Good Policy

[SamStranger]

Good policy is good policy. I don't understand why the Liberal party attacks the Conservatives as being, so called "Ideological" and "Right Wing", when they are simply proposing generally good policy.

Lowering Taxes and reducing spending is good policy. Why does the Left resist the Progressive Tory policy's of the 21st century?

The old Peterson days of the Tax-and-Spend doctrine proved to be disastrous. Why do Liberals stick to this narrow, 20th century mind frame!

Edited June 6, 2008 by SamStranger

[August1991]

Lowering Taxes and reducing spending is good policy. Why does the Left resist the Progressive Tory policy's of the 21st century?

Good policy? Sam Stranger, we'll start with your pension. It's cut - you'll no longer get the monthly bank deposits.

Next, we'll cut the road repairs in front of your house.

[eyeball]

Why does the Left resist the Progressive Tory policy's of the 21st century?

When I question Conservative policy's I'm called a leftist. Its just a word that usually means next to nothing but rank and file Conservative supporters have a real knack for making it feel like they're calling me a nigger.

I'm afraid their bad will trumps whatever good their party might be capable of expressing. They really reflect the mean-spirited anti-social vindictiveness I've come to associate with most of the right's policies.

[jdobbin]

Lowering Taxes and reducing spending is good policy.

Why did the Tories campaign on raising income tax then and do it when they won?

[gc1765]

Good policy is good policy. I don't understand why the Liberal party attacks the Conservatives as being, so called "Ideological" and "Right Wing", when they are simply proposing generally good policy.

I agree that there is too much partisanship, but that partisanship goes both ways.

[Topaz]

Yesterday, Dion said that Canada/Ontario economy was hurting because of Flaherty had said to investors about Ontario and then Harper stands up and says, you are wrong Canada/Ontario is going great nothing to worry about. In the morning, at the Ontario question period, the PC's stood up and asked if Ontario was in a recession of the Libs, he gave the same answer as Harper. So we have the PC's of Ont. saying we are in trouble and the Fed. level we have Harper saying no we aren't and I guess the same for the Libs, one level saying no and the Fed level saying yes we are. Do any of these politicans really know what going on?

[scribblet]

Good policy is good policy. I don't understand why the Liberal party attacks the Conservatives as being, so called "Ideological" and "Right Wing", when they are simply proposing generally good policy.

Lowering Taxes and reducing spending is good policy. Why does the Left resist the Progressive Tory policy's of the 21st century?

Fortunately we have seen lower taxes under the CPC, but we need more now, in order to help bump the economy.

Just remember that any policies the CPC introduces, even if they were similar to Liberal policies, are never acceptable unless actually proposed by the Liberlas..

[Michael Hardner]

Lowering taxes or not is beside the point.

Required services need to be defined first, then the programs need to be designed to be delivered with efficiency.

Politicians aren't managers, so they tend to fight over the easy questions such as cutting taxes. They have no idea whether their organizations actually need more or less money.

Two examples of worst offenders at either end were Chretien (1 billion dollars to develop a list of gun owners) nationally and Harris (Lowering your taxes until you die) in Ontario.

The older I get, the more I understand about business, and the more I understand that what actually goes on in government is horribly run.

[Michael Hardner]

Topaz,

Do any of these politicans really know what going on?

OF COURSE THEY DO.

The politicans need to get ELECTED by selecting the "message" that people respond to the most.

For example "read my lips - no new taxes" (George HW Busy) "I will fix healthcare for a generation" (Paul Martin) or "roll up the rim to win" (T. Horton Donut).

They know what's going on in this respect, and they're successful.

My point is that Canadians comprise a massive shareholder group for an entity called Canada that isn't required to provide proper accountability via management reporting. Instead, it's sloganeering and "four more years".

[eyeball]

Management reporting...you mean the way Enron or Bear Sterns management reports? Perhaps the creative accounting methods that have formed the rosy basis for our economic policies would be more to Canadian's liking.

You hit the nail on the head, the politicians really do know what's going on but the problem is, we can't prove it. Whenever things do go awry there's usually a politician telling us that he "wasn't in the loop". They say this as if being in the loop would have made all the difference and this is usually followed with announcements about the need for better accountability, more transparency and stricter reporting structures.

Round and round it goes, like a bunch of loops.

