[junctionist]

The idea probably will be popular, but we should be cautious rather than jumping on it. Such a system creates an incentive for the justice system to send more people to prisons even when alternatives are feasible, because once the roads get cleaner everyone is going to want them to stay that way.

 

[kEiThZ]

I find it laughable that people think Hudak shot himself in the foot with this proposal. When will people here learn? Isn't a Harper majority and a Ford mayoral win good enough? Just because some folks on UT think it's a bad idea or because the Toronto Star does not endorse it does not mean the public won't love it.

Mark my words. If the leftists in this town don't learn what the public truly wants, they will hand Hudak a bigger majority than McGuinty ever got.

The Star article is atrocious. Yes. Let's quote unions who have a vested interest in not having free labour doing their jobs. Nobody will see through that. And the NDP's suggestion was just as odd. It reminds me of Mike Harris' 'workfare' program.

None of this is to say that I like Hudak's policies. I really dislike the right's populist pandering. But, on the same token, the left often comes off as high-minded and intent on brow-beating ordinary Canadians into accepting their points of view.

 

[GraphicMatt]

But what are you suggesting -- that the left completely sell out their ideals? If this populist wave of dime store neo-conservatism really wants to dabble with indentured servitude for petty criminals, as a progressive all I can really do is continue to oppose them.

 

[ttk77]

None of this is to say that I like Hudak's policies. I really dislike the right's populist pandering. But, on the same token, the left often comes off as high-minded and intent on brow-beating ordinary Canadians into accepting their points of view.

The rise of the right has nothing to do with the perceived high-mindedness of the left. Both sides of the spectrum are constantly badmouthing the other in an attempt sway opinions. The political pendulum has started swinging the other way and I don't think there's much that can be done about it in the short term. But you're right...I probably shouldn't have assumed Hudak had shot himself in the foot given the populist support on the right. My commie/pinko/lefty brain was just shocked that anyone would suggest something like that.

If you truly think that expressing our opinion is providing more ammo to the right, what then do you suggest we do?

 

[ss.44]

My roommate (a progressive!) and I were talking a few weeks ago about how we should be putting the prison population into community work, such as picking up trash and cleaning up streets. Then this. Hudak has definitely got my vote. Instead of sitting around in prison enjoying gyms, HDTV, they can start repaying society for their deeds.

I'm very doubtful that your roommate is really a progressive for sharing that view. Would having prisoners pick up trash and "cleaning up streets" not be taking jobs and wages away from those who are already paid to provide such services?

Prison labour is nothing new. Companies such as Victoria's Secret have used prison labour in the United States. These companies continue to make ridiculous amounts of profit on the backs of people who are forced to work for virtually nothing. It's ridiculous. Not only would Hudak's plan exploit prisoners but it takes jobs away from people. Give me a break.

 

[Eug]

I find it laughable that people think Hudak shot himself in the foot with this proposal. When will people here learn? Isn't a Harper majority and a Ford mayoral win good enough? Just because some folks on UT think it's a bad idea or because the Toronto Star does not endorse it does not mean the public won't love it.

Mark my words. If the leftists in this town don't learn what the public truly wants, they will hand Hudak a bigger majority than McGuinty ever got.

The Star article is atrocious. Yes. Let's quote unions who have a vested interest in not having free labour doing their jobs. Nobody will see through that. And the NDP's suggestion was just as odd. It reminds me of Mike Harris' 'workfare' program.

None of this is to say that I like Hudak's policies. I really dislike the right's populist pandering. But, on the same token, the left often comes off as high-minded and intent on brow-beating ordinary Canadians into accepting their points of view.

I agree with this post wholeheartedly. Personally I'm not convinced this prisoners-for-free-work is a great idea, but the so-called ethical issues are pretty much irrelevant IMHO, when it comes to the population at large. Prisoners have to do a bit of light work... Oh the humanity!!!11 The much, much, much bigger issues are the logistics and the cost. Maybe it's not much money to be saved if you have to say have 1 armed guard for every 5 prisoners as well as a bigger fleet of armoured vehicles, and quite frankly I might be a little uncomfortable having some convicted criminals raking the leaves in the park next to my neighbour's house, where their teenage daughters live.

As for some in the government living in a bubble... Put it this way, I don't want my government trying to ram laws allowing backyard chickens down my throat. To the vast majority of the population it's just stupid, yet pet projects like these is what some people in the government get off on.

