May 2, 2012

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.

April 27, 2012

London has an election coming up on May 3rd, 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. Given the number of candidates, it seems as though we’re going to do this in three parts; we will endeavour to cover all candidates prior to the election.

So, in the order presented in the pamphlet provided by London Elects, here are the candidates to be the Mayor of London:

Lawrence Webb, UKIP

I don’t know much about the UKIP, other than that “UKIP” stands for “United Kingdom Independence Party”, and that they’re a conservative party that would like the country to exit the EU. The Mayor of London has no say in such matters, of course, so — other than a feather in their cap, of course — there’s no obvious UKIP policy that fits with the power of the mayorality.

So what does their manifesto contain?

Immigration Policy

Amazingly, since it lies outside of the mayor’s power (although perhaps not surprisingly, given it’s the purpose of their party) the thrust of their point-form manifesto, is an anti-EU and anti-immigration policy. (Really. A one page, point form, manifesto. I’m embarrassed for them.)

Their anti-immigration stance has even evolved into some sort of generic anti-movement policy, separating “long term Londoners” from the rest.

This list includes things beyond the mayor’s power (changing immigration policy, altering EU policy to eliminate red tape), the illegal (giving preferential treatment to people from London on the job market), the weird (levy 25p on all overseas visitors), and the immoral (giving preference to Londoners over asylum seekers for housing).

Law and order?

Webb seems intent to undermine the police and justice system through his “Law and Order” proposals:

1. Zero tolerance on certain types of crime. Leaving aside that zero tolerance policies do not work and pervert the course of justice, the line “offend on Saturday, face court on Monday” strikes me as impossible.
2. Encourage citizens arrests.

The good idea

Every campaign needs a good idea, right? For Webb, it’s the time-limited multi-bus trip: as many bus trips as a person wants/needs within 70 minutes of the ticket’s purchase.

The caveat is that this appears to have simply been stolen from the Liberal Democrat platform (see below). So, um, the only thing I like about the UKIP platform is the bit they stole from the Lib Dems.

Why you should vote for Webb

You shouldn’t.

London is a global financial capital — immigration is its lifeblood. An anti-immigration mayor, even a powerless one, would do irreparable economic harm to the city and the country.

The immigration issue aside (if that’s possible with the UKIP), Webb’s ideas seem pretty awful. The one page manifesto is an embarrassment; any serious candidate who wants your vote should put some effort into their campaign.

Even if you find yourself agreeing with the UKIP and Mr. Webb, the poor showing on the manifesto shows that he is not serious about the role; he does not deserve a single vote.

Carlos Cortiglia, BNP

The BNP (British National Party) are a far right party of racists and bigots.

There is no reason to examine the Cortiglia’s platform.

Do not vote for this man.

Siobhan Benita, Independent

My dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties (see below) makes an independent candidate intriguing. An independent needs more vetting, however, as their unstated political views are not necessarily clear based on party alignment, and their track record may be absent.

Such is the case with Ms. Benita, who has an About Page that is worryingly absent of content.

Still, after reading the UKIP’s “manifesto”, Benita is a breath of fresh air. She has a separate manifesto for each of her policy areas, any of which put the UKIP manifesto to shame.

Ms. Benita appears to be prepared, and has some interesting ideas.

Why you should vote for Benita

Other candidates seem rather lackluster (see above and below), which is a poor reason, but a reason all the same. She also has well thought out positions that I happen to agree with:

Education appears to be her primary concern, and she wants to bring libraries under the mayorality. I am on board with these — although concerned that her primary agenda appears to deal with subjects that are outside the purview of the mayor.

Given the new rules for academies brought about at the national level, to have the mayor responsible for planning permissions for new schools, while the councils are responsible for education itself seems like a strange mismatch (of course, Conservatives probably see it as “competition”, and won’t change the rules here). Throw in the fact that the mayor is a visible force in the city, while most people do not know who represents them on the council, and it would create greater accountability for a primary concern in local elections.

Other fantastic ideas:

• Free transport for job seekers
• Having the tubes run later on weekends
• Better river transport services
• Donate government buildings to charities after working hours

Beyond this, we are also rather fond of her entire Housing Manifesto.

Why you should not vote for Benita

A lot of the mayor’s “powers” are not powers, but places where they wield influence. This is done – as far as I can tell – through will and personality. When I watch Benita talk (and that’s a video from her campaign website, not something random I chose in which she is uncompelling), I’m not convinced that she can convince people. When I read about her accomplishments as a senior bureaucrat, I find them to be suspiciously vague.