[Michael Hardner]

Management reporting...you mean the way Enron or Bear Sterns management reports? Perhaps the creative accounting methods that have formed the rosy basis for our economic policies would be more to Canadian's liking.

You hit the nail on the head, the politicians really do know what's going on but the problem is, we can't prove it. Whenever things do go awry there's usually a politician telling us that he "wasn't in the loop". They say this as if being in the loop would have made all the difference and this is usually followed with announcements about the need for better accountability, more transparency and stricter reporting structures.

Round and round it goes, like a bunch of loops.

EB,

You laugh, but they in fact HAD better reports (before Sarbanes Oxley even) then we have now.

You know that this topic has been the major theme of my posts for years now, and I have enjoyed our discussions, but I have major news to reoprt in this area. Yesterday while listening to 'The House' on cbc, an interviewee alluded to the 'Public Policy Forum', one of a myriad of government activities designed to make things "better".

After gravitating to their website, I found this document:

http://www.ppforum.ca/common/assets/public...bargoed_eng.pdf

It's about 100 pages, and I think that this is the way forward we have been talking about for a few years now. I will be blogging about this report soon and explaining why I think it's important.

[SamStranger]

In my opinion, I see Tory policies as being more in line with traditional Canadian values. Cutting the GST by 2%...who's going to complain about that while there buying that brand new Hummer? The Left always follow policies that will benefit the Left, not Canadians as a whole. The Progressive Conservative Party was always about uniting. Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper all follow the principle of standing up for all Canadians, regardless of personal interest. This is why populism is great. If the majority of the populous clearly wants to be governed a certain way, they deserve to be governed rightfully.

If I am casting my ballot for a Conservative candidate, and a Liberal Majority wins- that should not give them a free ride to bring in their narrow minded left wing/socialist agenda. Good governance should trump political interests.

To prove my point, I find it suspicious how the NDP and Bloc are able to pass there private Members bill threw 3rd reading, with support of Liberals of course. Let's go back to the 90's, when the Reform Party had official opposition status. I cannot recall the NDP or Bloc, or the Liberals, helping them get their Private Members bills through. Why...??? The Left supports the left. They believe that political interest in better then good policy.

Edited June 9, 2008 by SamStranger

[eyeball]

EB,

You laugh, but they in fact HAD better reports (before Sarbanes Oxley even) then we have now.

You know that this topic has been the major theme of my posts for years now, and I have enjoyed our discussions, but I have major news to reoprt in this area. Yesterday while listening to 'The House' on cbc, an interviewee alluded to the 'Public Policy Forum', one of a myriad of government activities designed to make things "better".

After gravitating to their website, I found this document:

http://www.ppforum.ca/common/assets/public...bargoed_eng.pdf

It's about 100 pages, and I think that this is the way forward we have been talking about for a few years now. I will be blogging about this report soon and explaining why I think it's important.

I'm not laughing.

There are really only two options. Either we move in the direction of deepening and renewing our commitment to democracy through a new relationship between government and the public. Or, we move in the direction of more centralized and controlling government, weakening, if not undermining, democracy in the process.

I've been here and done this and was posting stuff about building and empowering sustainable communities years ago. Our coastal communities tried to do what your report outlines in the face of a widespread collapse and restructuring of our fishing and forestry industries and way of life. This restructuring followed the IMF/WTO model of privatization resulting in the predicted concentration of ownership away from local communities into a small pool of investors who live elsewhere. The Conservatives started us down this road under Mulroney and Chretien's Liberals only put the pedal to the metal when they took over.

We did the visioning thing and built community-based processes. The government threw all sorts of money at the problem and corporations and academia got all warm and fuzzy about the words community and sustainability but it was all for naught. The few fish that remain are now mostly the property of investors who live nowhere near here and the forests that surround us are likewise off-limits. We're down to a handful of fishermen and loggers where there used to be hundreds and most of these now work in camps and regions far away from home. What is a community? Mine has mostly gone diaspora, most people I know have moved away.

The corporate flacks and academics have all gone home and even the government is withdrawing. They've hung on to the things that make them money like the national park, but they're dumping the infrastructure that costs money such as docks, light-houses and airports on local governments. I'd like to say our community has managed to retain its sense of community but if the battles over how to maintain these are anything to go by...individuals and neighbourhoods are even more divided and isolated than before. That said, I don't even know who half the people around here are anymore. Everyone's steadily being replaced by city-slickers and other outsiders who haven't got a clue or a care in the world about the history of the area. All that matters is, "how much is it going to cost me and why should I pay for it"?

