What policies should the Conservatives Party start putting forward?

Argus · January 2, 2016

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.

If it was pro-rep the Christian heritage and communists would win a lot more than a seat or two, but that's not going to happen because that would hurt, not help the Liberal Party. All indications are the Liberals only want to change the way we elect people if the system will benefit them, like a ranked ballot system.

Argus · January 2, 2016

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

It's funny how quickly and easily all the progressives started making that sort of claim when all the Tories basically did was agree with most Canadians that you shouldn't wear the stupid thing to a citizenship ceremony, and then defend against the resulting lawsuits.

Meanwhile, in the heart of progressive multicult, the provincial Liberals in Ontario ran an entire campaign on how scary and dangerous Muslims were, and how the Tories' plan to allow other religions to have their schools funded just like the Catholics, would result in Muslim bomb making classes and legions of extremist children.

Nobody on the Left cared. It worked. The public voted for them, and the Toronto Star and other liberal media types kept their lips shut.

Argus · January 2, 2016

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.

What possible reason would anyone have to vote for a blue Liberal party? There was ZERO ideological difference, and ZERO difference between how the old PC party and the Liberal party operated, their policies and their self-serving misuse of taxpayer money to reward their buddies.

In a pro-rep system I would expect the NDP to split more than the Tories. They have a very strong very left wing core which chafes under the more moderate political guise they've been forced to wear.

Argus · 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.

In other words, unless it was a Liberal party with a different name.

Bryan · January 2, 2016

I hope that the Conservatives decide to move back towards the middle and again become the Progressive Conservatives.

There is a reason the PCs don't exist anymore. They had no reason to exist. We already had one Liberal party, we don't need two.

Machjo · January 2, 2016

It's funny how quickly and easily all the progressives started making that sort of claim when all the Tories basically did was agree with most Canadians that you shouldn't wear the stupid thing to a citizenship ceremony, and then defend against the resulting lawsuits.Meanwhile, in the heart of progressive multicult, the provincial Liberals in Ontario ran an entire campaign on how scary and dangerous Muslims were, and how the Tories' plan to allow other religions to have their schools funded just like the Catholics, would result in Muslim bomb making classes and legions of extremist children.Nobody on the Left cared. It worked. The public voted for them, and the Toronto Star and other liberal media types kept their lips shut.

I totally agree that provincially in Ontario, the Liberal Party is more ethnocentric than the Green or PC parties. I was still living in Ontario at the time of the last Provincial election and had voted PC mainly due to its being far less ethnically prejudiced than the Liberal Party. Or at least in my riding anyway.

Federally the situation was reversed. I'd voted for the local NDP candidate because I couldn't reach my Green and Conservative candidates for questions and my local NDP candidate was somewhat of a maverick not afraid to somewhat openly challenge some NDP policies like official bilingualism. She was actually open to the idea of Federal offices operating only in the dominant language of their respective provinces and media vouchers as an alternative to government-directed public media funding, ironically what we should expect more from a conservative candidate.

Big Guy · January 2, 2016

There is a reason the PCs don't exist anymore. They had no reason to exist. We already had one Liberal party, we don't need two.

While the names of the parties may remain the same the policies change and shift with time. If all political parties stayed with the same policies than the Liberals would always stay in power - either minority or majority.

It is generally accepted that the NDP represents the left and far left of the political spectrum, the Progressive Conservatives represent the right and far right ( the far right and right with amalgamation) and the Liberals in the middle - with the ability to easily encompass "rightist" or "leftists" ideas to stay in power.

That is why the Liberals would be the most advantaged in a priority electoral system: The second choice of conservatives would be Liberals and the second choice of socialists would be Liberals. While this might upset some of those supporting the far left and far right it does tend to elect those who represent the closest to popular and majority opinion.

It would be interesting to see what those who vote for the Bloc would take as a second choice.

The Green party has aspects of both left and right because it is are fiscally responsible (traditionally associated with parties on the right), socially progressive (traditionally associated with parties on the left), and committed to environmental sustainability.

I have no doubt that another Reform or Alliance like far right group will again be created and the whole process will recycle again.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Big Guy

Bryan · January 2, 2016

the Progressive Conservatives represent the right and far right ( the far right and right with amalgamation) and the Liberals in the middle

No. Reform happened for a reason, The PCs were centre-left.

Big Guy · January 2, 2016

No. Reform happened for a reason, The PCs were centre-left.

