London has an election coming tomorrow, and your intrepid blogger has a vote.

As is his wont, he has decided to go through the candidates, and openly muse about why he should (or shouldn’t) vote for them.

We began this in part one, last week, with an intention to follow with parts two and three. But we ran into a problem: time and space.

After writing about Boris, we found ourselves with over 1,000 words (and not happy with the result). That still left two candidates. With obligations eating into our time, a deadline of election day (tomorrow), and other decisions that need to be made about tomorrow’s vote … well, we are revisiting our approach.

Here are our choices for mayor, ranked, with the reason for the ranking.

#1: Brian Paddick, Liberal Democrat.

The performance of the Liberal Democrat party as part of a coalition government has left me rather cold to casting votes in their favour. But, as described last week in Part 1, I am quite impressed with Paddick’s position, leaving him in top spot.

#2: Siobhan Benita, Independent.

Benita has some good ideas, but I remain unconvinced that she has the ability to actually make them a reality once in office. Her plans extend well beyond the mayor’s remit, and I have doubts about her ability to actually achieve what is laid out in her manifesto should she be elected.

#3 Ken Livingstone, Labour.

Ken, of course, was the mayor of London for two terms (2000-2008), and prior to that had served as the leader of the Greater London Council. Ken cares about the city. He has accomplished some fantastic things as mayor, particularly around public transport.

Of course, he has also had his share of missteps and controversy. I’m not sure I particularly like Ken.

#4 Boris Johnson, Conservative.

The incumbent, I have previously written (and deleted) 1,000 words on Boris’s campaign.

It comes down to this: Boris is running on his record, but he has done (almost) nothing during his time as mayor. He promises to do (pretty much) a further nothing for the next four years. It’s impressive that he manages to stretch that nothing into a nine-point plan, and a massive manifesto.

He is not a bad mayor, but he is not a good mayor. It seems to be more of a platform to give him visibility and exposure before an eventual bid for the Conservative Party leadership. One gets a sense the man is biding his time.

Between incumbency, competence, and being the only real right wing choice available (see below), Boris is probably back for a second term.

#5 Jenny Jones, Green Party.

My opinion of Jenny Jones, Green Party candidate for mayor, was built from a short conversation witnessed on Twitter. Being asked her opinion on science, and its impact on government policy, Ms. Jones replied that she was a big fan of science. Her opposition to genetically modified food, she continued, was based on her own study of ancient plant life.

The belief that knowledge of ancient plant life provides understanding of the crossroads of farming and genetic research in the twenty-first century would be a worrying trait in a mayor. This inablity to recognise the limits of her own knowledge reveals that she cannot be trusted with office. The mayor has to be able to know when they have reached their own limits, and seek advice. They then have to be able to judge the quality of that advice.

At #5 on our list, Ms. Jones is the first candidate who we believe would actually be a bad mayor.

#6 Lawrence Webb, UKIP.

Mr. Webb and the UKIP released a one page manifesto. Seriously. It’s shorter than this article. It’s in point form. Anybody who votes UKIP in the London election needs to have their head examined.

Last: Carlos Cortiglia, BNP.

Mr. Cortiglia probably has a more developed plan than Mr. Webb does, but given that he represents the BNP, I will not do him the favour of giving it any page views. I am not searching for it, linking to it, or typing the url in browser.

How will we vote?

You might think this answer is above – we have Mr. Paddick first, through to Mr. Webb in 6th. All ranked.

But voting for the mayor is more complicated — we get a first choice, and a second choice. And the strategy begins.

Idealism VS Realism

Our first thought is for our second vote.

In an ideal world, our second vote would clearly be for Ms. Benita — she is our #2 choice, and if Mr. Paddick is not crowned the winner when the votes are tabulated, Ms. Benita is our next candidate.

But in the real world, everybody in London knows that the next mayor will either be Boris Johnson or Ken Livingstone. Having a second vote – and no more – creates the temptation to jump Ms. Benita in the queue, and vote for my preferred candidate amongst the two likely candidates, giving the nod to Mr. Livingstone.

Here lies the quandary.

This evening, I’m leaning towards being realistic. London will be better under Livingstone than it would be with a second Johnson term; I have the power to affect that. On the other hand, it irks me that I have to rank my third choice second.

