Where's the evil?

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm just curious about the whole racist, hidden agenda, dark evil platform that is described by the anti conservatives, and the Liberal Government?

Health Care
The Conservatives have said that Canadians should have reasonable access to health care regardless of the ability to pay. They have promised the following reforms:

Implement the 2003 National Health Accord to provide stable, long-term health care funding
A national drug plan to be negotiated with the provinces
Maintain the Canada Health Act's guarantee of public funding for necessary services, but favour private delivery of some medicare services
The Conservatives said that health care spending should be left to the provinces, but the federal and provincial governments should work cooperatively to improve medicare.

Same Sex Marriage
The Conservatives support the traditional definition of marriage. They would withdraw the reference question to the Supreme Court and allow a free vote on the issue in Parliament.

Defence
The Conservatives would increase defence spending by $1.2 billion per year, and eventually increase that to $2 billion. Other reforms include:

Raise the number of Canadian Forces from 55,000 to 80,000
Ensure better cooperation between Canada 's intelligence and security agencies
Increase Parliament's involvement in defence policy and equipment purchases
Marijuana
The Conservatives do not believe that small amounts of marijuana should be decriminalized.

Municipalities
The Conservatives will transfer from 3-5 cents (out of 10) of the fuel tax to cities.

Crime
The Conservatives intend to combat crime through the following reforms:

Moving violent or repeat young offenders to adult court
Ending the statutory release of prisoners having served two-thirds of their sentence
Establish a nation-wide sex offender registry
Increase penalties for people convicted of using a firearm to commit a crime
Introduce consecutive sentences for multiple violent crimes
The Conservatives would also take away the voting rights of federal prisoners

Gun Registry
The Conservatives intend to replace the Gun Registry with a practical firearms control system. That system would include:

Redirecting the money from the Gun Registry to law enforcement
Develop gun-control programs including mandatory penalties for criminals who use firearms and a licensing system for firearm users
Democratic Reform and Accountability
The Conservatives intend to increase accountability and introduce democratic reforms through the following measures:

Creation of an independent ethics commissioner who reports to Parliament
Require fixed election dates every four years
Allow free votes by MPs on moral issues
Consider proportional representation and the single transferable ballot
Senators should be elected, not appointed
Create a Judicial Review Committee to respond to court decisions Parliament believes should be addressed through legislation
Annual reports of each government department and program (including Crown Corporations)
Conduct an audit of social programs
Authorize the governor general to look at all federal government documents
Taxes
The Conservatives intend move toward a simpler tax system. They would introduce an $18 billion tax cut package by:

Cutting personal income tax by 25% for middle-income earners
Eliminating corporate subsidies in favour of lowering business taxes
Introduce a $2000 per child tax deduction
The Conservatives have announced a long-term goal of lowering Canadian taxes below USA rates.

Foreign Policy
The Conservatives have said that Canadian Foreign Policy should protect our sovereignty and promote our national interests. It should emphasize democracy, human rights, and free trade. The following reforms have been promised:

Make Parliament responsible for supervising Canadian Foreign Policy and Canadian Forces
Work with NATO and the United Nations to address international security threats
Expand trade through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
Allow low-cost generic drugs to be sold in developing countries
Begin talks with the USA about joining a North American missile-defence system
Immigration
The Conservatives have promised to work with the provinces to develop a national policy on immigrants:

Eliminate abuse of the system, but still be responsible for our fair share of refugees
Focus on immigrants who best fit into the “Canadian fabric”
Develop a new program to assess the credentials of foreign-trained professionals
Environment
The Conservatives have promised to develop made-in-Canada policies to deal with environmental issues. They would also start negotiations with the USA to regulate emission limits. Proposed reforms include:

Legislating limits on air pollutants
Increased fines for ocean polluters
Audits of contaminated federal waste sites
$4 billion over 10 years to clean up contaminated sites
Compensation for people or groups who have to give up land for endangered species
Aboriginals
The Conservatives have promised the protection of aboriginal self-government through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They would also give aboriginals the power to raise their own revenues.

