What direction the Conservatives Should Take

[Argus]

To me, the issue is how to ensure the Conservative Party doesn't become just a paler shade of red. The problems I had with Harper, ignoring his style, was that he often ignored basic conservatism in favour of what was temporarily popular. I'm not talking about arch-conservatism which would alienate a lot of voters, either.

Bumping up immigration levels out of the blue in an election year, for example, with no justification, ignoring the gross inefficiency of our public health care system, continuing to subsidize so many businesses and industries, and giving out all those tax grants and favours to select groups whose votes he wanted.

That's how the Liberal Party has always operated. I'd like the party to fight against business grants and favours EXCEPT defensively, where other countries are doing the same, and only where it can be demonstrated that the cost-effect works in our favour. I'd like them to tackle inter-provincial trade barriers, which are, in the estimation of some economists, far more damaging to our economy than international trade barriers. I'd like them to simply taxes and minimize income redistribution schemes to what are necessary. That means, for example, no pogey for people who have seasonal jobs year after year.

On the other hand, the party has to fight against the leftist dominated media message that politicians who give out money are kind and helpful and caring, and politicians who want to cut taxes instead are cruel and mean-spirited and uncaring. That takes a leader who is a great communicator, and the Tories haven't had one of those since Mulroney. Jason Kenney seems effective in front of a camera. McKay is too, but as a former red Tory I'm not sure what kind of conservative creds he brings to the table. Kenney managed to bring in some decent immigration reforms during his time there with a deft touch which did not allow the opposition to depict him as an evil, anti-immigrant racist, which you know they desperately wanted to do. That was impressive. He also showed the ability to work with the opposition rather than just browbeat him, which Canadians want to see.

He faces the problem that the basic conservative financial philosophies are less than exciting, certainly far less than someone dancing around waving fistfuls of hundred dollar bills in the air. People like it when you promise them stuff a lot more than when you just promise to balance the budget and keep taxes low. Maybe someone should be force-feeding French into Brad Wall. Or maybe he'd make a nice finance minister under Kenney.

.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Argus

[Newfoundlander]

While I agree with some of what Argus said, the Conservatives should also move in a direction whereby the don't consider Red Tories and the media as evil.

While the economy, jobs and balanced budgets are important themes for the party they need to broaden there message to engage more people. If you already have a stable career - particularly if you work with government - then jobs and the economy aren't necessarily as important to you as it may be for someone who is unemployed or underemployed or whose job requires a good economy. Here are some of the issues the Conservatives should be looking at:

1. The environment. It's a growing issue for people and other parties are putting a big focus on it. The party should look at revenue neutral carbon pricing, which is a contrast from what the left proposes. A bigger focus should also be put on conservation.
2. "Live and let live," a favourite quote of mine that Danielle Smith used to use. The party should take a more libertarian stance to social issues, like they finally just did with same-sex marriage. Conservatives are suppose to be the party of personal liberties so allow people to make their own decisions if they're not hurting others.
3. Federal/provincial responsibilities. Are there programs that the federal government are administering that the provinces could instead? We live in a large country with very diverse provinces and one size doesn't fit all. Provide the provinces with money, certain standards and allow them to figure out solutions, similar to what we do with health care. On this point is federal/provincial jurisdiction. Newfoundland and Labrador has wanted joint control over fisheries management. Oceans are currently federal jurisdiction, I imagine all coastal provinces would be interested in more control with regards to the resources off their coast.
4. The sharing economy. Rona Ambrose has spoken on this and has even brought in a critic responsible for it. In cities we've seen controversies surrounding Uber and similar services. What role can the federal government play is fostering a sharing economy.
5. Independence for MPs. We elect MPs to represent us and they need to have more of a voice within their parties and in the House of Commons. While certain votes cannot be free we need to allow MPs to vote with their conscience. On this point the party should not try to prevent MPs from bringing forth controversial issues, like Harper tried to do with Stephen Woolworth's abortion motion. MPs should be able to have respectful debates on controversial issues. The Conservatives should not be like the Liberals and NDP and tell their MPs what they're allowed to think or not allowed to think. Or even worse preventing people from running because they have certain views.