I fully agree. In 1990 the PC's were down to two seats and had to move towards the middle to survive, they did but not far enough to the right for the West so the Reform/Alliance was born. The center right and right were split and the Liberals went right up the middle. After amalgamation, the campaign of the Harper Progressive Conservatives stayed in the center until Harper gained power. Then the (now Conservative) party went back to the Reform /Alliance policies.

Liberals are back in and the right has to decide to stay under the far right policies and suffer the consequences or move back to towards the center (moderate) and have a chance. That is why it will be interesting to see the leadership race if the moderates or the Harperites win out. That battle is going on to-day.

Topaz · January 2, 2016

IF they don't make a name change, then they are going to have get a former PC person as leader. If ANY of the former Alliance members become leader, then nothing has really changed and that would still have the appearance of the West vs the East and not some who reps ALL of Canada.

Bryan · January 2, 2016

Then the (now Conservative) party went back to the Reform /Alliance policies.

The Conservative Party of Canada is FAR left of the Reform. Just not quite as far left as the PCs were.

Shady · January 2, 2016

They don't need to do much at all. Focus on kitchen table issues. They won 100 seats with a leader that had been in power for almost 10 years, with zero charisma, low likability, who presided over a weak economy. Some of your assertions of necessity to change is rank over reaction. Besides, most of you proposing change have no interest in seeing the Conservatives in power. You're not at all interested in the party's well being. So you'll excuse me if I roll my eyes at your new found concern. Or should I say faux-concern.

Argus · January 2, 2016

I fully agree. In 1990 the PC's were down to two seats and had to move towards the middle to survive, they did but not far enough to the right for the West so the Reform/Alliance was born. The center right and right were split and the Liberals went right up the middle. After amalgamation, the campaign of the Harper Progressive Conservatives stayed in the center until Harper gained power. Then the (now Conservative) party went back to the Reform /Alliance policies.

All you demonstrate here is you know nothing whatsoever about what the Reform policies were... and probably no idea what the Conservative policies were either.

For example, Reform wanted a drastic cut to immigration. Reform wanted to bring back the death penalty. Reform wanted laws to control abortion. Reform wanted official bilingualism and multiculturalism done away with in most places as being prejudiced and unnecessary. Reform wanted open government, with a lot more power for individual MPs, wanted them to represent their constituencies rather than representing the party TO constituents. It also wanted a recall method, so constituents could fire MPs who failed to represent them. None of that was ever incorporated into the Conservative party under Harper. If the Conservatives had "gone back" to reform policies it would have been a very, very different government.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Argus

Newfoundlander · January 4, 2016

There's been talk lately of having a guaranteed income in Canada. If the Liberals don't follow through with it then it could be something the Conservatives could champion. While many think of it as being a lefty social program, the federal and provincial governments could save money and shrink the size of the public service by bringing in a guaranteed income. It would take major reform but if we had a guaranteed income we could get rid of income support programs, old age security and other programs targeted to low income individuals.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/idea-guaranteed-annual-income-appealing-implausible-canada

Argus · January 4, 2016

There's been talk lately of having a guaranteed income in Canada. If the Liberals don't follow through with it then it could be something the Conservatives could champion. While many think of it as being a lefty social program, the federal and provincial governments could save money and shrink the size of the public service by bringing in a guaranteed income. It would take major reform but if we had a guaranteed income we could get rid of income support programs, old age security and other programs targeted to low income individuals.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/idea-guaranteed-annual-income-appealing-implausible-canada

From the full report:

The potential to discourage work is commonly cited as an argument against a negative income tax or a guaranteed income more generally. It is an important concern because discouraging work could foster long term dependency on government transfers with widespread effects on the economy. In addition, a guaranteed annual income could perversely encourage underground activity as recipients work “under the table” or decide not to report income to avoid having their benefits reduced.

A guaranteed income would simply be a subsidy for leisure. It would discourage anyone not earning a good salary, ie, all lower income earners, from working since those who did no work would be as well, or nearly as well off as they would be working. Under those circumstances, why work at all?

Newfoundlander · January 4, 2016

From the full report:

The potential to discourage work is commonly cited as an argument against a negative income tax or a guaranteed income more generally. It is an important concern because discouraging work could foster long term dependency on government transfers with widespread effects on the economy. In addition, a guaranteed annual income could perversely encourage underground activity as recipients work “under the table” or decide not to report income to avoid having their benefits reduced.

A guaranteed income would simply be a subsidy for leisure. It would discourage anyone not earning a good salary, ie, all lower income earners, from working since those who did no work would be as well, or nearly as well off as they would be working. Under those circumstances, why work at all?