Trade
The Conservatives have promised to focus on diversification when it comes to trade. This includes the products that are sold, as well as the markets they are sold into. They have also proposed reforms in the following areas:

Work to reduce tariffs and trade barriers
A clear definition of what constitutes an export subsidy
Eliminate inter-provincial trade barriers through non-Constitutional means
Education
The Conservatives have promised to invest in post-secondary education by making the following reforms:

Increasing the maximum loan limit for student loans
Offering grants to low-income students
Introduce Canada Learning Bonds
Increase Canada Education Savings grants and the Registered Lifelong Savings program
Child Care
The Conservatives have promised to evaluate and improve existing programs for child care. They have promised to:

Expand the government's “Understanding the Early Years” program
Fund research into the first five years of a child's life
Speed progress on improvements to support childcare centres
Create more quality child-care spaces
The Economy
The Conservatives have promised to introduce a debt repayment plan, with the goal of lowering the national debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio. They will also encourage research and development through tax credits, and promote small businesses.

[Agamemnon]

Well, you say at the start, I'm just curious about the whole racist, hidden agenda, dark evil platform that is described by the anti conservatives, and the Liberal Government? .

Isn't it obvious? It's hidden

What was expected here? "The Conservative Party believes in evil, hidden agendas, and racism."?

What is it with people linking political rhetoric/'policy' with reality? Do you think the Liberals had 'Steal millions of dollars' in their platform? 'Inflate Gun-Registry'? Platforms like these are designed to be as non-contentious as possible, not 'with us or against us' statements. I'd assume every political party in Canada would have a toned down, as-middle-of-the-road-as-possible positions in these platforms.

The obvious outstanding issues are the anti-gay marriage/anti-pot decriminilization, personally. I think they're wrong on these topics.

[CaptainCrunch]

Ok, however I'm curious on why its so easy for the Liberals to sell the fact that the Conservatives are basically racist (KKK comments), don't have the best interests of Canadian's in mind (they're selling out health care) etc etc. And people buy it, I guess I'm wondering why the Liberals have so much credibility, and the Conservatives don't, especially basing this on the fact that this isn't the Conservatives of the 80's.

I'm just trying to straighten out in my mind, why Ontario finds the Conservatives to be such a threat.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Introduce a $2000 per child tax deduction

Best idea in the platform IMO for those with kids anyway.

Instead of taking $1000 (at %50 tax rate) from parents to set up a day care program they may or may not want/need, leave the $1000 in parents pockets. Let them decide what kind of daycare set-up suits their own needs.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 9 2005, 08:04 PM
Ok, however I'm curious on why its so easy for the Liberals to sell the fact that the Conservatives are basically racist (KKK comments), don't have the best interests of Canadian's in mind (they're selling out health care) etc etc. And people buy it, I guess I'm wondering why the Liberals have so much credibility, and the Conservatives don't, especially basing this on the fact that this isn't the Conservatives of the 80's.

I'm just trying to straighten out in my mind, why Ontario finds the Conservatives to be such a threat.

I'd wager the Canadian Conservatives suffer from the same 'image' issues as the US Republicans. Its not like the Republicans have a platform that reads like a liberal's dream either, but they're seen as 'evil' by many, many people... just like the Conservatives.

The Liberals have support (if not credibility) by capturing the middle of Canadian politics, which everyone has known for over a decade. The Liberal Party represents the beliefs, more or less, of the average 'Canadian'. The important aspect with that statement is that 'we' (Albertans) are not average 'Canadians', which is why the Libs don't work for many of us.

I'll come out w/ my theory as to why the Cons will never get power (morals for every party aside). Its impossible to look at this Conservative Party and say 'they weren't seen as 'evil' in the 80's, so what's the diff?'. The diff is that this party is the direct and obvious descendant of the Reform Party. People in Ontario used to be able to sympathise w/ the Conservatives because the Liberals had not yet captured the 'middle' of Canadian politics, they shared it w/ the Conservatives, two equally historic, equally legitimate Canadian parties.

This ended with the destruction of the 'true' Conservative Party after the Mulroney scandals of the 80's. That party was killed then, and its support scattered, most of it to be picked up by the last remaining 'legit' Party, the Liberals.

The Conservatives were never able to resurrect themselves. For some reason people look at today's Conservatives and want to see the old, accepted, mainstream party, ignoring the fact that it is, truly, the Reform Party with a different name. The leadership is (more or less) the same, the policies are (more or less) the same, the only thing that's changed is they've dropped regionalism as a huge issue in an effort to make a play for national power.

