I read the BC Conservatives statement of principles after reading Serengeti's post. Definitely not progressive conservatives. For me, their ideas seem a little confused, even contradictory. The emphasis on the family was heartening, but the more I read the more it seemed to be a narrow conception of the family. Especially when they start discussing the definition of marriage (I am progressive on this issue).
The idea of developing government revenue streams sounds appealing. But then there are suggestions of selling off BC Hydro, transit, and ICBC, and turning over control of Crown lands to business, rather than keeping it in the hands of BCers. So, besides the other problems I have with those ideas, where will these revenue streams come from? Sounds like the Conservatives might scrap their most valuable and least controversial revenue streams (with the backing of 50% of those who vote, of course).
Electoral reform sounds good. But why hold a referendum on it after winning a majority? Doesn't winning a majority give a party a mandate to govern based on their platform? This proposed referendum would be extremely wasteful.
On fisheries, the move to closed containment fish farming is appealing. But otherwise, their entire fisheries policy is based on open harvesting. There is no real plan for conservation. There is no real plan for enhancement. There is no real plan for habitat restoration. If a party hasn't turned their mind to these issues they are not ready to govern.
In fact, much of their policy sounds detrimental to fish. I am in favour of economic and resource development, but these guys are talking about throwing the doors open to mining and off-shore drilling. Yet there is only one short, vague sentence addressing environmental standards. Nor did I see any plan to process these raw materials in BC; value added industries are the best way to generate resource revenue in the province, but no one is talking about it.
And they are open to damming rivers, which may be good. But it may also wipe out our remaining strong salmon runs. (Run of the rivers? I don't like it.)
The focus on economic responsibility is something that any party would get behind. But the Conservatives seem to have a blind ideological focus on private industry. Often this is the best way to go, but it is not rational to go that route where public management is the better approach for the public at large (eg transit). I don't think we need more ideologues in the Legislature, I think it's time for some careful, open minded consideration of alternatives.
I don't understand what a focus on "traditional values" and "lore" means. Lore? Really?
The party claims to be closed to special interests. Sounds good, right? But who are these special interests, and what does it mean to deny them special rights? People with special needs and legitimate differences need their differences recognized in order to become fully contributing citizens. Furthermore, the platform explicitly recognizes some special interests. For example, it promises to offer very favourable tax treatment to business. I like the idea of encouraging small business, but it is a special interest. Other special interests the party makes promises to are aboriginals, seniors, families, drug addicts and mining companies. Maybe it is good to support these groups, but they are special interest. So, since it is clear they DO recognize special interests, they should tell us which ones. And tell us which ones they don't recognize. If they can't do that at this stage, I don't expect them to become more honest, open and accountable once elected -it just never works that way. Where there is this level of contradiction right in the statement of principles, the party is not ready to govern. They don't even know what they stand for themselves. Or they do, but they don't want to tell the rest of us just yet.
The position on Aboriginal rights and claims in totally unworkable. It fails to acknowledge the unique relationship that First Nations have with this place and it threatens to spark massive protests with debilitating economic consequences. Not cool.
Raising the minimum wage is good, and sounds pro-worker. But then they go on to be anti-worker with their labour policies. More contradictions.
There is a surprising failure to understand the role that the Federal government plays in taxing income. If a party doesn't understand the constitution, they may find a number of their ideas unworkable.
There is no meaningful plan for poverty or childhood poverty.
There is no meaningful plan for climate change or environmental health.
Bottom line is, these guys seem to represent everything that I don't like about the Campbell Liberals, and take it to the next level. Including the HST!
But, this is just what stood out on the first read-through. Maybe the best part will come out when I read it again. One thing is for sure, taxes would go way down with these guys. But then, the real cost of living would go through the roof because government would be nearly bankrupt and unable to provide the services we all rely on. Unless there is another secret revenue stream that they just forgot to put into the platform.
Not for me. Any other options out there guys?
