Has the Conservative Party Become One of Exclusion?

[DrGreenthumb]

I am not talking about the "americanization" of health care I am talking about changing so that their is a visable cost to health care, that will reward those who make good choices and penalize those who do not or abuse the system.Yet all would have access to the same level of healthcare without being discriminated against for ablity to pay.

So then why say when the movement I represent comes on board with that you will support us? Like I said, that is EXACTLY what we have been advocating for years. Let us pay taxes!

[Molly]

Here I thought the visible cost to crappy health decisions and high-risk behaviours is POOR HEALTH!

That's a pretty good incentive, without creating a special Beaurocracy of Being Judgmental about Unhealthy Indulgences.

[DrGreenthumb]

Here I thought the visible cost to crappy health decisions and high-risk behaviours is POOR HEALTH!

That's a pretty good incentive, without creating a special Beaurocracy of Being Judgmental about Unhealthy Indulgences.

Yet fat people are still eating double cheeseburgers and supersize fries. They know being fat is unhealthy yet continue to eat excessively, and cost our health care system millions of dollars. I eat healthy and get lots of excercise but I still have to pay for their health care. I have no right to tell them to stop eating so much. It is their body. I do deserve to be compensated for their bad choices costing me money though. That is why we should pay for our unhealthy choices through consumption taxes. A bag of greasy potato chips should cost more, and supersize fries should be taxed more heavily than a baked potato.

Give people more financial incentives to make healthy choices, and let those who insist on making unwise health decisions pay for it with their tax dollars. Tax consumption.

[Alta4ever]

Yet fat people are still eating double cheeseburgers and supersize fries. They know being fat is unhealthy yet continue to eat excessively, and cost our health care system millions of dollars. I eat healthy and get lots of excercise but I still have to pay for their health care. I have no right to tell them to stop eating so much. It is their body. I do deserve to be compensated for their bad choices costing me money though. That is why we should pay for our unhealthy choices through consumption taxes. A bag of greasy potato chips should cost more, and supersize fries should be taxed more heavily than a baked potato.

Give people more financial incentives to make healthy choices, and let those who insist on making unwise health decisions pay for it with their tax dollars. Tax consumption.

I really miss the way KFC use to taste, it was a nice treat, for the 3 or four times a year that i ate it, I would gladly pay more to have it fried in the good grease.

[DrGreenthumb]

I really miss the way KFC use to taste, it was a nice treat, for the 3 or four times a year that i ate it, I would gladly pay more to have it fried in the good grease.

Just like I would gladly pay more to have fast food french fries that tasted good again.

Just like people who enjoy Cannabis would gladly pay their taxes on it if they could legally get it.

The government should not prohibit trans-fats or Cannabis, but they should tax behaviours and products according to their impact on health.

[Alta4ever]

Just like I would gladly pay more to have fast food french fries that tasted good again.

Just like people who enjoy Cannabis would gladly pay their taxes on it if they could legally get it.

The government should not prohibit trans-fats or Cannabis, but they should tax behaviours and products according to their impact on health.

Although putting a consumption tax on these products doesn't adress the feeling in our society that health care is free. We would still have those that would abuse the sytem becuase thier is no perceived cost.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Alta4ever

[DrGreenthumb]

Although putting a consumption tax on these products doesn't adress the feeling in our society that health care is free. We would still have those that would abuse the sytem becuase thier is no perceived cost.

Thats the whole POINT , it doesn't matter what their "perception" is because they would pay in advance for any additional costs they create at the point of purchasing unhealthy products. They don't have to care or agree that transfats are bad for them, if science determines that transfats are unhealthy then everytime a person purchases them they will pay a "health surcharge" to offset the costs they will create in the future to the healthcare system.

You know its simple, so stop trying to confuse the matter. I think you are just using this healthcare issue as an excuse to continue cannabis prohibition. I think the real reason is just that you personally don't like people to use cannabis, or are just towing Harper's idiotic party line.

Edited March 20, 2009 by DrGreenthumb

[ToadBrother]

You know its simple, so stop trying to confuse the matter. I think you are just using this healthcare issue as an excuse to continue cannabis prohibition. I think the real reason is just that you personally don't like people to use cannabis, or are just towing Harper's idiotic party line.

What always interests me is how a fair chunk of the Tory party supposedly adhere to at least some sort of Libertarian standard, and yet invoke public health care as the big justification for not legalizing pot. Quite frankly, it confirms to me that a good chunk of the Tories are simply right-wing social reactionaries, who are every bit as convinced as their Left-leaning counterparts that the Government should be the battering ram to further their own beliefs.

