Conservative Social Justice

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Perhaps it is time to form a new political party. One in which fiscal responsibility and social justice are the paramount concerns of the party. The justice system keeps letting criminals out of jail and the governments keep spending more than they have. It is time to reduce bureaucracy and eliminate much of the public sector upper echelons. It is time to start making folks accountable and responsible, from the lowest citizen to the highest elected official.

[eyeball]

Perhaps it is time to form a new political party. One in which fiscal responsibility and social justice are the paramount concerns of the party. The justice system keeps letting criminals out of jail and the governments keep spending more than they have. It is time to reduce bureaucracy and eliminate much of the public sector upper echelons. It is time to start making folks accountable and responsible, from the lowest citizen to the highest elected official.

Wrong, its time to do the exact opposite. It is time to start making folks accountable and responsible, from the highest elected official to the lowest citizen.

If you do it this way I think fiscal responsibility and social justice will pretty much just fall into place naturally.

[Mr.Canada]

Yes, we need social justice steeped in common sense social policy including charging those who damage an unborn child in committing a crime against a pregnant woman. We need to better protect our women as they are our mothers and daughters. We need to stand up for our pregnant women and punish those who would harm an unborn child in the commission of a crime against a pregnant woman. Protection of our women must be paramount.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[Michael Hardner]

The new party is starting to tear itself apart after 2 posts, so there you go.

I would like to see a party, though, that is devoted to proper management of the systems that we already have. The role of government seems to be almost agreed-upon now, so let's just have a group that can manage our services effectively.

[Barts]

Perhaps it is time to form a new political party. One in which fiscal responsibility and social justice are the paramount concerns of the party. The justice system keeps letting criminals out of jail and the governments keep spending more than they have. It is time to reduce bureaucracy and eliminate much of the public sector upper echelons. It is time to start making folks accountable and responsible, from the lowest citizen to the highest elected official.

These kinds of statements are just pure nonsense, based on nothing but pure ignorance, and intellectually irresponsible. These are the kinds of rants made by simplistic conservatives who never take into account the details of their uninformed populist dogma. Even worst, the assumption is that life will be better if what you're suggesting--minus any details--is implemented.

Put some actual policy suggestions to this rant, add some real numbers, and explain the consequences based on, hopefully, such notions being implemented successfully in other jurisdictions. If you can't do that spare us the silliness.

[Mr.Canada]

These kinds of statements are just pure nonsense, based on nothing but pure ignorance, and intellectually irresponsible. These are the kinds of rants made by simplistic conservatives who never take into account the details of their uninformed populist dogma. Even worst, the assumption is that life will be better if what you're suggesting--minus any details--is implemented.

Put some actual policy suggestions to this rant, add some real numbers, and explain the consequences based on, hopefully, such notions being implemented successfully in other jurisdictions. If you can't do that spare us the silliness.

I'm a conservative, he is not. Please don't get us mixed up again. Thank you Barts.

[madmax]

Perhaps it is time to form a new political party. One in which fiscal responsibility and social justice are the paramount concerns of the party. The justice system keeps letting criminals out of jail and the governments keep spending more than they have. It is time to reduce bureaucracy and eliminate much of the public sector upper echelons. It is time to start making folks accountable and responsible, from the lowest citizen to the highest elected official.

I understand the void you want to see filled. I believe their is a demand to have that void filled, but neither the organizational means, nor the ability to mobilize will come from another set of policies from a "new" political party that people will ignore, like half the public already ignores the main ones that exist today.

I do like the one correction added, to make accountability start from the highest to the lowest......

Keep on it, develop a platform and see what happens.

[eyeball]

I do like the one correction added, to make accountability start from the highest to the lowest......

Thank you.

It should be astounding just how automatic the assumption is that social accountabililty should start at the bottom of society. I've come to expect this from conservatives, especially the social ones, but libertarians like Jerry should know better.

Liberals and technocrats are harder to figure out, they seem to get it but don't know or have any suggestions on how to achieve a reversal in the chain of accountability. They seem to fear or don't believe its possible for some reason. Conservatives on the other hand just seem to flat out hate the idea. Look at the PMO after Harper took power for example.

Myself, I think if transparency is enforced at the top of government that honesty and even decency perhaps, will trickle down throughout the rest of society. They say wealth is supposed to trickle down when its concentrated near the top. I think it would probably flow much better in the wake of transparency and the more transparency there was the faster it would flow. Justice of course would likely behave the same way.