Wishful thinking VS Wishful thinking

Having chosen my second vote, it is time to pick who comes first.

My first, last and only thought had been that it would be Mr. Paddick. I like his platform best of the candidates, and am willing to look past his unfortunate reality television shenanigans and the party he represents. I see him as being best of the bunch.

And then I read the how and why of a friend’s vote, and I must admit it strikes a chord. If my real vote, the one that counts, is for Ken Livingstone, then what is my first preference?

For Mr. O’Malley, the answer is the hope that people see a large number of Green votes, and think they need more Green Party-like policies to appeal to voters like him. He doesn’t have to worry about Ms. Jones’s ability to do the job, because she will never have the opportunity to do it.

So I now have two options for my first vote.

On one hand, I can list Mr. Paddick. The wishful thinking here is that something crazy happens and Paddick manages to win. That’s very much wishful thinking, as he is currently polling in fourth place, with 5% of the vote.

On the other hand, I can list Ms. Jones, despite the fact that she is my #5 choice, and I believe her not to be competent. She’d be a horrible mayor. And I can engage in the wishful thinking that her estimated 6% of the vote will somehow influence more mainstream politics.

This evening, I stand by the principle that my #1 vote should be applied to the person I think will be best in the role, but if I wake up tomorrow, dreamy-eyed and believing that a vote for Green will plant an environmental seed in some dirty capitalist or unionist heart, that could change.

You might think, from Tuesday’s little outburst about David Cameron, that there is no way that I would vote for a Conservative in the upcoming election.

While the Conservatives certainly cannot count on my vote, you would be wrong — at this moment, I am still a very undecided voter.

It is simple, you see, to find reasons not to vote for a particular individual or party — it is easy to find something that you disagree with and focus on it. This tendency is what drives negative election campaigns and makes them successful. The truth is that no party involved in the election will have my support in everything they do.

There are two main principles on which I vote.

First, there is an order of importance when it comes to who you vote for — an order that most have backwards.

The individual comes first: you vote for your Member of Parliament. This person can vote against party lines, or even change party. My voice as a citizen will largely be determined by how that individual will vote, what they will speak up about, and how loud their voice will carry.

The party is a secondary consideration. While the votes are made by individuals, the individual’s voting pattern will likely match the party line about 90% of the time. Additionally, the party with the most seats will be able to govern (to some extent) by decree — not everything comes down to a vote in Parliament.

The final consideration, at a distant third, is the leader. While party leaders are important — they are usually the loudest voice in their party, and have considerable say in where “party lines” fall for the second issue above — they are also replaceable. If the Conservative party wins, David Cameron will not necessarily become Prime Minister. He could be ousted. Gordon Brown could switch teams and be elected the leader of the Conservative party.

Not likely, mind you, but if enough people involved agreed it could be done.

But I have digressed. The MP is important — my MP has my vote and my voice in Parliament.

The second issue is that one must look at what that candidate/party/leader will do if they get in power. What are the policies and laws they are likely to enact? How will they handle a crisis? If so many Americans really dislike Obama’s health care plan, what did they think they were voting for? It is best not to get into the wishy-washy world of “hope”, “change”, “austerity”, or “standing up for rights”. Take a look at what people actually intend to do.

Now, with a 370-word digression behind us, let us look at the Conservative party of the UK. We will take a look at the pre-conceptions of a Canadian, the truth behind those preconceptions, the leadership and election manifesto.

Then, the good — an area where I think the party has the best policy of the lot. The bad — an area where I think the party has made a misstep with a policy. And the ugly — something that makes me wonder if this is the right party for my vote.

So here we have it: The Conservative Party.

Misguided Preconceptions

My initial idea of the Conservative Party is that it must match Canada’s version of the same. The recent history is simply too similar to wave away.

Both parties elected what were initially incredibly popular governments in the 1980s, behind a wave of new conservatism. Both Conservative parties fell hard after their leaders (Thatcher & Mulroney, for those who aren’t paying attention) gave way to new (Conservative) Prime Ministers. Both Conservative parties were afterthoughts for more than a decade, until making a comeback with a new, young leader, after the opposing party’s Prime Minister left mid-term to have their Finance Minister/Chancellor take over the PM office.