I think there is a third option. This option should be based on mistrust and the certain knowledge that power corrupts. Concentrate on making the uppermost echelons of government and corporate management totally transparent so that honesty and decency trickle down through the rest. Just like wealth is supposed to but for real. We used to talk about the need for process guardians to ensure the public's processes could be protected from special interests intent on capturing them and either steering them in a direction favourable to their own or over a cliff if this didn't work. Your report touches on this in the section on Complexity, Consultation and Conventional Leadership: A Toxic Mix. It is a mix that thrives on secrecy. Killing the suffocating culture of official secrecy that surrounds conventional leadership is the key to getting out of the way of communities sustainably managing their own affairs. We were unsuccesful at establishing the required transparency and if Harper's gang is anything to judge by we're going nowhere fast. I only expect more of the same when the Liberals return.

As for transparency and mistrust...our fishermen volunteered and paid to have surveillance cameras mounted on their boats to prove they could be trusted to manage their use of a public resource. They offered to pay for the installation of security cameras in the offices of the DFO bureacrats responsible for managing fishermen so the public could learn to trust them too, but DFO declined.

Edited June 9, 2008 by eyeball

[Shakeyhands]

If I am casting my ballot for a Conservative candidate, and a Liberal Majority wins- that should not give them a free ride to bring in their narrow minded left wing/socialist agenda.

This statement is contrary to your entire argument, is it not?

[August1991]

It's about 100 pages, and I think that this is the way forward we have been talking about for a few years now. I will be blogging about this report soon and explaining why I think it's important.

Sorry, MH. I'm less than impressed.

Note the use of the passive voice in the following sentences:

The skills development project initiated what has evolved into an ongoing dialogue, beginning with 35 people drawn from government and provincial stakeholders.

....

About 25 people participated in each community.

...

The project will engage 15 opinion leaders in a dialogue about the public’s role in reducing greenhouse gases.

...

It brought together 35 people from across the region to discuss what role ordinary residents can play in a community’s renewal.

Link

IOW, this is "hand picked" representative democracy. I think that's kind of like what they do in Kuwait or Libya and ultimately, it's a fraud.

If we're going to pick representatives to voice public opinion, we'd be better off with a lottery system. (Our current system is arguably better than either: we have a harsh obstacle course to eliminate the amateurs and incompetents and then, we choose by lottery.)

[Who's Doing What?]

In my opinion, I see Tory policies as being more in line with traditional Canadian values. Cutting the GST by 2%...who's going to complain about that while there buying that brand new Hummer? The Left always follow policies that will benefit the Left, not Canadians as a whole. The Progressive Conservative Party was always about uniting. Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper all follow the principle of standing up for all Canadians, regardless of personal interest. This is why populism is great. If the majority of the populous clearly wants to be governed a certain way, they deserve to be governed rightfully.

If I am casting my ballot for a Conservative candidate, and a Liberal Majority wins- that should not give them a free ride to bring in their narrow minded left wing/socialist agenda. Good governance should trump political interests.

To prove my point, I find it suspicious how the NDP and Bloc are able to pass there private Members bill threw 3rd reading, with support of Liberals of course. Let's go back to the 90's, when the Reform Party had official opposition status. I cannot recall the NDP or Bloc, or the Liberals, helping them get their Private Members bills through. Why...??? The Left supports the left. They believe that political interest in better then good policy.

The GST cut is a farce.

It only helps those who already have lots of money.

EX. Who gets more out of the GST cut?

The guy who just spent $90,000 on a Benz or the poor slob who spent $6,000 on a used Chevy?

The Benz buyer saves $1800, enough to rent a nice cottage for the week with his family.

The used Chevy buyer saves $120, barely enough to fill his tank 2 times.

So who is the GST cut really for?

$20,000 of disposable income spent on GST items saves $400. Whereas $100,000 of disposable income spent on GST items saves $2000.

The GST cut was for the wealthy. To spin it it any other way is just that, SPIN.

Didn't the CPC raise personal income tax to pay for this cut?

Terrible policy. Right up there with the child care payoff/vote purchase.

