Mr. Topp and the Big Bad Blog

I am not fond of the “no confidence” vote, the mechanism in parliamentary politics by which members of parliament can vote out the current government by expressing that they do not have confidence in those MPs who are currently running the country. While some votes are natural confidence motions, as their passage is necessary for governing the country — budgets are a good example — confidence motions outside these key votes are mere politicking.

Years of minority rule in Canada have soured me on these motions. On one hand, we have a government which routinely declares a controversial vote to be a “matter of confidence” in order to push through legislation disliked by the opposition, who are not prepared to force an election over the issue. The opposition, meanwhile, watches the polls and gathers funds into their war chest, and will miraculously “lose confidence” in the government when they believe they have an opportunity to form the government themselves.

All of which is politics at its worst.

However yesterday I came across this story in the Globe and Mail, which details Canada’s Conservative government’s attempts to avoid an inquiry into police behaviour, tactics and strategy during the G20 meetings in Toronto, all of which was criticized a couple of weeks ago here on the Big Bad Blog.

If there ever was a reason to suddenly “lose” confidence, Liberals, this is it. When all reports suggest that the forces you use to “keep the peace” instead waged war on the liberties of your citizens, the government has a duty to conduct an investigation.

Instead, the government is accusing the opposition of supporting “thugs and hooligans”, and siding with “anarchist groups” for daring to suggest an investigation should take place. While nobody has ever accused a politician of being honest, the dishonesty is overwhelming in these statements as the concerns expressed by the opposition are not in regards to the arrest of those who actually committed criminal acts, but threats and arrests of those who did nothing wrong.

For instance, here is a photo of National Post photographer Brett Grundlock being arrested by five police officers in riot gear, who appear to be using force that one would think would be unnecessary in order to subdue a lone photographer:

This photograph is from the National Post article regarding his arrest. The National Post is one of two national newspapers in Canada, and is known for its right-wing editorial stance. Does that sound like an anarchist group? Does “photographer” or “newspaper reporter” sound like “thug” or “hooligan”?

Click on that link to Canada’s right-wing newspaper, and read about the treatment of their reporters. This is from a newspaper which posts editorials like this one, claiming civil liberties advocates ought to be ignored, and containing gems like this:

of course it was wrong and unfortunate that police seemed to believe secret laws had been passed giving them the right to violate civil rights. It should be remembered that this was a delicate time, and it’s unlikely to happen again.

Yep. It was a delicate time. It was unfortunate. But no need for consequences — it won’t happen again. Honest.

Finally, we would like to present to you another one of those arrested protesters. As much a thug and hooligan as a four-year-old at a picnic. Perhaps an anarchist? Do we arrest people for thoughtcrime now?

… for a while. Not forever. Probably.

With the election due tomorrow, tonight we go through those issues which are most dear to us, and how we feel about each party’s take on the issue.

Immigration

Our view: Here at the Big Bad Blog, we are very much not in tune with popular opinion on the immigration front. Your blogger is an immigrant (Canadian), set to marry an immigrant (French). Living in London, most of my friends are immigrants as well and I would hate for the city I live in to lose it’s multicultural character. London truly is an international city, and it is part of what makes living here wonderful.

The populist surge against immigrants is a backlash against high immigration rates and a slumping economy, but immigration is not the bugbear it is thought to be. Immigrants are far more likely to contribute to the economy than “steal British jobs”. Also, most immigrants in the UK are from Europe, and there are no proposals from any of the three main parties that would restrict movement within the EU.

The Conservative Party has the immigration policy we like the least. The Conservatives plan on putting a hard cap on immigration, rather than massaging the numbers by adjusting the standard of immigrant that is allowed into the country. Strangely, they promise to bring immigration down to the levels in the early 1990s. With the majority of immigrants being of the European type, we are puzzled as to how this will be achieved.

Most strangely, they will require foreign students to post a bond that will be surrendered if they do not leave the country. Given the high fees levied by schools, the only students we can imagine this impacting are those who are given scholarships to attend University in the UK. One would think that such talented students are the ones that the country would most want to keep.

