Evening Star

Ujjal Dosanjh is my favourite Liberal. He probably won't become leader since he doesn't speak French, however.

This is the definition you were referring to, RNG (from dictionary.com)?: As I said, that could describe right-wing ideas but only if you assume that maximum individual freedom is provided by the free market.

This is better actually: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#DebBetOldNew

Well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Classical_and_modern It all depends on how you define "liberty" though, right? Defining liberty in terms of the free market is in keeping with 18th-century liberalism. We usually use "liberal" in this sense today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

Only in absolute numbers, not in terms of proportion to the country's population.

This is blatantly wrong, right? Immigration figures are only meaningful in relation to the country's population, surely.

I really like the idea of having a mushy middle party!

That does seem to be the logical conclusion of the premise that a foetus is a person though.

Going by the party platforms in the last election, I agreed with TB. New Labour = Liberals, Liberal Democrats = NDP. I know that the parties' names and ostensible philosophical/ideological affiliations suggest the reverse.

This is probably the wrong thread for this but I'm guessing that two factors are i) immigration laws and ii) the number of people in the world who speak English or French (or Spanish) as opposed to Swedish or Norwegian or Finnish.

We discussed it here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17862 There are many examples of hugely successful corporations from the Nordic countries (obvious ones like Ikea, Volvo, H&M, Saab, Nokia, Bohor, Propellerheads, 3H, Ericsson Audio, Digital Illusions, Electrolux), especially considering the countries' tiny populations.

There are arguments that the Nordic model is good for entrepreneurship: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html

Three Hundred Eight is still predicting basically the same pre-election Parliament, with any gains going to the CPC...

There's nothing hidden about that agenda.

I hadn't read this before: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm Thanks for the tip.

I don't know if this should surprise me but it does...

I didn't say extreme socialists would be right...

Having said that: i) Trudeau governed for 15 years, making many profound changes to the country, before his successor was 'annihilated'. I have to assume that Trudeau was ready to retire anyway by that point. Mulroney governed for 8 (and again, it was his lesser successor who was 'annihilated'). We are still living with many of the changes they created. ii) Politicians don't always behave logically.

I didn't say anything about a hidden agenda. I've read the CPC's published platform. I don't want it to be implemented.

The Keynesian liberal 'left' - which includes every major party that we categorize as 'left' - does believe that its interventionist policies work better for promoting healthy businesses, economic growth, and employment. A more extreme socialist leftist would probably argue that some sort of collectivized ownership either works better for providing stable employment and productivity or else would argue that a collectivized system is less productive but more sustainable than the capitalist model of economic growth.

It all depends on what one considers extreme though... My family member, who has worked in community services and advocacy and who is a more hardcore NDP supporter than me, considers Harper's minority government to have been excessively right-wing, in terms of immigration/refugee policy, cancelling the Court Challenges Program, NGO funding decisions, scrapping the long-form census ... It's safe to assume that a majority CPC government would go further in many of these areas. Look at Mulroney's or Trudeau's majority governments. They certainly made, or at least attempted to make, pretty major changes during these terms that were surely upsetting to the people who opposed them.

Because some NDPers care about more than just their own party's political fortunes?

But we can probably expect that Ignatieff will be replaced after the election, likely by someone who hasn't sworn off a coalition himself or herself...

I do actually think it makes some sense to prioritize young skilled immigrants over elderly relatives though...

If this is anything close to the reality on Mar 2, we could quite possibly see Jack Layton as PM after the Throne Speech or budget. Seems a little bold though...