If I took the time I'm sure there are plenty of other issues I could think of. Social policy surrounding poverty and student debt for instance are topics that the Conservatives should look at. We cannot allow the left to be the only champion of these issues, there are conservative solutions to all problems. Anyways the party needs to grow and refreshen their image.

(I also did not read over this post for spelling or grammar so sorry in advance)

[Shady]

One of the biggest problems is that basic economics isn't a mandatory subject in school curriculum. The vast majority of the voting public doesn't understand how debt and deficits and high taxes and over regulation negatively effect economic growth. And since many don't even pay net federal or provincial taxes, it's not an issue that even impacts them directly. They have no skin in the game.

Justin hasn't nor will ever make a tough desicion that Canadians may not like, but is necessary. He's too interested in being liked and popular. And when things go bad, he'll just blame the rich, like every other lefty demagogue. He's the complete opposite to Chrétien and Martin. I voted for them. I couldn't never vote for our current economic illiterate PM.

Conservatives should focus on and all of the above national energy policy. They need to educate people on how debt, and the financing of more debt squeezes out spending on important things like education and health care. They need to start a national debt clock on public display indicating the money that could've been spent on important services but is otherwise earmarked for debt financing thanks to Justin's reckless and irresponsible spending. They need to keep a tab each year, and total it for the next federal election.

[-1=e^ipi]

To me, the issue is how to ensure the Conservative Party doesn't become just a paler shade of red.

Simple, support proportional representation and let the Conservative Party split into multiple parties. Then these parties will have the option to form coalitions with other parties in order to govern.

[-1=e^ipi]

What is a 'true conservative'? Seems to vary based on who you talk to.

As far as I am concerned, conservatism is the irrational preference for the status quo.

[Icebound]

One of the biggest problems is that basic economics isn't a mandatory subject in school curriculum.

Depends on who is writing the text book.

quote: ( http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html )

....They observe that legislated tax changes taken to counteract other influences on the economy, or to pay for increases in government spending, are very likely to be correlated with other factors affecting the economy. As a result, these observations are likely to lead to biased estimates of the effect of tax changes.

:unquote

The vast majority of the voting public doesn't understand how debt and deficits and high taxes and over regulation negatively effect economic

yes... and neither do the vast majority of economists, politicians, pundits, and forum posters. They have their biases, like the rest of us, but the factors are too complex for black-or-white answers.

If I spend a boat-load of money on the working poor, am I helping them get on their feet and start becoming productive, or am I encouraging laziness and dependance?

If I CUT spending for the poor, am I encouraging self-sufficiency, or am I going to have other increased financial (and SOCIAL) costs in terms of increased crime, public health crises, and the like?

The problem is that it could be some of each... depending on the particular circumstances of the individual, and the particular state of society overall at that time.

Much as we would like to pretend that there are cut and dried, black-or-white answers, the research does not bear that out.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Icebound

[Shady]

Depends on who is writing the text book.

quote: ( http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html )

....They observe that legislated tax changes taken to counteract other influences on the economy, or to pay for increases in government spending, are very likely to be correlated with other factors affecting the economy. As a result, these observations are likely to lead to biased estimates of the effect of tax changes.[/size]

:unquote

.

yes... and neither do the vast majority of economists, politicians, pundits, and forum posters. They have their biases, like the rest of us, but the factors are too complex for black-or-white answers.

If I spend a boat-load of money on the working poor, am I helping them get on their feet and start becoming productive, or am I encouraging laziness and dependance?

If I CUT spending for the poor, am I encouraging self-sufficiency, or am I going to have other increased financial (and SOCIAL) costs in terms of increased crime, public health crises, and the like?

The problem is that it could be some of each... depending on the particular circumstances of the individual, and the particular state of society overall at that time.

Much as we would like to pretend that there are cut and dried, black-or-white answers, the research does not bear that out.

...

Depends on who is writing the text book.

quote: ( http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html )

....They observe that legislated tax changes taken to counteract other influences on the economy, or to pay for increases in government spending, are very likely to be correlated with other factors affecting the economy. As a result, these observations are likely to lead to biased estimates of the effect of tax changes.[/size]

:unquote

yes... and neither do the vast majority of economists, politicians, pundits, and forum posters. They have their biases, like the rest of us, but the factors are too complex for black-or-white answers.

