Evening Star

I disagree with this, actually. I grew up in Ottawa and make it back for Canada Day most years (not the last two). Much of the appeal for me has to do with the range of interesting cultural activities that are available for free downtown. When I went two years ago, I saw 30s-style Gypsy jazz and a solo indie violinist/singer who accompanies himself with looping devices. I ate Indian curry as well as haggis. Other times I've enjoyed Greek dancing, avant-garde Swedish jazz, etc. The National Gallery is always free on Canada Day as well. (As such, btw, Canada Day is distinct from the 4th of July celebrations I've been exposed to.) (Also, I'm still unclear on why the OP thinks the change to Canada Day from Dominion Day was a bad thing in any way.)

The federal party's 2011 platform proposed reducing the small business rate from 11% to 9%. Manitoba's provincial NDP governments has reduced the small business tax rate to 0%. This is a matter of record and easy to look up on official sites. NS's NDP government has been reducing the small business rate as well. In the AB provincial election, the provincial NDP proposed 0 small business tax. As far as I can tell, this thread is asking (at least) three distinct questions with zero to show that anything about the NDP's agenda is hidden.

Actually, reading it again, maybe I was unfair. You're right that it gives both pluses and minuses. The article also provides a fair amount of detail.

(The actual Economist editorial is not that great, even though I agree that Harper is a bit of a bully, especially when it come to scientists in the public sector.)

What does "right wing" mean to you, if not "pro-free market"? That's what I've always understood it to mean. Do you just mean that they are not social conservatives?

Yeah, it's so tedious when people try to use Greece as an example of social democracy's failure when Greece's biggest problems are clearly not based in the sort of social democratic initiatives that anyone proposes here. Somehow, the same people never want to consider Germany, Norway, or Sweden as examples, although they are the most stable and prosperous European countries.

He was a provincial cabinet minster in Quebec.

If anything, it seems that it would be easier for the NDP to offer new social and environmental programmes in this situation. (The public may not buy them, however.)

Prior to 1984, I believe that the Liberals won at least a plurality, usually a majority, in Quebec in every election but one. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

And I summarized that discussion: i.e. Post 191 was a response to your post 152, which was a complete non-sequitur of a response to my post 119.

WTF are you even talking about? My comment was a response to TimG's comment that He was implying, if not outright stating, that the NDP typically 'jumps on' personal stories about their political opponents in order to score political points and that it is thus hypocritical for 'NDP types' to decry this pointless invasion of privacy. I responded that I can't think of many examples of the NDP doing this (i.e. smearing political opponents over personal matters that are unrelated to politics) and that the two examples in recent memory (the leak of information about Toews's divorce and the exploitation of Bruce Carson's dating life) both came from the Liberals, which is in fact part of why I hold the LPC in such disdain. You then responded by bringing up a case where Pat Martin made unwise and hasty comments about a company's involvement in an actual political issue, which is something completely different and not apparently relevant to the topic in question. When I pointed out this difference, you're responding with what is afaict a reference to Mulcair's libel suit, again a different sort of situation from the ones I was talking about. If Tim had said "NDP politicians tend to shoot off their mouths without always thinking first", your comments might be relevant. I would have a harder time disagreeing with that statement, by the way.

That was a lapse in judgment but Martin was not smearing a political opponent over personal matters that have nothing to do with politics. This is something different entirely.

I can't think of an example of the NDP jumping on something like this, actually. Liberals were behind things like Vikileaks or the fixation on Bruce Carson's dating life.

This is false, surely? Germany and the Nordic countries are easily the most stable European countries.

Mulroney's PCs won over 50% of the popular vote in 1984.

Remember how 'well-meaning' Conservatives warned us during the leadership race that the NDP would regret it if Mulcair won?

Why is the government so eager to let Huawei into our market?

There's not even that much talk anymore.

?? I don't know what an EA is but do you have any concept of what wages for contract instructors (who are increasingly doing much of the teaching) are like? Any at all? Now, university administrators on the other hand...

I'm actually interested in hearing the answer to his question though: (I'm generally very pro-immigration myself btw.)

I'm actually a little confused about this, honestly. This article says that employers are now "allowed to pay foreign temp workers 15% less than the average wage": http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1168905--two-tiered-wage-system-announced-by-tories Does this mean that until now, there was some legislation preventing employers from paying whatever wage they wanted as long as it was at least the minimum wage? Is this a modification of "equal pay for equal work" pay equity legislation then? I didn't think there was a requirement to pay an "average wage".

While my impulse is to oppose this, I have to admit that Derek is raising some good questions!

Even if you accept the ludicrous premise that the NDP and CCF are the same thing because "the left is the left", CCF ("the left") policy in 1939 was in favour of the war. Only Woodsworth voted against it.

It wasn't cowardice. It was personal conviction. Woodsworth truly did hold a "pacifistic ideology regardless of circumstances", which he did not impose on his party. (The fact that this is not true of the NDP - A DIFFERENT PARTY FROM THE CCF - is evident right away from their initial support for the Libya mission.)

"The NDP has at least some of its support from people like that" is not exactly the same as saying "the NDP has a pacifist ideology regardless of circumstances and in 1939, the NDP leader did not even want to support the fight against Hitler [even though the party did not exist yet]". I'm sure the Conservatives get "at least some of their support" from raging homophobes and racists but it would not be very fair to say "The Conservative party has a homophobic and racist ideology". You see the difference?