What policies should the Conservatives Party start putting forward?

square · January 1, 2016

Well, what do you think? Now that the party is rebuilding what platform building policies should the Conservatives start advancing? More emphasis on immigration? That sort of thing.

dialamah · January 1, 2016

I think they should start with women's/minority issues. The one thing that did the most to turn me off the Conservative government was when they chose to withhold funding from third-world clinics which provided abortion services. I found that to be hypocritical, sexist and racist, all at once. I don't like the Christian overtones of their policies, or the feeling that they seek to exclude rather than include.

overthere · January 1, 2016

I think they should start with women's/minority issues. The one thing that did the most to turn me off the Conservative government was when they chose to withhold funding from third-world clinics which provided abortion services. I found that to be hypocritical, sexist and racist, all at once. I don't like the Christian overtones of their policies, or the feeling that they seek to exclude rather than include.

How do you feel about the harsh reality that the Cons did absolutely nothing to change the relatively easy, govt paid access to abortion in Canada?

I thought it was wonderful that somehow their hideous social agenda did somehow not get to this item.

How about you?

dialamah · January 1, 2016

Yes indeed. They only decided to make abortion more difficult for poor, oppressed, brown women. Thus, they could demonstrate their Christian values to their Christian base, whilst not alienating the majority of Canadian voters. Hypocrisy, racism, political expediency in one simple policy.

dialamah · January 1, 2016

And in case you think this didn't matter, my brother - one of those fundemntal Christians - posted a meme on Facebook in support of re-electing Harper, and one of the specifics of that meme was the lack of abortion funding for those clinics. "We aren't partisan, but be sure to vote for a party that does the Lord's work in the world" was the advice.

ironstone · January 1, 2016

Yes indeed. They only decided to make abortion more difficult for poor, oppressed, brown women. Thus, they could demonstrate their Christian values to their Christian base, whilst not alienating the majority of Canadian voters. Hypocrisy, racism, political expediency in one simple policy.

So you would rather see more abortions in third world countries?These would be children of colour.....but you would rather they get aborted?And you call the Conservatives racist for cutting abortion funding in these countries?

overthere · January 1, 2016

Yes indeed. They only decided to make abortion more difficult for poor, oppressed, brown women. Thus, they could demonstrate their Christian values to their Christian base, whilst not alienating the majority of Canadian voters. Hypocrisy, racism, political expediency in one simple policy.

And in case you think this didn't matter, my brother - one of those fundemntal Christians - posted a meme on Facebook in support of re-electing Harper, and one of the specifics of that meme was the lack of abortion funding for those clinics. "We aren't partisan, but be sure to vote for a party that does the Lord's work in the world" was the advice.

Well there you go, one idiot on Facebook spouitng nonsense proves your case. It surely applies everywhere.

And Harper did not cut funding for abortion, they just did not include funding in the gloabl(and much praised initiative) initiative to relieve suffering for women and children. But do continue with the ridiculous partisan cherry picking.

Oh, and were you aware that abortion is somehitng that is not just a controversial thing in Canada? In 3rd world countries there is also strong oppostion to abortion. And to contraception. And to vaccination. And to womens health. And to childrens education....... oemtimes you have to be careful what you fund so as not to jeopardize it all.

But now you will want to explain how when and where that evil bastard Harper cut abortion funding in Canada. I'll wait.

In the meantime, I'll answer the OP another way.

The Cons should bring forth policy explaining why they support FPTP. Yes, I know that that system just cost them a bunch of seats, just as it gained them a bunch of seats in a previous election. But they need to start swinging soon, and so do the NDP, or the Liberals will make sure they are our government permanently.

Argus · January 2, 2016

I think they should start with women's/minority issues. The one thing that did the most to turn me off the Conservative government was when they chose to withhold funding from third-world clinics which provided abortion services. I found that to be hypocritical, sexist and racist, all at once. I don't like the Christian overtones of their policies, or the feeling that they seek to exclude rather than include.

