Here are some of the general impressions of what people have said about my proposals here and elsewhere

Most voters are not well informed. http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/artic les/040830crat_atlarge" title="http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/artic les/040830crat_atlarge" target="_blank"http://www.newyorker.com/crit... Many have no interest in politics and many more simply do not have the time. One way political parties have dealt with this is to spare us the details and talk about general commitments to board based issues, such as health care, and the environment. Personally I find this approach alienating and I tune out almost immediately. Besides, no one is against, say, eliminating child poverty. The devil is always in the details. I find concrete policy proposals, especially if they invoke the language of universality, much more interesting and daring and I do not think I am alone in this regard. This is one reason I put forward the list that I did.

Another reason is that I wanted to get people talking and these where some issues that I thought might engage people. (I never intended for this to be an exhaustive list) If the NDP is not going to do this, other parties will. Now, as for those who would say that these are not substantive enough issues, I have five things to say. One the issues that dominate political campaigns are just as often than not insubstantial. Want proof? Just look at the swift boat issue in the states and charge that Kerry was a flip flopper. Canadians meanwhile have been captivated for years now with for example, the “democratic deficit”; the problem with this is that discussion often does not move past the slogan; as a result many Canadians have fallen in love with the slogan, but would be unable to articulate what exactly is meant by this and some would not have any idea at all. Two, it is high time the NDP brass stop being so arrogant as to think that they can pass up the opportunity to wax poetic about the issue, such as senate reform, when it comes up in the media. In modern politics the divide between insubstantial issues versus core issues is drawn in no small measure by outside forces and not the party itself. Three, what is with all this latent Puritanism I am sensing? The amount of time we as Canadians are tied to their job is not a fluff issue and neither is the large number of Canadians without adequate dental care. It is high time Canadians follow the lead of their European counterparts and put issues such as these on the political map. Four, the symbolic matters and often will have unforeseen practical consequences. Take the marijuana issue. The biggest obstacle to legalizing marijuana is the US and any analysis that does not speak to this is incomplete. At a time when Canadians are feeling bullied by the US, this is the one thing that Canada could do that would severally damage the US, albeit, ideologically. It could arguably spell an end to the US war on drugs. If Canada was to legalize marijuana, various European countries would quickly follow and progressives throughout the States would laud us as their new champion. There would also be no way for Walters to keep passing his lies off as truth with the avalanche of publicity this would get south of the boarder. Five, the political situation is extremely unsettled and fluid. Many pundits have taken this as a sign that the people of Canada want a change of government. I think they are wrong. It goes much deeper than that. There are a number of cultural fault lines that are opening up around some of the issues I mentioned. The problem is that the party is wedded to the polling process and is unwilling to move on something they can not quantitatively prove is a winner. (According to Allan Gregg the NDP spends more on polling than the other parties combined.) What is wrong with this from a strategic point of view is that support for these issues could rapidly be built up if they were only tabled. The gay marriage issue is a good case in point, as is Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell’s support for safe injection sites.

The NDP under Layton has made a big deal about wanting to reduce child poverty, improve the environment, etc. This is all well and good, but such pronouncements mean little. Do not believe me. Consider for a second their negation. The NDP needs a bold, controversial and concrete program. Here are some suggestions.

1) 5 weeks of vacation for all Canadians: It is time Canada address the vacation deficit has relative to Europe

2) Free dental care for all Canadians: As it reduces benefit costs, especially important if companies are forced to take on more workers as a result of giving Canadians more vacation time, business will like it.

3) Legalize marijuana: Despite sounding like a 60s burnout in a taped conversation with Marc Emery, Layton has paid very little lip service to the issue since. Drop all the idiotic talk of Marijuana being wonderful and life affirming and say you support legalizing the drug because no one and I mean not even Stockwell Day believes that marijuana is anymore dangerous than alcohol.

4) Abolish the Senate: This has long been party policy. However, one would never know this based upon how much press coverage their proposal has received over the years. The whole issue speaks in no small measure to the Party’s inept communications strategy and relatedly to a stubborn refusal on behalf of the party brass to dwell on matters that are in public eye, but are nonetheless not in the party’s mind core meat and potatoes issues.

5) Abolish the Monarchy: This not a core issue to be sure. However, it is not one that any self described socially democratic party can shy away from either. Besides it is a sexy issue.

6) Euthanasia: The Terry Schiavo case had the Republicans on their heels and Canadian social conservatives concerned. However, rather than seizing the day and proposing that Canada take on the issue, Layton dared not say a word for fear that raising the issue might cause Stephen Harper headaches at the Conservative Party convention.