She has no track record, and there’s no reason to think that she’ll be able to push through anything on …

… education, which is the focus – “priority”, in her words – of her campaign, despite it being outside the remit of mayor.
… economic growth, which is one of the mayor’s responsibilities, but one in which she has no official powers.
… improve policing, where the mayor has many powers, but is not involved in operational decision making.

With her top priority being outside the scope of the job, an absent track record, and no opportunity to see her in action under pressure (as an independent, she is not invited to the debates), she seems to be a “high risk, high reward” candidate.

I like what she’s selling, but remain quite unconvinced that she can deliver any of it.

Brian Paddick, Liberal Democrat

At the moment, I am not a big fan of the Liberal Democrats. I was quite excited about them in the last General Election, and thought quite highly of the prospects of a coalition government that featured them. Unfortunately, they seem to have instead agreed to support the Conservative party – thereby losing their progressive voting base – in return for a referendum on AV that they lost, at least partially, by mismanaging the campaign.

It has not been impressive.

But local politics and national politics are quite different, and when it comes to the position of mayor the person matters even more. The mayor does not answer to the party whip. And Brian Paddick is a very interesting candidate.

His Lib Dem affiliation paints him as a progressive candidate, but he comes from a policing background which, to my mind, tends to produce more right wing types.

His number one focus, naturally, is the police. With his mix of the progressive and the practical, he makes a quite intriguing figure as the person in charge of the Met.

Why you should vote for Paddick

First and foremost, because of his position on policing. Too often those who make “improvements” to policing – who provide more money, more manpower, more tools – are hardline right wingers. A progressive with practical experience approaching such a role is a rare and wonderful thing.

There are other nice ideas in the manifesto — the one-hour bus fare supported by the UKIP also appears here, along with other ideas to make travel in London more affordable to those on a limited income. There are also some good longer-term environmental goals

Why you shouldn’t vote for Paddick

That Lib Dem association again. While the policing focus – along with the clearly well thought out practical ideas – is all Paddick, the manifesto is decidedly about the Liberal Democrats, and not Paddick himself.

How much does he care about these things? How committed to them is he? And – given my reservations about the party itself, these days, is there enough Paddick here to hold my nose and vote for his party?

Stay tuned …

There are still three candidates — including the two favourites — still to come. Keep an eye on the Big Bad Blog for more of our election preview.

December 29, 2010

Christmas is over, New Year’s fast approaching, and that means one thing here at the Big Bad Blog: it’s time to count down our top five posts of the year.

5: Feeding Baby

You may see a wee bit of Maggie-content here in the top five this year. Apparently we here in the Topp household were not the only ones to get excited about the prospect of a little Topp.

Karen spent most of the year pregnant, and we both read (voraciously) whatever we could find regarding pregnancy and newborn babies. When I learned that the baby could taste what Karen was eating while pregnant, and that this would influence her food choices later in life … well, I had to write about it, and let the whole of the Internet know.

4: Little Buddha

The only entry in the photoblog section of the blog — which is too often neglected in favour of using Flickr — is the post Little Buddha.

I was on a work trip in Sofia, Bulgaria, and staying in a little apartment. In the apartment was a tiny statue of a Buddha. My mind immediately jumped to the idea of a self-portrait, in a yoga pose, with the Buddha balanced on me.

I’m not sure why I do not get more creative photographic ideas. But when I do get such an idea, they tend to be pulled off well. I love this photo, and am quite happy that it made the top five of the year:

3: Heartbeat/Drumroll, please

These were actually number three and four on the list, neck-and-neck, but I have decided to combine them here, as they are so similar in nature.

In Heartbeat, I announced to the world that Karen was pregnant. In Drumroll, please … I announced to the world that the baby was a girl.

In both instances, there was much rejoicing.

2: Party Briefing: The Conservatives

There was an election in the UK earlier this year, and in the run-up I did some background reading on the three major parties, and shared my findings (and opinions) with the Internet at large.

The article on the Conservative party was far and away the most popular of the three, garnering over ten times the number of views for either the Liberal Democrats or the Labour party.

Here at the Big Bad Blog, we do not know what to make of this. Can hits to our little blog help to predict election outcomes? Or were many of those who voted Tory less sure of how to cast their votes than those who voted for Labour or the Lib Dems, and spent more time researching the party?

While a single election is surely not statistically significant, we here at the Big Bad Blog like to believe that we can see into the future.

1: Tattoos: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Once again, the top post of the year at the Big Bad Blog has far outstripped the others on the list in terms of views. While it certainly cannot compare to last year’s number one, which still holds down all our blog records, this look at lovely and hideous tattoos has simply generated steady traffic since being posted in March — as opposed to the sudden spike generated by the Marshmallow Man that had me worried that the site might go down.

May 5, 2010

… 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.