The NDP Platform is Super Fly
April 12, 2011 | 5 Comments
We all hate strawman arguments, don’t we? I mean, they serve a purpose (and aren’t, necessarily, incorrect), but it’s always better to add some substance to political debate. The other day, Peter commented on one of my posts, writing:
If the left spent more time investing in the kind of reflection Mr. Wheeler shows rather than just leaning on 1970′s rhetoric and ever-more frothing bouts of Harper Derangement Syndrome, they’d be doing a lot better.
It’d be easy to dismiss this as partisan rhetoric, but, thankfully, the NDP has decided to help Peter out, by recycled decades-old and long discredited social policy. The other day, the Alliance to End Homelessness’s released report cards on eliminating homelessness. Ottawa received Cs and Ds, which prompted NDP Ottawa Centre candidate (and reigning MP) Paul Dewar to champion the NDP’s housing policy – a policy calling for more affordable housing (you’ll need to download their platform, the specific section begins on page 5). Here’s what they say:
1.4 Delivering Affordable Housing to Canadians
- We will enact the NDP’s legislation to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians;
- We will restore funding for the homeowners Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP), and the Affordable Housing Initiative to increase the supply of affordable housing, in partnership with the provinces and territories;
- We will provide significant new funding for affordable and social housing.
Okay, yes, yes. Of course we all want affordable housing. None of us wants there to be homelessness. Everyone should have a lovely home, a luxury car, a big screen TV and a trophy spouse on each arm. The sky should rain puppies and candy, and no one should ever have to sit through an episode of Undercover Boss again. All that would be great. Unfortunately, wishing for unicorns and jetpacks isn’t really a sound political platform.
Does anyone out there really think that the government can just snap their fingers and “ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for all”? Is it truly the case that Stephen Harper is such a monster that his loins rumble with the thought of people sleeping on heating grates and being turned away from barren food banks? Are our problems so simple that Mr. Layton can fix everything by giving the economy a giant metaphorical hug?
“Affordable housing” is nothing of the sort. Sure, it makes some housing affordable for some people, but it distorts and guts the housing market. “Affordable housing” kills supply, driving up prices for those not in favour with our political masters. Certainly, Mr. Layton has his heart in the right place, but “affordable housing” is the type of policy that makes politicians look good, without actually alleviating much suffering at all.
Further, “affordable housing” is sheer paternalism. It is insulting to the poor, and it is just another instance of the government swooping in to save the poor from making the bad decisions that apparently we all know they’ll make. This isn’t to say that there is no poverty or that we don’t need to help the less fortunate; it’s just that this type of help is pandering and infantilizing.
I’ve said it before (as have many others); if you truly want to help the poor, give them money. If we determine that a certain demographic requires welfare (or whatever you prefer to call it), then we should, generally speaking, give them money to secure the wealth and the necessities that they desire and require. We shouldn’t just shuffle them into a bureaucrat-determined home, regardless of their wishes. Give them the money and let them make their own decisions. Don’t worry about making the housing affordable; worry about helping people afford housing.
Tags: Affordable Housing > Election 41 > Jack Layton > New Democratic Party > Stephen Harper > Super Fly > Welfare
Comments
5 Responses to “The NDP Platform is Super Fly”
Leave a Reply
April 12th, 2011 @ 3:20 pm
Interesting. This brings to mind the Constitutions of Belarus and Poland, respectively. Both enshrine the right to housing.
The Constitution of Belarus declares that “[c]itizens of the Republic of Belarus shall be entitled to housing. This right shall be safeguarded by the development of state, public, and private housing and assistance for citizens in the acquisition of housing.” [Article 48(1)]
The Polish Constitution says that “[p]ublic authorities shall pursue policies conducive to satisfying the housing needs of citizens, in particular combating homelessness, promoting the development of low-income housing and supporting activities aimed at acquisition of a home by each citizen.” [Article 75(1)]
Here’s the rub, though: neither provision is actually enforceable. So the right is meaningless, which in turns devalues the constitutional text and moreover undermines citizens’ faith in the Constitution itself.
[Reply]
April 13th, 2011 @ 8:32 am
It’s pretty predictable that the NDP’s response to any failed social policy is to call for a doubling of its budget. I have to wonder whether they are so beholden to their ideological base and the pas d’enemie a gauche syndrome that their leaders and thinkers have a much harder time challenging orthodoxy than in the other parties. Also, have you noted how much of their platform hinges on cooperation with the provinces and territories? Presumably that’s because they are addressing so many issues the feds aren’t responsible for. If they ever did win and tried to implement all that, federal-provincial relations would look like a Boston-Montreal series.
But, Jonathan, in the hope of persuading you I’m not as partisan as you think, let me assure you I roll my eyes whenever I hear “We have to punish the criminal, not the victim”, “centre of excellence” “we must stop kow-towing to Quebec” and “let’s get government off our backs”.
[Reply]
Jonathan McLeod Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 9:03 am
I’m weary of parties talking so much about working with provinces and working on health care and education. A bit of true federalism would be nice.
[Reply]
April 24th, 2011 @ 2:31 pm
I do have to ask have you ever been homeless? Your freemarket ideals don’t favor those of us who have to come out of poverty by birth, not by choice. The reality if often that those who are homeless for great lengths have mental illness or substance abuse problems. Is death by exposure your preferred solution?
[Reply]
Jonathan McLeod Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Wait, what are you talking about? I’m suggesting that giving money to housing developers is not the best way to help the poor. Give them money.
If they’re mentally ill, give them treatment.
If they’re addicted to drugs or alcohol, get them in rehab.
None of this requires messing up the housing market – making more people poor – and enriching the corporate friends of politicians.
[Reply]