Basically, to sum it up; Ontario sees Conservative as = to Reform as = to Western Regionalism (the 'image' of Reform, like it or not). As much as that is or is not true, its the way it is. None of this is really insightful, as its common knowledge. The 'new' Conservatives have been trying to crack Ontario since they were the Reform Party, with (apparently) little luck. I figure the only way you can 'beat' Ontario is to join them, ie. become an Ontario based party, and stop thinking that the West's agenda is as important as Central Canada's.

At least, thats what I've theorized off the top of my head at work. I could be completely wrong (and I'm sure I'll hear about it if/when I am)

[RougeUnderoos]

Allow free votes by MPs on moral issues

Subtle. What moral issues are they interested in dredging up to satisfy certain portions of their electorate. I wonder....

As for the rest of it...

Missile Defense Yes! Kyoto No! War on Drugs Yes! Vague International Security Threat Yes! Cut Taxes Yes! 4 Year Elections Yes! Tighten Immigration Yes! Gay Marriage No!

It all seems oddly familiar. Why is that?

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 9 2005, 08:04 PM
Ok, however I'm curious on why its so easy for the Liberals to sell the fact that the Conservatives are basically racist (KKK comments), don't have the best interests of Canadian's in mind (they're selling out health care) etc etc. And people buy it, I guess I'm wondering why the Liberals have so much credibility, and the Conservatives don't, especially basing this on the fact that this isn't the Conservatives of the 80's.

Re: Rob Anders-posterchild.
The new conservative party is worse than the one back in the 80's. It's pretty much just the Reform party rebranded.

Speaking of Crappy anders i just received some junk mail from him. It was written in a National Enquirer format. How pathetic is that. I can't believe he is my MP!! If he is the best candidate the Conserveratives can run in our Calgary riding, they deserve NEVER to be able to win an election.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 9 2005, 08:04 PM
Ok, however I'm curious on why its so easy for the Liberals to sell the fact that the Conservatives are basically racist (KKK comments), don't have the best interests of Canadian's in mind (they're selling out health care) etc etc. And people buy it, I guess I'm wondering why the Liberals have so much credibility, and the Conservatives don't, especially basing this on the fact that this isn't the Conservatives of the 80's.

I'm just trying to straighten out in my mind, why Ontario finds the Conservatives to be such a threat.

In the platform as stated I can see why people would disagree with some of the points.

In regards to health care...

"Maintain the Canada Health Act's guarantee of public funding for necessary services, but favour private delivery of some medicare services"

There are a lot of people that don't like the trend towards privatization no matter how small the steps are. There are people that are ideologically and philosophically opposed. The Conservatives have privatization of some health care services right in the material you provided. Some see it as a slippery slope.

I think their stance on "traditional marriage" shows people that they are catering to religious groups instead of striving for equality, tolerance, etc. That's a scary agenda to some. Suggests that they haven't struck the proper balance of separation between state and church. Suggests that perhaps in future issues they'll take the Christian side of a debate.

Some don't see pot smoking as any more significant than alcohol. Those people obviously wouldn't support the Tories stance on decriminalization.

Not as highlighted in this version of their platform is their idea about how we should respond to the US's demands on Missile Defense and things like that. I know a lot of people that don't agree with the US priorities and these people would not be in favour of basically bending over to American policy on some of these matters. This may be a matter of perception but it seems that in the past the Conservatives have promoted this issue. They have talked about sending troops to help the US in their wars which I think a lot of Canadians would very much disagree with.

I think there's a lot of "open" agendas here that a lot (probably the majority) of Canadians would disagree with. And their stance on some of these issues makes people wonder what their stance might be on future issue that have yet to be raised.

It's not all about the Liberal party brainwashing us or the credibility of the crooks. A lot of it boils down to people taking the opposite stance on issues than the Conservatives have taken. Sometimes Conservative supporters just don't seem to grasp that.

What's the problem with the Conservatives? I think it boils down to the fact that they aren't liberal enough for this fairly liberal country. The current version of the Conservatives is still too right wing to gain majority support IMO.

[Flames89]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 9 2005, 04:40 PM
What's the problem with the Conservatives? I think it boils down to the fact that they aren't liberal enough for this fairly liberal country. The current version of the Conservatives is still too right wing to gain majority support IMO.

I think it just boils down to leadership.

With a real leader, Canada would shift. But that leader would also recognize a deal with the over-right perception.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Flames89@May 9 2005, 08:52 PM
I think it just boils down to leadership.

