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.

[aldabra]

I remember the utter relief when Blair won in 1997, and one of the things I was utterly relieved about was that this would stop the insane Tory PFI schemes. It didn't, not at all, but I don't think it's fair to blame Labour for starting them.

Labour did Sure Start, which is possibly the most forward-thinking scheme that's been introduced in my adult lifetime (and which the Tories have been systematically dismantling), and tax credits, which have kept me afloat as a single parent for the last twelve years (and which the Tories are replacing with Universal Credit, which is "Universal" in the sense that people like me don't qualify for it). A major source of stress over the last five years, since Cameron got elected, has been that if I lose my job they may cancel my tax credit claim and make me apply for universal credit instead. (Fortunately it's taken them so long to implement that by the time that happens K is going to be old enough that I won't be getting the tax credits anyway.)

I'm told the LibDems have changed their constitution such that a coalition now has to be agreed by a one-member-one-vote poll of the membership. I don't think the membership would agree to a Tory coalition, after last time. I'm in Cambridge, and voting Huppert; I think I agreed with him more often than Zeichner, although last time I voted Zeichner because I didn't trust Clegg.

[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]

Yeah, it's true that the Tories started PFI, but Labour ramped it up so much, and my memory is that it was Labour that started doing it to hospitals, which is much worse than bridges and roads and things. And it was Labour that changed unemployment benefit to the horrible Job Seekers' Allowance and incapacity benefit to ESA, and contracted an IT firm to put disabled people through assessments to see if they're really disabled.

I definitely like Sure Start a lot, and that's a good example of Labour actually being better at something than the Conservatives. Thank you. I also like Corbyn's plan for universal free school meals, but it feels really cosmetic, accompanied by pointedly doing nothing at all about the cuts which are leaving so many children dependent on school to get adequate nutrition at all.

Tax credits versus Universal Credit I don't have strong views on. I liked the idea of Universal Credit but the implementation has been a clusterfuck. I haven't seen much evidence of Labour opposing it, 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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ewt]

I wouldn't call myself a Labour supporter, exactly, but the National Minimum Wage Act was a thing that they did that was good (if insufficient). That's ages ago, though, and probably not a cat that can be reinserted into the bag.

More recently, their voting record on same sex marriage, ending Section 28, issues affecting trans people, etc is a lot better than the Tories. (LibDems do even better in this, but I don't think they have a chance of forming a majority government.)

I'm given to understand that EMA (education maintenance allowance) was a good thing; it's been scrapped in England, but not Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.

I don't know who was originally responsible for legal aid, but looking at the voting record for the reductions in that would be good (I do not have time/energy to do this now but I am writing it here partly to remind myself, or in case someone else knows offhand).

I also wonder about things like Access to Work and Disabled Student Allowance -- again, I'm not sure when these came in, I don't know who to give credit to, but I'd like to look at the voting record for when they have been removed/diminished. Reducing out-of-work benefits for disabled people while also reducing support that helps some of us work was a particularly cruel move by the Tories.

My impresson (and I could be wrong) is that Labour, though some of their policies have been horrible, are less anti-human rights than Tories. But again, I'd have to look at the voting record to be sure.

Most of these issues aren't in the category of directly impacting whether disabled people end up in starvation levels of poverty, but taken together they do affect a number of disabled people.

[lovingboth]

I don't know if it's being frit of being called soft by the Tories, but there's a very definite authoritarian trend in Labour - certainly amongst their Blair/Brown era Home Secretaries.

Have a look at what they were prepared to do to British Citizens who happened to be brown and living on islands the US wanted for a military air base - I know the Chagossian's lawyer.

[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.

[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.

[mathcathy]

I am in a similar position to you. I want - passionately - to vote against the Tories. I promised myself in 2003 that I would never vote Labour (or Tory) again, following the Iraqi War debacle.
I can choose to vote in either of two safe Labour seats in London

• one with a pro-European who defied the party whip, where I voted Lib Dem last time as one of only 850 people
• Keir Starmer
• or a Tory safe seat in Essex, where the predominant vote was Leave

I don't think the Lib Dems have any chance in any of them and I'm tempted to vote lib Dem in my very safe Labour seat where I voted last time, because at least this MP had the nerve to vote against Article 50.

[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.

[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.)

[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.