[MSH]

I watch a lot of political commentary shows on both sides of the border; and much discussion centres around the death of conversatism. In particular, in the U.S.; the Republican party, which is clearly in serious trouble. Their ‘big tent’ philosophy, which should have brought more Americans into the fold, instead closed the door to a growing list of what they deemed to be ‘undesirables’.

Many are blaming it on the Religous Right, but I don’t think they can share it all; anymore than the Reform/Alliance can shoulder the burden for the internal strife that the Canadian version of the party is now experiencing.

I'm not sure you can compare the two situations; politics in the US is actually quite unique in the world. You are right, however, that the "religious right" aren't to blame--in fact Obama had quite a following amongst those we would say were from the "religious right" (such as Southern Baptists).

The problem for parties left of centre, is competition; which in turn creates a problem for conservative voters, because there is no competition. They can voice their disapporval over the handling of the economy, and the move away from the founding principles, but where do they go? They just have to suck it up and try not to complain too loudly for fear that they could drive voters to the ‘evil’ Liberals.

Ironic to make that argument. For nearly the entire existence of the Reform and Alliance parties pundits continually argued that competition on the right was letting the Liberals march into power--comfortable majority status at that--with little more popular vote than Harper got last fall. Now, the left suffers from that problem, but the right has a NEW problem, because lack of competition has made their party exclusionary! Damned if you do, damned if you don't! So what would you suggest is the solution? Electoral reform? We can't even get senators to be routinely elected AT ALL, much less change how the ones we DO vote for are elected!

But what if the Liberal Party isn’t as evil as they once thought? There was a recent editorial in our local paper that suggested Stephen Harper was becoming a Liberal, while Michael Ignatieff was becoming a Conservative. A recent poll suggested that Harper has little chance of gaining ground from the left; and in fact seems more worried about losing ground from the right; hence, his falling back on ‘Faith, Family and Freedom’.

Talk about stating the obvious:

- Ignatieff behaves like a moderately conservative leader, with some policies similar to the Tories' last election platform, and gains support

- Harper falls back to the position he was elected for to maintain support

What is the big insight here? Canadians aren't particularly partisan, and despite the picture the CBC tries to paint, we aren't all that "progressive" either--Since the departure of Trudeau we've consistently wanted a moderately conservative, practical, responsible government. Cretien was kind of left, but put Martin-style liberals in charge of important matters, and Martin himself never made any bold progressive moves in his short tenure...and Mulroney led with a HUGE majority until he wore out his welcome by over-spending and increasing taxes (and notable introducing the hated GST) and all the while being arrogant.

Reading comments on conservative blogs and forums, there is a definite ‘us vs them’ mentality. But shouldn’t those ‘us’, try to lure those ‘them’, and not drive them away; especially since there are a great many votes from the ‘centre’ now at play?

But forum posters aren't typical voters--they are very partisan, whether they be rabidly neo-con, or, like yourself, enthusiastically "progressive"/socialist/liberal.

Like the Republicans, the Conservative Party of Canada has become one of exclusion:

- If you are not a Christian, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you are a Muslim, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you believe in global warming, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you believe in evolution, you can’t be a conservative.

...(ad-nauseum)...

Who is being exclusionary here? Seems like an argument between the pot and the kettle over shades to me.

Firstly, you are stereotyping. You have a very narrow view on who is conservative (both in the small c and Big C sense). I know business owner who happens to be homosexual. On social issues, of course, he wouldn't be classified as conservative, but aside from his views on the subject of sexual orientation he holds a mix of libertarian and conservative views: he supports cracking down on gangs, tougher punishments for criminals (that happens when your business is targeted by criminals). He complains about how much taxes he has to pay and how carelessly the government spends that money. He does not like to hear how Canadian citizens are laid off as migrant workers from Mexico and elsewhere keep jobs at lower pay.

Besides that, I know paid-up, actively-involved members of the Conservatives who support abortion rights, and there are not only Muslim and Hindu conservative members and supporters (like my next-door neighbour), but long-serving MPs as well who are not Christian.

Incidentally, Our current CONSERVATIVE PM Harper first became involved in federal politics as a member of the young LIBERALS. So I guess Harper has to put himself on probation!

Aside from that, you also mention things like "if you are a union member you cannot be a conservative". Well, some things just aren't compatible--of you are a big union supporter then your beliefs by definition aren't all that conservative. What's next? "If you believe in private ownership and control then you cannot be a true communist?" Well, DUH!