Labour is a strange beast here. Gordon Brown has said “British jobs for British workers” — now taken up as the call of the BNP. Their manifesto speaks repeatedly of their “Australian” points system, which will be adjusted (read: tightened) after re-election. The points system is neither here nor there — but repeated use of “Australian” can only serve to make voters think of hard-line stances that Australia makes that hit the news, rather than the merits (or drawbacks) of the system itself.

Labour, however, is simply populist on this issue. Their policies have driven immigration to unprecedented heights, back when immigration was seen in a positive light by the average citizen. Today, they echo the xenophobic catchphrases heard elsewhere. If immigration is your decision-maker, don’t pick Labour — they appear to simply follow the opinion polls, rather than having a coherent policy.

The Liberal Democrats have the most open immigration policy. Notably, their manifesto speaks mostly of keeping immigrants out, but it is the worst-kept secret in the election that the Lib Dems are the most Eurocentric of the parties, and embrace a multicultural future for the United Kingdom.

The Economy

Our view is that the economy is too big an issue in this election to be ignored. Britain is heavily in debt, with a huge deficit. The tough choices looming make us feel sorry for whoever “wins” this election.

The Conservatives deserve kudos for taking the most aggressive standpoint, although they seem to (understandably) play down the impact this will have on the average voter. There are aspects of their stated economic policy that rub me the wrong way, but they are the only party who seem anxious to make the changes, rather than being reluctantly forced to do so.

Labour‘s manifesto paints the recession in a strange light. It claims that they could have “let it run its course” (and implies that the Tories would have). Mostly, they claim that it is not a good time to change leadership — that we should let things be until recovery is assured.

We disagree. The manner in which the recession hit — at the financial and housing sectors — means that the UK was hard-hit. Anybody who blames Labour for this either has an agenda, or is looking for a convenient scapegoat. However, Labour — Gordon Brown, in particular — dug the country into a big hole in the decade leading up to the recession.

The party who mismanaged the economy to this extent should not be lightly chosen to lead it through recovery. In particular, I would urge any voter to have something more than a “steady hand” argument and a dislike for the Tories before making this choice.

The Liberal Democrats have a policy that is easy to get on board with, but perhaps hard to implement. Their declaration that they will close tax loopholes is easier said than done. As has been previously mentioned, we like their approach to re-regulating the financial sector. While Labour and the Tories bicker over who should oversee the City, the Lib Dems actually seem to concern themselves with the rules themselves.

Freedoms

Our view is that freedom is paramount. People should be free to love who they want, say what they want, and more or less do what they want … so long as they are doing no harm to others. The frequency at which those in Britain are recorded on CCTV, the harassment of photographers, awful libel laws, and the “three strikes” digital economy bill are all travesties that should have and could have been avoided.

The Conservatives have a fairly positive view on liberty overall. They say all the right things, but I still have doubts. Some of these have been expressed previously in my open letter to David Cameron. Another concern is with the tax credit to be given to married couples — combined with seemingly weekly gaffes featuring homophobia from Conservative candidates, it speaks to an overriding concern amongst the party over who I should be sleeping with.

The party line on gay rights, by the by, is laudable — the Tories are even planning to expunge convictions for gay sex from criminal records — but it feels more as though they are trying to be politically correct than that they believe their own rhetoric.

Labour passed the digital economy bill. They have passed anti-terrorist laws that police abuse to harass photographers (amongst others, probably) on the streets. Their record on this front lies somewhere between disappointing and disgusting.

The Liberal Democrats seem to be keen on this. They pledge to restore a number of rights and regulate CCTV, which sounds absolutely wonderful. We are uncertain as to what prompts their desire to stop “unjust” extraditions to the United States, but this section of their manifesto reads like a laundry list of good things that one would be hard-pressed to argue about.

We therefore expect arguments in the comments as a result.

Local MPs

Our view is that your actual representative in parliament is as important a consideration as their party and their party’s leader. The below observations stand for Greenwich and Woolwich, but you should be learning who your local candidates are — you might be surprised to see how far your vote gets swayed.

