Plain Bad Policies

[Cartman]

In the interest of honest and sincere exchanges of ideas, would people be willing to name three policies they dislike of the federal political party they will support next election?

#1. I am not really excited about the NDP's death tax. While it is enticing to tax dead people rather than living people, it seems like the idea needs an overhaul because low income people who inherit a valuable home look like they will be unfairly taxed. The idea in general is not entirely bad, but it needs major work.

#2. Bank mergers. I admit to knowing very little about this issue, but I do know that the NDP was against mergers and now they support them. I am not sure where I stand on this myself, but I do not like policy reversals generally.

#3. The infrastructure program. Again, I do not know all of the details about this program, but if there are no federal strings attached to ensure that it will not just result in more urban sprawl, then I am against it. We need to ensure that the environment is protected. Last year the Liberals gave Calgary some dough for more police officers and City spent the money on buildings. Not cool.

So, anybody else able to break their ideological shackles and identify three policies they do not like about the party they support? This should be interesting.

[Argus]

So, anybody else able to break their ideological shackles and identify three policies they do not like about the party they support?  This should be interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not an ideologue. The two people here I presently dislike the most are a far left poster and a far right poster.

I do not like the cowardice of the Tories in caving on two tier health. They should have stuck to their principals. Now that Canadians have come around far more to their way of thinking a year back they're still saying no two-tier. Silly.

I do not like their cowardice in stating their support for official bilingualism. This is being done to court Quebec, which they will never get without a Francophone leader anyway, and to keep the media from calling them anti-Quebec, which it will continue to do anyway. So it is not only cowardice in embracing a policy I'm sure they don't believe in, but pointless cowardice.

I do not like their embracing of wide open immigration. They used to be against it, but changed their tune to once again fend off accusations of racism and to appeal to ethnic voters. I am against immigration, almost every aspect of it, including our bloated and incompetent refugee system.

Their fixation on kiddy porn is stupid and overly dramatic. Opposition to SSM should be expected from a party with so many socially conservative supporters, but they shouldn't have taken it to the degree they did. It just wasn't that important.

Their position on the CBC is to sell it. Frankly, we have few national sybols, and while the CBC is bloated and full of repitilian kitten eaters, I'd like to see someone go in there with an axe, get rid of two thirds of the bureacrats, try to get its ludicrously wasteful spending under control, fire most of the news producers, and try to turn it into a national entertainment and information resource - with a degree of neutrality and professionalism. That would be the hard way, of course, and the complicated way, since you'd have to avoid charges they were trying to "control" the news.

And it's hard to put a policy like that into an election slogan - as Kim Campbell said. Simple policies are best.

[Toro]

#1.  ...the NDP's death tax. 

This is a very bad idea. Taxing savings is terrible policy, under any guise. Its just another tax grab.

#2.  Bank mergers.

I know a bit about finance and financial institutions, and I understand the logic behind it - banks around the world are getting bigger, Canadian banks are being left behind and are thus losing out on financing business because they do not have the capital to compete. I do not know, however, if I agree with it. Large bank mergers often do not work, and there is little evidence that these supermarket banking behemoths are better amalgamated than separate. In the US, banks that are acquisitive often have lower multiples and are thus valued lower than other banks. So I'm not convinced bank mergers are necessary. But I'm not against them either.

#3.  The infrastructure program.

Infrastructure for the sake of infrastructure is bad policy - it is the primary cause of the mess Japan is in today. Where government spending on infrastructure is positive is when the spending increases economic growth after its finished, not just as it is occurring, and when domestic demand is stagnant. Using both these criteria, its difficult to say that Canada needs more infrastructure spending as Canada really doesn't need more roads and demand is quite strong.

[I miss Reagan]

#3. The infrastructure program. Again, I do not know all of the details about this program, but if there are no federal strings attached to ensure that it will not just result in more urban sprawl, then I am against it. We need to ensure that the environment is protected. Last year the Liberals gave Calgary some dough for more police officers and City spent the money on buildings. Not cool.

