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

Some (perhaps biased) thoughts

[(Anonymous)]

Hi - Julian here. I was pointed by miss_s_b to your post. I'm not sure I can offer to be a pro Labour person as you ask for, but I do hope you'll vote for me, as per your inclination! Happy to talk directly sometime if that's useful.

I'm surprised about your comment on disability. I did a lot of things on this. Just to pick up a few examples, I led the campaign against cuts to the disabled students' allowance, worked with Papworth Trust and Guide Dogs for the blind, and arranged to go round central Cambridge in a wheelchair, and then worked nationally to address some of the problems I became aware of. There are lots more examples I can give!

Best wishes,

Julian

Re: Some (perhaps biased) thoughts

[liv]

Well, hi, and thanks for dropping by. I certainly am very persuadable to vote for you in June, and I do admire your work with disability charities. My issue is not that you're directly, personally mean to disabled people. Rather, that in the coalition government, you, along with your Lib Dem colleagues, voted in favour of all the Tory cuts which so disproportionately and dramatically affected disabled people that the UN found the government to be in breach of human rights.

I understand that we plebs are not allowed to know the details of coalition negotiations in 2010, but what it looked like from the outside is that the Lib Dems bargained away any softening of the Tory austerity policy in exchange for a voting reform referendum. And don't get me wrong, I think voting reform is a worthwhile cause, but that failed referendum was arranged at a very very high cost.

While you were petting adorable guide dogs, while your local party volunteers were enthusing about an evidence-based policy for the optimal placement of kerb cuts in Cambridge city, disabled people were losing their adapted homes because of the bedroom tax, were starving to death when their income was suddenly removed due to making a mistake in an 80-page form or because some medically unqualified person with a checklist decided that someone who can walk a few steps on a good day is definitely "fit for work".

By the way, there is increasing evidence (I don't have studies to hand) that disability simulations, such as going round in a wheelchair, do very little to improve empathy for disabled people. The medical school where I work have stopped getting students to do this, precisely because the evidence base shows that it's ineffective.

Re: Some (perhaps biased) thoughts

[theandrewhickey]

"what it looked like from the outside is that the Lib Dems bargained away any softening of the Tory austerity policy in exchange for a voting reform referendum"

Unfortunately, that's not strictly true -- *all three* major parties went into the 2010 election on a programme of austerity (Alistair Darling said it would require worse cuts than Thatcher). That programme seems both economically illiterate and absolutely evil to me, but it was the absolute consensus among all three parties at the time.

There's a post here, from before the 2012 slowdown of cuts, so overestimating the level of cuts made, which summarises what the position was http://splithorizons.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/whos-getting-their-way-on-spending-cuts.html . I remember checking the details at the time and it was correct. According to that, the Tories went into the 2010 election calling for cuts of £96bn, the Lib Dems £80bn, and Labour £82bn, with the actual cuts being £81bn.

So while some of the cuts made were genuinely evil, I do think that the evidence shows that the Lib Dems restrained the Tories significantly on that, and that Labour would have been no better and quite possibly worse.

Re: Some (perhaps biased) thoughts

[(Anonymous)]

Hi Liv - sorry for the long delay in replying; please do email me or ring if you want a faster response! I'm not a DW regular ...

We did stop an awful lot of the cuts the Tories wanted to do - although I do wish we'd achieved more. On the bedroom tax, I understand the anger. I accepted it, on a promise from IDS that no one would pay anything unless they'd been offered a reasonable alternative. I even made him say that in the HoC chamber. There is a real issue of overcrowding, and it is hard to justify a single person being supported by the state in a 3-bedroom house, when a family of 4 are crammed into a 1-bedroom flat. That is what I was assured would be changed.

When it became clear that IDS was reneging on his promise, I and colleagues introduced the Affordable Homes Bill, which specifically fixed this and a few other issues (see https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0013/cbill_2014-20150013_en_2.htm#l1g2). I voted for it, but the Tories killed it off later. It was what we'd been promised would happen initially.

As for the assessments, I fought hard to get these changed. We did get ATOS removed, but that didn't really fix the problems. I went with one constituent to join them for their assessment - it was a very interesting experience (Not least in that because they didn't have a wheel-chair accessible office available, they couldn't go through with the appointment!). I raised these issues many times - see e.g.

http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/en/article/2012/631043/mp-worried-over-work-assessments-for-people-with-mental-health-issues
http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/huppert-raises-concerns-over-fit-for-work-assessments/
http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/huppert_pushes_government_to_safeguard_esa_for_disabled_workers

Lastly, I'm intrigued by the evidence on disability simulations. Anecdotally, I certainly found it extremely effective. I also know that there's a lot of work in it in product design, where I believe there is a good evidence base, although I've never looked into it. I'd be interested in the evidence you cite.

Evidence base against disability simulation:

[liv]

Disability simulation: Here's a meta-analysis from ten years ago saying that it helps a little bit when children do it, but has little measurable effect on adults:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255552846_Meta-Analysis_of_Disability_Simulation_Research

Here's a more recent review article, specifically regarding simulation of blindness rather than mobility impairment, but with some really good discussions of why there are significant problems with disability simulation in general:
https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/jbir/jbir15/jbir050201.html

This recent and comprehensive study of the problems with simulation is paywalled:
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2017-11252-001/
so I'm linking to the press release:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-04/hc-nrs041117.php

I can imagine simulation being helpful as applied to very focused questions in product design, if the designers are already aware about disability issues more broadly. My understanding is that in general simulation by abled people is very much inferior to asking actual disabled people about their experiences. At least in part because simulation reinforces the idea that abled people's emotions are somehow more real and valuable; it's analogous to the problems with non-Muslim women wearing a hijab for the day, or men setting up a female online pseudonym, instead of paying attention to reports by real Muslims or real women.

Re: Some (perhaps biased) thoughts

[liv]

Thank you. I find this detailed reply extremely helpful and I don't think it's slow at all. It's also useful to have it on DW where I can point other people to the information and links.

The story about the bedroom tax does reinforce my impression that the Liberal Democrats as a party are not malicious, but naive. Several people have chimed in on this discussion to convince me that you will perhaps be less inclined to trust the Tories this time round, but it's hard to have faith that a Lib Dem vote will effectively oppose them.

I am really heartened to hear about your work against the work capacity assessments. That is much more important to me than supporting charities, because it's tackling some of the root causes of politically caused poverty among disabled people, rather than seeing disabled people as objects of pity. I do think charities have their place, but I don't want to hear "but I support charities" as the first response to a complaint that a political party does not represent the interests of a particular group of constituents.