[SamStranger]

The GST cut is a farce.

It only helps those who already have lots of money.

EX. Who gets more out of the GST cut?

The guy who just spent $90,000 on a Benz or the poor slob who spent $6,000 on a used Chevy?

The Benz buyer saves $1800, enough to rent a nice cottage for the week with his family.

The used Chevy buyer saves $120, barely enough to fill his tank 2 times.

So who is the GST cut really for?

$20,000 of disposable income spent on GST items saves $400. Whereas $100,000 of disposable income spent on GST items saves $2000.

The GST cut was for the wealthy. To spin it it any other way is just that, SPIN.

Didn't the CPC raise personal income tax to pay for this cut?

Terrible policy. Right up there with the child care payoff/vote purchase.

Yes, they did raise the Lowest Income Tax bracket by .5%, but they lowered it back to 15% in their latest budget.

Child Care is terrible policy? I suppose you support Socialist Day Care...where parents have their children raised by strangers. Canada has become such a welfare state, it's disgusting.

ALL our money should NOT go to the damn government!!! If we had more money in our pockets, we could spend for ourselves- whether it be Health Care, or Day Care. I do not support this Socialist argument of the State raising our children.

Before we know it there will be little Jack Layton's walking around!! (Scary thought)

Edited June 11, 2008 by SamStranger

[eyeball]

Sorry, MH. I'm less than impressed.

Note the use of the passive voice in the following sentences:Link

IOW, this is "hand picked" representative democracy. I think that's kind of like what they do in Kuwait or Libya and ultimately, it's a fraud.

If we're going to pick representatives to voice public opinion, we'd be better off with a lottery system. (Our current system is arguably better than either: we have a harsh obstacle course to eliminate the amateurs and incompetents and then, we choose by lottery.)

I don't care what kind of system you use. Without an effective way to check the secrecy and deception of people in power the system will function poorly and mostly serve itself.

[Bryan]

Terrible policy. Right up there with the child care payoff/vote purchase.

GST cut and the Child Care policy are primary reasons I voted CPC. They are both very smart policies.

With GST, the poorest people pay no income tax anyway. Lowering the GST, the one tax they do pay every time, is the most direct tax cut you can give them.

With the Child Care plan, it helped people with taking responsibility for their own children rather than warehousing them in government run institutions. I'd have voted for them on this policy alone, even if I disagreed with everything else in their platform.

[Sean Hayward]

Left-wing people consider generally left-wing ideas to be good ideas, and right-wing people consider generally right-wing ideas to be good ideas. That is the foundation of the political party system. The goodness of an idea is in the eye of the beholder. It is as simple as that.

[Melanie_]

As a working mother and grandmother, I can never support the Conservative child care plan. They’ve basically said that good mothers stay home, and bad mothers should be satisfied with unregulated, substandard care because they don’t really care about their children anyway. Comments like “take responsibility for your own children” continue to echo that sentiment – as if working to pay for your child’s food, shelter, and clothing doesn’t count as being responsible.

Non profit daycare is not government run. It is run by a board of directors, generally made up of the parents of the children in the program. The government’s role is to ensure standards are met, just as they ensure standards are met in restaurants and other businesses. They also provide some funding in terms of operating grants, and subsidies for low income families; they can also provide grants to hire extra staff to meet the needs of children with disabilities. There is no grand socialist plot to create little Jack Laytons, complete with cheesy porn star moustache.

I feel like I’m banging my head against a wall every time this subject comes up. Have the people who make such grossly misinformed statements about child care ever even set foot in a child care centre?

[M.Dancer]

As a working mother and grandmother, I can never support the Conservative child care plan. They’ve basically said that good mothers stay home, and bad mothers should be satisfied with unregulated, substandard care because they don’t really care about their children anyway. Comments like “take responsibility for your own children” continue to echo that sentiment – as if working to pay for your child’s food, shelter, and clothing doesn’t count as being responsible.

Non profit daycare is not government run. It is run by a board of directors, generally made up of the parents of the children in the program. The government’s role is to ensure standards are met, just as they ensure standards are met in restaurants and other businesses. They also provide some funding in terms of operating grants, and subsidies for low income families; they can also provide grants to hire extra staff to meet the needs of children with disabilities. There is no grand socialist plot to create little Jack Laytons, complete with cheesy porn star moustache.