[Wild Bill]

Myself, I think if transparency is enforced at the top of government that honesty and even decency perhaps, will trickle down throughout the rest of society. They say wealth is supposed to trickle down when its concentrated near the top. I think it would probably flow much better in the wake of transparency and the more transparency there was the faster it would flow. Justice of course would likely behave the same way.

How do you expect such "at the top" transparency to come about? Where is the mechanism to enforce it?

I'd like a pony for Christmas but I don't expect to get one!

I would think that a conservative (a dictionary-defined conservative of course. Not simply someone on the political side that you don't like) would have a more practical method to make such come about. If it was a value prevalent and encouraged at the bottom of society it would eventually infuse all levels, making such behavior a cultural norm.

Right now, I would think the only way you would have a hope of accomplishing such transparency is if a Superman flew in and FORCED it on politicians!

Or do we merely need to get a law passed and scold them with it?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Perhaps I should have been more clear, but the folks on the bottom of the pile are already accountable and responsible, they get to live with the consequences of their decisions. What I was suggesting is that we need to have one set of policies for governments that apply to all citizens at the same time. As it currently stands we have allowed a system or class structure to permeate our policy framework. What I meant to say was that we should apply the same standards to us all.

[Michael Hardner]

I, for one, think that governments and even individuals are behaving better than they have in the past but that pessimism and cynicism are much higher than they were. I can't prove this any more than anyone else could prove that people are less polite than they were in the past.

Citizens can be blamed for the corruption that does exist, as we don't really expect much better. Although Eyeball thinks that corruption happens behind closed doors, much of it happens in the open for all to see. The fact is that we don't care. We re-elected Liberal governments that had wasted one BILLION dollars, and even elected Paul Martin's government when the party had been involved in a scandal. We are to blame.

I would say that these problems could be helped if we officially turned the house of commons into what it does best: a giant gabfest. Parliament can talk about whatever they like, but we should move the apparatus of government - the services - under the umbrella of publicly accountable crown corporations. That way, these companies can concentrate on doing their work without political interference.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I, for one, think that governments and even individuals are behaving better than they have in the past but that pessimism and cynicism are much higher than they were. I can't prove this any more than anyone else could prove that people are less polite than they were in the past.

Citizens can be blamed for the corruption that does exist, as we don't really expect much better. Although Eyeball thinks that corruption happens behind closed doors, much of it happens in the open for all to see. The fact is that we don't care. We re-elected Liberal governments that had wasted one BILLION dollars, and even elected Paul Martin's government when the party had been involved in a scandal. We are to blame.

I would say that these problems could be helped if we officially turned the house of commons into what it does best: a giant gabfest. Parliament can talk about whatever they like, but we should move the apparatus of government - the services - under the umbrella of publicly accountable crown corporations. That way, these companies can concentrate on doing their work without political interference.

Damned interesting comment. I for one want to see massive reductions in the public service and in bureaucracy as well. Transferring services to crown corporations does indeed travel in that direction. It makes these operations function in independence of other efforts. It would benefit citizens by shielding them from many of the pitfalls of the current public service. Entire specific efforts would be rationalized with the intent of becoming self sustaining, and this is good news for the federal revenue stream. It could well reduce costs and add accountability at the highest levels. I would suggest that each crown corporation have at its head an elected representative, a minister in charge of the effort.

[Michael Hardner]

Damned interesting comment. I for one want to see massive reductions in the public service and in bureaucracy as well. Transferring services to crown corporations does indeed travel in that direction. It makes these operations function in independence of other efforts. It would benefit citizens by shielding them from many of the pitfalls of the current public service. Entire specific efforts would be rationalized with the intent of becoming self sustaining, and this is good news for the federal revenue stream. It could well reduce costs and add accountability at the highest levels. I would suggest that each crown corporation have at its head an elected representative, a minister in charge of the effort.

Well, there should be some kind of accountability for the CEOs - and better than we have today. If the shareholders are, in effect, all Canadians then they could be elected, yes. Currently, there's a lot of patronage in these appointments.

The benefits you mention would come if we managed these services as we do a business, which is not to say that we run the companies as we do a business. Businesses are run for profit, and these units need to be run so that they're funded and achieve their goals.