This is one of those appeals to the Conservatives to abandon conservatism as illegitimate I see from time to time. "Just bring out policies the same as the Liberals and we'll consider voting for you!"

Now I happen to be reasonably pro-choice, but there are an awful lot of Canadians who are not. Why should the conservatives abandon policies which appeal to them in favor of those which appeal to people who are very, very, very unlikely to vote for them anyway?

Argus · January 2, 2016

So you would rather see more abortions in third world countries?These would be children of colour.....but you would rather they get aborted?And you call the Conservatives racist for cutting abortion funding in these countries?

Not only that but the first and only policy initiative she wants them to change has nothing whatsoever to do with Canada or Canadians.

Argus · January 2, 2016

To some extent what policies they come out with will, I think, depend on whether the method we use to elect MPs is changed, and if so in what way.

If the Liberals get their way then the Conservatives are going to have to soften considerably, and focus on crowd pleasing policies and 'happy-happy' attitudes, without regard to costs, so they will be the 'second choice' for more people. Remember that almost a third of Canadians pay no tax, for example, so that whole group is a complete writeoff (see Atlantic Canada) to any party talking about cutting back on the spending instead of promising lots of free goodies.

Shady · January 2, 2016

They need to focus on kitchen table issues. Elect a leader with a bit more charism, and somebody that hasn't been in power for 9 years, which shouldn't be very hard. They'll do considerably better. Having won 100 seats with none of that just shows how little they need to do to regain power.

Argus · January 2, 2016

They need to focus on kitchen table issues. Elect a leader with a bit more charism, and somebody that hasn't been in power for 9 years, which shouldn't be very hard. They'll do considerably better. Having won 100 seats with none of that just shows how little they need to do to regain power.

Particularly if the Liberals screw up as spectacularly as seems likely. The fact they've been importing droves of Ontario Liberals which did soooo well in helping the provincial Liberals run Ontario's government into the ground should certainly help in that direction.

Newfoundlander · January 2, 2016

Well, what do you think? Now that the party is rebuilding what platform building policies should the Conservatives start advancing? More emphasis on immigration? That sort of thing.

What kind of emphasis on immigration?

dialamah · January 2, 2016

Well there you go, one idiot on Facebook spouitng nonsense proves your case. It surely applies everywhere.

Do you truly miss what a meme going around on FB means, or do you just choose to dismiss it? A meme isn't isn't "one idiot" posting on FB, it's something that gets shared anywhere from a few thousand times to a few million times. This particular meme was probably somewhere in the tens of thousands, possibly 100s of thousands. How many Canadian fundamental Christians are on Facebook?

And Harper did not cut funding for abortion, they just did not include funding in the gloabl(and much praised initiative) initiative to relieve suffering for women and children. But do continue with the ridiculous partisan cherry picking.

Oh, and were you aware that abortion is somehitng that is not just a controversial thing in Canada? In 3rd world countries there is also strong oppostion to abortion. And to contraception. And to vaccination. And to womens health. And to childrens education....... oemtimes you have to be careful what you fund so as not to jeopardize it all.

I never said Harper cut funding for abortion; I said he refused to fund maternal health clinics that provided abortion services. And yes, the initiative was highly praised, and there is no doubt it's done a lot of good. The choice of the Conservative government to withhold funding related to abortion was also criticized.

http://khn.org/morning-breakout/gh-042710-g8/

http://globalnews.ca/news/1359880/whats-changed-for-moms-and-babies-since-the-2-8b-muskoka-initiative/

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/harpers-g8-maternal-health-plan/

In 3rd world countries there is also strong oppostion to abortion. And to contraception. And to vaccination. And to womens health. And to childrens education....... oemtimes you have to be careful what you fund so as not to jeopardize it all.

True, but that didn't stop other countries from including all maternal health services in their funding. So why did Canada decide against it?

But now you will want to explain how when and where that evil bastard Harper cut abortion funding in Canada. I'll wait.

I've never said anything about the Conservatives cutting abortion funding in Canada so I fail to see why I would want to provide cites.