Michael Ignatieff is now also using a ‘big tent’ philosphy, and if he can turn his party into one of ‘inclusion’ by not limiting the criteria - it just might work.

It's less a problem of exclusion and more one of perception--with partisans making commentary like yours it is an uphill battle. Ignatieff faces a dilemma there too--he has to construct his own image and he has to LIVE UP to that image. He talks a good talk but does he really have principles? He has backed the effort in Afghanistan--will he dither if it proves too unpopular? Will he cave to socialists and recklessly spend if in government? Voters haven't completely figured out if he is sincere or not, and he'd better address that because rabidly partisan Tories will wipe the floor with his carcass if he doesn't.

I disagree with you theory about "exclusionary" politics because I know the reality is far less rigid than you portray. Harper has managed to overcome an image of being "too scary" to become PM, even if he is seen as aloof and partisan, but people still EXPECT him to be right wing, so even if you don't agree with him you'd respect him if he lived up to his image. His government's handling of the economic downturn and the political crisis has cost him some of that respect--even from non-supporters. He campaigned on being more democratic and (most importantly) fiscally conservative, yet he's used parliamentary procedure to his advantage to avoid votes and he has spent like a drunken sailor, planning to overspend by tens of billions a year. The challenge is that Harper looks too SIMILAR to yesterday's politicians, not that he is too different or too exclusionary.

[Progressive Tory]

If the Liberal party is all inclusive then it shouldn't have any trouble forming a majority government.

I think they will, with the Conservatives out there campaigning for us and all.

[Progressive Tory]

The government should not prohibit trans-fats or Cannabis, but they should tax behaviours and products according to their impact on health.

Some want a tax of cholcolate.

Now that's just cruel.

[Progressive Tory]

I disagree with you theory about "exclusionary" politics because I know the reality is far less rigid than you portray. Harper has managed to overcome an image of being "too scary" to become PM, even if he is seen as aloof and partisan, but people still EXPECT him to be right wing, so even if you don't agree with him you'd respect him if he lived up to his image. His government's handling of the economic downturn and the political crisis has cost him some of that respect--even from non-supporters. He campaigned on being more democratic and (most importantly) fiscally conservative, yet he's used parliamentary procedure to his advantage to avoid votes and he has spent like a drunken sailor, planning to overspend by tens of billions a year. The challenge is that Harper looks too SIMILAR to yesterday's politicians, not that he is too different or too exclusionary.

I never bought into the 'scarey' Harper thing, which I think might have even been fueled a bit by the conservatives because of how absolutely absurd the whole thing was.

However, he rose to power on the Right-Wing horse because there was no competition. The socially conservative supporters sincerely believed that once he got a majority all of their prayers would be answered. However, with only minority status he has constantly had to shush them, to give the appearance of a centrist gov't., while he opened the big tent to fiscally conservative small 'c', Red Tories.

Some walked through until they saw how reckless this party was with our money. So now as the conservatives, like myself, who want smaller gov't, an elected senate, and better money management; can no longer look to the Harper gov't (I always clung to the hope that the party would prove me wrong); we have nowhere to go but Left.

Ignatieff has always been a centrist fiscally, recognizing the need of corporations for our economy; but left in terms of social programs and human rights; so I've found a new home. I don't agree with everything he does or says, but agree with far more than from any other party or leader.

Now that Harper realizes that he's losing ground in the centre, he's madly making a right turn, to avoid losing the base of the Party, who have clearly become disillusioned. After Mulroney let his big tent occupants down, it resulted in two new parties: The Bloc and the Reform. If a new version of the Reform emerges, it's the end of this Conservative gov't, because that's all they have left.

I posted this after reading an article on the Republican Party and how they had become one of exclusion. I'm glad you responded, because I was hoping for legitimate debate. I pretty much knew how many would respond, but still wanted to know if anyone agreed that maybe that was at least part of the problem for this country's conservative movement. It's not necessarily who they wanted to bring in, but who they wanted to keep out. As a result, they just kept pushing people like me to the Left, and I realize it's not such a bad place to be afterall. Who knew?

[lictor616]

I watch a lot of political commentary shows on both sides of the border; and much discussion centres around the death of conversatism. In particular, in the U.S.; the Republican party, which is clearly in serious trouble. Their ‘big tent’ philosophy, which should have brought more Americans into the fold, instead closed the door to a growing list of what they deemed to be ‘undesirables’.

Many are blaming it on the Religous Right, but I don’t think they can share it all; anymore than the Reform/Alliance can shoulder the burden for the internal strife that the Canadian version of the party is now experiencing.