 

[Filip]

I'm very doubtful that your roommate is really a progressive for sharing that view. Would having prisoners pick up trash and "cleaning up streets" not be taking jobs and wages away from those who are already paid to provide such services?

Prison labour is nothing new. Companies such as Victoria's Secret have used prison labour in the United States. These companies continue to make ridiculous amounts of profit on the backs of people who are forced to work for virtually nothing. It's ridiculous. Not only would Hudak's plan exploit prisoners but it takes jobs away from people. Give me a break.

Seeing how filthy Toronto is becoming and how cleaning graffiti is a major issue, I don't see anyone really doing that job in the first place.

 

[kEiThZ]

If you truly think that expressing our opinion is providing more ammo to the right, what then do you suggest we do?

Couple of points.

First. I find it both disconcerting and revealing when people use such hyperbole to attack an idea.

Next, it's rather presumptuous to assume that he's "shot himself in the foot". You seem to be assuming that the public will think this is a bad idea. Will they? It's presumptuous to assume that your opinion IS public opinion. It is not.

Finally, I did not mean to convey the idea that opposing an idea and expressing your opinion is wrong or would provide ammo to the right. I am merely suggesting that this kind of hysteria, coupled with the presumptuousness of assuming every idea from the right is not publicly acceptable, and the "father knows best" attitude that typifies much of the left these days is at least partly to blame for the electoral performance of the left, of late.


If you want to oppose an idea. Oppose it. Don't get hysterical about it. State that it's a bad idea and show the voter why. And most importantly: propose a solid alternative. That last part seems to elude a lot of politicians. The federal Liberals basically ran on the idea that they weren't the Conservatives and that's why they deserved the big chair (when you boil down all the hidden agenda stuff that's what it amounts to). Ridiculous. The public saw right through it and gave them what they deserved.

As to this specific idea....from what I've heard and read (I could be wrong), it would basically be a voluntary program for workers to be able to earn privileges. That's only marginally a step up over what's there today (where a lot of inmates do some form of work or study in prison). Heck, in many federal offices we benefit from inmate labour as we are committed to buy furniture from a company that uses inmate labour to make office furniture (and it's actually really good stuff). Seems to me like Hudak is essentially re-packaging some existing programs into a more visible public form and then selling it as a "tough on crime" policy.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm very doubtful that your roommate is really a progressive for sharing that view. Would having prisoners pick up trash and "cleaning up streets" not be taking jobs and wages away from those who are already paid to provide such services?

Prison labour is nothing new. Companies such as Victoria's Secret have used prison labour in the United States. These companies continue to make ridiculous amounts of profit on the backs of people who are forced to work for virtually nothing. It's ridiculous. Not only would Hudak's plan exploit prisoners but it takes jobs away from people. Give me a break.

So your definition of progressive is protection of unionized labour (most city workers) from prisoners (for whom we are already paying tens of thousands to take care off)?

Most regular folk have no issues seeking some return for that level of expenditure (with several caveats of course). And nobody will see this as a jobs issue. The federal government for example mandates most federal offices to employ Corcan whenever possible:

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/corcan/goods_services-eng.shtml

I don't see anybody complaining that these guys take away jobs from other furniture makers.

It may or may not be a bad idea. We have to see more details before we judge. But to write off the idea and suggest that anyone who finds it appealing isn't progressive is ludicrous.

 

[adma]

BTW, I heard on the radio that they had done an online poll (not scientific I know), and 88% or something were in favour of this idea.

If it's 1010 or 640, it's the nature of the listener beast. (In CFRB's case, it's been so at least ever since listener polls in the early 90s suggested a Reform Party landslide.)

 

[Eug]

680news

 

[grey]

I think Hudak just won the election. Income splitting for all.

(Protip: it's a tax break for high-income families -- surprise, surprise. Worse, income splitting encourages women to stay at home rather than work, so not only does it remove a large chunk of government revenue, it also has a negative effect on aggregate economic output & productivity. Boooooo!)

 

[afransen]

Question:

How do they intend to make this mandatory? Beat them with sticks if they don't comply?

 

[kEiThZ]

Question:

How do they intend to make this mandatory? Beat them with sticks if they don't comply?

As per my understanding it's not mandatory. But you get more privileges if you do comply.

 

[Eug]

Worse, income splitting encourages women to stay at home rather than work, so not only does it remove a large chunk of government revenue, it also has a negative effect on aggregate economic output & productivity. Boooooo!)

Hmmm... That's starting to sound pretty sexist. I make more than my significant other, but at my workplace most of my female colleagues make more than their husbands.