Voting intentions

[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 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.

Comments

[miss_s_b]

I would say this:

If you're in Cambridge, vote for Julian Huppert. Don't vote for a party, vote for someone who has some science literacy that is sorely missing and sorely needed in parliament. And yes, he IS one of mine. But the choice between an MP like that and some Labour lobby fodder? That's not a choice.

As for propping up the tories (or however you want to phrase coalition) at least we did and would ask for a coalition agreement and attempt to get them to stick to it; Labour are just voting with them anyway with no attempt at getting concessions. Any coalition, whoever it's with, and Labour are just as (un)likely as the tories, has to be agreed by a two thirds majority at a special conference, too. And after last time, we're going to be a LOT more cautious. I honestly wouldn't guarantee that "no brexit, STV for all elections, our leader will resign, and you can put libby birds on all government literature" would be enough to get past conference.

[liv]

Thank you! My natural inclination is to vote Lib Dem, for lots and lots of reasons, so in some sense you're talking me into the position I already hold, rather than convincing me to change my mind.

I really like Huppert personally – we were friendly acquaintances growing up, and before he was a politician at all he helped me get a leg-up into my own research career. As an MP, I admired his pro-science, pro-privacy stance, and he was generally very helpful as an actual constituency MP. However he has a pretty poor track record on disability issues, which are key for me.

If the Labour incumbent stands again, which I'm assuming he will, well, he's not just lobby fodder; he is seriously pro-Europe and has broken the party whip to try to minimize the damage of Brexit. That's really quite a big plus for me as a voter, to the extent that I'm willing to overlook some of the other issues where I disagree with Zeichner.

On the level of, who do I want to be my MP, I prefer Huppert. But I think there might be political mileage in voting for a passionately pro-Europe Labour candidate, because I can't imagine a realistic scenario where Labour aren't either the governing or the opposition party. Therefore in some sense, a pro-Europe voice within Labour may give a better shot at overturning or at least mitigating Brexit, than a Lib Dem MP who will support Europe but as part of a much much smaller party.

Regarding coalitions, I do absolutely believe that the membership of the Lib Dems are committed to making serious demands of any coalition partner and may even be willing to walk away from a coalition if they don't get their concessions. But as a party the Lib Dems will fold in order to be closer to power; this is not just based on 2010 but because in the early 2000s I voted Lib Dem in Scotland and was disappointed when they went into coalition with Scottish Labour and just backed whatever Labour wanted. My expectations of another Lib-Con coalition are low because I don't trust the Tories to keep any promises, rather than because I don't trust the Lib Dems to want to promote liberal values and policies. And May's near-fascist, anti human rights Tories are IMO much more dangerous than Cameron's party were in 2010.

My impression agrees with yours, that Labour will just vote with the government, even when they're supposed to be in opposition. If that assumption holds true, a Lib Dem vote is much more sensible for me. But many many of my friends believe that Labour are automatically better on welfare issues than the Conservatives, rather than identical. And it's such a high priority for me to break the current Conservative stranglehold on power, that voting for a party with a chance of getting half the seats is a major consideration. Yes, I know, FPTP sucks, but that's the system I'm voting in right now. This is why I'm trying to test my assumption about the direction a putative Labour government would take, because if they would actually improve things, that's worth voting for even if in general I vastly prefer your party.

[miss_s_b]

I don't know about Scotland, but federally we literally can't go into coalition without the blessing of 2/3 of the membership at special conference.

I was at the last special conference. I voted for coalition with the tories. I'd be a LOT more cagey this time.

I do hope you get some answers from Labour ppl though :)

[liv]

Has the mechanism for how the Lib Dems decide about coalitions actually changed since 2010, or is it just that the mood of the party membership has changed and pepole are more cagey?

[miss_s_b]

Both

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[cjwatson]

Fair enough, I'll have a dig. Thanks for the pointer!

[cjwatson]

OK. Sources:

• reports to spring 2012 conference, pp. 24-30
• report from spring 2012 conference, p. 22
• current federal constitution

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.

[cjwatson]

Also, sorry 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.)

[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.

[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 liv!

[lovingboth]

I would be shocked if any coalition talks that failed to deliver 'second referendum on the Brexit deal' wasn't completely rejected by all levels of the party.

Because of that, if the Tories don't get an overall majority - I can dream - my money is very definitely on another election within a few months.

[miss_s_b]

I'd cautiously agree with that bet, with the caveat that whichever way Cambridge eventually goes (pleasebeJulianpleasebeJulianpleasebeJulian) I expect the tories to end up with a three figure majority unless something really weird happens.

All the UKIP voters are going home to Mother Theresa, and Labour are actively putting off the people they need to swing Lab/Con marginal seats.

[liv]

Yeah, I think there's very little I can do as a voter to prevent an increase in the Tory majority, which is of course exactly why May called the election at this point. I only wish Corbyn had had the guts to oppose it and invoked the Fixed Term Parliaments act *sigh*. In that scenario, I think one more Lib Dem MP who will actually oppose the Tory government is more use than a Labour MP who will be whipped by Corbyn to vote with the government.

