Evening Star

OK, but there's no reason that couldn't happen federally as well.

There are plenty of ridings, generally west of London ON, where the contests are generally between the NDP and CPC. The recent AB election certainly shows that people can move from a conservative party to the NDP. See also: the early 90s, when some NDP seats went Reform.

No. They have in fact pledged to raise taxes in a few areas and to close loopholes in others, effectively raising taxes.

Can? Yes. Will? Dunno but not holding my breath.

This is an interesting viewpoint. "I think the Conservative government is in fact wrong about this issue BUT THE PROGRESSIVES (whom I happen to agree with) ARE SUCH JERKFACES ABOUT IT!" Iirc, you had a roughly similar position on the long-form census?

Yeah, so often, that's the justification for whatever Harper does, even if it was a failure when the Liberals did it.

Have you considered that he might have anticipated this and did what he thought was right anyway?

No, it was an ad from the 06 campaign. I was responding to Hydraboss's reference.

I have no respect for the Liberals when they use the 'politics of fear and division' either but tbf the 'soldiers in the streets' ad is usually regarded as a huge failure, isn't it?

They have told us about: rolling back TFSA limits, cancelling income splitting, raising corporate taxes, taxing stock options, ending fossil fuel subsidies, and doubling the capital gains tax.

See my earlier comment about resenting the Liberals.

Not if that government had to take a stance against minority rights in order to get there. I mean, if you agree with the Tory position on the niqab issue, you can just say that. I don't see why someone who disagrees with that position would advocate for the NDP adopting it.

You know that the NDP was never guaranteed to win this election, right? At most, if they took an anti-niqab stance, they might have held on to more Quebec seats. They couldn't have gained any (since they already hold most of them) and they would have likely lost some seats in English Canada. They wouldn't have gained many votes in English Canada, where anti-niqab people are comfortable voting Conservative.

I thought Dion made a very good point here about an awkward issue when it comes to NDP policy: how to reconcile their support for universal social programmes with their embrace of 'asymmetrical federalism' in the last 10 years.

I never saw what was supposed to be terrible about Dion's leadership tbh, and never thought he was less charismatic than Harper, although his English is heavily accented. I thought he was paying the price for the sponsorship scandal.

Globe and Mail election endorsements throughout history. Since WW2, they have supported the CPC or PCs 16 times and the Liberals six times; three of these were in the Chretien/Martin years when i) there was a 'split on the right' ii) the Liberals had fully embraced right-wing economic policy.

Possibly, the simplest explanation for this could be that NDP support was never that deep to begin with and the 2011 election was a fluke, owing to the weakness in both the LPC and BQ.

And 2008 and 2006. The biased liberal media! The vast conspiracy!

Yeah, if the niqab issue is enough to lose their Quebec base, one has to wonder how strong that base was and how informed they were about the NDP in the first place. I'm not sure that's the sole reason, though. I didn't find the NDP campaign that inspiring until fairly recently and the Libs were campaigning well. I think I actually feel a little resentful because Mulcair was waging such a good fight in the House for the last four years while the Liberals did so little. All of a sudden, they've emerged as a great progressive hope out of nowhere.

No freaking way would it have been the right thing to do for him to agree with the Tories and BQ on this. It might have played to a portion of the Quebec electorate but it would have completely destroyed the party otherwise. Most of the membership, outside a Quebec enclave, would have been deadly opposed. They would have lost my vote for a few elections if they did this, quite possibly. Moreover, he would have been going back on the NDP's own previous position on this and this sort of flip-flopping would not have played well. If they are not going to stand for principles like this, what good is it to have an NDP? If anything, I think Mulcair's error on this issue is that he has been too cagey, always prefacing his comments by talking about how uncomfortable the niqab makes him personally before explaining why it's not the issue to focus on. Trudeau's position has actually been more principled and inspiring; those are not words I usually use for Justin Trudeau.

Agree with this.

Really? Did Tommy Douglas really demonstrate this kind of 'openness' on socialized health insurance? Was Clement Attlee really as 'flexible' as the current Liberal Party when it came to nationalizations and decolonization?

But I think that Mulcair IS somewhat flexible on a lot of those things. Their positions on the TPP and pipelines show some openness and flexibility.

Oh, if 'working with others and building bridges' means being wishy-washy centrists without strong principles, the Liberals totally own that, yeah.

I think the balanced budget pledge was possibly the NDP's/Mulcair's biggest mistake. They thought it would help to make them seem like the more fiscally responsible party in comparison to the Conservatives. Then the Tories said the budget was balanced, the Liberals said balancing the budget isn't that important, and the NDP was in the awkward position of advocating for social programmes and increased spending but also making a big deal about balancing the budget, which raised questions. I actually think their tax policy is quite sensible, and much better than the Grits', but buying into the obsession with budget-balancing and pointlessly slamming the Tories for running deficits during a recession, put them in a tight spot.