Evening Star

I guess I must have not been paying attention at the time of that 2004 letter as well but it puzzles me if they were in fact suggesting a coalition. (Were they?) What would Layton have been hoping to gain?? (I can easily see how an NDP-Bloc alliance would work but not any sort of alliance that includes both the NDP and Conservatives.)

Really? Hm, maybe you're right. I'm not sure I agree but, to level with you, I also don't think we should be in a combat role in Afghanistan at all. Harper's inaction on climate change should also be an issue.

Exactly. But I mean, in addition, there is evidence that the govt had been alerted about at least the possibility that transferred detainees would be tortured. It wasn't a secret that this went on. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/detainees.html Of course, I also think the government should have done more when it was known that a Canadian had been tortured in Guantanamo.

Harper did say "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it", as quoted here: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SpecialEvent7/20051213/elxn_harper_speech_text_051214/ "You won't recognize this country when I get through with it" was actually a Liberal distortion of a milder Harper quote. I can't see how anyone could justify the price tag for the G8/G20 summits, considering what every other one of those summits has cost. The handling of civil liberties during those was also poor, although McGuinty deserves as much blame for that (and I'll probably vote for him again anyway). Canadians should care about the Afghan detainee issue (given that we were complicit in a UN-recognized war crime) and the government's cavalier attitude towards it. Admittedly, it may well not be the sort of thing that could win or lose an election (and I have little trust that Ignatieff would handle something like that better).

At least on paper, the NDP are social democrats straight up. Some people see social democracy as a form of socialism so it doesn't seem too far off to me if someone refers to them as "socialist" (in the same way that, yes, most of Western Europe is "socialist"). They do advocate some steps to reform the power relationships within the economy and promote community and co-operative ownership with an expanded public sector. It's pretty obvious that they're not going to e.g. abolish private property or nationalize the means of production altogether. In practice, it gets a little complicated though. When they've actually been elected, they do sometimes tend to govern more like left-leaning liberals than anything else. (Is e.g. Darrell Dexter's green energy plan substantially different from Dalton McGuinty's?)

To be clear, I would enthusiastically support a coalition but any coalition needs to be between parties that have distinct identities of their own.

Ha, unless maybe "socialist thinking of the 60s" includes New Left, social ecology, and European social democratic ideals.

TBH, from your screen name, I never guessed I would agree with you so often, Smallc! I think this would be the worst approach for the NDP to take. (Alexa McDonough more or less attempted it and failed.) New Labour's policies (social liberalism, moderate economic neoliberalism with some effort to preserve a welfare state, globalization) are essentially what the Liberal Party already advocates in Canada. The last thing anyone needs is a second Liberal Party. Any Dipper who would prefer a Third Way approach is free to follow Bob Rae's lead and join the Liberals. Sometimes I vote Liberal and sometimes I vote NDP but I want those to be two distinct ideological options. The thing is that the NDP has changed with the times very much. The first two chapters on policy from Layton's book Speaking Out are concerned exclusively with environmental sustainability and innovations in green technology, certainly not what you would have got from Tommy Douglas or David Lewis. A quick scan of their "Vision" on their web page should confirm that their current priorities are not at all mired in the socialist thinking of the 60s. (They also advocate a number of pro-consumer policies that should appeal to the middle class, e.g. a cell phone consumers' bill of rights.) The problem is that Layton has had a tendency to resort to old-style class war rhetoric in e.g the 2008 debates, presumably out of a belief that this is what appeals to the public (?). If he were upfront about his actual priorities and platform, I think he would probably successfully reach more people, who might be willing to pay a little more in taxes if it meant a liveable environment and affordable education.

I guess I was thinking more about chains (where the situation is still probably better). Still, it is hard even to have to take on a small business on your own through the legal system, considering that you need to work in the meantime. ToadBrother, Argus, and Jack Weber have been arguing the union case quite well. Since this argument interests me, I brought it up on another board. These are some additional points people raised: "Since my taxes go into stocks now through CPP then in fact I am now being forced to provide money to anti-union organizations." "Canadian law generally requires employees in a unionized workplace to pay dues - not to join the union - because they benefit from the uniform wages, benefits etc. enshrined in the collective agreements bargained by the union. Even then, there is an exception based on religious belief, which allows the money to go to a charity instead."