Big Guy · January 2, 2016

I hope that the Conservatives decide to move back towards the middle and again become the Progressive Conservatives. The PC main strength in the past had been fiscal responsibility and catering more to the center. There is lots of time to decide on specific issues because the majority Liberal government will dictate what changes are being legislated.

Their current responsibility is to be the opposition - the question and challenge every piece of legislation proposed by the government. It may be too early to focus on specific policy since they have yet to decide on a leader. There will be Harris/Harper conservatives running for leadership as well Mulroney/McKay conservatives. Who the party chooses will dictate future direction and policies.

Argus · January 2, 2016

I hope that the Conservatives decide to move back towards the middle and again become the Progressive Conservatives. The PC main strength in the past had been fiscal responsibility and catering more to the center.

The Conservatives have ruled as a centre-right party. In fact, they had virtually no right wing policies other than shrinking the size of government a little bit.

If they move any further to the Left they'll be outflanking the NDP.

Smallc · January 2, 2016

The Conservatives have ruled as a centre-right party. In fact, they had virtually no right wing policies other than shrinking the size of government a little bit.

They did a lot of stupid things that made them lose and seem right wing. The office of religious freedom comes to mind. Their maternal and child health plan that refused to fund organizations that happened to also do abortions was another of those things. They also failed to properly consider much of their legislative agenda. That's why so much of it was overturned by the courts. They cared not about reason, but 'common sense'. The problem with common sense, of course, is that there's nothing common about it.

Machjo · January 2, 2016

To some extent what policies they come out with will, I think, depend on whether the method we use to elect MPs is changed, and if so in what way.

If the Liberals get their way then the Conservatives are going to have to soften considerably, and focus on crowd pleasing policies and 'happy-happy' attitudes, without regard to costs, so they will be the 'second choice' for more people. Remember that almost a third of Canadians pay no tax, for example, so that whole group is a complete writeoff (see Atlantic Canada) to any party talking about cutting back on the spending instead of promising lots of free goodies.

On the contrary. Experience in Europe has shows that pro-rep benefits the fringes, so expect a greater chance of the Communist Party of Canada or the Christian Heritage Party winning a seat or two at the expense of the main parties.

Since the conservatives would no longer need to worry about winning a plurality of votes to win seats, assured that it will be given the number of seats voters give it proportionately, if anything you can imagine the CPC shifting even further right and the NDP further left. With no more strategic voting, they would likely both gain votes on the Liberal party.

Machjo · January 2, 2016

They did a lot of stupid things that made them lose and seem right wing. The office of religious freedom comes to mind. Their maternal and child health plan that refused to fund organizations that happened to also do abortions was another of those things. They also failed to properly consider much of their legislative agenda. That's why so much of it was overturned by the courts. They cared not about reason, but 'common sense'. The problem with common sense, of course, is that there's nothing common about it.

The office of religious freedom was both redundant (doing the same work as the UNHCHR) and hypocritical (it could not comment on Canada's own separate school system which the UN had already criticized as discriminatory), thus making it untrustworthy and so ineffective, all at taxpayers expense.

The proposed Barbaric Cultural Practices hotline would have done the exact same work as 911, so another proposed complete redundancy.

As for prohibiting Canadian advertising companies from advertising sexual services on their websites while allowing sex workers to freely advertise overlooked a major loophole: sex workers were already advertising their services on foreign (and mostly unregulated) websites, which made that law completely useless. Had the government done its homework, it would have continued to allow Canadian sites to advertise such services, require such sites to meet specific sexual advertising standards (e.g. pages advertising such services also advertise government trades or professional education, STI information, crisis help line, information on various addictions (drugs, gambling, etc.) including sex addiction and where to get help, etc.), and then, while allowing a sex worker to advertise his services on foreign webites if he wants to, make it a fineable offence to advertise on a website (foreign or domestic) that does not meet the required advertising standard.

Then on the matter of the niqab debate, that was pure identity politics, even politics of outright hate.