The problem for parties left of centre, is competition; which in turn creates a problem for conservative voters, because there is no competition. They can voice their disapporval over the handling of the economy, and the move away from the founding principles, but where do they go? They just have to suck it up and try not to complain too loudly for fear that they could drive voters to the ‘evil’ Liberals.

But what if the Liberal Party isn’t as evil as they once thought? There was a recent editorial in our local paper that suggested Stephen Harper was becoming a Liberal, while Michael Ignatieff was becoming a Conservative. A recent poll suggested that Harper has little chance of gaining ground from the left; and in fact seems more worried about losing ground from the right; hence, his falling back on ‘Faith, Family and Freedom’.

Reading comments on conservative blogs and forums, there is a definite ‘us vs them’ mentality. But shouldn’t those ‘us’, try to lure those ‘them’, and not drive them away; especially since there are a great many votes from the ‘centre’ now at play?

Like the Republicans, the Conservative Party of Canada has become one of exclusion:

- If you are not a Christian, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you are a Muslim, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you believe in global warming, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you believe in evolution, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you are pro-choice, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you are gay, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you believe in equal marriage, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you support the arts, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you don’t believe it’s OK to attack homosexuals publicly, you can’t be a

conservative.

- If you believe pot should be legalized, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you belong to a union or support unions, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you believe in equal rights for women, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you believe in pay equity for women, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you now or have ever been a member of the Liberal Party, you can’t be a

conservative.

- If you use the word ‘liberal’ not preceded by ‘arrogant’ or followed by ‘pricks’ (Alta4ever), you can’t be a conservative.

- If you believe in the founding principles of Christianity: peace, love, mercy, tolerance and sharing the wealth, you can’t be a conservative.

- If you believe that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, you can’t be a conservative.

One or two of these infractions will only put you on probation, but three or more, forget about it. They simply do not want you.

They have become a party of the self-righteous and continually give those of us not fans of the current gov’t, little reason to aspire to become one. We have options, but they’ve clearly indicated to us, that they have no desire to be one of those options.

Michael Ignatieff is now also using a ‘big tent’ philosphy, and if he can turn his party into one of ‘inclusion’ by not limiting the criteria - it just might work.

canadian conservatives aren't the deranged evangelicals you're making them out to be... the overwhelming majority are just plain old fiscal conservatives and pro SMALL government ... not a nanny welfare state....

actually the conservative party barely does that... but anyways...

[Progressive Tory]

canadian conservatives aren't the deranged evangelicals you're making them out to be... the overwhelming majority are just plain old fiscal conservatives and pro SMALL government ... not a nanny welfare state....

actually the conservative party barely does that... but anyways...

I didn't say they were all deranged evangelists. In fact, the article about the Reblican exclusionary principles laid the blame squarely on the shoulders of the American Religous Right. I didn't agree entirely and said so. The Republicans may have tapped into the 'Party of God' nonsense, but there were other non-faith based principles, like spend spend spend; make the wealthy wealthier and 'Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition'.

However, in Canada where the Right is united under one, against all centre or left of centre parties; they have to make themselves one of exclusion, principally because their base is so against the 'Evil Left'. According to them, everything wrong with the country is our fault.

Harper himself has become so blinded in his hatred for the Liberals, that he forgets that when attacking the Party he also often attacks the beliefs of many Canadians. Now that he has been unable to fool small 'c's and Red Tories (where I used to be) that he has moved to the Centre, he's saying to hell with it and is going back to Faith, Family and Freedom. On the surface these might make you feel all warm and fuzzy except that 'Faith' means sanctimonious: no sinners allowed. Family' means only hetero-sexuals need apply and 'freedom' means; we've lost this war, now where can we fight to give Hill and Knowlton more contracts?

No self respecting Red Tory would ever support blowing a 13 billion dollar surplus, losing three billion dollars, a massive deficit, appointing senators and overstuffing a cabinet.

[Argus]

Just like I would gladly pay more to have fast food french fries that tasted good again.

Uhm, ironically, KFC french fries now taste pretty darned good where they didn't used to...

Macdonalds and Harveys suck however.

[Argus]

What always interests me is how a fair chunk of the Tory party supposedly adhere to at least some sort of Libertarian standard, and yet invoke public health care as the big justification for not legalizing pot.

I don't quite get the link between pot and health care. I don't support legalizing pot mostly because it would cause all kinds of problems with the neighbors - and because anyone who actually smokes pot reasonably moderately has little trouble getting it now and is in very little danger of arrest.