Yeah, you guys are actually swaying me on this.

And a majority of union members democratically voting to strike <> Me telling my co-workers what to do based on how I feel about my job

The right to suck it up or quit <> the right to strike!

Anyway, I can see an argument for wanting e.g. political contributions or foreign policy actions to be ratified by union member votes but not for simply prohibiting unions from taking action on whatever issues they want. (NB I'm not saying that it's necessarily wise for unions to get involved in e.g. Israeli-Arab conflicts, just that I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.)

After doing some adjunct teaching in NY state, where public sector unions exist but have extremely limited powers (incl no right to strike), and receiving $2000 to teach one class, not being paid on time, having the dept say they'll pay one thing and actually pay something else, etc, I never took Ontario's unions for granted again.

It can be hard to take on a large corporation or govt department on your own, though, even if laws are written on paper somewhere.

I see. I didn't think Hauser's Law was taken that seriously amongst economists?

Montreal lawyer Yves Tourangeau said there is a danger of arguments being lost in translation if judges are forced to rely on interpreters. “We only request that the nine people serving on our Supreme Court understand French and English, not be fluent in both languages,” he said. If this is what the bill requires, that's a bit different than what the OP suggests (and sounds fairly reasonable to me).

No, I get that, but virtually no one advocates, say, a 60% tax rate even on income over $1M today. (I'm sure we could raise a great deal of government revenue by just adding three more tax brackets above our current highest bracket - $127K seems really low for the highest tax bracket to me. And 29% is really not that high of a tax rate beyond a certain income.) I wonder why this has changed so much since a highly progressive tax regime didn't seem to hamper the American economy 50 years ago. Is it just that governments have been dropping their tax rates to compete with each other?

Cool, fair enough.

I think the NDP's plan, for better or for worse, would be to use tax credits and subsidies to promote business/investment in the areas they favour, especially green technology, to promote community-owned and co-operative businesses and industries, and to greatly expand the public sector (especially through heavy investment in e.g. public transportation) so that the Canadian economy would be less dependent on multinational corporations, particularly those in environmentally unsustainable industries. I think they would actually provide many tax breaks and/or subsidies to businesses that operate with the environment and social justice in mind. To be honest, I probably don't know enough about economics to know how well this would actually work in practice. (While I support some of these principles, I do generally think that we should be moving towards a knowledge-based economy and greatly encouraging the high-tech innovation, e.g. of Research in Motion or Bombardier or even Corel. I don't know how well the NDP appreciates technological R&D if it doesn't have some sort of overt 'green' angle to it.) All this said, I don't really see how their economic plan resembles that of the Chretien Liberals, who signed NAFTA, privatized Crown corporations, and pretty much shrank the government's investment in everything. If anything, they might be a little closer to an up-to-date, more budget-conscious, hyper-environmentalist version of the Trudeau Liberals in their protectionist streak, belief in expansion of the public sector, and admiration of Scandinavian social democracy. (Of course, they don't really have anyone with Trudeau's Machiavellian political skills and autocratic temperament, which would make it easier to actually push through a fairly radical agenda.)

Ha, it's cool, Wild Bill. From the tone of your first post, I thought you were agreeing with the anti-regulation stance. You know, I actually agree with this. (And as my screen name indicates, I am also a Fripp fan.) CanCon makes sense for a medium like radio, where, due to bandwidth limitations, there could only ever be so many stations in a market. The Internet is tremendously empowering and liberating and I don't think we need content regulations for the infinite range of possibilities it offers us. In the online age, grants such as those that the Canada Council offers (and that SSHRC used to) are probably the best way for the government to support and encourage Canadian artists. Promotional websites such as Terminus1525 are also very helpful. And these do help a much wider range of artists, not just the most radio-friendly ones. Jefferiah, I'm sorry but I just think you're wrong. Canadian popular music has been hugely popular, if not dominant, internationally for some time now. (One needs only to consider the success of Shania Twain, Alanis Morrissette - those two had two of the best-selling albums of the 90s worldwide, k.d. lang, Sarah McLachlan, Avril Lavigne, Nickelback, Justin Bieber, ...) I gave examples of prominent studios as well. I could provide numbers if you want them. Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that I actually think all of these artists make great music imo or that their music is distinctively Canadian. Cancon has not necessarily been especially successful at developing or promoting uniquely Canadian artistic styles (and I'm not sure that was ever the goal). It has been successful at promoting a Canadian industry and making it easier for more cultural activity to take place in Canada. I think this is worthwhile. Some of you clearly don't see anything wrong with artists needing to move to or record in the US or UK. (Not saying they never do now, just that they are not obliged to in the same way now.) If anything, IMO the most innovative or distinctive styles in Canadian music - avant-garde Quebec metal, say, or the post-rock and minimal electronic music in Montreal; Inuit throat singing even ... - are probably those that don't get mainstream radio play, although they do benefit from cultural subsidies.

