Evening Star

I wasn't comparing social conservatives to Nazis. I was just questioning the claim that "'right-wing' means 'libertarian' in Canada today". I agree that the left-right spectrum is pretty inadequate for describing the range of political ideologies. Political Compass/Vote Compass-style two-axis models make much more sense to me.

There are many religious or socially conservative people who would probably identify as "right-wing", though. Really, the Chretien/Martin Liberals were probably 'closer' to libertarianism than the current CPC...

She's my #2.

Before Diefenbaker, really. The Liberals won one AB seat in 1957 and none in 1958. Since then, I believe the 1968 election was their best showing in AB. (The Pearson Liberals also won one AB seat in 1963 and none in 1965.) Even prior to that, though, St Laurent did well on the Prairies but never did as well as Social Credit or the PCs in AB.

For some reason, I had assumed that "August 1991" referred to your birth date!

I don't agree that being opposed to abortion is on par with supporting eugenics.

Ha, I only just now found out that Robert Layton was in Mulroney's cabinet!

No one accused you of heresy. We just pointed out that your claims don't seem to be based on anything the NDP has actually said or done in decades, which is how CPC supporters react, or should react, if someone accuses their party of having a hidden agenda. That said, people's fears about Harper's agenda are often based on actual things that Harper said or wrote within the last decade and a half or so. Layton's had a long career as an academic, businessman, and politician at local and federal levels. His record does not suggest any radical socialist tendencies. (Duceppe's background is probably more socialist, if anything.)

When has the federal NDP advocated those things? 40 years ago maybe...?

I'm guessing that things like the leaked AG report and some of the other scandals might be taking a toll on the CPC. A significant number of people probably do care about contempt for Parliament. Ignatieff is, however, failing to really win people over. Layton is a better speaker and more charismatic leader and is running on a fairly similar platform. Plus, he seems more sincere as he has always been advocating for these policies.

I'll be the asshole. Why does this mean QC needs to be recognized as a 'nation' or to have some sort of special status? There are other provinces that also have distinct political or economic leanings. I've felt this way for a long time.

What sort of nonfeasance are you thinking of?

Well put.

I kind of agree. I was just asking because I thought you were describing the LPC as being an essentially right-wing party. They did in the 90s... but there was a strong neoliberal trend in the Western world. So I don't know if the LPC was necessarily right-wing compared to New Labour or even Australian/NZ Labour parties (and certainly compared to the Democrats) or even compared to some NDP governments, such as Romanow's. In the WW2/postwar era, the Liberals created many Crown corporations and expanded social programmes. In the 60s, they implemented universal health care, pensions, and student loans. In the 70s, they created a nationalized oil corporation...

Do you think the LPC has been right of centre compared to the political spectra of other English-speaking democracies?

Niki Ashton is adorable: http://www.google.ca/search?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&biw=1197&bih=651&site=search&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=niki+ashton&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

And so to be clear, while I have voted NDP federally and will likely do so again, I would actually be a little concerned if they became dominant and we lost the LPC. The potential absence of a strong federalist party is worrying to me, as well as the NDP's support for expanding the Bill 101 BS. The current trends are fascinating though. (Ideally, I'd like to have a three- or four-party system where the parties are a little more evenly balanced in strength. Perhaps that's where we're headed?) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/ndp-vows-are-spoken-to-be-broken/article1991564/

Really? I find Mulcair very charismatic and compelling when he speaks. He always strikes me as intelligent, moderate, and reasonable.

See, I think the Liberal Party does have a distinct set of principles that it stands for. (Some of them might be hard to notice because the Liberals have been so dominant throughout Canadian history that some Liberal values - bilingualism and multiculturalism for example - have become 'Canadian values'.) Liberals don't always live up to them but no party does. For instance, the Liberal principle of relatively centralized federalism is distinct from the decentralist approach of the PCs/CPC or the 'asymmetrical federalism' espoused by the NDP. Their approach to issues like funding research and development and scholarship is notably different from either the Conservative approach (which tends to favour overtly market-oriented work) or the NDP's approach (which tends to favour work with some social justice or environmental angle afaict). For one thing, it just seems to be a greater priority for the Liberals than for the other parties. Conservatives would probably love nothing more than for the centrist party to disappear and to have a polarized two-party system (where btw the party that represents/advocates for capital is more likely to have an advantage than a party that identifies with labour).

Link? I don't see this on threehundredeight.com... -- Nm, found it.

Punked, do you feel this way about the Liberal Party throughout its history or only the current version of the Liberal Party? (I don't really agree either way but I'm interested in hearing your answer before I explain.)

Ha, maybe.

Those two questions, yes, perhaps. I thought that Mansbridge gave a number of tough questions though: - on how Ignatieff squares his earlier desires for greater civility in politics with his current negative ad campaign - on why Harper's attacks on Ignatieff's patriotism are worse than the Liberal attacks on Harper's trustworthiness - mentioning how Ignatieff voted for the CPC's 'jets and jails', against which he is now campaigning - on why people are in fact saying "So what?" to the CPC actions that Ignatieff lists in his "Rise up" speech and then nailing Ignatieff on this when he tried to claim that actually people are listening to him... Ignatieff can't have it both ways and Mansbridge makes this come across. - questioning why Ignatieff has ruled out a coalition after signing on to one in 2008 and also questioning what is so wrong about a coalition. He pushed Ignatieff on this when Ignatieff claimed that he rejected the coalition earlier. - how he squares his fearmongering attack ad about the danger of Harper gaining 'absolute power' (a majority) with his stated belief that the public's decision is final and all that matters (even if the public does elect a CPC majority)

Just watched it. That was kind of amazing. Man, I do not agree that Mansbridge gave him softball questions. And imo Ignatieff didn't even succeed at making those tutorial discussions... He just seemed like he was weaselling and covering his ass to me...