment process means they are erroneously declared fit to work and they lose the support they rely on.

There was a very sweet guy who came to our door canvassing for the LDs and I said I would probably vote for the incumbent but I had some concerns about his voting record on disability issues. And the canvassing guy told me with great enthusiasm about how the Lib Dems plan to implement an evidence-based system for recording all the problems with pavements so they can fix the ones that are the biggest accessibility problems first. And I can't blame the canvasser, he was trying to address my concerns, but it felt like such a symbolic example of my problems with the Lib Dems' priorities.

[naath]

I have been talked into doing the GOOD MORNING leaflets. Ugh. If there is another election is October I might be Cross.

I think you are right about Disability Benefits and how they ought to be a much much higher priority. I'm not very convinced that Labour would do substantially better than the Conservatives at implementing a Benefit system that actually worked (indeed Labour have been distancing themselves from the idea that they are the party "for" people on benefits). The Green policy seems much better, but has next-to-no chance of being implemented, plausibly worth a vote anyway, because the howls of protest might be heard even if the Greens don't get any seats.

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register-to-vote/students says you can vote in both councils as does http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/i-have-two-homes.-can-i-register-to-vote-at-both-addresses which notes that you do need to actually *be resident* in both locations (which you actually are, but many people with second homes are not).

[liv]

Coolness, it does look like I can vote in both local elections, though if I take the language literally it's kind of ambiguous, I think they are eligible to vote in local elections for the two different local councils. However, it is an offence to vote twice in the same type of election is somewhat contradictory. (Though that's a nice singular they in formal language, spotted in the wild!) Thanks for digging those out; I thought I'd done the research but I had got the erroneous impression that I have to pick a constituency and stick to it. And yes, I'm pretty sure I am resident in both places, for any reasonable definition of resident which allows having two addresses at all.

I'm pretty clear I know what I want when it comes to health and welfare and also immigration, and that this is a priority for me, it's just that I have the choice between voting for, and therefore appearing to support, policies which are horrific and dehumanizing, and voting Green whose much better policies won't be implemented. I genuinely don't know which is least harmful; I'm trying to get out of the dilemma by telling myself that the unusually principled Lib Dem incumbent in B may be persuadable to do better on disability than he did in the previous term, but maybe that's just wishful thinking.

[naath]

I think the LD incumbent is likely to be personally persuadable, he's a nice chap, but whether he can be persuaded to *make it a priority* worth giving up on other goals for, or worth rebelling against the party whip for... that's less certain. There's a lot of things the LDs might hold out for in coalition negotiations; in opposition of course there's more space for saying "no" to everything you don't like.

[liv]

Yes, this is the real problem, whether it's a good idea to keep on voting for a good MP who persists in belonging to a party who at national level have no principles. And I can't even blame him for it, I think he's right to calculate that he can do more good in the party picking the things he's willing to rebel for, than as an independent. One advantage of voting Lib Dem is that they've tended to be a lot more use in opposition than either Labour or Conservative. So if my prediction is right and we end up with Labour having the largest minority of seats, and Labour continue their track record of being dicks and refusing to negotiate meaningfully about coalitions, then we get Lib Dems in opposition, possibly with other parties who may be willing to back them on some issues if we end up with a messy hung parliament. And I think I'd probably like the LDs better and in a way they'd have more power in that scenario than when they're in the ruling coalition.

[(Anonymous)]

But actually, a vote for different councils is considered different elections: the election covers the body you are electing to, not the type of body. So, if your two seats are in different councils, as they are, you can vote in both, but if you lived in, day, Queen Edith and Arbury, they're in different Parliamentary constituencies but the same council so you'd only get one council vote. And you only get to view once for parliament because it's the same parliament.

[davidgillon]

And the canvassing guy told me with great enthusiasm about how the Lib Dems plan to implement an evidence-based system for recording all the problems with pavements so they can fix the ones that are the biggest accessibility problems first.

*headdesk* Not exactly whitewashing the real issue, but getting there! Or just really, really clueless.

Unfortunately I'm not sure our local Labour bunch were any better informed on their own disability policies, and the guy canvassing me was head of the Labour Group on Medway Council!

[liv]

I get that people canvassing are just volunteers, I don't necessarily expect them to have all details of their parties' policies at their fingertips. But it is somewhat indicative of the party's priorities because presumably they give people a prepared spiel for addressing the kinds of issues they expect to come up when doorstepping. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to improve the city's accessibility, of course, but it betrays such a wrong-headed attitude underneath.

[hilarita]

I'd be inclined to vote LD in B. Because the candidate is reasonable on many things, and if he's got a clear mandate from his constituency, is reasonably amenable to changing his mind and thus may be persuadable to vote in favour of better policies for people with disabilities.

[liv]

Yes, I'm definitely leaning that way; voting Green would be symbolic at best. And not voting for the reasonable and admired LD candidate won't convey to him that I'm unhappy that he's voted for sanctions and awful "assessments" of disabled people, whereas voting for him and then lobbying him would be much more likely to get my message across.

[silveradept]

That is a dilemma. Being Stateside, I can't meaningfully comment about the intricacies of the parties in question, as there's no crosswalk at all between our conservative and rabidly conservative parties and the main parties there.

I'm generally in favor of putting a liberal a person in a riding as can be achieved in places where you might be able to achieve that, and voting for as liberal a person as possible in ridings that are safely going elsewhere, so I'm guessing Lib Dem in B is the way to go, especially if you feel you could push them properly leftward.

[liv]

Thank you for offering some thoughts; I didn't expect this post to be extremely useful for overseas friends, so I appreciate that you had something to say. I think my vote for the incumbent in B should produce more overall "liberalness", if that's a thing, in this case. But I'm not sure; on the one hand, the incumbent's party are supposedly liberal but kind of useless in practice, and on the other voting for the Greens (who are a really liberal party in many respects, even by UK standards where the general consensus lies to the left of that in the US) might lead to more overall "liberalness" in the longer term even if not at this particular election. Cos even if constituency A doesn't end up with a liberal MP (representative, I guess?) more votes for small leftwing parties might help to improve the options available.

There's also the tactical question. Our main parties are sort of, eh, conservative and centre-right, I suppose. And if a centre-right party in power is definitely better than a decidedly conservative party in power, I should vote to maximize that outcome, and not worry about what happens in my specific areas.

[silveradept]

We get a small overview of the creation of Parliament, coalition government, and the like in our required schooling, as Canada is still a Commonwealth country and our historical narrative basically starts with "rar, evil British Empire" and transforms it into "the UK is one of our besties" around the end of World War II, when it became more important to fight Nazis and Commies instead of thumbing our noses at old colonial powers. Which is a long way of saying MP is fine. (The Representative is the closest analogue, though)

I'm also assuming there aren't benefits to voting Green like "if we get 5%, then we automatically qualify for future ballots", because if there were (or some form of proportional seat distribution), then it might be with voting Green anyway. But I think it's all first past the post, anyway.

So yes, tactical voting is always tricky. I think it would be better to have a system that allows people to both vote what they want and then ensure their tactical decisions are also recorded, but there's a lot of money invested in making sure people can't actually vote how they want.

[jack]

I didn't expect this post to be extremely useful for overseas friends

I appreciate it may not make much sense if you don't already know the background, and many people may be sick of anglo-centricity, but FWIW, one of the things I love about friends in different countries is learning how the political system is the same and different.