Wild Bill, the site you are linking does not contradict anything I've said. I am extremely familiar with it. I strongly agree with Indie Pool's "Let's Fix Cancon" proposal (and might start interning with them in a couple weeks.) They are not advocating scrapping Cancon at all. If anything, they are advocating more, or at least more nuanced, regulation, as they explain in greater detail if you click on "The Fix": Our plan is called CANCON Pro, for progressive. We are proposing that CANCON remains at today's CRTC's target level of 40% and that radio stations receive incentives, called CANCON CREDITS, for promoting Canadian artist development. • When a radio station plays a Canadian International Artist, like Alanis Morissette or Celine Dion for example, they will be credited for playing 0.75 CANCON song. This credit is slightly reduced from its current value of 1. • When a radio station plays a Canadian Established Artist, like Blue Rodeo or The Tragically Hip, they will be credited for playing 1.00 CANCON song. Established artists will remain at today's standard CANCON credit. • When a radio station plays a Canadian National Artist, like Kathleen Edwards or The Arcade Fire, that are signed but have yet to make lasting impression on the Canadian public, that station will be credited with playing 1.25 CANCON song. • When a radio station plays a Canadian Developing Artist, otherwise known as unsigned or independent, that station would be credited with playing 1.50 CANCON song. They want to preserve the MAPL system. Furthermore, if you continue reading what's on "The Problem" page after the section that you quote, you will find that they completely agree with my take, and the conventional wisdom, on Cancon history: First of all it needs to be said, the need for Let's Fix CANCON only exists because CANCON was once integral in creating a robust Canadian star system. We honour CANCON's history and its pioneers. Our hypothesis is that thanks to the visionaries like Walt Grealis and Stan Klees, forward thinkers at the CRTC, Canadian Heritage, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters among others, we have a problem that other countries envy; we have too many Canadian stars filling up our CANCON! CANCON was created in the early seventies, a time when most Canadian artists could be considered developing artists. Canada had very few bona fide international stars to speak of, therefore all CANCON airplay was successfully developing Canadian talent somehow, somewhere. There was no need to distinguish developing artists from international megastars. Then, CANCON worked and assisted in developing Canadian artists. That is, Cancon is a victim of its success: Today's downside is, as all Canadian radio listeners know, that nearly all CANCON today is the oft repeated airplay of already-developed artists. Today, those who need CANCON rules the least, receive the most. This is blatantly false on chronological grounds. Cancon was introduced in 1970. Rush's first album was released in 1975. "American Woman" was released in 1970, admittedly shortly after the regulations were introduced. It's possible that that is coincidental. However, the majority of the Guess Who's career was definitely in the post-Cancon era. Bloodyminded, my explanation of the economics was probably simplistic but there is almost no dispute (except maybe on this thread) that Canadian music and Canadian studios became more prominent after 1970. Correlation might not prove causation but I haven't heard another strong explanation for this.

Hm, so catching up on this does make me a little more confident that this will be a progressive enough tax change: http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/hst/article/738403--hst-won-t-hurt-much-report-says (Except that I kind of think that the govt should be trying to increase revenue!) Now here's an honest question from someone who doesn't know enough about economics: Through the 50s and 60s, which were some of the most productive and prosperous times for the US, high-end American marginal income tax rates were much higher than they are in Canada or the US today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Tax_rates_in_history I mean, these figures are way beyond what Jack Layton would ever consider advocating. If the economy could prosper with those taxes at that time, why do we feel that it is so necessary to keep income taxes low now for the sake of the economy?

Do economists like luxury taxes? They would seem to be even better on these grounds. (And if so, why do we not see more of them?)

Kind of unfortunate that there is no credible left alternative to McGuinty in Ontario, isn't it?