What direction the Conservatives Should Take

[Argus]

This is why Conservatives and their supporters need to spend some time in the wilderness.

Because we're not respecting the kewl kids?

[kimmy]

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.

So despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue, it's fiction invented by the media to appeal to gullible people?

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.

Boring or not, I want to hear positions on these issues.

"A good economy" is a matter of opinion. Case in point: the Temporary Foreign Worker program. It was GREAT for franchise operators!! But pretty much a disaster for people in the service industry. So who do you side with? The Restaurants Canada lobby group, or people whose wages are being undercut by Filipino workers being brought in and stacked 12-deep in 2-bedroom apartments? I gather the Liberals invented the program, so they're not blameless, but it really blew up under the Conservatives, where "cutting red tape" meant you could get your Filipinos without any sort of labor market assessment. Jason Kenney belatedly stepped in and implemented some limits, after the issue blew up in the media.

So what does a "strong economy" mean to you, Argus? Happy franchise operators? Because if that's the case, the working poor-- the people whose bottom line gets gutted by the foreign workers-- end up poorer. "A strong economy" doesn't necessarily mean the poor become less poor. It could mean just the opposite. Does "a strong economy" mean that a Canadian company like Royal Bank can improve its bottom line by offshoring more jobs? Again, that might be great for Royal Bank shareholders, but not great for working Canadians.

Mitt Romney said in 2012 that "a rising tide raises all boats", but that's not really true. The kind of "rising tide" that the Romnoid America envisioned would have turned a lot of boats into submarines.

-k

[Argus]

I'm with Smallc here. I've voted Conservative in the past, and considered it in October, but if "people who don't support us are stupid" is all you guys have to bring to the table, it's going to be a long time before I'll consider voting CPC again.

The whole Left V Right disagreement has been like that for decades. Conservatives think liberals are hand-wringing, soft hearted idiots who's ideas are unrealistic and ultimately disastrous for both the economy and society. Liberals think conservatives are cruel and heartless and greedy and selfish for not wanting the government to cure all that ails society and take care of everyone's problem. Remember the meme "Harper hates the poor"? "Harper wants to destroy health care!" "Harper hates women!" There's nothing new in this, and suggesting that conservatives here are wrong to deride those who show scant interest or care in fiscal responsibility is pointless. Especially since the left here continue to make it abundantly clear they feel that conservatives are cruel, thoughtless, selfish, backward and just generally horrible people.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

They were happy with the Ontario Liberals a couple of years ago too. Now, not so much.

No they weren't - they were simply less happy with the alternatives.

[Argus]

So despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue, it's fiction invented by the media to appeal to gullible people?

I'm talking about the idiocy of spending tens of billions of dollars and putting our economy in handcuffs in order to reduce our CO2 emissions by a completely insignificant amount while countries like China and India are pumping more additional CO2 into the atmosphere every year than Canada produces in total. India's ADDITIONAL CO2 emissions next year will surpass all that Canada currently pumps out, and their plan is to increase their emissions by that amount every year for the next twenty years. That's just India.

So how much of your salary are you willing to forego to reduce Canada's emissions, which stand at about 1.8% of world emissions?

"A good economy" is a matter of opinion. Case in point: the Temporary Foreign Worker program. It was GREAT for franchise operators!! But pretty much a disaster for people in the service industry. So who do you side with?

I think I've made myself clear on what I think of the TFW program ON MANY OCCASIONS. Aside from agriculture (and even there I have my doubts) It was stupid, is stupid. It's a way for lazy employers to hire people while paying less than the going rate. And it's short sighted and bad for the economy. Every individual who isn't working detracts from economic performance. And there are lots who aren't working. They need to be trained into any job that's available. And if employers don't want to train them or pay more for scarce workers then they can shut down. We don't need them.

[Argus]

No they weren't - they were simply less happy with the alternatives.

Because the alternatives were cruel people who wanted to cut spending! Only cruel people want to cut spending after all. We don't want none of that there austerity here! We'll just keep borrowing!

[kimmy]

There's nothing new in this, and suggesting that conservatives here are wrong to deride those who show scant interest or care in fiscal responsibility is pointless. Especially since the left here continue to make it abundantly clear they feel that conservatives are cruel, thoughtless, selfish, backward and just generally horrible people.