If I spend a boat-load of money on the working poor, am I helping them get on their feet and start becoming productive, or am I encouraging laziness and dependance?

If I CUT spending for the poor, am I encouraging self-sufficiency, or am I going to have other increased financial (and SOCIAL) costs in terms of increased crime, public health crises, and the like?

Much as we would like to pretend that there are cut and dried, black-or-white answers, the research does not bear that out.

Some good points. But no, economics isn't a mandatory subject no matter who writes the text book Edited June 4, 2016 by Shady

[?Impact]

One of the biggest problems is that basic economics isn't a mandatory subject in school curriculum.

Yes, we need economists with masters degrees that rack up $170 billion in debt.

[Shady]

Yes, we need economists with masters degrees that rack up $170 billion in debt.

Who said that? Economics should be a mandatory high school class. No need for your false choice strawman masters degrees.

[Icebound]

....., ignoring the gross inefficiency of our public health care system, ....

What are measuring this against?

The right-wing Fraser institute says that we are spending about $4000 per person on health care....http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/true-cost-of-health-care-to-average-family-is-11k-per-year-report-1.2525114

The USA is spending about $10,000 US... http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2015/01/04/u-s-healthcare-spending-on-track-to-hit-10000-per-person-this-year/#51d9104c294c

I am sure that doubling the per capita spending on our Healthcare would go a long way to shortening those wait lines. Of course, we would need a "TAX INCREASE", and Heaven forbid that should ever happen.

[waldo]

direction? Uhhh... keep it on the same course - why change up something that's working for you! You did have a good run, right? Steady as she goes!

.

[eyeball]

The Conservatives should move a lot farther to the right. Harper didn't go far enough.

[Argus]

What is a 'true conservative'? Seems to vary based on who you talk to.

As far as I am concerned, conservatism is the irrational preference for the status quo.

Irrational? I think the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" best describes conservatism. As I've said before. The alternate is "Ooooo, shiny! Let's do that!" which is a kind of general desire to embrace whatever unproven fad shows up which the so-called 'progressives' prefer.

[Argus]

What are measuring this against?

The right-wing Fraser institute says that we are spending about $4000 per person on health care....http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/true-cost-of-health-care-to-average-family-is-11k-per-year-report-1.2525114

The USA is spending about $10,000 US... http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2015/01/04/u-s-healthcare-spending-on-track-to-hit-10000-per-person-this-year/#51d9104c294c

I am sure that doubling the per capita spending on our Healthcare would go a long way to shortening those wait lines. Of course, we would need a "TAX INCREASE", and Heaven forbid that should ever happen.

To begin with, no measure of our health system should make any notice of the US system. Theirs is the most inefficient and wasteful on the planet by a very long measure.

I'm comparing us to Europe, where they spend the same or less but don't have the long wait times we do. I notice that CTV mentioned a Quebec report yesterday which said that provinces wait times in particular were the highest in the western world, for example.

Here is a list of spending by country. You'll note that while some countries spend more, nobody spends a great deal more (other than the US) and many spend less. We spend more than France, for example, though from all I've read France's health care system is miles better than ours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

Edited June 5, 2016 by Argus

[Bryan]

The Conservatives should move a lot farther to the right. Harper didn't go far enough.

I'd say he went too far -- to the left. What we need is a leader who actually does govern at least from the centre, if not slightly to the right of it.

[Bryan]

To begin with, no measure of our health system should make any notice of the US system.

Cold Hard Truth.

[Argus]

While I agree with some of what Argus said, the Conservatives should also move in a direction whereby the don't consider Red Tories and the media as evil.

That was Harper. Mostly we just think they're mistaken (red tories) and highly biased and unprofessional (media).

The environment. It's a growing issue for people and other parties are putting a big focus on it. The party should look at revenue neutral carbon pricing, which is a contrast from what the left proposes.

I think the nonsensical fight against CO2 was lost decades ago, and is a massive waste of time and money. Unfortunately, there's no getting around that the idiots in the fourth estate have popularized the notion that we have to "do something", however ineffective and expensive it is, among the gullible electorate. That being the case, some kind of revenue neutral carbon tax is probably the least damaging to the economy. Though bear in mind the US has agreed to no such restrictions or taxes, no matter what their lame duck president says. The more expensive we make it to operate here the more places will close down and move south.

