Mr. Topp and the Big Bad Blog

… 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.

In retrospect, this being Labour Day, I should have published my party briefing on the Labour party today, and done the Lib Dems one last week. But I thought a bit too slowly, and here we are. Liberal Democrats on Labour Day.

It makes me wonder if Gordon Brown picked this week for the election due to the presence of Labour Day. Was he hoping for an upswing based on the name similarity? I would think not, but one never knows.

In any case, I give you — in traditional Big Bad Blog format — Mr. Topp’s Take on the Liberal Democrats:

Misguided Perceptions

As usual, we begin with what an immigrant Canadian thinks of the party at first glance, with little background knowledge of British politics. As the “third party” of British politics, the Lib Dems demanded less attention, and my misguided perceptions are hardly present at all.

As a left wing third party (with orange signs), my first impression would to think of them as being like Canada’s New Democratic Party, but they did not always take NDP-ish positions.

Mostly, I found myself wondering who these guys were. I had no idea.

The Truth

The Liberal Democratic party is, in a sense, quite new. In another sense, it’s quite old. The Lib Dems formed in the late 1980s, as a union of two parties — the Liberals and the Social Democrats.

The Liberals are quite an old party in British politics, dating back to the 1850s. Interestingly, they started as what today would be a right-wing party — the true original meaning of liberal, meaning liberal economic policy. The Liberal party often found itself in power in the late 1800s, and into the early 1900s.

Funnily enough, they reinvented themselves as “New Liberals” in the early 1900s, abandoning some of their fiscal restraint in favour of socially liberal policies and creating the welfare state before falling out of favour and becoming a distant third choice behind the Conservative and Labour parties.

The other half — the Social Democrats — was actually a group that split from the Labour party in the early 1980s. Interestingly, the Social Democrats split because they felt Labour was leaning too far leftwards — reading about them makes me think that they would have embraced the place Labour eventually reached when Blair came along.

As a combined force, the Liberal Democrats attempt to be liberal on both an economic and social level — but seem to put more emphasis on social liberty than economic liberty.

The Leader

Leading the Liberal Democrat party is Nick Clegg. Young, upcoming, and doing quite well in the televised debates, he seems to be exactly what the Liberal Democrats are looking for — somebody who is a viable alternative to the two big parties.

Clegg himself is an interesting figure — while Brown reflects his party’s situation and stasis, and Cameron reflects the manner in which his party wishes themselves to be seen, Clegg seems to do both.

Beyond Clegg, the senior members of the party are an interesting bunch — they include former chief economist for Shell and a former journalist for The Economist (who are backing the Conservatives, for those who care). They don’t smell like hippies.

The Manifesto

Sadly, the Liberal Democrats do not have a catchy name for their manifesto, as Labour and the Conservatives do. It is simply titled Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010. They also seem to have stolen the word “fair” from Labour. I’m not impressed by politicians who promise to be fair — they rarely mean it.

The manifesto itself is an interesting attempt at a tightrope walk between the Conservative and Labour positions. It seeks to lower taxation, make cuts, and increase privatization (like the Conservatives), while still laying out strong protection for the welfare state (like Labour).

It is also a funny manifesto. The Conservative and Labour parties assume that you pretty much know where they stand. The Liberal Democrat manifesto begins with a primer regarding who the Liberal Democrats actually are.

The Good

The Liberal Democrats intend to break up the banks.

That is, they plan to say that banks that do both “retail” banking — taking your deposits, for example — and investment banking are no longer allowed. Those that currently do both with have to split into siloed businesses so that customer deposits are not put at risk.

The other parties talk about who will oversee the banks in the future. The Lib Dems make sure that voters’ paychecks cannot be lost in a derivative swap.

I’m not an economist, but that second option sounds pretty nice.

The Bad

One of the Liberal Democrats policy points is that they will eliminate university tuition.

That sounds fantastic. And terrible.

University education is expensive. All those professors, all those buildings. Labs, books, libraries. It’s very, very expensive.

Take a look at any list of the top Universities in the world. Here’s one. It’s not unique. You can go choose your own.

The top 10? Six American schools, four UK schools. Top 15? Eleven US schools; four British. The first school from another nation is in Australia at seventeen. First continental European school is in Switzerland at nineteen. Continental EU school? Twenty-eighth.

Again, you do not need to look at that survey — almost any survey you choose, including the one in your own mind, will tell you the same thing. The United States has the largest number of top post-secondary schools. The UK has a handful that can compete.

The great Universities from continental Europe, on the other hand, are much further down the list. Ecole Polytechnique is at thirty-six. The University of Copenhagen (which once boasted Niels Bohr) is fifty-first.

Imagine removing tuition fees from British universities. You might think that this would make the UK schools more open, give more people advantages. In truth, it would in effect cut funding to the schools. At first, the government would (I assume) pony up the extra money. But then, as the money each University receives for each of its students will be capped by the government (and probably trail inflation), real funding will decrease, and with it the quality of education.

The Ugly

The Liberal Democrats make a strong push to paint themselves as being environmentally friendly — they have a whole host of policies, from promoting energy efficiency to taxing air travel, which take aim at giving the United Kingdom a sustainable and environmentally friendly economy.

They also oppose nuclear power.

These two simply do not mesh. The UK’s energy situation is such that it needs nuclear power for economically viable long-term energy independence. Nuclear power is also considerably cleaner than any other option which is actually viable as a means to meet the country’s energy needs.

Their overall approach is nuclear = bad — they also intend to eliminate the country’s nuclear deterrent (a policy which is of little importance, either way, in my opinion).