I really don't care. Your crew got their asses beaten-- resoundingly-- in large measure because young voters and single women rejected them. Going forward, you've got two options. You can hope that those groups decide not to vote on election night-- as was often the case in the past-- or you can come up with some way of explaining how conservative and Conservative policies will help those groups. So sure, be petty, be butt-hurt, if you wish... but don't be betting the farm that young voters and single women aren't going to bother voting next election.

For reasons that I won't bother going into, I'm on on mailing lists for the College Republican National Committee and the Young Republicans. The College Republicans are always sending out these fundraising letters that all start the same way: "did you know that if the voting age was 30, Mitt Romney would have won the 2012 Presidential election? We need to get our message to young voters! Donate today to help us reach out!" And if I donate I can get some Reagan socks. What message is it that they actually have for young voters? They never actually say what it is they're so excited to tell young voters.

After the 2012 election dust had settled, they were doing the autopsy on the Republican corpse and it became apparent how badly they had been whipped among young voters. So Bill O'Reilly brought a young lady from the Young Republicans on his show to explain why Republicans had failed so spectacularly among young voters. She talked about things like how the Republican stance on gay rights is extremely unpopular among young voters, and how young voters felt that the Republicans didn't have any answer to astronomical tuition fees. And Bill would have none of it. He berated her. "You want Republicans to change to appeal to you? Why don't you just call yourself a Democrat? These aren't Republican values!" Well, he asked why the Republicans failed with young voters. He didn't like the answers he got. He didn't actually want to know why Republicans didn't connect with young voters. He wanted to know how to make young voters vote Republican. It's two different questions.

I get kind of the same feeling from this thread. It seems like the Conservative supporters here are less interested in actually choosing a direction that more people will embrace, and more interested in figuring out how to con people into buying in to the same-old-same-old.

-k

[Smallc]

Because the alternatives were cruel people who wanted to cut spending! Only cruel people want to cut spending after all. We don't want none of that there austerity here! We'll just keep borrowing!

That theory doesn't really work, seeing that Ontario was the reason for the 2011 Harper majority.

[kimmy]

I'm talking about the idiocy of spending tens of billions of dollars and putting our economy in handcuffs in order to reduce our CO2 emissions by a completely insignificant amount while countries like China and India are pumping more additional CO2 into the atmosphere every year than Canada produces in total. India's ADDITIONAL CO2 emissions next year will surpass all that Canada currently pumps out, and their plan is to increase their emissions by that amount every year for the next twenty years. That's just India.

So how much of your salary are you willing to forego to reduce Canada's emissions, which stand at about 1.8% of world emissions?

1.8% is a huge number, considering Canada's portion of the world's population.

I live in BC... I already pay a carbon tax, put in place by the most consistently conservative provincial government in Canada. It hasn't destroyed the economy. It hasn't ruined my bottom line or wrecked livelihoods. Maybe it's something the rest of the country should consider.

I think I've made myself clear on what I think of the TFW program ON MANY OCCASIONS. Aside from agriculture (and even there I have my doubts) It was stupid, is stupid. It's a way for lazy employers to hire people while paying less than the going rate. And it's short sighted and bad for the economy. Every individual who isn't working detracts from economic performance. And there are lots who aren't working. They need to be trained into any job that's available. And if employers don't want to train them or pay more for scarce workers then they can shut down. We don't need them.

Why do you hate free enterprise?

Just kidding. Glad to know that you appreciate why the TFW program wasn't "free market". Sadly, when our Conservatives undermined the labor market assessment requirements to the point that you could get Free Filipinos, no questions asked, it creates the impression that they're "pro business", not "pro free-market". I have a hunch that a lot of the mooks in the Conservative backbenches don't even understand the difference between the two.

-k

[-1=e^ipi]

I live in BC... I already pay a carbon tax, put in place by the most consistently conservative provincial government in Canada. It hasn't destroyed the economy. It hasn't ruined my bottom line or wrecked livelihoods. Maybe it's something the rest of the country should consider.

The BC tax on CO2 emissions has been relatively successful and the taxation level is reasonable (from what I recall, it's only cost about 0.3% of GDP, and $30 per metric ton is in line with the best literature on the optimal level of taxation).

