Evening Star

This is the best proposal for PR that I've read (I've linked it on the NDP thread): http://www.threehundredeight.com/2015/05/a-proposal-for-electoral-reform.html I could possibly support something like that.

Yeah, totally. If anything, Paul Martin probably came much closer to 'classical liberal' economic policy.

Really? I'd want to see more about what 'right-to-work' legislation means in Sweden. The country has close to 70% union participation, more than double Canada's. (I linked the stat earlier.) That suggests that, whatever it is, it is something quite different from American 'right to work'.

Non-partisan FPTP seems to work in municipal and territorial politics, where the issues tend to be a bit simpler and more local, and sometimes in jurisdictions that are either quite small (e.g. South Pacific islands) and/or where there is a certain amount of ideological consensus (Nebraska). I can't think of a situation where it has worked for more than a couple of elections at the national level in a large developed country.

What is libertarian about the CPC other than tax cuts? (Even a lot of those are basically 'social engineering' moves to encourage social behaviours the government sees as desirable: any principled libertarian should despise this.) Harper is one of the most blatantly authoritarian PMs I can think of, and is a monarchist to boot. Anyone who would swallow C-51 for a few tax cuts is more concerned about their bank account than libertarian principle imo.

As I see it, this is the problem: we only cast a ballot for our local representative. However, our local representatives, who are the only people who are directly elected by the public, have relatively little power in and of themselves because they have to vote along party lines most of the time. Proportional representation is one solution: it recognizes the power of parties and party leaders and, in most forms of PR, people cast votes for parties as opposed to individuals. The trade-offs could include: a loss of local accountability and connection between voters and their local representatives, and an even greater concentration of power in the hands of party leadership. This is not the only solution, though: FPTP with no political parties would be another way to resolve the contradictions in our system, for example. This would probably be going too far since it is hard for most people to keep up with all of each individual candidates' stances on each issue, even just within their riding. However, it is possible to have a FPTP system of voting for local reps where MPs belong to parties but have greater autonomy (e.g. by limiting whipped votes) and where party leaders are more responsible to their caucus. Edited for clarity

I hope they decide to go with this strategy. I'm sure it will be a winner!

Well, unlike the other parties, the NDP is willing to propose tax increases, some of which you have even commented on: a corporate tax raise, higher capital gains taxes, scrapping income-splitting, a revenue-generating cap-and-trade system. Greek governments were barely even collecting taxes afaict. I actually think the NDP would probably need to go further but, frankly, the other parties' plans do not seem more responsible financially. I do not think that the Conservatives' tax cuts and tax breaks are sustainable if we want to preserve things like our health care system, honestly. (In darker moments, my suspicion is that this might be the point.) Edit: I'm completely in favour of people being more critical of party platforms and wanting to see detailed costing/financial analysis, though. I'd like to see this too.

Isn't this pretty comparable?: "New Democrats believe in: ... n) Creating industrial sector councils involving representatives of industry, workers, and governments; o) Facilitating worker participation within companies to develop more democratic, transparent, and efficient workplaces." [source: p. 2 of the NDP's current policy book )

Has anyone in Canada, the US, or the UK ever referred to Greek as a model of social democracy? Is it any more socialist than Germany, which is one of its main creditors? This whole argument seems bizarre to me.

I dunno, cyber, I think anyone who is engaged and aware enough to care that much about Greece's economic situation would also be too intelligent to somehow draw the conclusion that ... what? That 'socialism' has led to this crisis and the NDP is a 'socialist' party and, therefore, a vote for the NDP will lead to the same situation in Canada, regardless of the vast differences between the Greek and Canadian economies? And that, while we must be very careful to analyse the distinctions between successful Nordic social democracy and NDP policies, that level of care is completely unnecessary when it comes to equating NDP policies with 'socialist' Greek policies that have been implemented by, um, all the 'socialist' governments in Greece (even though Greece has been ruled by centre-right ND-led governments as much as by centre-left PASOK-led governments in recent years)? Anyone who believes that would not have voted NDP in the first place. Their vote swing will be balanced out by the souvlaki/olive vote.

Gilles Duceppe was definitely the BQ leader during the 2011 election.