[liv]

Thank you, this is exactly the kind of helpful pointer I was hoping for. I have been looking through voting records in more detail and I do think Labour have done more to oppose some of the cuts than the impression I started out with. A lot of abstaining on issues where there's a clear split on party lines, but there are probably reasons for that if they couldn't get enough votes together to actually beat the Tories. But some amount of voting to keep EMA, to keep at least some aspects of Legal Aid, and in the right direction on some fiddly legal details of how Human Rights law works.

I need to dig deeper to find what Labour have been doing about both in work and out of work disability benefits. It would take a lot of right voting on implementation details to counterbalance the way they changed the whole benefits system from being a basic entitlement to being tied up to affirmatively proving that you're really deserving and really looking for work, though. That's a really big negative for me, as a voter.

[liv]

Yeah, both the Conservatives and Labour are scary authoritarian racists who have done a massive amount of harm to brown-skinned British citizens (and to refugees, which is another huge issue for me). I'm not actually sure Labour is worse than the Tories on this, but they're easily as bad. So in a hypothetical choice between an authoritarian racist party who also want to kill white disabled people, and an authoritarian racist party who would do positive things for white disabled people, I might find myself choosing the latter, however reluctantly. But I have yet to be convinced that a Labour vote actually does significantly help white disabled people.

[liv]

Ugh, I'm sorry you're in a similarly awful position of having no good choices. I can definitely see the point of voting Lib Dem in a safe Labour seat with a Europhile MP; that probably gets you the least bad of all plausible outcomes.

[cjwatson]

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

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

[ewt]

It would take a lot of right voting on implementation details to counterbalance the way they changed the whole benefits system from being a basic entitlement to being tied up to affirmatively proving that you're really deserving and really looking for work, though. That's a really big negative for me, as a voter.

Me, too. The current system is monstrous, and I do hold Labour at least partly responsible it.

I'm undecided, as yet, to be honest.

I think if Labour can't possibly win, I would go with Libdems, as Tories-with-Libems-in-coalition or Tories-opposed-by-some-kind-of-progressive-coalition (of Libdems, SNP, Greens) would be better than Tories with a useless Labour opposition.

But if there is a chance that Labour could win... I think that Labour in power, with opposition formed of Tories and/or Libdems, might be less actively bad. And the harder the Tories are defeated, the less likely Labour will be to court austerity policies in order to be popular. I think a lot of difficulty with Labour at the moment is that they don't really know on which issues it makes sense to vote tactically, and on which it makes sense to represent those who voted for them even if that means getting less say in the outcome. (I suspect they got this wrong with Brexit.)

I don't know if it's possible for Labour to win if Scotland is voting solidly SNP.

I'm in a traditionally safe Labour seat, though, which makes my decision rather less important. And that's frustrating, as my MP has voted with the Tories on a number of issues (though my housemate keeps better track than I do).

Longer term I would like to do something about the tabloid press and other sectors of the media, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to what that should be.

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.

[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!

[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...

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.

[hairyears]

I see this election as an unwelcome choice between unsatisfactory alternatives; and I see all likely outcomes as extremely damaging for the prisperity of all of us, and deeply damaging for the most vulnerable in society.

Worse, I see no course of action - or inaction - where I could claim a clear conscience, free of culpability or collaboration in the worst of the consequences.

I deeply mistrust the Lib Dems after their collaboration in unconscionable and destructive acts in coalition; and, if Labour were remotely credible as a government-in-waiting and not wedded to Brexit, I would urge you not to vote Lib Dem. Or just vote Conservative: there is something to be said in voting honestly, rather than applying a fig leaf to an act whose likely outcomes are so transparently at odds with their ostensible intentions.

However, Labour are as they are, and the good intentions of a Labour vote are equally ineffective. If, and only if, they show signs of moving towards the numbers for a coalition government or the competence for an effective opposition, I would say "Vote Labour". But that is not the world we live in and a wasted vote appals me: the consequences are all too real, for real people, to indulge ourselves in self-indulgent virtue signalling as a disaster unfolds around us.

So you are left with this: if you believe that Julian Huppert is a good man in a bad Parliament, and that we are all better off for his efforts *even in a bad government or an ineffective opposition* then you have good reason to get out and cast your vote for him; and good reason to persuade others to do likewise.