The Conservative candidate for Greenwich is Spencer Drury. Mr. Drury is a teacher, a member of the local council, and generally the sort of person who you might expect to see running for an MP position. He tends to focus on schooling, naturally, more than the average Conservative candidate might. Otherwise he does not seem noteworthy. Which, as we will see, actually makes him the most appealing of the local MPs.

Labour‘s candidate is Nick Raynsord. Mr. Raynsford has been the MP for Greenwich since 1997. He held various positions throughout the Blair years, but was relegated to the backbench after the 2005 election.

Mr. Raynsford is not my kind of candidate. His record is strong for limiting freedoms — ID cards, anti-terrorism laws, against inquiries into the Iraq War. The only bright spot is his support for gay rights.

Also worthy of note is that he very rarely votes against party lines — less so than the average MP. Though it is notable that most of his “rebellious” votes have come after Gordon Brown became Prime Minister. He is not a supporter of Labour’s current leadership … but he still toes the party line. Notably, he voted for the digital economy bill, which to me indicates that he fails to understand technology, respect voters’ rights and/or is dishonest.

Perhaps the third option, as he appears to earn £9,000 a month from industries related to his government positions.

In short, I am unimpressed by Mr. Raynsford. I am not convinced he has a mind of his own, and his voting record fails to impress me.

The Liberal Democrats‘ candidate is Joseph Lee. I wish I could tell you something about him, but you would be hard pressed to figure out his name from the local Liberal Democrats webpage. If the ballots do not list the party beside the name, few in Greenwich would vote Liberal Democrat, except by chance.

It is sad, really. The Lib Dems were even with the Tories in Greenwich at the last election (20% each, to Labour’s 49%). In a left-leaning area, it seems as though the Liberal Democrats have ceded the seat to Labour. Or perhaps they are embarassed by their candidate – he certainly seems not to have any local or online presence to speak of.

All I know of Mr. Lee is that he supports a stronger police force, which while not out of line with Liberal Democrat policies is also a strange focus. Also, he seems to have some difficulty with the written word, which makes it doubtful that he would play a large role within the party if elected.

Our Conclusion

We hope you have not turned your eyes to this section hoping to learn how our vote is being cast. Stephen Fry makes a convincing argument as to why you should make your mind up for yourself, based on your own local candidates and opinions on important issues. Not that we would pretend to hold Mr. Fry’s powers of vote-swinging.

We are disappointed, however, with our local candidates. In my Hamilton riding in Canada, I remember having to choose between strong candidates from two or three parties. It was an empowering experience. My vote felt like it mattered, and my MP — whether as part of the government or opposition — would have their voice heard beyond the local paper.

Voting in Greenwich is not the same. The only loud voice is a Labour voice, and a vote for that voice feels like a vote for corruption and the curtailing of rights and government transparency. Which is not meant as an indictment of Labour, but of their local candidate and his particular voting record.

The Liberal Democrat and Conservative candidates, however, seem quite invisible — the Lib Dem one in particular. But there is little to identify how much or how little (or where) they support their party lines. Why is Mr. Drury a Conservative? Why is Mr. Lee a Liberal Democrat? Their stories are nowhere to be found; I do not know how their personal philosophies fit within the larger party philosophy that they represent.

And this is disappointing. When the government does something I do not like — and they will — I will complain to my MP. Not the party. Not the prime minister.

It would be nice to be able to have confidence in that person.

Following on the heels of our review of the Conservative Party last week, we move our view to Labour.

Below, we follow the same pattern as we did on Thursday — though without the pre-analysis rambling.

Without further ado, the Big Bad Briefing on the Labour Party:

Misguided Preconceptions

Unlike the Conservatives, Labour does not have a Canadian party of the same name. On first instinct — being the “other big party”, with red signs — one would think to equate them to the Liberal Party in Canada.

On the other hand, “Labour” brings to mind a labour movement borne out of socialist and trade union ideals — an origin vastly different to the history of the Liberal party, and closer to Canada’s New Democratic Party.

Overall, the “New Labour” of Tony Blair I arrived to in the UK was not so different from Chretien’s Liberals in Canada — a charismatic, once popular Prime Minister, running low on popularity, and being run out of the role by their Finance Minister/Chancellor. My base assumption was that Labour started out as an NDP-type party that evolved into today’s party.

