Evening Star

See, this relates to what I was trying to get at on the other thread. I actually don't think that Rae was this irresponsible. His stimulus spending came during a major recession, they didn't cause ON's credit rating to drop, and when things started to brighten a little, his efforts at cuts were more modest and, frankly, fair imo.

(And Quebec doesn't seem to be terribly disappointed so far, going by polls.)

Well, saying they were effed over seems to imply that the NDP sold them a bill of goods that they failed to deliver. So I think this stands:

Hm? How has the NDP betrayed Quebec in any way? They're an opposition party in a majority Parliament and never promised to be anything more, as if they even could have. As such, they've done what they can to advocate for Quebec's interests, perhaps more than they even should have. In what way was Quebec better served by the BQ?

It's still not clear to me whether there were subsidies for Electro-Motive specifically or if the government simply announced tax breaks that apply to all companies and happened to use an EM plant for this purpose.

Come on, surely you love all the social programmes that began under LBP. Not mentioning universal health care must be a deliberate omission in any case. And don't tell me you prefer the immigration policy that preceded points-based immigration in Canada. (If anyone truly 'opened the floodgates', it was probably PET and I love him for it.)

Under Layton, the NDP became the Official Opposition and also won most of Quebec's seats, crushing the BQ in the process. These are two truly historic achievements in NDP history. It's much harder to say that Harper has so far achieved something on that scale for his cause(s). (And I hope he fails to ever do so, though he very well may!) In any case, I would have probably expected Tommy Douglas to win that poll on Babble, although you might be right. I don't think it's that clear-cut anyway.

I have to assume that this is not true at least of the repatriation of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights.

This is the best job anyone's done here of selling Harper.

NOOOO... I'm a big fan of porters and stouts and Guinness really is at the bottom of the heap in my books. Just empty bitterness with no richness or complexity of flavour. Every dark I've listed on this thread puts it to shame.

Ruth-Ellen Brosseau has spoken in French in the Commons and to her constituents.

A bit sweet for my taste but I definitely wouldn't sneeze at any St-Ambroise. And to be clear, I do think Labatt's is perfectly decent for a mainstream lager, better than that pisswater that major-label American brewers are content to spew forth. (<3 US microbrews though)

Was there some kind of academic consensus in favour of Ignatieff? I never had that impression but I'd be interested in seeing evidence of it. And yes, I do care.

Even a St-Ambroise Oatmeal Stout if you don't want to get too exotic. Do Dieu du Ciel if you're in Montreal.

Have you guys even tried foreign or independent brews? There's a huge freaking difference between different beers! (I'm not talking Blue here.) For real, try a proper Samuel Smith's or Sinebrychoff or Baltika and tell me you don't see the difference from Guinness.

It makes a certain kind of sense that Trudeau and Harper are dominating this poll, actually, as I think they do represent the two visions of the country that are in conflict at the moment. I think jbg and I see this the same way, although we're on opposite sides of the debate.

I mentioned a few things above but: the Official Languages Act, official multiculturalism, the abolition of the death penalty, the Immigration Act, adoption of the metric system, repatriation of the Constitution, the Charter of Rights, the CRTC, CIDA, progressive tax reform Whether you think these are good accomplishments is a matter of opinion but it seems absurd to me to claim that he didn't accomplish much. And, no, I do not think that most of these things would have happened regardless of who was in power. More than any other post-war PM, I believe that Trudeau himself defined his government's agenda. Trudeau did explicitly look to European social democracy as a model and did do quite a bit to emulate it, even after the tide had turned in the US and UK. There's no freaking way that Obama is doing anywhere near the same thing in the US. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/vote-obama-centrist-republican http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/22/Barack-Obama-The-Democrats-Richard-Nixon.aspx

Agree strongly. Quebec has been at least making some good efforts in these directions imo.

I'm a little amazed when right-wingers mention Singapore and South Korea as models.

"Rae Days" meant that all public servants would get some unpaid days off each year, i.e. their hours were reduced very slightly, not that they worked for free, which would have definitely been unconscionable. I maintain that it was a good policy with poor PR: it's the least painful way they could have made cuts. The cuts were spread around and those who made the least lost the least. Plus, it worked: Harris got to take the credit for the savings. The unions reacted short-sightedly and got to deal with Harris-style cuts instead imo. Otherwise, you basically seem to be agreeing with me that his weaknesses relative to the Manitoba NDP had to do more with confidence and preparation than with a major ideological difference.

I'm a little sceptical about this. Mulroney consistently scored poorly in opinion polls about past PMs even prior to the revelations about Airbus. The GST was probably good policy but it did not make him popular. Also, I don't think the failures of Meech Lake and Charlottetown and the resulting fallout (Hello BQ!) have endeared him to the public. I actually doubt that Harper will suffer the same fate.

Ha, I keep wondering the same thing, jbg.

It's not 100% clear from the article but my impression was that there was more than just a general corporate tax cut involved here, that the government actually gave Electro-Motive a specific tax break (subsidy), expecting that they would stay in London.

It's definitely hyperbole to say that a government can raise as much money as it wants at any time by taxing people. Still, there is a significant difference between a government that taxes citizens in order to provide public services (usually as a monopoly) and a corporation that provides services for a price in order to turn a profit or go under (usually with other competitors who provide similar services). I don't think it's unreasonable to apply different standards in this area. Ultimately, post 22 seems like the most relevant: -- Edited for grammar

Well, why not? I've given reasons why I think it would, including a dictionary definition of "fair".