A bigger focus should also be put on conservation.

Agreed!

Live and let live," a favourite quote of mine that Danielle Smith used to use. The party should take a more libertarian stance to social issues, like they finally just did with same-sex marriage. Conservatives are suppose to be the party of personal liberties so allow people to make their own decisions if they're not hurting others.

Agreed!

Federal/provincial responsibilities. Are there programs that the federal government are administering that the provinces could instead?

That was Harper's thing, and while I agree with it it's not something the public pays any attention to.

Social policy surrounding poverty and student debt for instance are topics that the Conservatives should look at. We cannot allow the left to be the only champion of these issues,

The left owns these issues because the Left is prancing about throwing fistfuls of money at people. Nothing a conservative party can do is going to outshine that.

Alleviating poverty is done by ensuring a good economy, good job creation, and that skills training and education are made available. That's all very boring and addresses the issue indirectly rather than just giving people money. The people concerned would rather just be given money.

[-1=e^ipi]

Irrational? I think the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" best describes conservatism. As I've said before. The alternate is "Ooooo, shiny! Let's do that!" which is a kind of general desire to embrace whatever unproven fad shows up which the so-called 'progressives' prefer.

You are creating a false dichotomy of positions here.

[Argus]

You are creating a false dichotomy of positions here.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. I've noticed that once some sort of progressive notion arises in the US or Europe, for example, the Left in Canada rushes to embrace it too, even though circumstances here might be wildly dissimilar. Affirmative action programs, for example, teaching fads, black lives matter and protests against stop and frisk programs, rape culture, transgender bathrooms and change rooms and the like. What is the whole nonsense about changing how we vote but a desire by the Left to embrace the way "progressive" nations in Europe vote? The whole CO2 thing is also something the progressives here caught from their European brethren. And suddenly pipelines are horrific threats to humanity because the US blocked Keystone.

[Icebound]

To me, the issue is how to ensure the Conservative Party doesn't become just a paler shade of red.

The big-C Conservatives have governed as pale Liberals, because.... that turns out to be the pragmatic thing to do.

And big-L Liberals have governed like pale Conservatives for the same reason.

This turns out to be a GOOD thing, because that is where the vast majority of Canadians live. .... It provides reasonable governance by either party, without totally ignoring opposition views, but without ceding power to the fringes.

Mulroney introduced the GST because it was the pragmatic thing to do.

Chretein did not repeal it as promised for the same reason.

HARPER, on the other hand, reduced it (against all pragmatic advice), only to find out that it mattered not at all... Indeed, he ran up Deficits .... because it was the pragmatic thing to do.

But what was NOT pragmatic, was ignoring climate policy for 10 years, resulting in lost credibility on the world stage.... DEFINITELY not pragmatic.

So it the Conservatives really want power, here is where they should NOT go:

1. Ties to Religion... especially ties to a SPECIFIC religion, ie: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.

2. Denial of Science...

3.. Punitive "justice" without rehabilitation policies.

4. Ignoring aboriginal rights... See post on "Doctrine of Discovery" .... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25791-our-new-syrian-refugee-immigrants/page-5#entry1163813

Good Luck! Have Fun!

[Argus]

The big-C Conservatives have governed as pale Liberals, because.... that turns out to be the pragmatic thing to do.

Ignoring problems is not "pragramatic" unless your goal is simply to get elected, without regard to the welfare of the country.

I'm not calling on them to be far right, after all, but to handle the economy in a largely centre-right fashion, and to try to wean it off depending on the government for everything.

But what was NOT pragmatic, was ignoring climate policy for 10 years, resulting in lost credibility on the world stage.... DEFINITELY not pragmatic.

Credibility compared to whom? The US? The US has ignored climate change and continues to do so. And anyone who thinks we can address climate change by controlling CO2 is a loon.

So it the Conservatives really want power, here is where they should NOT go:

2. Denial of Science...

Was an invention of the media.

3.. Punitive "justice" without rehabilitation policies.

You can't rehabilitate career criminals, and most crime is committed by career criminals.

4. Ignoring aboriginal rights...

Oh yeah, because it's going to be real popular to give everything away to small bands of natives and start paying them rent.