This is typical behaviour from the Bronconier government. He is a tax and spend leader. The mayor and most of city council are Liberal. Have you heard about the recent $60,000 dollar phamphlet he's sending out to complain about the provincial and federal governments?

[err]

#1.  I am not really excited about the NDP's death tax.  While it is enticing to tax dead people rather than living people, it seems like the idea needs an overhaul because low income people who inherit a valuable home look like they will be unfairly taxed.  The idea in general is not entirely bad, but it needs major work.

This one is a bit mixed. I think the general idea of the death tax is to replace a "wealth tax" which would be fought tooth and nail by the upper echelons of our society. There is a substatial number of people in this country who manage to accumulate great deals of wealth without paying tax on their capital gains. There have been propositions in the past of wealth taxes implemented every 5 years, where you'd pay a tax on your increase in worth.... But they've settled for a once-in-a-lifetime (or once just after a lifetime) tax that will affect primarily the wealthy elements of society.

#2.  Bank mergers.  I admit to knowing very little about this issue, but I do know that the NDP was against mergers and now they support them.  I am not sure where I stand on this myself, but I do not like policy reversals generally.

I tend to think merging all of our banks is not a good idea. The conventional "wisdom" is that the smaller banks will not be able to compete in the global marketplace. However, getting rid of competition (for Canadian business) is probably not a good thing... for Canadians anyways. The mergers might be good for the banks' shareholders, but I believe it is the governments duty to look after the interest of its citizens first.

#3.  The infrastructure program.  Again, I do not know all of the details about this program, but if there are no federal strings attached to ensure that it will not just result in more urban sprawl, then I am against it.  We need to ensure that the environment is protected.  Last year the Liberals gave Calgary some dough for more police officers and City spent the money on buildings.  Not cool.

I'll agree that more details are required. If the money is used effectively to take care of projects that need doing, then it can be a very good thing... I know that some cities are indesperate need to update their water and sewage systems. This kind of money could be well spent relieving the burdon of local taxation on poorer citizens for these types of infrastructure projects....

[apollo19]

For the Liberals,

#1. I'm opposed to the SSM issue, as I dont agree with changing an age-old definition of marriage.

#2. I dont like the national daycare program, as it does nothing for many people, and is merely an invasion of the market.

#3. Kyoto should only have been signed if it could accommodate China/the US, otherwise it is a pointless waste of money.

The main reason I would vote Liberal is to know that there will always be the incentive to do better, as if you break above the middle-incomes you will be set.

[Cartman]

#1. I'm opposed to the SSM issue, as I dont agree with changing an age-old definition of marriage.

I think that the Liberals made the right decision here. In the end, it does not really hurt anyone, but helps many who want to be included in Canadian society. I guess we should agree to disagree on this one.

#2. I dont like the national daycare program, as it does nothing for many people, and is merely an invasion of the market.

I like the idea of federal assistance for child care, but I have argued that the same dollars might have gone further to help more people. I agree that too many people were excluded and wonder why this is the case.

#3. Kyoto should only have been signed if it could accommodate China/the US, otherwise it is a pointless waste of money.

I don't mind if we "lead" on this issue to an extent, but implementation seems to be ineffective so far. Cars create an incredible amount of pollution and we need to introduce (not necessarily sustain) rebates on purchases of fuel efficient vehicles. If auto manufacturers are willing to create the vehicles at great expense, then they should be rewarded by at least breaking even on these social investments.

I do not like their embracing of wide open immigration. They used to be against it, but changed their tune to once again fend off accusations of racism and to appeal to ethnic voters. I am against immigration, almost every aspect of it, including our bloated and incompetent refugee system.

Ha! The NDP used to be the loudest party against immigration and they caved too. I have nothing against immigrants (from any nation BTW). I think by far the most come here with the best of intentions and the best of realizations. But I have yet to hear an argument why we should sustain the current level given freer markets emerging. I can see instances where we have a moral obligation to accept refugees (when we support wars that generate refugees), but a society can only handle so much change in my opinion. The development of our culture is important.

[August1991]

In the interest of honest and sincere exchanges of ideas, would people be willing to name three policies they dislike of the federal political party they will support next election?