With a real leader, Canada would shift. But that leader would also recognize a deal with the over-right perception.

Canada would shift it's idealogical, philosophical and political beliefs just because of a new Conservative leader? I don't understand the rationale for that, nor do I agree.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@May 9 2005, 08:37 PM
Allow free votes by MPs on moral issues

Subtle. What moral issues are they interested in dredging up to satisfy certain portions of their electorate. I wonder....

As for the rest of it...

Missile Defense Yes! Kyoto No! War on Drugs Yes! Vague International Security Threat Yes! Cut Taxes Yes! 4 Year Elections Yes! Tighten Immigration Yes! Gay Marriage No!

It all seems oddly familiar. Why is that?

I don't see anything wrong with this.

Theres no hiding behind "party lines" for how you vote on these issues.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+May 9 2005, 08:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS @ May 9 2005, 08:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@May 9 2005, 08:37 PM
Allow free votes by MPs on moral issues

Subtle. What moral issues are they interested in dredging up to satisfy certain portions of their electorate. I wonder....

As for the rest of it...

Missile Defense Yes! Kyoto No! War on Drugs Yes! Vague International Security Threat Yes! Cut Taxes Yes! 4 Year Elections Yes! Tighten Immigration Yes! Gay Marriage No!

It all seems oddly familiar. Why is that?

I don't see anything wrong with this.

Theres no hiding behind "party lines" for how you vote on these issues. [/b][/quote]
Well that idea scares me. Is my MP going to vote his/her conscience or is that person actually going to represent their constituency?

At least if they are towing the "party line" then I can feel safe voting for the party that has a platform that follow my beliefs.

The statement sounds like a cop-out to me. Moral issues are too contentious so the Conservatives don't want to take a stand on them. And yet they claim to support the traditional definition of marriage. That seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.

[Mike F]

There's a lot I disagree with, but to make a simple formula:

Traditional (i.e. religious) definition of marriage
+ majority rule on "moral" issues
+ Pulling out of Kyoto
+ Joining missile defense
+ "If we'd been in charge, we would be in Iraq"
+ private delivery of some medicare services

These aren't Liberal propoganda or smokescreens and they're not evidence of brainwashed idiot voters; they are clearly stated Conservative policies the many voters are very uncomfortable with

[RedHot25]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 9 2005, 09:05 PM

Well that idea scares me. Is my MP going to vote his/her conscience or is that person actually going to represent their constituency?

At least if they are towing the "party line" then I can feel safe voting for the party that has a platform that follow my beliefs.

The statement sounds like a cop-out to me. Moral issues are too contentious so the Conservatives don't want to take a stand on them. And yet they claim to support the traditional definition of marriage. That seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.

Yup - and the perception is, I think for a lot of people, is that: is it really a "free" vote per se? Honestly, (the perception is) that you really know what way they are going to vote on it to begin with, so why not just state that?

To be blunt, as stated, have some balls and come out with your opinion.

[MarchHare]

One of the issues that's frequently mentioned as being part of the CPC "hidden agenda" is that they want to ban abortion.

Now, we all know the official party platform says that they will not introduce legislation to ban abortion. But we also know that many prominent members of the Conservative Party are long-time outspoken pro-lifers. Couple this with the fact that the CPC wants to allow many free-votes, what's stopping a Conservative Party MP from introducting a private member's bill to ban abortion? In fact, last June Stephen Harper said that he would allow just that.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePr.../04/485055.html

Early in the federal election campaign, Harper said a government led by him wouldn't table legislation on the divisive abortion issue. But he hadn't commented about how a private member's bill on the issue would be handled if he forms a government after June 28.

Yesterday, he made it clear: "Absolutely . . . I would generally continue the practice of allowing free votes on all private member's legislation," he said on the tarmac of Hamilton's airport.

Why many of us fear the so-called "hidden agenda" isn't because of what's in the CPC policy document, but rather because of the (quite clear) views on many issues by numerous Conservative MPs and Harper's apparent willingness to allow free votes on private member's bills about those issues.

[kn]

Originally posted by Mike F@May 9 2005, 03:16 PM
There's a lot I disagree with, but to make a simple formula:

Traditional (i.e. religious) definition of marriage
+ majority rule on "moral" issues
+ Pulling out of Kyoto
+ Joining missile defense
+ "If we'd been in charge, we would be in Iraq"
+ private delivery of some medicare services

These aren't Liberal propoganda or smokescreens and they're not evidence of brainwashed idiot voters; they are clearly stated Conservative policies the many voters are very uncomfortable with

I have no problem with Liberal supporters having a problem with each of these issues. But I get offended when I'm labelled as a rascist and a member of the new Klan.