I feel like I’m banging my head against a wall every time this subject comes up. Have the people who make such grossly misinformed statements about child care ever even set foot in a child care centre?

My non profit daycare experiance;

1) Non government non profit $1200 per month

2) Government (city) $800.....

I will say this, you certainly get what you pay for...

[Melanie_]

My non profit daycare experiance;

1) Non government non profit $1200 per month

2) Government (city) $800.....

I will say this, you certainly get what you pay for...

Ouch! Is that for one child? Here in Manitoba the nonprofits charge a standard rate of $376/month, and receive a small operating grant from the province for each space. We don't have city or government run programs at all, but we do have a few for profit centres, who charge much higher fees (without a corresponding increase in quality).

Edited June 12, 2008 by Melanie_

[M.Dancer]

Ouch! Is that for one child? Here in Manitoba the nonprofits charge a standard rate of $376/month, and receive a small operating grant from the province for each space. We don't have city or government run programs at all, but we do have a few for profit centres, who charge much higher fees (without a corresponding increase in quality).

One child, 2 different kids...

We have our son in the day care where our daughter attends school.....we would send our son to where our daughter went, but the logistics of two drop offs don't work.

The rate now for the private non profit daycare is current $1400 for infant....the rates for profit daycares are similiar ....I wouldn't know about the quality but the more expensive daycare wins awards each year while the cheaper one goes on strike....

[Bryan]

As a working mother and grandmother, I can never support the Conservative child care plan. They’ve basically said that good mothers stay home, and bad mothers should be satisfied with unregulated, substandard care because they don’t really care about their children anyway. Comments like “take responsibility for your own children” continue to echo that sentiment – as if working to pay for your child’s food, shelter, and clothing doesn’t count as being responsible.

Non profit daycare is not government run. It is run by a board of directors, generally made up of the parents of the children in the program. The government’s role is to ensure standards are met, just as they ensure standards are met in restaurants and other businesses. They also provide some funding in terms of operating grants, and subsidies for low income families; they can also provide grants to hire extra staff to meet the needs of children with disabilities. There is no grand socialist plot to create little Jack Laytons, complete with cheesy porn star moustache.

I feel like I’m banging my head against a wall every time this subject comes up. Have the people who make such grossly misinformed statements about child care ever even set foot in a child care centre?

Misinformed? I have two children of my own. The oldest DID go through regulated/subsidized daycare in Manitoba, and that was enough for me to say that NEVER would I ever put one of my children in a government regulated daycare again.

I certainly take issue with your characterization of unregulated care being 'substandard'. We looked at a lot of daycares and private babysitters with both children. We visited the centres, interviewd the staff, and called up parents of children already using the care. Without exception, the regulated centres did not even come close to meeting my level of expectations for standard of care. In terms of staff to child ratios, cleanliness, interactions with the children, conflict resolution, and out of facility activities every one of them was flat out terrible. In that my wife and I were young and making low wages, we had no choice but to use subsidized care, because the plans at the time only doled out the cash directly to licensed centres. We had to pick the least bad of a range of unsatisfactory choices. And it was a nightmare. My child was poorly cared for, he was miserable, and he did not want to go.

With the Conservative plan, we got a direct rebate given to US to use as we wanted. This allowed us to go with a local unlicensed private babysitter in the neighbourhood that we knew, and that we had determined was providing the level of care we expected. We could apply the subsidy aginst her rates, and finally be able to afford care that WAS up to our standards. We could not be happier. This has turned out to be the best thing that could have happened. We are directly involved with the care that our daughter gets, and she loves going.

There was a potential issue where because of the number of kids she had for a brief period, that the province was telling her that she had to get licensed. We made it clear in no uncertain terms that if she did get licensed, we would find a different babysitter. The government does not decide the standard of care for my children, I do. Thankfully, one of the kids moved, so the babysitter was back under the "magic number", and the issue was never revisited.

That is why the Conservative child care plan was EXACTLY what I wanted, and why I was happy to vote for them. The only thing that could make it better, IMO, would be if all direct funding to daycares was cut, and a needs-based subsidy was given to the parents only. If they believe in institutional daycare, they could still use it there, but the parents would have the final say, and the chips would fall where they were needed instead of where goverments tell us we have to go.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Bryan