Which polls are you looking at? The newest Ekos poll still has them rising (very slightly) compared to last week, although all the changes are within the margin of error.

But there are major differences between the NDP and the Swedish social democrats here! The Swedes go MUCH further in these areas than any NDP leader advocates for Canada. Mulcair has adamantly opposed higher income taxes for high earners, for instance. No provincial NDP government has tried to eliminate tuition. This changes the context for things like minimum wage laws and school vouchers. Btw, Sweden is also a unitary state, which is also a key difference.

No, but you omitted these things, only listing differences that suggest that Swedish social democrats are much more in line with right-wing economic ideas. (Minimum wage laws are less necessary when most of the country is protected by very strong unions and the government employs nearly a third of the population, for example. School vouchers mean something very different in a context where there is more equality in terms of income and more people pay a similar [high] level of taxes into the system as opposed to when this is not the case, as in North America.) You seemed to be asking "Why does the NDP not endorse PPPs and school vouchers?" as opposed to "Why does the NDP not want to jack up taxes on high income earners and unionize most of the country? Why do they not demand free tuition? Why won't Rachel Notley nationalize Alberta's oil resources?" That would have been a very different OP. Which New Democrats have been saying this and what comparisons have they been making? Has anyone said "We need to adopt the Nordic model wholesale" or have they been comparing specific issues or policies? Why are the Conservatives different from right-wingers in Germany or Japan? Canada and Sweden are different countries in many ways (diversity of the population, area of the country, and proximity to the US are three). Not every idea might be transferable. It's one thing to point to specific policies and suggest that they would be good ideas to adopt or learn from. However, broadly asking "why are our socialists so different?", esp when cherry-picking policies that seem to fit one agenda, doesn't seem that fair.

You know, there are some other differences between the 'practical, electable' social democrats in Sweden and NDP policy that you have left out: free post-secondary education, much higher personal income taxes (with the top marginal rate close to 57%), well over double our rate of unionization, double the OECD average percentage of workers employed by the government... [Edited to add cites]

According to the statistics, the police-reported crime rate has been steadily declining since 1991, meaning that it declined throughout the entire tenure of the Chretien/Martin LPC. The fact that it has continued to decline under the CPC only seems to suggest the continuation of a long-term trend more than it shows anything about the success of their policies. (They haven't done any damage in terms of this indicator, though.)

Yeah, restoring the long-form census would be a plus in my books, too.

If it means more souvlaki and fresher olives, I'm on board. And I don't think I'm alone.

These don't really seem like anti-science positions to me. You could make a case that they are anti-technology (anti- specific kinds of technology, really) but that's not the same thing. I'm a little sceptical about both of these things as well tbh, although I'm very pro-technology in many areas. That's 'sceptical', though, not 'vehemently opposed'.

I favour this too. Really? Canada used to have a major problem with violent crime, relative to other industrialized nations? And the numbers have significantly dropped as a result of Conservative crime policy? I haven't heard this before.

Why?

Yes, but you are not taxed an additional time on the original earned income. You are taxed on the additional revenue that is generated by the investment. It's different from a consumption tax. Yes, this is clear enough and I did not question it. Inflation is also a factor. I don't think people are going to burn through all of their income and stop saving just because the interest rate is lower, but sure, it affects the incentive. If it is true that we need more saving right now (although the economy seems to be receding atm), this might be a reason to be more cautious here.

Hm, I guess I don't really have a hard answer here. I'll think. I don't really agree here. First, we do have capital gains taxes already. Only 50% of one's capital gains are taxed now, though. The NDP is talking about taxing all of them. I can see how a consumption tax could be interpreted as 'double taxation' since one has already paid tax on the income that one is using to buy things, at which point one pays another tax. However, a capital gains tax is different. You are not being taxed on the earned (or inherited or etc.) income that you put into an investment. You are taxed on the additional income that is generated as a result of the investment. I don't see this as triple taxation on the same income.

In my dreams, there is a highly principled small-l liberal party for me. The LPC disgusts me, however. I'd be interested to see what the Greens come up with. (I expect that eventually they will replace the Liberals as the centre party.)