And while I don't agree with all of those either, I support the Conservatives (I consider myself a liberal conservative) mainly because of the lack of respect for the West I've seen from the Liberal Party over the years.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by RedHot25+May 9 2005, 09:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RedHot25 @ May 9 2005, 09:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@May 9 2005, 09:05 PM

Well that idea scares me. Is my MP going to vote his/her conscience or is that person actually going to represent their constituency?

At least if they are towing the "party line" then I can feel safe voting for the party that has a platform that follow my beliefs.

The statement sounds like a cop-out to me. Moral issues are too contentious so the Conservatives don't want to take a stand on them. And yet they claim to support the traditional definition of marriage. That seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.

Yup - and the perception is, I think for a lot of people, is that: is it really a "free" vote per se? Honestly, (the perception is) that you really know what way they are going to vote on it to begin with, so why not just state that?

To be blunt, as stated, have some balls and come out with your opinion. [/b][/quote]
And how doesn't the free vote address that? You want MPs with some balls? You let them make their own choice with regards to that issue.

That creates accountabliity.

Its better than saying ooo I had to vote along party lines, I'm a brainless clone blah blah blah.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 9 2005, 02:39 PM
One of the issues that's frequently mentioned as being part of the CPC "hidden agenda" is that they want to ban abortion.

Now, we all know the official party platform says that they will not introduce legislation to ban abortion. But we also know that many prominent members of the Conservative Party are long-time outspoken pro-lifers. Couple this with the fact that the CPC wants to allow many free-votes, what's stopping a Conservative Party MP from introducting a private member's bill to ban abortion? In fact, last June Stephen Harper said that he would allow just that.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePr.../04/485055.html

Why many of us fear the so-called "hidden agenda" isn't because of what's in the CPC policy document, but rather because of the (quite clear) views on many issues by numerous Conservative MPs and Harper's apparent willingness to allow free votes on private member's bills about those issues.

"I would generally continue...."

Simply put, I guarantee that you could not find 154 Conservative MP's (or hopefuls) who would vote in favour of outlawing abortions.

I would guarantee you couldnt find 50.

I also guarantee you would find Liberals who would support outlawing abortions.

Simply put, there is 0 chance that the Conservatives introduce a motion to ban abortions as official party platform, and there is only a marginally higher chance that an individual MP would introduce it as a private members bill, and expect it to even reach the floor for a vote, let alone be in any danger of passing.

The problem here is that you are taking a very small, extreme minority of the party and passing it off as being representative of the entire party. This is something Canada's liberal media has proven very adept at, and people - especially out east - eat it up.

And yet, if I were to brand the Liberals a racist organization based on the comments of Fry and Volpe, I'd get trashed for overgeneralizing.

Canada is a very hypocritical nation.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+May 9 2005, 04:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS @ May 9 2005, 04:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Yup - and the perception is, I think for a lot of people, is that: is it really a "free" vote per se? Honestly, (the perception is) that you really know what way they are going to vote on it to begin with, so why not just state that?

To be blunt, as stated, have some balls and come out with your opinion.

And how doesn't the free vote address that? You want MPs with some balls? You let them make their own choice with regards to that issue.

That creates accountabliity.

Its better than saying ooo I had to vote along party lines, I'm a brainless clone blah blah blah. [/b][/quote]
I'm not worried about free votes, I'm just wondering what they plan on voting on. What do they mean by "moral issues"? They covered gay marriage specifically so that's not it. Is it other homosexual rights? Abortion? Some of that bunch are old-time biblethumpers. Are they going to bring up prayers in school? Cut funding for sex ed? Mess with curriculum to suit some silly view of the world?

It's all unlikely, but who knows? But how much time would a few of these morons take up rehashing over some garbage about "moral decay"? There are some extreme conservatives in that bunch and I don't think it's a stretch that some of them might bring up some "moral issue" that was decided back in the 50's.

Maybe they should be more specific about the "moral issues" they want to have free votes for.

[Resolute 14]

And when those "moral issues dealt with in the 50s" are soundly defeated, what will your boogeymen then become?