Conservatives: Image and Policy Problems

A primary reason why Ontario still does not really accept the Conservative Party is their perception of it. Most Ontarians will agree that Adscam and other scandals were wrong, but feel that the Conservatives have been overly opportunistic about it. Instead of waiting for due process and the judicial system to investigate, the Conservatives instead swooped in like vultures ready to pick the Liberal carcass clean. They are seen as a one-policy party, and that policy is getting the Liberals out of government. It smacks of a lust for power, which is precisely the problem with the Martin/Chretien Liberals. Basically, there’s not much to distinguish the Conservatives here.

This indistinguishability problem extends to policy. The Conservatives resemble the Liberals very closely in policy, which compounds the problem. Ontarians don’t heed cries of “Pick us instead! We’re just the same!”, especially when the CPC seems predatory and power-hungry into the bargain. Reviewing the Conservative website, it’s hard to find any matters of policy they actually differ substantially from the Liberals on. They promise greater accountability, but so do the Liberals. The common attitude that politicians are all the same does not lend any greater credence to Conservative promises to end corruption over Liberal promises to end corruption, in fact, many Ontarians feel that the Liberals are less likely to be corrupt now that they have been caught and punished with a shaky minority at the polls, and think that Martin probably understands that he is on some kind of probation.

The Conservatives promise that “issues like marriage are decided by Parliament, not the courts” but with a judicial system stacked against them, they will find it hard to make any headway without substantially rewriting the Charter and Constitution - no small task, especially for a Party new to power. This promise to increase the Parliamentary role is likely to be just a pipe-dream, even if genuine. They also promise tax cuts, but how much and from where is not specified. It’s difficult to see how this can be done when the CPC is also promising to “increase support for Canadians on fixed incomes, including seniors”, to make more “infrastructure investments”, to “scrap the long-gun registry and redirect the money to law enforcement” (italics mine), “ensure our armed forces are properly funded”, create a National Disability Act, maintain CBC funding (despite the fact that they contrarily promise to “privatize crown corporations that compete directly with comparable services from existing private sector institutions”), and more. Basically, the Conservatives promise more spending combined with tax cuts, and unless they plan massive debt buildup or inflation, this just isn’t possible. In any event, virtually all of these ideas would look quite at home on the Liberal website.

The recent Quebec ruling on healthcare represented a real opportunity for the Conservatives. Paul Martin promised no two-tier in Canada (wake up, Mr. Martin, it’s already here), and Harper had a chance to really differentiate the Conservative Party, to help dispel the myths of public healthcare, and try something innovative. But he didn’t. Once again, the Conservatives parrot Liberal policy and really have nothing to differentiate themselves.

I think that it is time for the CPC to make a real strike for a different direction. A more libertarian stance is probably a good idea. Right now, the Conservatives are decidedly socialist, endorsing mercantilism over free trade, socialised medicine, welfare and social security, etc. Making a stand for free trade, drastically reduced taxes and smaller government would be a good idea, if put across in the right way. Rather than cuts to services, emphasise tax cuts putting more money in the hands of working families. Abolish the GST, which is highly regressive and hurts the poor, for instance. Encourage two-tier healthcare to relieve the public load. Privatize more roads like the 407 ETR and cut gasoline taxes. Privatize crown corporations and allow competition in markets like mail delivery, water, hydro, cable TV and internet, etc. Cut the minimum wage to create more jobs for youth. Encourage free trade and imports so that Canadians can have cheaper consumer goods and higher real incomes.

The social-conservative avenue is probably a dead-end. To truly put a so-con agenda in place would require substantial changes to the way the Canadian state works, which would take a long time and probably disillusion many so-con voters. Apart from that, the movement seems to be on the wane, even within the CPC itself: marriage has been put to a free vote, and abortion is not on the agenda at all. What social conservatism remains, like substance abuse, is again identical to Liberal policy. Some might say that these policies will encourage a split like the Reform/Alliance schism, but the Progressive Conservatives were never really a viable alternative to the Liberals either. A great part of the Reform/Alliance movement was a desire to create a true alternative to the Liberals, an alternative now destroyed. Recreating that alternative would remove the need for another Conservative schism. In fact, one might confidently predict that without policy reform, another schism is inevitable.

If the Conservatives get some new ideas, they will find their lot improving. But their political opportunism, combined with their synonymity with their purported enemies, does them no favours.