The Truth

The truth is that Labour did not evolve — it revolutioned into New Labour with the removal of Clause IV from their constitution:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

They are not a party that has slowly moved from being a socialist party to being a centre-left party. Instead, they have a long history of supporting state ownership over private ownership — an ideal that was thrown out the window in the 90s by Blair to provide an alternative to the Conservatives.

Another big difference is in the way that the recent Liberal and Labour governments have governed. The Chretien government believed in being fiscally responsible — it took advantage of a strong economic period to balance budgets, and eliminate budget deficits.

The Labour government, by contrast, seemed to believe that bad economic things could not happen. The current Prime Minister is on record as saying that there could never again be a bust, a depression. And after one successful term of New Labour, they began to spend like it — the more the British economy motored along, the more they spent.

In truth, the Labour are not like the Liberals at all — while their basic position on the political spectrum (centre-left) is similar, their approaches to governing seem wildly different.

The Leader

Leading the Labour Party is Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The Chancellor for ten years under Blair’s Labour government, Brown took power when Blair stepped down in 2007.

Similar to how Cameron reflects the way that the Tories would like to be perceived, Brown reflects how the population sees the Labour party at present. To me, he represents a government that has been in power for over a decade, and has lost touch with why it was elected in the first place.

A poor speaker who seems to stumble from one crisis to the next, Brown did not attain his position by popular mandate, or because he could speak to or for the voters of Britain. Instead, he came to power mid-term by internal political machinations within the Labour party.

Additionally, despite being the man who held the purse-strings following the New Labour revolution, Brown seems to be leading Labour back towards their old school of thought. While nationalizing some banks might have been necessary, Brown seems to be leading Labour in a direction that suggests that the party should drop the “New” from “New Labour”.

Should Brown prove to be a figure that voters can rally to in the final weeks of an election, it would not be a stretch to say that everybody would be surprised.

The Manifesto

Labour’s manifesto is titled a future fair to all. The strangest piece of their manifesto is that one of the three pillars is that “we” should “renew our politics.” There are two ways of seeing this.

First, is that it should read like the other pillars, and the “we” in question are the voters. If this is the case, it is unclear why the voters should vote Labour.

Second, the “we” is the Labour party — Labour believes that they need to renew their own politics. Should this be the case, one must wonder why they would not do so prior to the election. If Labour is going to renew itself, I would like to know what this will look like if I am to consider casting a vote for the party.

I am uncertain if it is kind or unkind to assume the second definition.

The weight of the new policies in the Labour Manifesto — if one is to look at what is new, and call it “renewal” — is for an increased role of government in society (and a corresponding decreased role for the private sector). The renewal might mean a move back towards more traditional Labour positions.

Labour’s manifesto is definitely one that assumes that the country is preparing itself to embrace the Conservatives. It seems to forget or willfully ignore their own recent record of governing on several issues, only to turn around and boast about said record where it is convenient to do so.

The Good

My favourite part of the Labour manifesto is their pledge to maintain or increase spending that supports sports, art galleries and museums. While the sport part is a little empty — the proximity of the 2012 Olympics pretty much requires spending or embarrassment on an international stage — one of the great things about living in London is the low cost and high quality of the art galleries and museums.

When times are tough, and money is short, too often these things find themselves first to the chopping block. It is nice to see a political party showing that they understand that these things are important to the community.

The Bad

In his introduction to the manifesto, Gordon Brown outlines a secret (ie, non-verifiable) Conservative plot to reduce government support for nurseries. He has a point — if the secret plot is true, it is not a policy I would be fond of — Brown uses it to dress up the fairness principle that is central to the Labour Manifesto.

The secret Tory nursery policy, he argues, is unfair.

As evidenced by the title of their Manifesto, and the general tone of their campaign (Conservatives are evil, in case you missed it), the message can be boiled down to this: Labour will be fair. Conservatives will be unfair.

What is unfair? That the Conservatives will cut back some benefits.
What is fair? Labour will top up said benefits.

