Evening Star

I don't really know what you mean by 'Harper haters'. Coyne has brought it up, for instance, but, sure, I'll give you that the media coverage has been a bit shallow more generally. I think it is significant, though: if Harper was at best bending the rules for residency (by your own admission), that would give some explanation as to the PMO's motives for trying to cover things up and pay Duffy. You can't really play it both ways, saying that he was a PEI resident (as per the rules for Senate appointments) but also saying that it was illegitimate for him to claim expenses for his Ottawa residence.

This IS a relevant issue to some people, even if it is not to you.

So you are agreeing that Harper did break the rules but are saying that it's OK because other people broke the rules before him and got away with it? And there have been other cases where the Senate was not dominated by the governing party, surely? The Liberal-dominated Senate during Mulroney's reign comes to mind.

From the Constitution: It would seem that (5) makes it clear that a Senator must be a resident in the province for which he is appointed, above and beyond the requirement (4) that someone needs to own $4000 of property. My understanding was that provinces usually have fairly clear rules to define residency. (I needed to show proof before I could collect SaskHealth or get a SK driver's licence, for example.) Am I missing something?

Wow. Repealing C-51 is still a trump card. The NDP are also on at least the right page wrt post-secondary education. I'd need to read the Lib plan on that area.

It seems totally ridiculous to me, and certainly not 'fiscally conservative'.

As I've said before, I'd be more inclined to favour keeping FPTP and just giving MPs more autonomy. However, I have to say that, while I have concerns about PR (mainly the same ones that cybercoma raised), your arguments against it mostly seem to boil down to "it's too democratic", which I have trouble getting on board with. I have no real problem in principle with the possibility of a diverse Parliament like the one you describe.

I share your concern with MMP PR systems. I'm not exactly sure why there seems to be little enthusiasm (since Reform!) for just keeping FPTP but weakening party discipline and giving MPs more autonomy. I think this was Eric Grenier's idea and it sounded better to me than other PR proposals: http://www.threehundredeight.com/2015/05/a-proposal-for-electoral-reform.html

Mulcair promises decriminalization "the minute we form government".

So what you're actually asking is whether the NDP might appeal to you more than the Liberals, since 'progressive' is a bad thing for you? Sorry, I'm just not clear on where your questions are going. Not as far as I'm aware? I scanned the policy documents they've released and don't see this. They have been talking about a Child Care Benefit, which is not the same thing. Examples, from section 1.1 of their policy book: I'm going to level with you, though: I have basically zero trust that the LPC will do anything they promise to, based on their previous record and JT's general flakiness. I also generally believe that they have been ineffective in the House for more or less the past decade.

The thing is that I'd think nothing of it if he just said something like "That was my thinking at the time. I have since realized ..." But he hasn't said anything of the sort. What he has said is that he was advocating pragmatism at the time and is still a pragmatist about wanting to provide effective services. It's just strange to invoke Thatcher's name in that context. It probably doesn't add up to a whole lot at the end of the day but it's curious.

I'm pretty sure you realize this already but they're actually proposing to lower taxes for the top 1/3 of income earners, except for the tiny sliver who make over $202K. It's not an especially progressive policy. (They're proposing to cut taxes in the $44701-$89401 bracket, which means a tax cut for anyone who makes over $44701, and they want to add a higher tax bracket for people who earn over $200K. You'd have to make over $202K before your increased taxes in the new bracket are actually greater than your savings from the other tax cut.) If they wanted to create a more progressive income tax cut, they could just propose increasing the basic personal exemption. Rolling back TFSA contribution limits, increasing capital gains taxes, and cancelling income splitting are also more progressive taxation ideas imo. Legalizing marijuana is a good idea, and 'progressive' in an entirely different way. I'm not sure what you mean by 'progressive street cred', although it sounds patronizing. The NDP are clearly more liberal on civil liberties issues, are proposing a new social programme (one I'm ambivalent about), have a stronger emphasis on promoting labour participation and co-operative enterprises.

I can't see a reason to believe that they are; nor do I think that even they present themselves that way.

Are they talking about something that goes beyond hiring more RCMP officers? That's not clear to me. The Tory crime policies that I oppose most have to do with sentencing, mandatory minimums esp for drug-related offences, 'anti-terror' laws, laws about 'barbaric cultural practices'. Hiring police officers seems like a different issue to me.

Yes, I agree. Derek is stretching by referencing Thatcher's support for Pinochet and her actions in the Falklands. And it's worth keeping in mind that the UK was far more socialistic pre-Thatcher than Canada has ever been and Mulcair was warning against Quebec going too far down that road. Still, her economic vision was decidedly right-wing.

The NDP hasn't really advocated for individual MPs to have greater autonomy. If anything, they would probably have less under a PR system. (This is one issue where I tend to disagree with them.)

I don't know the details of what the need for police officers is in different communities but hiring more police officers to enforce the law is a totally different issue from whether or not one supports Tory crime policies.

Doer-style pragmatism is what I expected when I voted for him as leader. But, as Derek notes, Thatcher was not a moderate pragmatist. She is one of the most radical right-wing ideologues to govern a major Western democracy in contemporary times. It would be different if Mulcair had been praising Bill Clinton or Tony Blair (both of whom still make me uncomfortable tbh).

What do we make of this (Tom Mulcair praising Thatcher's economic policies and arguing against government intervention in the economy in 2001)?: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/18/thomas-mulcair-margaret-thatcher-2001_n_8006990.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-defends-praise-for-margaret-thatcher-s-winds-of-liberty-and-liberalism-1.3196265 It's 30s out of context but I don't feel that Mulcair has really distanced himself or offered much context, based on the CBC article. I don't think he has some sort of hidden agenda but it does raise questions about how committed he is to social democratic values.

But this completely explains why the Tories have been attacking Trudeau more than Mulcair.

"The NDP has never been relevant in Ontario outside of nearly half the province".

Raises some questions about the 'vote-splitting' story we always hear.

Yeah, I noticed that too!

Nanos and Abacus were both pretty close near the election day last time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011

Oh wow, that one's interesting. It shows the LPC and NDP in a tie.