Their naive, 1970s view of nuclear power options does them a gross disservice. Not only does it mean that their environmental policy might be for naught — money will not be saved, as power will become extremely dear. Britain will have to introduce energy dependencies on other parts of the world, and energy companies will turn to heavily polluting options to meet demand.

The approach that the Liberal Democrats have to nuclear power lack nuance and understanding, and do the rest of their policies a disservice.

The Bottom Line

The Liberal Democrats are no longer a distant third. They have made themselves into a viable force.

The question is how viable are they, and what will they do?

They are most definitely a liberal party — from both a social and an economic standpoint. The question is in regards to which urge will rule them on any given issue. They do not have a statist stance, like the Labour party does, but do believe in the welfare state.

So when will they decide it is best for the state to provide a service and when they think it is best for the market to do something? And when will they think it is best for the state to provide funding, and when will users have to pay for themselves?

The answer is that — short of a line-by-line review of the manifesto, we do not know. And, in fact, we do not have a good feel for it as they have not governed in recent memory — or at all, in their current incarnation.

In the end, it might be this that shoots them in the foot. We think we know them, but cannot predict how they will behave in a crisis — they do not have the easy statist/Big Society split that a Labour or Conservative vote will respectively provide. Their view is nuanced, and does not always come out as one would expect (or wish) it to.

Walking the line between Labour and Conservative — supporting the welfare state while attempting to tackle a more liberal economic policy — may leave voters scratching their head as to whether the Lib Dems are right for them on any given issue. And it might turn off voters who are surprised by their approach if they do gain power.

On the other hand, those searching for the change and political renewal being peddled by Cameron and Brown will find more of it in the Liberal Democrats than they will elsewhere.

As you might have heard, May 6th is election day here in the UK.

The good people of the United Kingdom allow me a vote in said election, as a citizen of the Commonwealth. While I intend to vote, provided I can get my forms in by Tuesday, with only four years under my belt in Britain, it would seem that I have a lot to learn about the parties, people and issues involved.

Over the next few weeks, I will be reading up on the three main parties in the UK — The Conservatives, Labour, and Liberal Democrat parties — their history, leaders, and local candidates. I’ll be looking at the issues that matter to me, and their positions on these issues.

And I will share all I discover and decide here.

(Photo from The Economist)

There is something very interesting about being a Canadian in the UK during voting season.

As a citizen of a Commonwealth country, I am basically on-par with other non-EU residents in terms of most UK rights and responsibilities with one exception: voting. Canadians (and other Commonwealth citizens) who are UK residents have full voting rights — which is something even EU citizens cannot claim. In June, the UK goes to the polls in a MEP vote — that’s “Member of European Parliament” for you outsiders in the crowd — to determine who represents the country in the EU.

I, of course, need to figure out who is running and how to vote.

Paying attention to politics in this manner — that of a voting member of the public — in a foreign country is odd, as it gives insights into the way people’s minds work in terms of making voting decisions. For instance, approaching a vote where I know nothing about the people up for election or issues involved — in Canada — my likely vote can be easily broken down as follows:

NDP – 75% likely
Liberal – 20% likely
Green – 5% likely
Conservatives – 0% likely

This is because my view of each of the parties is well-entrenched. I had a party-based opinion established well before I was old enough to vote, and in every election bar one I have followed that pre-determined position … and, in that one election, it required something that basically slapped me in the face to vote differently.

In short, the research I do prior to a vote in Canada is done to rationalize the uninformed choice I have made — it is not done to inform a choice I wish to make.

Turnover amongst the political ranks means that not everybody is as entrenched as I am, of course, but not as much as you might think. Political battles in the United States have become less about attracting undecided voters and more about fighting apathy amongst those members of the voting public most likely to cast their vote in your favour.

Here in Britain, there is a three-or-four party situation much like Canada. There is the Labour party, who match fairly closely with the Canadian Liberals. Both countries have Conservative parties. Each has a third party with enough popularity to make its voice heard, but not enough to threaten to form a government (NDP and Liberal Democrats). Finally, there is the separatist party for each country — the Bloc Quebecois in Canada and the Scottish National Party in Britain.

Of course, then things get muddled. The British Conservatives are not nearly as scary as the Canadian version to somebody who is socially liberal, like myself. The Labour party is often to the right of the Conservative party, but has unionist roots much like the Canadian NDP. Canada’s BQ holds much more power than the Scottish National Party does.

In short, upon examination, I cannot just fall back upon my established voting habits and ignore the issues the way I might in Canada. Not that I would want to, now that I have identified that problem.

Choosing who to vote for is difficult, however — the politicians do not want to tell you anything. Let’s look at how the NDP (my party of choice) would court votes in Canada:

For starters, the NDP never really had to court me – I would vote for them if they did not screw up. They were “my” party. So when an election rolled around, their job was to:
1. Make sure I was caring enough to go out and vote;
2. Try not to embarrass themselves (as then I might not vote, or might vote for someone else);
3. Try to pick up some Liberal voters by pointing out how they are drifting to the right (as the left is pretty well covered for the Liberal party) and differentiating themselves on a populist issue or two … without alienating people like me.
4. Hold off similar moves from the Green party who normally vote NDP based upon their environmental stance.

The trouble is that nothing in the above involves dealing with serious issues, or tackling questions such as: Were you to win, how would you govern? These are the things that might actually help us to decide who to vote for.

All of this is clear now, as a voter who always exercises their right to do so but is somehow completely unaware of the real records of the parties and politicians he has to chose between. The dance described above is incredibly visible to the interested outsider, even during times like these when statements about some important issues cannot be dodged in favour of those niches where inroads can be made.

It’s a sad dance, though — one that makes me understand those who do not bother to dance along.

(Photo © Central Audio-visual Library of the European Commission)