So my initial reaction is that the Tories must be like the CRAP in Canada — that’s Conservative Reform Alliance Party, for you non-Canadians — and that my feelings for the Canadian Conservative party are transferable to the Conservative party in the UK.

The Truth

The truth is that the Conservatives in the UK are both very like and very different from the Canadian party of the same name. That 1980s heyday and 1990s collapse were very similar. But that does not make their longer-term histories or recoveries identical.

The Canadian version of the party is, essentially, the official opposition. While it spent the early days as the ruling party in Canada, it has formed only six ruling governments since 1900 — leaving it most often on the outside looking in.

The British Tories, however, have spent most of the 20th century governing the UK (see chart).

Furthermore, the means by which they have rehabilitated themselves is much different. While the Canadian Conservatives rejuvenated themselves by embracing their right-wing grassroots and forming an alliance with the Reform Party of Canada, the British Conservatives have gone in the other direction — embracing some centrist and left-wing ideals that they would have previously refused to touch.

While the Conservative Party of Canada attracts some and frightens others away as being the Canadian version of the Republican Party, the Tories here have those effects by being the party of the ruling class. They turn off voters due to a sense of entitlement, an air of superiority, and a tendency to trod upon those less fortunate then themselves. This is a far cry from the grassroots of embracing the Reform Party, Western Canada, and some of the ideals of the Republican Party in Canada.

In short, while the cover looks awfully familiar, the book inside is quite different.

The Leader

The Conservative Party has elected a leader who, rather than representing the rank-and-file of the party instead represents those that they are trying to woo. David Cameron is young (for a politician), and almost certainly more left-leaning than those he leads. But a right-wing party trying to win back voters needs to reclaim the centre.

The Manifesto

The Conservative election manifesto is called an invitation to join the government of Britain. It is very much that — a traditional conservative small-government manifesto. The central idea is to scale back government intervention in people’s lives — less big government, more “Big Society” to replace the current “Broken Britain.”

The Good

My favourite part of the Conservative campaign is in regard to schools. As a parent-to-be, an issue that would have never previously on my radar is front and centre.

I am prone to think that the knee-jerk reaction that Karen and I have that schools here “aren’t good” is due to the differences in the systems. The UK system looks nothing like the French or Canadian ones.

Whatever the system, though, there is no doubt that the Labour government has pumped a ton of money in to schools over the past decade, but that money has not been well-spent — UK school results are actually declining.

One of my biggest frustrations with the UK is that you cannot choose things for yourself if they are provided by the government. Your doctors, hospitals and other government services are defined by where you live — no matter what you want.

Well, the Tories would do away with this where schools are concerned — probably elsewhere too, based on their underlying ideals. These schools would be government-funded, and could be started by parents or charities (so long as they were not being run for profit). This, of course, would allow for parental choice and competition for the tax dollars — a good thing.

Of no small importance is that the timing of this change will allow for schools to be established, and for there to be results to analyze by the time my child is due to attend one. The Tories get a giant tick-mark under “education” for me.

The Bad

On the other hand, the Tories also want to reduce the Inheritance Tax.

I know, they’re the conservative party — reducing taxes ought to be their thing. But the Inheritance Tax should be the last one to go. The reason is quite simple: Money inherited is not earned.

Reducing inheritance taxes gives away money without gaining anything in return. Instead of everybody being rewarded more for their effort — the impact of reducing income tax, say — individuals are given rewards based on who they happen to have as family members.

There are better taxes to cut. Less inheritance tax will not create jobs, spur investment, or help the economy recover. It reminds me of that “entitled” feeling.

I know that I pay more in, tax-wise, than I get out. That’s OK. But I would rather not pay even more in (or get even less out) so that people who were born into an advantaged situation can further line their pockets with their parents’ money.

The Ugly

It’s small, but it’s quite the blight in my eyes.

A £150 tax credit for married couples.

In a government manifesto that’s all about small government, there’s this.

I like the idea of small government, I really do. I like a safety net, but not a bloated one. I don’t want the government spying on me with CCTV around every corner. I prefer a government that won’t tell me that I can only go to this doctor, my children can only go to that school, or that I ought to be married to the person I live with. It annoys me more to think that there are people who will stick it out for £150. It’s not a lot, but it can seem like a lifeline to somebody struggling to make ends meet.