Unfortunately, Ontario and Quebec plan to go for cap-and-trade because they can't understand that a pigouvian tax has lower implementation costs. Not to mention provincially and federally, many in power are going around banning things, be it pipelines, fracking, potential LNG plants, tankers, coal, natural gas, non-electric vehicles, etc. This is far less efficient than a simple tax.

Edited June 6, 2016 by -1=e^ipi

[Big Guy]

I am surprised that those who declare that they are "Conservatives" or "Liberals" or "NDP" have the nerve to comment on issues. They come across as stupid as those Republicans right now who are critical of most of the dumb things that come out of Trump's mouth but promise to vote for him because they are "Republicans". Party affiliation (whatever that means) is more important than country.

At this point in time, we have no idea what the Conservative and NDP party platforms will be nor do we know who will be the new leaders - yet - we have posters who promise to blindly follow "their party". This is political analysis?

There is no set criteria for whom you vote for: It may be party policy, it may be the leader, it may be the local representative, it may be ethnic based, it may be racist based, it may be because he/she is your neighbor, it may be ...

Whatever criteria you use it certainly should not be "party affiliation" in that you promise to support whatever policy they come up with and whoever they choose as leader. We must have an electorate who are brighter than that.

[Argus]

I really don't care. Your crew got their asses beaten-- resoundingly-- in large measure because young voters and single women rejected them.

No, they got beaten because the NDP vote collapsed because Quebecers thought them too enthusiastic in their support for Islamists, and everyone then jumped over to the Liberals as the most likely to do away with that old meany Harper.

Going forward, you've got two options. You can hope that those groups decide not to vote on election night-- as was often the case in the past-- or you can come up with some way of explaining how conservative and Conservative policies will help those groups.

The young and stupid are and have always been perpetually fascinated with the Left. And in this day and age in particular they want a government which is a kindly mommy and daddy, who will coo and smile and pat them on the head, forgive them all their poor decisions, give them a hug and an allowance and make all their hurts go away. Trudeau caters to such people. No conservative party can do so and still be conservative. Nothing conservatism stands for, such as individual responsibility and small government is going to fly with a younger generation who grew up getting medals for just showing up. I expect that Canada will be another $100 billion in debt by next election, with a higher unemployment rate, and I expect Trudeau to be enthusiastically re-elected to put us another $100 billion in debt. The only thing which is going to push him out will be the deteriorating economy, the continual downgrading of Canada's debt by ratings agencies, and the increasing taxes needed to pay for all the hugging and allowances Trudeau is handing out. And it won't be the young or single mothers who will turn on him, because they pay little or no taxes anyway.

[?Impact]

That theory doesn't really work, seeing that Ontario was the reason for the 2011 Harper majority.

By that same token, was Harper the reason for the 2014 Wynne majority?

The young and stupid are and have always been perpetually fascinated with the Left.

I guess that only leaves us with the old and senile who vote blue because they were sold a bill of goods.

[Argus]

I guess that only leaves us with the old and senile who vote blue because they were sold a bill of goods.

No it leaves us with taxpayers.

The welfare people will always vote Left. Anyone who pays little or no taxes and gets a big allowance will always vote Left. Why wouldn't they?

[PIK]

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!

That was a smart move. They did not ignore CC,they ignored the scams that came with it. If he did not get out of kyoto, it could have cost us up to 18b. And since we produce very little and countries like india and china that will not even try to slow down ,it was a smart move not to get involved . Look at the ONT liberals trying to save the world and ruined the province in doing so.

[overthere]

I get kind of the same feeling from this thread. It seems like the Conservative supporters here are less interested in actually choosing a direction that more people will embrace, and more interested in figuring out how to con people into buying in to the same-old-same-old.

You are probably too young to recognize that what we are seeing right now is the same-old same old. Harper was the aberration, Trudeau is just a return to tax big, spend bigger. Even the names remain the same.

[Argus]

The thing is, a political party should not be like a movie studio or a TV network trying to think of what they can put out that would appeal to certain demographics. Oh, I know it happens, among all the major parties. But there's only so far you can pander before you simply lose track of what you are and then what? What is the point of having a Conservative party that isn't conservative? A party should stand for something, with a coherent ideological view, and how to make the country better. They can do whatever is possible to convince people that their views, their policies will be better for the country, but if they simply abandon them because it's easier to offer up bribes why not just join the Liberals?