Unless Labour supporters can convince me that Corbyn won't actually be that spineless, in which case, well, voting for the bigger opposition party may be more use than voting for a tiny party.

[miss_s_b]

I look forward with interest to this convincing. It would take a lot to convince me.

[deborah_c]

I'm curious (sorry, Liv, resurrecting this six weeks on...) as to how convinced you are at this juncture?

Thank you for your contributions here; they've been really helpful

[miss_s_b]

I am still convinced we'll get a 3 figure tory majority. I think the poll noise around Labour is just noise.

I also think that for most purposes I care about, and especially brexit, Labour are just as bad as the tories. I've seen nothing to convince me they'd be significantly better on helping the disabled, or LGBT stuff, or mental health. In my experience of labour government, both locally and nationally, they are ever so slightly less evil than the tories, but only slightly; they just wring their hands a lot more about how they din't WANT to be evil, but they HAD to.

Which, yeah, I know, we did in the coalition as well...

My current prediction for Lib Dems is 12, with error bars of it might be awful and we might just have one (Tim) or it might be OK and we might get 20-odd. And the country is screwed either way.

Sorry, v depressed at the moment.

[deborah_c]

Thank you. I'm sorry about the depression; I'm actually not depressed about it, just absolutely terrified :-(

[miss_s_b]

Oh, I've had depression on and off for years; it's exacerbated by situations like this, though.

(in my home seat we're almost certainly going to see it retained by a useless waste of oxygen of a tory who beats his own kids up, so... )

[liv]

I remain totally unconvinced that the current Labour party will form an effective opposition. Because they refuse to work with the regional nationalists or the Greens, because they expel party members for so much as mentioning tactical voting or alliances; I'm realy shocked by what happened when some Labour people tried to support the National Health Action party in Jeremy Hunt's constituency. And because if Labour lose this election, which seems highly likely, there will be another attempt to push Corbyn out and they'll spend the next couple of years continuing to squabble over who should be party leader, and not actually doing anything about Brexit, human rights, the NHS, welfare etc.

I am more convinced than I was at the beginning of the election that if by some miracle Labour actually got in, they would be meaningfully less evil than the Tories. They would still do a lot of very evil things, but there are some genuninely pro-human policies in their manifesto. My disabled activist pal davidgillon has quite a positive assessment of Labour's stance on disability, for example.

Obviously there is no realistic chance we're going to get a Lib Dem government on Friday! I still think that in the unfortunately likely event of a comfortable Tory majority, Lib Dems will be more use than Labour in opposition. But if we get a hung parliament, May will be kicked out, and Corbyn might, just possibly might, pull his finger out and actually do something to build on the momentum (NPI) he's picked up during this election campaign.

[liv]

I absolutely think you're right about what the party want, but I think the Tories will promise the second referendum and then screw them over once they have a coalition. They'll either keep promising jam tomorrow and never actually hold the referendum until it's too late and we're out of Europe by default with no deal, or they'll hold the referendum at like three days' notice and make it as inconvenient as possible for anyone to vote. Look what happened when the LDs sacrificed all their principles in order to get a referendum on voting reform: it'll be the same story all over again.

[miss_s_b]

I don't think we (or at least 2/3 of us) are stupid enough to fall for "oh sure, we'll absolutely do that" again, especially after what happened with electoral reform and lords reform last time. There will need to be S.M.A.R.T. here if there is to be any chance of coalition, and I find the prospect of either Lab or Tories offering something they couldn;t weasel out of so vanishingly small that I'm willing to say that even though I won;t rule out a coalition (because we can all dream) I don't expect it to be remotely possible.

[lovingboth]

That's a lesson that's been learned. It'd need something legally binding, including an Act of Parliament. (And no more referendums on voting reform, straight to change.)

But I don't see May agreeing or being able to deliver her party if she did.

[theandrewhickey]

What pretty much *every* Lib Dem I know has said, independently and without prompting, is that the only circumstances in which they'd vote for coalition are if the *very first bill to go before the Commons* was the "repeal Brexit and introduce STV as the electoral system without a referendum" bill, and it was a confidence motion. I've heard that independently from at least a dozen people...

[lovingboth]

If there were a reliable poll in Cambridge, in your position, I'd wait for that. Has Ashcroft done any?

If Huppert is in any danger not winning, I'd vote for him there. If he's going to win anyway, vote in Staffs.

[liv]

Some of my friends are saying, wait for the result of the May (month) local and mayoral elections and use that as a proxy to predict how Cambridge will swing. Which seems like not a stupid plan since the local elections will obviously happen before the General anyway.

I think there's a serious danger of Huppert not winning Cambridge, because for one thing it's always been marginal, for another thing he stood in 2015 and lost, in spite of having been a very popular MP from 2010 to 2015, for a third thing Cambridge really hates the Lib Dems over the tuition fees issue. (In my opinion voting Labour, who introduced tuition fees, over Lib Dems who merely entered a coalition that continued tuition fees, does not really make sense, but that seems to be how a lot of the electorate feel.)