If these entities were to succeed in providing efficiencies where they don't exist today, then the level of services could be increased, and taxes could be cut. Moreover, the people who work for these services would gradually find themselves in a real workplace again, instead of a bureaucratic no-mans land.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well, there should be some kind of accountability for the CEOs - and better than we have today. If the shareholders are, in effect, all Canadians then they could be elected, yes. Currently, there's a lot of patronage in these appointments.

The benefits you mention would come if we managed these services as we do a business, which is not to say that we run the companies as we do a business. Businesses are run for profit, and these units need to be run so that they're funded and achieve their goals.

If these entities were to succeed in providing efficiencies where they don't exist today, then the level of services could be increased, and taxes could be cut. Moreover, the people who work for these services would gradually find themselves in a real workplace again, instead of a bureaucratic no-mans land.

Do these efforts need to generate profits? I mean why should they? Could they not be designed as non-profit organizations? Would that not serve to create more competition and improve service deliveries?

[Michael Hardner]

Do these efforts need to generate profits? I mean why should they? Could they not be designed as non-profit organizations? Would that not serve to create more competition and improve service deliveries?

No, of course they don't need to generate profits. They need to be run efficiently, and funded from the tax base.

Many non-profit organizations run very well without the profit motive. I'm thinking of charities, and other organizations like CAA.

[capricorn]

No, of course they don't need to generate profits.

But those agencies need to operate under a cost recovery basis.

They need to be run efficiently, and funded from the tax base.

That's essentially what happens now except for agencies like Canada Post. If they're funded from the tax base what's the incentive of recovering the costs of operation? Run a deficit? No problem, go back to the well for cash.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

But those agencies need to operate under a cost recovery basis.

That's essentially what happens now except for agencies like Canada Post. If they're funded from the tax base what's the incentive of recovering the costs of operation? Run a deficit? No problem, go back to the well for cash.

Sort of, but not really. What I was driving at was the entire public service sector of the government. From employment insurance to health care, if all of these government programs were reformed with the emphasis on service delivery and cost effectiveness then we would stretch our tax dollars to the limit. It could possibly allow for the disintegration of Revenue Canada as it is now know, because face it this is just another bureaucracy, and its conversion to a program funding vehicle able to break down costs and manipulate funding requirements.

Think of the overall cost savings to the tax payer!

[eyeball]

How do you expect such "at the top" transparency to come about? Where is the mechanism to enforce it?

I'd like a pony for Christmas but I don't expect to get one!

I would think that a conservative (a dictionary-defined conservative of course. Not simply someone on the political side that you don't like) would have a more practical method to make such come about. If it was a value prevalent and encouraged at the bottom of society it would eventually infuse all levels, making such behavior a cultural norm.

Right now, I would think the only way you would have a hope of accomplishing such transparency is if a Superman flew in and FORCED it on politicians!

Or do we merely need to get a law passed and scold them with it?

I'd wire the top to the Internet and stream it live to the world for all too see in realtime. Its just as much our business to see how our government is run as it is the owner of a 7/11 to see how their store is being minded. As much as Michael would have us believe that corrpution is visible its still only visible after the fact, after the damage is done in other words.

Technically, we've been able to achieve total public awareness and transparency for years. People just can't get over their squeamishness is all.

We have thousands of years of evidence that virutally all human beings are prone to corruption in the presence of power and wealth. Power and wealth are like two highly reactive elements that are particularily toxic when they are brought together. Forcing human beings to work without oversight in the presence of power and wealth is no different than forcing humans to work around a nuclear reactor without shielding.

Edited January 4, 2009 by eyeball

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Which is why we need to deal with the ability of politicians to be corrupt in the first place. Stop patronage first, then start unloading the civil service. Take steps such as fixed election dates and recall legislation in conjunction with term limits to their obvious conclusion. Only then can we begin to deal with the politicians, only then can we make them accountable.

[ToadBrother]

Which is why we need to deal with the ability of politicians to be corrupt in the first place. Stop patronage first, then start unloading the civil service. Take steps such as fixed election dates and recall legislation in conjunction with term limits to their obvious conclusion. Only then can we begin to deal with the politicians, only then can we make them accountable.

There is an easier way. Stop voting for anybody but independents. I can tell you right now that candidates would stop being whores to their parties the minute they thought that that close an association and that much of a master-slave relationship would mean poison at the polls.

