Liberals Lite II
Coyne gets it,
So perhaps it is time for conservatives and market liberals to have a little rethink. The strategy of throwing their lot in with the Conservatives has been tried, and failed—failed, not in the sense that Conservative parties have been unable to win power, but that they win power, if they do, at the expense of conservatism. andrew coyne
Kathy, over at Relapsed Catholic, can’t resist a shot at the conservative blogosphere,
Just don’t look to the timid careerists of the male Canadian “conservative” blogosphere for inspiration there. relapsed catholic
Being rather more of a libertarian than a conservative and having no political aspirations in the “careerist” sense, and being a bit older, I’ll take the bait. What would a real conservative party’s platform look like?
– a pledge to reduce government spending by a real 3% per year (No BS about “as a percentage of GDP, real spending with real year over year cuts.) until a real cut of 25% has been achieved – a pledge to apply all surpluses resulting from the 3% spending reduction program to retire the National Debt and only then to cut taxes – the creation of a fully equipped, rapid deployment, special forces brigade in the Canadian Forces – a statement that Canada will support democracy and oppose non-democratic and failed regimes (and that the criteria for democracy would be set at or near the levels of freedom – including freedom of speech and association – enjoyed by Canadians) – a pledge to immediately halt immigration from non-democratic states and to scrutinize the bona fides of landed immigrants from such nations with the intention of deporting any landed immigrants who pose a threat to the security or the culture of Canada – a pledge to eliminate family class immigration from all nations (but with generous visitors visas provided that the visitor had family in Canada prepared to put up a bond to cover medical and other costs) – a suspension of the refugee claimant program until the problems with that program have been addressed – a one strike and you’re out policy for refugee claimants and landed immigrants who are convicted of serious criminal activity – and yes drug trafficking is serious (see below) – the development of strongly pro-natalist programs and policies – the withdrawal of the Federal government from as many areas of shared federal provincial responsibility as possible – Abolition of the Senate (it looks beyond reformation and really contributes nothing that a few think tanks couldn’t do better, faster and cheaper) – a reduction of 3% per year in the total amount of money available for equalization with the intention of eliminating all but two year “emergency” grants over 15 years. – the formation of an advisory committee on Global Warming charged with providing to the Canadian people and the Canadian government an objective assessment of the certainty of the science underlying the claim of global warming, man’s contribution to that warming (if any), Canada’s contribution to that human induced warming (if any), and the costs and benefits of alternatives – the repeal of such sections of the Canada Health Act which preclude private insurance or providers and a requirement that any facility that has been in any manner, directly or indirectly, financed with federal money, make its facilities available to private providers (for a reasonable fee) when those facilities would otherwise not be used. – the sale of the CBC broken up into a) television licenses sold to the highest bidder on a regional basis, b) radio licences sold to the highest bidder on a regional basis, c) all other assets sold to the highest bidder. The only rules for the auction being that a bidder may not hold more than two radio or television licenses in Canada – the abolition of the CRTC – the abolition of the Department of Indian Affairs and a buyout or other settlement of all aboriginal claims of any sort. – the equalization of the qualifications for EI across the country and a reduction in the premium to bring EI into accord with actual requirements – the abolition of all farm marketing boards beginning with the Wheat Board. – the immediate and complete decriminalization of marijuana and its ancillary products – the provision of heroin, cocaine and other “hard” drugs free to persons registered as addicts – the complete decriminalization of prostitution and ancillary activities with the age of consent for these activities set at 18 – the elimination of all but essential governmental advertising, sponsorship and grants where essential is defined as essential to the efficient workings of the government (think invitations to tender and legal notices) – the elimination of the Department of of National Heritage and Multiculturalism (some funding would still continue but would be passed through Treasury Board or Public Works) – the elimination of SOW (again)-the replacement of 50% of the Board of the Canada Council with citizens chosen by lot. Similarly, for all grant applications at least one of the referees would be a citizen chosen by lot who would be entitled to veto any application – funding would remain in place but the product would change (Same rules for the National Film Board and Telefilm)
– the elimination of both the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal – we have the Charter and the Courts – the elimination of Industry Canada – we have trade associations – A review of the activities and effectiveness of SSHRC and the NRCI suspect that implementing that list would pretty much fill up an initial four year mandate.
Now, could anyone be elected running on this sort of platform? Well, people are elected for the NDP all the time and their platform of massive governmental intrusion to make us all better people is far more ambitious. Most of this platform is about eliminating things which annoy people.
The immigration planks would be a tough sell as by stating that we only want people from democracies we eliminate at a stroke most of the Muslim world (but not India) as well as much of the Asian and the African. But here it is a question of values and of placing democracy in the true sense of that word at the top of Canadian priorities. Plus it gives real teeth to our commitment to democracy and that commitment could serve as a guide to our overall foreign policy.
As well, a substantial and growing majority of Canadians want fewer immigrants and immigrants who are willing to change their ways to conform with Canadian norms – requiring a democratic nation of origin will make such change a lot easier.
I’ve no doubt that a substantial and growing minority of Canadians are more than a little skeptical about the GW hysteria and they have been entirely shut out of the politics of Canada.