[Derek 2.0]

1. Ties to Religion... especially ties to a SPECIFIC religion, ie: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.

Why? Religious social conservatives are apart of the base.....I agree that religious based social policy shouldn't be at the fore front for the party, a reflection of both the majority of conservatives and Canadians, but to abandon them would just cede their vote share to rump parties like Christian Heritage etc.

2. Denial of Science...

Again, that is not the case with this subjective subject.......now if you mean pay lip-service to "popular science" like the Liberals do, thus taking the topic largely off the table for ~70% of voters, I agree fully.

3.. Punitive "justice" without rehabilitation policies.

Never happen......law and order policies are politically popular.......the Tories didn't loose the election because of their law and order agenda.

4. Ignoring aboriginal rights

Again, like "science", aboriginal issues aren't popular retail politics........and like science, lip service can be paid strategically and regionally and at riding levels.............the ~70% of voters that vote Liberal or Conservative in Southern Ontario that decide elections don't really care about natives in Northern Manitoba or the NWT......

--------------

What the Tories will eventually leverage to win Government is economic (see pocketbook) issues and not being Trudeau.......

As spoken to by Mr Wonderful himself, in ~4+ years time a capable and charismatic Tory leader will be able speak to Canadian voters and ask them if they are better off with the economic policies of Justin Trudeau and his billions of borrowed spending.....................if the Tories fail to select a well spoken and personable leader, regardless of the merits of their policies, we had might as well start another Tory leader thread for the 2023 election early.......simple as that.

[-1=e^ipi]

Why? Religious social conservatives are apart of the base.....I agree that religious based social policy shouldn't be at the fore front for the party, a reflection of both the majority of conservatives and Canadians, but to abandon them would just cede their vote share to rump parties like Christian Heritage etc.

Under a proportional system, why does it matter if vote share is ceded to the Christian Heritage?

[Derek 2.0]

Under a proportional system, why does it matter if vote share is ceded to the Christian Heritage?

What proportional system? Our current system aside, regardless of how Canadians vote, for political parties, the objective is to receive the most votes possible.

[Icebound]

Icebound, on 04 Jun 2016 - 8:41 PM, said:

The big-C Conservatives have governed as pale Liberals, because.... that turns out to be the pragmatic thing to do.

Ignoring problems is not "pragramatic" unless your goal is simply to get elected, without regard to the welfare of the country.

I'm not calling on them to be far right, after all, but to handle the economy in a largely centre-right fashion, and to try to wean it off depending on the government for everything.

Quote

But what was NOT pragmatic, was ignoring climate policy for 10 years, resulting in lost credibility on the world stage.... DEFINITELY not pragmatic.

Credibility compared to whom? The US? The US has ignored climate change and continues to do so. And anyone who thinks we can address climate change by controlling CO2 is a loon.

So it the Conservatives really want power, here is where they should NOT go:

Quote

2. Denial of Science...

Was an invention of the media.

Quote

3.. Punitive "justice" without rehabilitation policies.

You can't rehabilitate career criminals, and most crime is committed by career criminals.

Quote

4. Ignoring aboriginal rights...

Oh yeah, because it's going to be real popular to give everything away to small bands of natives and start paying them rent.

Peculiar....

Your OP asks a question: "Which Direction...?"

But the tone of THIS post says: "Don't want to change anything"

Peculiar.

Well at least it looks like we got religion out of the mix. Although Derek doesn't agree. What he doesn't realize is that if they were to eliminate those ties, many so-called Liberals might vote for them once in a while, but with them, it will never happen; they will be limited to the "base" .... which will get smaller and smaller with each passing generation.

Denial of science is hardly a "media invention". A Billion in cuts and firing 15% of scientist may or may not be an exaggeration, but there is some truth in there somewhere.

Punitive justice: Where do you get that statement "most crime"? The Correction services own webside says: On average, 2% of offenders in the community were readmitted for new offences over the last 12 quarters.

pretty hard to call 2% as "most".

Aboriginal rights:... didn't say anything about "popular". Just the facts.

... and Derek:

you opinion on what is "popular", ....such as "law and order policies".... is misguided. Nothing is "popular" if it doesn't make sense. And if Conservatives really believe that, then they are deluded and no wonder they lost.