Good thread idea, Cartman. Thanks for starting it.

#1 SSM. Some Tories (and I don't include Harper) just have to live with this one. You pick your fights and you pick the ones you can win. This one, in the broad scheme of things, just doesn't matter.

#2 Private delivery of medical services. Harper went to Calgary and delivered a speech to the Fraser-types in which he said that it was politically impossible to put the words "private" and "health care" in the same sentence. A short while later, the Supreme Court did exactly that. As Cartman said, flip-flops are not good. Harper should decide what the main principles are and then stick with them. Universal, wall-to-wall, public coverage of the tab - but with private delivery of medical services - is perfectly doable, and much better than what we have now. (Yes, I know that provinces organize medical systems. So what, see below.)

#3 Education, welfare, EI, pensions. Education is a sovereign provincial jurisdiction. Welfare is locally administered, but the feds contribute. The feds do EI and the CPP. I think Harper should not be afraid to say something radical about all. He might say that as PM, he will make sure the provinces have enough money to end welfare as we know it. Or explain why equalization is critical to education quality and how he intends to help provinces. UIC and CPP really need reform. Harper needs to explain that if he is PM, ordinary Canadians will probably have more generous benefits. His purpose in life is not to make people suffer.

----

Cartman, I feel like the job applicant who, when asked about personal weak points, claims that "I tend to be a workaholic."

[Cartman]

This is typical behaviour from the Bronconier government. He is a tax and spend leader. The mayor and most of city council are Liberal. Have you heard about the recent $60,000 dollar phamphlet he's sending out to complain about the provincial and federal governments?

I have not heard about this issue. It is strange that Calgary elects so many Liberals to council but none federally.

Cartman, I feel like the job applicant who, when asked about personal weak points, claims that "I tend to be a workaholic."

Yeah, it is not easy to do a harsh self-critique.

[Toro]

Yeah, it is not easy to do a harsh self-critique.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, its easy when you don't have any flaws...

[Guest eureka]

It is an excellent topic and I am eager to see the responses. However, I am beging out for the moment since all parties have the same misguided outlook on a couple of what I consider the most important issues facing Canada. And I don't want to turn a good discussion into another National Unity argument.

[Cartman]

Only 10 responses thus far. Any other takers?

[tml12]

Okay,

Three policies I do not like about a party I support:

If an election were held today I would vote Liberal. The NDP is a bit too left for me (but, having met Jack Layton I think he is just beyond entertaining), the Bloc (here in Quebec) needs to talk about things other than separation (like they're separatist and for Quebec...but other than that I don't know what they support), and the Conservatives need to stop talking Gomery (I know Gomery sucks but that is not working for them in Ontario) and start talking policy (otherwise it seems like "we have an extreme right agenda but we're hiding behind Gomery") BUT:

1) MISSILE DEFENCE. It sucks and it doesn't make sense and the Bush government is just idiotic...plus the system is already outdated. YET it is abolutely outrageous that the Americans will be making missile defence decisions and then saying "okay Canada, please leave the conference table while we make a decision about how to defend you." And Martin is like "we still want to be notified." Canadians just don't seem to get: LIVING ON THE SAME CONTINENT AS THE WORLD'S ONLY REMAINING SUPERPOWER MEANS WE ARE IN MISSILE DEFENCE WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. It is a flawed program, but we NEED a seat at the table, otherwise our sovereignty dwindles...

2) GAY MARRIAGE. As someone who thought I was gay for many years and have many gay friends, I support gay marriage and know firsthand what it is like to live gay. YET, to me marriage is a religious institution and it should be up to each province and each religious denomination whether or not to allow gay marriage. A civil union is not marriage.

3) HEALTH CARE. The Martin Liberal government is NOT the great protector of Medicare and Paul Martin himself uses a well-known PRIVATE Montreal clinic known to most Montrealers. The Liberals have either got to come clean with Medicare or quit the bullsh*t. And Dosanjh won't write a letter to Quebec because the Liberals are afraid to propel the sovereignty movement. Meanwhile Martin is like "I will not be a good prime minister unless I end western alienation."

Enough.