I don't know a lot about guaranteed income but there are mechanisms to try and avoid what you're saying. As some reports on it have shown it can be setup so that people are always better off working than not working. Right now people can choose to go on income support rather than work, some do but most don't. As well, in some instances now people are better off not taking a minimum wage job - even if they wanted to - and being on income support.

Argus · January 4, 2016

I don't know a lot about guaranteed income but there are mechanisms to try and avoid what you're saying. As some reports on it have shown it can be setup so that people are always better off working than not working. Right now people can choose to go on income support rather than work, some do but most don't. As well, in some instances now people are better off not taking a minimum wage job - even if they wanted to - and being on income support.

The report deals with that, as well. It concludes that a guaranteed income would always be a disincentive to work, because deciding to work would not get you the full benefit of a job, given that some percentage would be removed because people surpassing an income level would be eligible for a lower GIS. Ie, deciding to go work because you'd get $14hr is one thing but if the government is going to take back $4 an hour, then your incentive is only $10hr.

Besides, unless the GIS is well below the rate of pay of minimum wages, then millions would refuse to take minimum wage jobs at all. And even a job which paid, minimum plus $5hr, say, would really only benefit people an extra $5hr of work above what they'd get for doing nothing if a GIS was the same as minimum wage. Why work a crappy job for $5hr?

eyeball · January 4, 2016

Clawing back the benefit completely destroys the point of having it. Providing a disincentive to work would allow overworked Canadians to work less thereby allowing people with not enough employment to work more. This is an important rationale behind Finland's decision to implement an AGI - a country with a high chronic unemployment rate Theirs is to be set at around a $1170 CAN a month. If it goes ahead they'll be the first country on the planet to implement an AGI.

IMO our biggest hurdle will be social conservatives who can't get past their moral and religious concerns over Satan and idle hands.

Edited January 4, 2016 by eyeball

overthere · January 4, 2016

It is generally accepted that the NDP represents the left and far left of the political spectrum, the Progressive Conservatives represent the right and far right ( the far right and right with amalgamation) and the Liberals in the middle - with the ability to easily encompass "rightist" or "leftists" ideas to stay in power

No, it is accepted only by the ignorant and unobservant.

On even the slack scale of Western social democracies, Canada has a very narrow band of centrist parties with centrist policies. There are no far left or far right parties in Canada.

However it is convenient to be able to pigeonhole people, so do carry on if it gives comfort.

overthere · January 4, 2016

Right now people can choose to go on income support rather than work, some do but most don't.

I understand that may be true where you live, but it is not in Alberta.

You have to work longer to get EI here.

But perhaps the biggest difference is that you cannot get welfare if you are a) employable and b )do not have dependents. What that means is that if you are young and able to work, you have to get a job or hit the homeless shelters. Not surprisingly, it contributes to a greatly different attitude towards work and the role of govt..

Edited January 4, 2016 by overthere

Big Guy · January 4, 2016

No, it is accepted only by the ignorant and unobservant.

On even the slack scale of Western social democracies, Canada has a very narrow band of centrist parties with centrist policies. There are no far left or far right parties in Canada.

However it is convenient to be able to pigeonhole people, so do carry on if it gives comfort.

Actually it is part of any Pol 101 course.

And you never pigeonhole people but you can describe ideas on a sliding scale from the far left to the far right as acceptable on most political analytic sites.

I suggest that those who decide on their own definition of the political spectrum suffer from a lack of education of the area.

Perhaps you might share your expert analysis and defining of positions on issues domestic and foreign on your left to right sliding scale so that I can be observant and less ignorant.

Newfoundlander · January 5, 2016

The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/

Just another point of view on the idea.

cannuck · January 21, 2016

The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/

Just another point of view on the idea.

My politics tend to be far right of center, and this is definitely one policy with which I heartily agree.

Our system of means tested programmes is simply and employment programme for bureaucrats. Being truly conservative means to move away from dispensing privilege and produce policies that are truly egalitarian. Being truly conservative means giving EVERYONE the same opportunities, and EVERYONE the same protection under the law.

Also, that is the same reason why I was sick to death of the Harper "conservatives" hiding behind the name. Where is right to work legislation (job 1)??? Why is the government payroll still so incredibly bloated? Why is government still sticking its nose into every nook and cranny of business, subsidizing business, providing free tax rides to speculators, etc., etc.? Why the unfettered support to murder Canadian children?

conservative my arse.

Edited January 21, 2016 by cannuck