With the government in dire financial straits, the argument ought to be with regards to the timing and choice of cuts to be made, not whether or not they need to exist. It is quite common, when something is taken away, to say “that’s not fair”. Fairness is not about making people happy, though.

Labour seems frightened to take anything away from anybody in this manifesto. They are fighting to delay or avoid the inevitable cuts while increasing spending.

While it is normal for a party to avoid answering the tough questions, calling out a party that is making plans for cuts — guaranteed to be unpopular — is simply a low blow. Either Labour is also planning cuts, or they intend to allow the budget to spiral completely out of control. If they wish us to believe that their cuts will treat us more fairly, they need to tell us where they intend to make cuts, and why they feel that those are better places that provide a better deal to UK residents.

On this topic, Labour’s manifesto claims that they will make “cuts to lower priority spending” — but neatly avoids what they consider to be “lower priority”. Their section on fiscal sustainability mentions the tax rises they have already passed, and pledges not to increase taxes further. The section labelled tough choices asks us to look at the 2010 budget and sets caps for pay increases for government employees. Funnily enough, according to Deloitte, in the 2010 budget “the Government has still put to flesh on the bones of it’s plans to cut Government spending. In the absence of such detail the markets have little reason to find the Government’s numbers plausible.”

In other words, Mr. Brown critiques without offering alternatives and appears afraid to cut spending on any particular group. It is difficult to view this as a plausible strategy.

The Ugly

The introduction of the Manifesto has this to say:

So this cannot, and will not, be a ‘business as usual’ election or Manifesto. In this Manifesto we set out plans to address the main future challenges we face in our economy, our society and our politics. We will rebuild the economy to secure the recovery and invest in future growth and jobs. We will renew our society to further strengthen the communities that bind our country together. And we will restore trust in politics with greater transparency and accountability in a system battered by the expenses scandal.

However, these are issues that occurred during the Labour government. The economy collapsed two years ago, and Labour has been in power the entire time. Why would Labour ask us to review plans that they are only setting out now, instead of voting based on the plans in progress?

The expense scandal which damaged trust in politicians is the same story — these events occurred on Labour’s watch.

I am willing to accept that the recession and expenses scandal are not necessarily a reason not to vote for Labour — scandals and recessions will occasionally happen. It is a government’s ability to react to them, mitigate them, and enact policies to improve the system’s stability and sustainability that count for something.

But Labour’s own manifesto seems to claim that they are not doing a good job. It asks us not to judge Labour on the job they are doing, but on the job they intend to do.

This is simply not acceptable. If they are not proud of their record, they should not wait for an election to take things in a new direction.

The Bottom Line

Gordon Brown speaks of seeing the British economy through the recession, and claims that it would be bad to change horses in midstream, so to speak.

I do not buy this argument.

Canada has weathered the global financial crisis with nary a peep, despite deeply partisan politics in a hung parliament — they even prorogued parliament (no hands on the tiller!) and found their way through. The United States changed from Bush to Obama, and are recovering ahead of the British economy.

Britain was hit hard for two reasons. One is that financial services industry and the housing market make up larger portions of the economy here than they do elsewhere. Hence, the targets of the recession targeted the UK excessively. The other is that the Labour government were increasing deficits and piling up debt when times were good. This makes handling the public finances difficult when times are bad and a extended stimulus is needed.

We should be questioning why this happened. And it leads us back to Labour and Gordon Brown. They believed that busts and recessions could no longer happen. But they were wrong, and recessions did happen.

Although his ideas for helping the economy to recover were copied the world over, Brown’s own policies are largely responsible for the difficult situation that the bailouts have caused for Britain.

Should he be voted out, Brown’s legacy will be the huge public debt that the country is now burdened with. It is astonishing that the platform on which he is campaigning does not look like one in which he repairs such a legacy, but would would instead deepen the burden by ushering in an age of government activism.

Labour wants our votes on the basis that we should be afraid of the Conservatives. They do not want us to vote based on their record in office over the last three or thirteen years (the duration of the Brown and Labour governments, respectively). They point out that the economy is in a delicate situation, and say “please be afraid of change”.

The Big Bad Blog is not afraid of change; Labour’s campaign, manifesto and policies appear flawed and hollow.

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.