As for cutting funding for abortions abroad, I'm pro-life myself and so agreed with it in principle. But to do that while defending abortion in Canada made it look more like the conservatives were just playing the social conservative card to cut funding for foreign aid under the guise of fiscal conservatism.

I could go on, but it seemed like the patients had taken over the asylum of the Conservative Party of Canada.

It seemed like most of their proposed policies were either prejudiced, redundant, hypocritical, or just poorly thought out.

Machjo · January 2, 2016

I hope that the Conservatives decide to move back towards the middle and again become the Progressive Conservatives. The PC main strength in the past had been fiscal responsibility and catering more to the center. There is lots of time to decide on specific issues because the majority Liberal government will dictate what changes are being legislated.

Their current responsibility is to be the opposition - the question and challenge every piece of legislation proposed by the government. It may be too early to focus on specific policy since they have yet to decide on a leader. There will be Harris/Harper conservatives running for leadership as well Mulroney/McKay conservatives. Who the party chooses will dictate future direction and policies.

Should we go pro-reo, I could see the return of the PC and Reform Parties as two separate parties again, the PC mostly in the east, and Reform mostly in the west, with maybe a few Libertarian Party votes hurting the Reform Party somewhat.

I could see the Libertarian Party winning a few seats too along with the Christian Heritage Party.

Meanwhile on the left I could see the Communist Party winning a seat or two too.

Topaz · January 2, 2016

I think they are going to change their name back to the Progressive Conservatives because when one hears the name Conservative Party, one only sees Harper and the way the Alliance Party governed. I've have votes PC in the past, but I can't see me voting for Conservative Party unless it was the Progressive Conservative, like a red Tory.

Newfoundlander · January 2, 2016

I think they are going to change their name back to the Progressive Conservatives because when one hears the name Conservative Party, one only sees Harper and the way the Alliance Party governed. I've have votes PC in the past, but I can't see me voting for Conservative Party unless it was the Progressive Conservative, like a red Tory.

People think Harper because he's the only leader the party ever had and he's only be gone a few months.

The Liberals faced a lot more issues than the Conservatives throughout the 2000s but didn't need to change their name to regain the public's trust. They needed to show that they were a different party who were not defined by the leaderships of Chretien, Martin, Dion or Ignatieff.

square · January 2, 2016

I don't see how changing your name helps you it's not about communication it's about policy.

Big Guy · January 2, 2016

Governments change becasue of scandal or policy. I believe the Chretien Liberals were not defeated because of policy nor were Conservatives elected because of policy. To what extent we shall see how much of the Harper legislation is and will be reversed.

I also believe that we shall see the Liberals bringing in a ranked ballot system:

http://www.123toronto.ca/questions_answers.htm

This may completely change the approach to elections. The parties will be competing for second choice where everyone will vote with their heart as a first choice and with their pocket book or specific issues on subsequent choices.

I lastly believe that this will force everybody to campaign even close to the center with the Liberals having an initial advantage but lots of room to woo the far left and far right.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Big Guy

Argus · January 2, 2016

They did a lot of stupid things that made them lose and seem right wing. The office of religious freedom comes to mind. Their maternal and child health plan that refused to fund organizations that happened to also do abortions was another of those things. They also failed to properly consider much of their legislative agenda. That's why so much of it was overturned by the courts. They cared not about reason, but 'common sense'. The problem with common sense, of course, is that there's nothing common about it.

Yeah, but none of that is ideological. And it was all either minor stuff or a style matter, not a substance matter. Chretien acted as dictatorial as Harper but the media didn't mind so much. The media tends to be a lot more suspicious about 'conservatives' than 'liberals', because the media is generally much more sympathetic to a liberal view. Can you imagine how the media would have reacted if Harper had half strangled some poor schmuck protester and broken his glasses? There'd have been a thousand Bay Street lawyers offering to help the guy sue Harper pro bono, and a thousand more demanding Harper be charged with assault.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Argus