Another Party needed to offset NDP?

[cybercoma]

There's no doubt that a lot of people feel the Conservative Party of Canada is much too far from center for the average voter. I think the NDP being on one side of the spectrum with the Conservatives on the other makes the average Canadian believe the Liberals are the middle of the road party. If we had another political party even further from middle than the Conservatives on their side it would show people that the CPC is not as "extreme" as the Liberals would have you believe.

Just a thought...

[Riverwind]

If we had another political party even further from middle than the Conservatives on their side it...

Just a thought...

Take your pick

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/feder...d-no-seats.html

[cybercoma]

If we had another political party even further from middle than the Conservatives on their side it...

Just a thought...

Take your pick

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/feder...d-no-seats.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't get me wrong, I understand there ARE other parties; however, none of them have the support the NDP has. We need a right wing party that is as supported as the NDP on the left.

[Riverwind]

It would show people that the CPC is not as "extreme" as the Liberals would have you believe.

Or the conservatives could 'deep six' some of their policies which are associated with extreme right wing parties.

[cybercoma]

It would show people that the CPC is not as "extreme" as the Liberals would have you believe.

Or the conservatives could 'deep six' some of their policies which are associated with extreme right wing parties.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Suggest some policies for them to 86...I"d like to see what you think.

[August1991]

If we had another political party even further from middle than the Conservatives on their side it would show people that the CPC is not as "extreme" as the Liberals would have you believe.

I think there's a party called the Christian Heritage Party which presents candidates. But saying that they are "right wing" gives the impression that right/left divides on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion and so on. I don't think it does.

[cybercoma]

I think there's a party called the Christian Heritage Party which presents candidates.  But saying that they are "right wing" gives the impression that right/left divides on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion and so on.  I don't think it does.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but they don't have candidates in all ridings and they're based on social issues as you said. We need the polar opposite of the NDP in the mix...

[Riverwind]

Or the conservatives could 'deep six' some of their policies which are associated with extreme right wing parties.

Suggest some policies for them to 87...I"d like to see what you think.

The CPC needs to understand that it is not enough to have reasonable policies on paper because nobody reads policy books. For example:

1) The current CPC policy on same sex unions sounds like a reasonable compromise, however, the most vocal opponents to same sex unions are far right extremists. As a result, the CPC looks like it is supporting these people by opposing the bill in parliment now.

2) In the last election the CPC promised tax cuts without spending cuts. It does not matter how much the CPC thinks it can save by cutting un-needed programs people believe that you can't get something for nothing. As a result, the CPC platform sounds like Bush/Regeanonics.

I could go on. But they all follow the same logic.

[cybercoma]

The CPC needs to understand that it is not enough to have reasonable policies on paper because nobody reads policy books. For example:

1) The current CPC policy on same sex unions sounds like a reasonable compromise, however, the most vocal opponents to same sex unions are far right extremists. As a result, the CPC looks like it is supporting these people by opposing the bill in parliment now.

2) In the last election the CPC promised tax cuts without spending cuts. It does not matter how much the CPC thinks it can save by cutting un-needed programs people believe that you can't get something for nothing. As a result, the CPC platform sounds like Bush/Regeanonics.

I could go on. But they all follow the same logic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're suggesting they change something that simply isn't true:

1) The CPC believes in allowing same-sex unions, as long as they're not labelled as marriage because they're not the same thing as marriage. They don't believe in keeping two people who are in love from being committed to one another, they just want to call it a civil union instead of marriage.

2) It seems pretty simple. Smaller government, smaller taxes. There's a lot of wasted and unnecessary spending right now. I mean it only makes sense that people can spend their own money more efficiently than the government can. Sending your money to the politicians, having them put it in a big pot then divvy it out as they see fit only to give you a fraction of what you gave them in return is practically useless. Letting me keep my money and invest it in third party insurances for myself and charities that I support for others is much more efficient.

It's tough for them to ditch policies that have been twisted into something that isn't even their policy.

[Riverwind]

You're suggesting they change something that simply isn't true:

....

It's tough for them to ditch policies that have been twisted into something that isn't even their policy.

That is exactly my point. In the world of the 10 second sound bite you cannot afford to have polices that can be twisted and used a lightning rod. Another CPC poster claimed that I wanted the CPC to become Liberals with blue signs - this is probably true.

Here is something to think about: if the sponsership scandal had never happened Paul Martin would have been leading a majority gov't and would not be any danger of losing it. The only reason the CPC have a hope of forming a gov't is sponsership. Really think about it. This fact implies that Canadians are very happy with the Liberal policies and do NOT want any change. So the CPC needs to give them that: the new CPC campaign slogan could be: "Liberals without the corruption - all the flavour without the bad taste".

I know all of conservatives on the board will choke at this idea but I don't think you can deny the pragmatic reality of what I am saying.

[geoffrey]

It's tough for them to ditch policies that have been twisted into something that isn't even their policy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's so true. The Liberals have created the CPC policy through their misleading accusations of Americanism and social extremism. None of these policies have ever existed. However, the media in Canada will never step up and say that this is simply not true, instead they fill the news with these ideas, and why shouldn't they, the liberal government subsidizes half of them.

[cybercoma]

That is exactly my point. In the world of the 10 second sound bite you cannot afford to have polices that can be twisted and used a lightning rod. Another CPC poster claimed that I wanted the CPC to become Liberals with blue signs - this is probably true.

Here is something to think about: if the sponsership scandal had never happened Paul Martin would have been leading a majority gov't and would not be any danger of losing it. The only reason the CPC have a hope of forming a gov't is sponsership. Really think about it. This fact implies that Canadians are very happy with the Liberal policies and do NOT want any change. So the CPC needs to give them that: the new CPC campaign slogan could be: "Liberals without the corruption - all the flavour without the bad taste". 

I know all of conservatives on the board will choke at this idea but I don't think you can deny the pragmatic reality of what I am saying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You see, the problem is that the Conservatives are a different party with different fundamental beliefs. The CPC believs in smaller government with less taxes, the Liberals obviously believe in a more intrusive government that provides more services.

Neither party is EVIL and conspiring to tear apart the country. On the contrary, both parties have goals to make this country a beter place, they just believe in different means towards the end.

Liberals really think everyone in society should be responsible for providing for everyone else and Conservatives believe people should be allowed to keep their money and be responsible for providing for themselves. Which method is better? Canadians right now obviously believe the first method is better. In actuality is it? Who really knows?

All I'm trying to say is that the two parties are fundamentally different. To expect the Conservatives to be Liberals with blue lawn signs is an impossibility.