ALBERTA: Provincial Elections!

[Jacob]

Hey, BB - what's the core of the right wing government you seek to build down the road?

[Barrister]

Hey, BB - what's the core of the right wing government you seek to build down the road?

I'm not sure how to answer this question.  Can you please re-phrase it?

[Jacob]

I'm not sure how to answer this question.  Can you please re-phrase it?

You posit a "more right wing" government down the road.

What is the philosophical and political core of this "more right wing" government? I'm particularly interested in any points of contrast with current, presumably less right wing parties as well as left wing parties.

Similarly, what are some key policies you'd expect to see from your favoured "more right wing" government?

For example, you mentioned more room for religious charities. By more room, do you mean government funding for religious charities; a roll back on various forms of social services from the government, expecting and possibly encouraging religious charities to fill the gap; or something else?

As well, why is a greater role for religious charities attractive? Do you expect it to be cheaper for the tax payer somehow? Is it that religious charities being more active will have a chance to influence the people they provide services to, and that's good for society because more religion is a good thing? Is it that religious charities are being unfairly held back, and allowing them a greater role is simply the right thing to do in a free society?

Basically, what is a greater role for religious charities going to achieve, and why is that a good thing?

Similarly, what are the other key policy items you'd like to see from your (more) ideal government, what do they aim to achieve, and why is that a good thing?

What's your pitch?

[Barrister]

I'm not really proposing any kind of comprehensive political platform here.

You often here complaints from activists on both the right and left that their current party is not firm enough in its convictions, and thus the desire to build a new party that is firmer.  It's the impulse that led to forming Wildrose, the BC Conservative Party, heck even the US Tea Party movement.  I'm not trying to impute some kind of value judgment here - you frequently hear this complaint.

IF people feel this way though, they have to balance the desire of having a more "pure" political party with the risk that by doing so you're just handing victory to those on the opposite side.

I'm pretty happy with the current Conservative government at the moment.

As for religious charities, it was just an example of a policy that comes from the social conservative side of the world that isn't as divisive and toxic as abortion.

[Jacob]

All that's true enough. I just got the impression you were looking for a more Conservative government down the road, and I was wondering if there were any particulars you were hoping for.

[Barrister]

All that's true enough. I just got the impression you were looking for a more Conservative government down the road, and I was wondering if there were any particulars you were hoping for.

No, I was thinking of the past, when I was an idealistic teen who was dissatisfied by the federal PC Party.  I volunteered a lot of hours for Reform, which paid off in the end with the current Harper government, but led to a lot of Liberal majorities too.  I think it was worth it, but it was a heavy price.

And I feel a similar dissatisfaction with the Alberta PCs.  I still think it's ridiculous a province with this much oil money is running a deficit, and hasn't contributed to the Heritage Savings Trust Fund since 1987.

[crazy canuck]

2. But there are more positive aspects to a "social conservative" agenda that have much better traction.  Support for families and communities, more room for religious charities, all plays well. 

Those are not social conservative agenda issues.  They are apple pie and motherhood issues. 

The social conservative agenda is to warp issues like support for families into nonsense like no sex education, no abortion and no gay rights.  I see nothing but bad policy coming out of any social conservative agenda.

3. Yes, with a much stronger NDP the dynamics are totally different in BC.  Doesn't mean you have to hold your nose and support any party as long as it can beat the NDP.  Sometimes you have to ask yourself if it is worth that risk to try and build a more right-wing party that can win government down the road.  But it is a tough question to ask.

I dont want a more right wing party.  Apart from the fact it would never win, I would never want any party in power that has a social conservative agenda.  I want a government that will be fiscally conservative and keep their nose out of social issues.

[Barrister]

2. But there are more positive aspects to a "social conservative" agenda that have much better traction.  Support for families and communities, more room for religious charities, all plays well. 

Those are not social conservative agenda issues.  They are apple pie and motherhood issues. 

The social conservative agenda is to warp issues like support for families into nonsense like no sex education, no abortion and no gay rights.  I see nothing but bad policy coming out of any social conservative agenda.

3. Yes, with a much stronger NDP the dynamics are totally different in BC.  Doesn't mean you have to hold your nose and support any party as long as it can beat the NDP.  Sometimes you have to ask yourself if it is worth that risk to try and build a more right-wing party that can win government down the road.  But it is a tough question to ask.

I dont want a more right wing party.  Apart from the fact it would never win, I would never want any party in power that has a social conservative agenda.  I want a government that will be fiscially conservative and keep their nose out of social issues.

No they are "social conservative" issues, if you think of social conservative as the opposite of libertarian.  They are interventionist.  Support for families is, indirectly, discriminating against singles.  Drug policy is socially conservative, as are alcohol and smoking controls.  They are government telling you what you can and can't do.

Unless you think the label "social conservative" is limited only to issues of sex and abortion.

[crazy canuck]

No they are "social conservative" issues, if you think of social conservative as the opposite of libertarian. 

Everything is the opposite of Libertarian.  That analysis doesnt help.  If the social conservative arugment is that they are less crazy then libertarians that also hardly helps.

Social conservative is the opposite of tolerance.

[Valmy]

Unless you think the label "social conservative" is limited only to issues of sex and abortion.

So you are either socially conservative or libertarian?  I was not aware that was the dichotomy.

[Barrister]

Social conservative is the opposite of tolerance.

[Barrister]

Unless you think the label "social conservative" is limited only to issues of sex and abortion.

So you are either socially conservative or libertarian?  I was not aware that was the dichotomy.

More of a continuum that an either/or.

[Jacob]

No they are "social conservative" issues, if you think of social conservative as the opposite of libertarian.  They are interventionist.  Support for families is, indirectly, discriminating against singles.  Drug policy is socially conservative, as are alcohol and smoking controls.  They are government telling you what you can and can't do.

Unless you think the label "social conservative" is limited only to issues of sex and abortion.

I have no problem with support for families... and I'm sure most NDP voters would be fine with that as well. As for alcohol and smoking controls, I think you'll find support for (and opposition to) that across party lines depending on the specifics.

I'm assuming you made a typo when you said "drug policy" is social conservative, and you meant to say something like "drug prohibition" or "criminalizing drug use" is socially conservative.

[Barrister]

No they are "social conservative" issues, if you think of social conservative as the opposite of libertarian.  They are interventionist.  Support for families is, indirectly, discriminating against singles.  Drug policy is socially conservative, as are alcohol and smoking controls.  They are government telling you what you can and can't do.

Unless you think the label "social conservative" is limited only to issues of sex and abortion.

I have no problem with support for families... and I'm sure most NDP voters would be fine with that as well. As for alcohol and smoking controls, I think you'll find support for (and opposition to) that across party lines depending on the specifics.

I'm assuming you made a typo when you said "drug policy" is social conservative, and you meant to say something like "drug prohibition" or "criminalizing drug use" is socially conservative.

Much like with CC - do we really need to try and stake out the semantic high ground?

[crazy canuck]

BB, you are the one trying to claim the virtues of social conservatism.  Your problem is that you are identifying issues that are not necessarily execlusive to social conservatives.

Try identifying policies that fall into that categorie.