I’d like a government who didn’t care whether two consenting adults living together were married, unmarried, divorced, or married to completely different people.

Because they shouldn’t. It’s none of their business.

The Bottom Line

The Conservatives are not the party I assumed they would be — they are much more interesting and nuanced. But they do trouble me.

They care about my marital status. They appear to put more weight on passing success to one’s heirs than they do on making it easier for people to better themselves.

I am fond of some of their stated policies, and feel that their left-leaning leader will stop them from going too far in the directions I find to be negative — they seem more like bones for the party’s base, rather than plans for the country.

On the other hand, it’s hard to believe that a socially conservative party is OK with gay marriages (sorry, civil partnerships) while trying to promote the traditional family unit. It’s hard to believe that — in the wake of an expense scandal — a move on the inheritance tax is not driven by self-interest.

And two of the pillars of their platform are that “Britain is broken”, and that individuals and communities should step up and do things like set up schools. Is this what people do within a broken society? Sit around and wait for government’s permission to start their own school?

When I look at their policies, even though I like much of what I see, there also seems to be a slight disconnect. The question I need to answer for myself is whether that disconnect is real, or if it’s a lingering distaste from my initial misconceptions, associating the UK party with their Canadian namesakes.

Dear Mr. Cameron,

A few days before my move, you wrote to me — “personally”, if you don’t mind my quoting you — regarding the upcoming election. Your letter was meant to outline the reasons I should not vote for Labour should vote for your party. Part of said letter spoke of the erosion of rights that had occurred under Labour. I claimed that things would be different if you were Prime Minister.

And I believe you, to a certain extent. I believe that you intend to put an end to Stop-and-Search of photographers, who are people with a hobby you can understand.

But less than 48 hours after receiving your letter, there was a vote on the Digital Economy bill. With Parliament set to be dissolved, it was a perfect opportunity for a party that claims to stand up for citizens rights to make sure the bill was thoroughly scrutinized. In fact, you could have ensured that it was not passed before the dissolution of parliament. Then, with a (presumably) Tory government, you could have ensured that the bill respected the rights of the individual upon taking power.

Now that would be putting money where your mouth was.

Instead, the bill was pushed through. Ben Bradshaw said during debate that “if the Bill gets on to the statute book, it will be with the co-operation of the main Opposition party.” He goes on to say that without “a good level of cross-party support”, the bill would be doomed.

The implication is that the Conservative party could have elected to have this bill scrutinized, debated and voten upon after the election, rather than before. But you did not.

We have several rational conclusions.

The first is that you are not familiar with the content of the bill. This, to me would suggest that you ought to have given yourself and your party more time to scrutinize and debate the bill prior to a vote — so this option seems unlikely.

A second option is that you do not have much of a grip on how dependent people are on online services. Many companies charge for paper bills — and paperless is not an option if your internet is cut off. Companies also interact with their customers online, sometimes exclusively and sometimes for free (while phone interactions/service costs money).

Because of these things, cutting people off from the internet is not a mild penalty, akin to denying a family a form of entertainment. Instead, it cuts people off from information and services that are vital to their day-to-day lives. If you were considering the suspension of internet to be a light penalty, Mr. Cameron, you are showing yourself as incapable of grasping the average citizen’s daily interaction with today’s technology.

Third, you could think that a process in which the accused are assumed guilty and must prove themselves innocent is not an erosion of rights. You might think that those who have the most to gain from making accusations, because they have been waging a war in the press to make their customers afraid to share content online for over a decade, might be those best suited to enforce copyright. You may think that penalizing entire families and households for the deeds of one family member is reasonable.

Or, finally, you do not care about the erosion of rights, and your stated position on the subject does not reflect the way that you intend to govern.

I find none of the options above to be warming. Perhaps there is another reason why you have collaborated with Labour to push this bill through — if so, please share it.

No matter how I vote in the upcoming election, I know that those I vote for — should they win — will pass some bills that I will disagree with and dislike. My dislike for the Digital Economy bill is not at issue here. What is at issue is that your words and deeds do not match.

Why should I vote for you, if the day after you “personally” let me know that you will work to defend my rights you help to push through a bill that erodes them?

Sincerely,
Mr. Topp