But don't persuade yourself that you are doing much good: you are, as best you can, doing the 'least worst' you can, facing a future where the consequences of all actions - and inaction - are gravely damaging and morally unpalatable.

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.

[liv]

In general I share your pessimism. I see no point in voting Conservative because the party as it currently stands is not in any useful way upholding Conservative values, they're doing the exact opposite of keeping the UK fiscally stable and making sure British companies are seen as reliable business partners. And they're actively against human rights and the rule of law. So they have no advantages to offset the massive harms their policies are measurably causing.

I don't think it's self-indulgent virtue signalling to vote Labour (and I equally don't think it's inherently supporting murder of disabled people to vote Conservative). Both Labour and Conservative voters support the traditional ethos of their respective parties; people vote Labour because they associate Labour with a strong welfare state, and Conservative because they associate Conservative with a strong economy. But as far as I can see, neither of those associations is really true any more.

Why vote Labour to "keep out the Tories" if they just vote with the Conservatives or continue and extend bad Conservative policies all the time, including on issues that traditionally split left/right? Why vote Labour to stop the Lib Dems from collaborating with the Tories, when Labour collaborate just as much even when they're supposed to be in opposition, not coalition?

If this were a more normal election, then I would vote primarily for a constituency MP instead of for which party's manifesto I prefer (manifestos are always lies anyway). And in that case Huppert would be the obvious choice. You may well be right that voting for one decent MP given the chance is the least worst option. In the context of Brexit and the NHS crisis, though, I feel I absolutely have to think nationally more than locally, I have to look at parties.

Maybe a party of Brexit and austerity, which nevertheless will commit relatively trivial spending to schoolchildren (free school meals, EMA) is better than a party of Brexit and austerity which won't supplement education in even that minor way. But lots of my informed, politically savvy friends seem to believe that the Labour party is not a party of asset stripping the country and attacking human rights to make very rich people even richer in the very short term. If they're not, even if they're a bit incompetent and prone to infighting, that makes them a clearly better option than the Conservatives, but I just don't see any evidence that the Labour party has actually done anything in the right direction any time this century.

[hairyears]

Quite. A Labour vote, and committed campaigning for Labour, is the most moral choice if you consider the NHS.

However, 'most moral' has bad results if you have good reason to believe that it makes a Conservative victory more likely: that would be the point at which my canard about 'virtue signalling' becomes rather barbed. I don't think that you go there: I fear that there are people around us who do.

...And that is also the point in my urging people to campaign; or at least, to persuade. And getting people *voting* may well be the most effective campaign of all. Disengagement and not voting would, if it had a coloured rosette, be the largest party in England.

[ghoti_mhic_uait]

You should vote Labour because the other alternative is letting a Tory win while you squabble about which progressive candidate elsewhere is slightly better. You live, most of the time, in a seat with a Tory favourite and a Labour second place candidate. I know you'd rather live here most of the time, but you might as well make the most of your situation as it is.

[liv]

What do you mean a Tory favourite? The information I have says that my most-of-the-time ward has had the same, Labour, MP since 2001, and I assume he'll be returned again in June. What's your reasoning for thinking that a Conservative may unseat him next month?

Also, if this seat is more marginal than the safe Labour I've always assumed, I'm not convinced, based on his voting record, that Farrelly is a "progressive" candidate. His voting record is fairly mainstream Labour authoritarian, and very mixed on human rights and welfare. He's probably somewhat to the left of Theresa May if you ignore his views on immigration and asylum. But in a Corbyn opposition, I don't expect him to vote against the government on most things that matter.

It's not about whether Huppert or Zeichner is "slightly better"; it's about whether Farrelly is enough better than a putative Tory MP to be worth giving up any chance of impacting on Brexit.

[ghoti_mhic_uait]

The bookies are looking to a Tory gain: https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/newcastle-under-lyme/winning-party

I was thinking of the Cambridge candidates as both progressive and both pro-Europe. Julian is, unsurprisingly, more liberal than me and more more liberal than I'd like in an ideal MP, but that hasn't stopped me voting for him before. I therefore think it is a matter of 'slightly better' whether or not we only focus on Brexit - and if you thought there was a clear winner, this post would be unnecessary. So it's a matter of a minor difference here compared to potentially reducing a Tory majority by voting elsewhere. I know the Labour incumbent is far from perfect, but I knwo what I'd do all the same.

[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.