[Michael Hardner]

That's essentially what happens now except for agencies like Canada Post. If they're funded from the tax base what's the incentive of recovering the costs of operation? Run a deficit? No problem, go back to the well for cash.

Cap,

The incentive is that the person at the top loses their job for not running things properly.

[Wild Bill]

There is an easier way. Stop voting for anybody but independents. I can tell you right now that candidates would stop being whores to their parties the minute they thought that that close an association and that much of a master-slave relationship would mean poison at the polls.

Echoes of Preston Manning! One of the key planks in the Reform platform was for every vote except for critical ones like budgets to be free votes! MP's were to be expected to represent their constituents views to Ottawa, rather than just bringing Ottawa's views back to them. They had some work to do on how an MP was expected to get a reasonably accurate poll of his riding's wishes but the intent was laudable.

Of course, the new CPC couldn't fire that idea down the Orwellian 'memory hole' fast enough! Another reason why I say that despite the numbers it appears that the old PC's took over the larger Reform/Alliance Party and turned it into a clone of the Tory party of Mulroney's day.

Still, what an inspiring idea! It would make an incredible change in our democracy to eliminate all the knee-jerk party solidarity. Might actually make more Canadians feel like they actually are part of the process. The numbers of those who vote might actually rise!

"People say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

Once again, I'm at a total loss to explain why Manning ever bothered.

[Michael Hardner]

eyeball,

I'd wire the top to the Internet and stream it live to the world for all too see in realtime. Its just as much our business to see how our government is run as it is the owner of a 7/11 to see how their store is being minded. As much as Michael would have us believe that corrpution is visible its still only visible after the fact, after the damage is done in other words.

The corruption is visible before the fact but nobody cares until later. The same thing would happen with your ridiculous web cam.

Technically, we've been able to achieve total public awareness and transparency for years. People just can't get over their squeamishness is all.

We have thousands of years of evidence that virutally all human beings are prone to corruption in the presence of power and wealth. Power and wealth are like two highly reactive elements that are particularily toxic when they are brought together. Forcing human beings to work without oversight in the presence of power and wealth is no different than forcing humans to work around a nuclear reactor without shielding.

This post has been edited by eyeball: Today, 03:25 PM

That is so simplistic. There have been many examples of people who have eschewed power and wealth in order to do the right thing. It's up to us to structure a system that works, as much as systems can.

[Michael Hardner]

it appears that the old PC's took over the larger Reform/Alliance Party and turned it into a clone of the Tory party of Mulroney's day.

WBill,

The Reformers had their own little corruptions that have been conveniently forgotten - vowing to not take pensions, vowing not to move into Stornaway. The CPC itself was born out of a betrayal to not merge the parties together. No system can escape a certain amount of corruption and the party system is no exception.

I don't care if the town dog catcher sneaks a little dog food for his own dog, though, as long as he does his job.

[Wild Bill]

WBill,

The Reformers had their own little corruptions that have been conveniently forgotten - vowing to not take pensions, vowing not to move into Stornaway. The CPC itself was born out of a betrayal to not merge the parties together. No system can escape a certain amount of corruption and the party system is no exception.

I don't care if the town dog catcher sneaks a little dog food for his own dog, though, as long as he does his job.

Ah Michael, you miss my point! I would never state that Reform was perfection. After all, it was a POLITICAL party! It suited my values more than it disagreed but of course there were a few rough edges and a few players of poor character.

I'm simply saying that virtually the entire Reform Blue Book or party platform has been purged from the new party, to the point where nothing of it is ever to be mentioned!

Perhaps if we chewed over it long enough we might find one plank that's still there but I don't believe we'd come up with three!

Manning's dream died. No one in the new party cared to nourish it. It's not only gone but it is forever to be unmentioned. That leaves iconoclasts like me with nothing to get excited about! Those were all the things most important to me politically. It leaves me with the CPC only by default.

I keep dreaming that before I die I might get another truly attractive choice. Somehow I doubt if the CPC or even the opposition parties would ever want that to happen. When you study marketing deep enough you realize that you don't necessarily have to present the most attractive choice to your market. If somehow you can rig the market so that there is no truly attractive choice and leave yourself the least of all evils then that would work just as well and likely be more profitable for yourself.