[-1=e^ipi]

Why wouldn't they?

Desire for something better? Altruism?

[Icebound]

Nothing conservatism stands for, such as individual responsibility and small government is going to fly with a younger generation ....

Entering the 21st century, the idea of "small government" is not very practical, which is why most Canadians keep rejecting it.

Society is larger (there are more of us every year).... and more complex... and is only going to be more so in the years going forward. Everything from health... to travel, communication.... to shelter ...to food supply ..... even exposure to crime and fraud .... Everything is more complex, more prone to corruption, more subject to hazardous mistake, more difficult for the individual Canadian to evaluate.

Supposedly, the promise of "small" government is to "make things better"?

So how do people reconcile reduction of funding for..... standards .... education ..., research... regulation, safety inspections.... health care ... etc., etc. in the face of a larger and increasingly complex society...... ???

I suppose that small government DOES "make things better" for someone.... the question is for WHOM?

[-1=e^ipi]

So Argus' plan is to alienate all potential allies who might not be super fond of the country being run by SJWs like Trudeau...

Good luck with that.

[TimG]

So how do people reconcile reduction of funding for..... standards .... education ..., research... regulation, safety inspections.... health care ... etc., etc. in the face of a larger and increasingly complex society...... ???

While it is true that technology has changed society in many ways I believe your claim that society is more complex than it was in the past to be false. The only thing that has changed is many more people have access to much more information than they ever did and this creates the illusion of complexity but at their core the problems society faces are the same as they always have been. If anything, the amount of information people have access to leaves them less in need of a paternalistic government big brother than they ever have.

The trouble with big government is two fold: First, it kills small creative businesses by constantly imposing more and more regulations that only serve to reward the existing corporations with the resources to deal with these regulations. Second, if the tax burden gets too high it eliminates the incentive for people to become entrepreneurs which we need for future growth of the economy.

That said, there is a need for some government services and regulations which why people talk about a small government - not no government. The main difference between a 'small government' philosophy and a 'big government' philosophy is with a 'small government' regulations are seen as harmful and are only introduced when it is clear the harm from not regulating something is greater. With a 'big government' philosophy regulations are seen as a virtue and are constantly increased until society collapses under the weight.

Edited June 7, 2016 by TimG

[G Huxley]

"What direction the conservatives should take."

I hear there's some new medical kits going around.

[taxme]

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.

.

I wished that Harper practiced what he preached when he was with the National Citizen's Coalition. He believed in more freedom, less government, and less taxes. When he became Prime Minister, all that stuff he said he believed in was just not there. We got more government, less freedom and more taxes. When you grow a bigger government it means more taxes to pay for that government. He did not get rid of the hate laws. Hate laws deny free speech. What Harper should have done was abolish the GST, and the hate laws for starters. He should have eliminated many programs and agendas that promote attacks on freedom of speech and which kept the massive bureaucracy thriving. Harper was no Trump that was for sure.

[taxme]

This is why Conservatives and their supporters need to spend some time in the wilderness.

If Trudeau gets his way the Conservatives will be stuck in the wilderness for a long time to come. Probably the only hope of them finding their way out is if a guy like Kevin O'Leary steps in and becomes the leader of the Conservative party. They might have a chance. There is no one else in that party that will get the Conservatives out of the woods. They are all to politically correct, and none stand for true freedom, less taxes, and less government. All three party leaders are only in there to give we the sheeple the impression that we live in a democracy, and that they care so much about our rights and freedoms. That is the last thing on their minds.

[Argus]

Supposedly, the promise of "small" government is to "make things better"?

So how do people reconcile reduction of funding for..... standards .... education ..., research... regulation, safety inspections.... health care ... etc., etc. in the face of a larger and increasingly complex society...... ???

Very little of the federal government's budget goes for any of those things. Most of it goes for allowance money, for paying people to not work. It goes for pogey so people can work three months a year, for pensions, including to those who don't need it and didn't contribute to it, for natives to sit around in the boonies and get drunk, and is passed on to the provinces for welfare. Most of the government is about taking money away from those who earned it and giving it to people who didn't.