Fiscal conservatives have been entirely shut out of Canadian politics as have small government advocates so they might find this program attractive
Just about nobody likes the Senate, the CBC or the CRTC.
Eliminating Indian Affairs and doing a direct payout to extinguish the claims against Canada of the status Indian population is a radical suggestion. But given just how pathetic the situation of Indians in Canada is and continues to be it is very clear that the current policy is not working. In fact it may be causing actual harm.
Phasing out equalization will force the have not provinces to restructure their economies and their services. It will tend to encourage Canadians to move from have not province to have provinces thereby reducing the demand for those equalization payments.
———-
This is a program which would revolutionize political thinking in Canada. It is radical but principled. And it is built on the premise that, if offered a real choice many Canadians would be delighted to throw whichever version of the Liberal Party is in office out of office.
Obviously there would have to be some hard thinking and heavy research on all of these points; but my sense is that there could be a huge, silent, reservoir of support just waiting for someone to dare to raise their voice.
June 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Against “conservative” wimpiness…
First Andrew Coyne (of all people), now the FP’s Jacqueline Thrope: “The argument has been a minority government can’t make bold moves, but bold moves a majority may make.” Now, I’ve been railing against that and other cowardly thinking for…...
June 20th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Jay, If you run for national office on that platform, I promise I’ll move back to Canada and spend as much time as possible working to get you elected. I can’t imagine any government that wouldn’t benefit from those reforms. Well said, mate.
June 20th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Sounds like the old Reform platform to me.
And problem is not whether it’s right or wrong (I love it), but whether any seats would be won east of Alberta.
So, given that, it would mean eternal Liberal rule in Canada.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
“In fact it may be causing actual harm.”
May?
June 20th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
I live it!
I’m in!
Kathy S. says it’s ‘okay’ I say it’s brilliant.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I like your talk re immigration.
I believe Canada should stop its “OPEN” immigration policy. Only 5 nations in the world have this, all english speaking, US,Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand.
I believe we should only take immigrants with proven value to Canada immdiately, they must kspeak an official language, have money or a profession or desired trade.
Nearly all scientists are united in view that globe cannot support current population on sustainable basis. Too much population is ruining BC. Everyone settles on east coast of Van. Island, the OKanagan, Fraser Valley or Vancouver. Ouar infrastructure won’t and can’t handle current population. One govt. dept put out a study saying we do not need more immigrants. It would also prevent Muslims from immigrating whereas we just can’t say that with our open policy. Not PC, and it won’t sell. Good luck to you.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:15 am
Count me in. As long as we can have some discussion about free addictive drugs (wouldn’t that encourage an activity we don’t desire? even if it’s not illegal?) and the elimination of the Senate (Just in case the Liberals stole an election somewhere along the line, wouldn’t it be better if a non-partisan appointment process had given us a chamber of statesmen and a bona fide arena for “sober second thought”?)
June 21st, 2007 at 12:50 am
Dick, of course there is lots of room for a conversation about drug legalization and the elimination of the Senate (Oddly the underlying impulse is similar in both cases: I dispair of any effective Senate Reform because it would require provincial agreement and I am convinced that criminalizing drugs rather than treating addiction as a health issue simply causes crime and misery. We may not be able to do anything good, but we may be able to stop doing harm.)
Neil, I don’t want to stop Muslims immigrating – after all India has the second largest Muslim population in the world – rather I want to stop people who are ignorant of – or hostile to – the Western democratic tradition from having open access to Canada.
lemon, Coyne points out that the NDP has been tremendously influential with very few seats. A real conservative party, especially in an ongoing minority situation, could hold the Liberal Lite feet to the fire for particular points in its platform.
Andrew, your return is incentive indeed. And what fun it would be to see the expression on the good, pc, recycling citizens of Victoria were one to run on such a program. It would be worth the cost of filing the nomination papers.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:53 am
-Means test for pensions. If you have a million dollar home in Point Grey or a million dollar nest egg or a suitable workplace pension then you don’t need a government pension.
-An tax on the generations that lived well beyond their means and left following generations with a half trillion dollar debt.
-Raising the fertility rate is a net negative if most of our children are bastards. We will strengthen families by strengthening marriage and removing incentives to break up families.
-All forms of “affirmative action”: gone. Just because the Charter says they’re allowed doesn’t mean we have to have them. Productivity will increase dramatically in the new merit based economy.
-Immigration: We deal with the 3 year backlog first while we bring our immigration rate to G8 average.
-Enhance freedom of expression via libel law reform.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:13 am
Refreshing! Thank you.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Jay, I see where you’re going vis a vis the “no immigration” plank, but I’m not sure I agree on the method.
If you barred immigration during the Cold War from “non-democratic states”, a goodly number of people who made their way from behind the Iron Curtain & Cuba would be left out in the cold.
I appreciate that many of those folks would be deemed refugees, but even some communist countries allowed some emigration during the bad ol’ days.
Alter that policy a bit, (and add one, just because, that abolishes the monopoly Canada Post has on first-class mail) and I’m in.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
You’ve improved your immigration stance, Jay.
I could vote for that platform with few reservations—certainly fewer than I have with those presented by the major political parties today.