Evening Star

I think what he is saying is that the total tax revenue (including federal income taxes, provincial income taxes, corporate taxes, consumption taxes, and every other sort of tax PUT TOGETHER) is 33% of GDP in Canada ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP ) and thus there is no way that Tax Freedom Day could arrive 45% of the way through the year. The highest marginal federal income tax rate in the country is 29% btw: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

I get what you're saying. Yes, a centrist party is vulnerable from both sides. I just quibble with the term "splitting the left" because it implies to me that there are two left-wing parties that are relatively similar in policy but are dividing the left-wing vote between them. This is different from having a centrist option and a distinct leftist option (especially when the latter is more likely to win your riding, as is the case in my riding). As your post suggests, one could just as easily say that the Conservatives (or the Liberals!) are "splitting the right". Or that the two parties are "splitting the federalist vote" in QC. If the left-wing party were not there, it is possible that the centrist party would get more votes (and be popularly regarded as the 'left' party as is the case with the US Democrats) but it might also likely mean that our politics would just shift further to the right, without a party on the left to advocate and influence for change. I just don't agree that the NDP's advertising or campaigning targets the Liberals more than the Cons. The main campaign they were running recently had to do with attacking Stephen Harper for taxes on home heating.

I'm not saying that the NDP deserves "all the credit" for anything or that they have forced Liberal governments to do things that were anathema to the Liberals. I'm saying that there are logical reasons to vote NDP, that it can make some difference, even if it's just one of influence.

Tell me. Because it suggests that the LPC isn't actually a leftist party. And thus the NDP is simply offering a leftist option that is otherwise unavailable rather than 'splitting the left vote'.

And a party that can hold the balance of power in a minority parliament does have an influence on legislation. Even Martin's minority govt governed differently than the preceding Liberal majority govts.

You know that Chretien reneged on the promise of renegotiating (or even abrogating) NAFTA, right? Also, by identifying yourself (a Liberal voter) as a centrist, you realize that you're undermining the argument that the NDP is 'splitting the left'?

But how are you defining "the left"? Everyone to the left of the Conservatives? That's 65% of the population.

I have read those, as well as policy documents.

Are you saying the two parties have very similar platforms? Because I don't think they do. I would tend to argue that Ignatieff's Liberals are closer to the Conservatives than to the NDP on many issues, or at least they have been until very recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_1968-69 http://archives.cbc.ca/on_this_day/07/14/

I know but the Liberal Party has been advocating and often implementing socially liberal policies for as long as we've had point-based immigration.

Yes, it seems clear that it's not a cost/rationing issue. OHIP was willing to pay for treatment in Detroit if the Detroit hospital would accept the transfer. That the American hospital, that potentially had something to gain financially if it accepted the transfer, refused suggests that the doctors rationally believe that the child's best interest will not be served by keeping the child on life support.

Wonder if Fox will be as eager to report this: http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/familyhealth/children%27shealth/article/943954--michigan-hospital-won-t-take-dying-windsor-baby

I don't see where you'd find all these numbers: I think you're assuming that everyone who voted NDP would instead cast a Liberal vote in the absence of a strong NDP campaign. That's not always a safe assumption.

No, the first isn't self-evident. Even the Globe article I linked only suggests that the immigrant vote is becoming more split between the Liberals and Conservatives, when it used to be predominantly Liberal.

It's hard to know how many of those NDP voters would have voted Liberal otherwise though. Even if there were no NDP candidate at all, there are probably some of those NDP voters who would have voted Conservative, some who would have stayed home, and some who might have voted for the Greens or a fringe party.

Actually, my understanding of American neoconservatism is a little different from neoliberalism (which I understand as a strictly economic philosophy advocating highly laissez-faire capitalism and globalized free trade), closer to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism Naomi Klein seems to use the two terms as synonyms though, so who knows?

In 1944, the government did pass a law prohibiting people from moving to the biggest cities in the country but it seems a bit impractical to try that now...

Yeah, I've been wondering about this too. We've been having substantial non-Western immigration since the 70s and the country has been growing more liberal socially. I always hear about the urban immigrant vote going to the Liberals or perhaps the NDP (usually from the same people who bemoan the potential threat. You can't have it both ways.) [Edit: OK, I do see this from the other thread: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/multiculturalism/conservative-immigrants-boost-tory-fortunes/article1738150/?cmpid=rss1 But that also suggests that immigrants have more left-wing views on a number of issues, e.g. foreign policy, which I suspected. It also suggests that their children have more mainstream liberal views.] Given the serious global problem with overpopulation, I genuinely think that it would be irresponsible for the government to promote higher birth rates. Having said this, I also think it's a problem that our few biggest cities are growing so fast while we have all this empty space. I don't really know what we could do about this though.

(1974 too)

What makes the Liberals (or the Indian National Congress) more of a brokerage party than the Democrats or Labour? All of these parties include a fairly wide range of opinion (especially the Democrats!) but they still seem to occupy a particular centrist (in the first three cases) place on the spectrum to me with clear stances on many issues. Their positions have changed over time but so have the Conservatives' and Republicans'.

That's all I was trying to show: Rhetoric about balanced budgets doesn't in itself really distinguish JT.

Pp 192-194 of Layton's Speaking Out also deal with balanced budgets: "Having served two decades on Toronto City Council, I've learned to live comfortably with balanced budgets. Every time you propose an idea, you have to identify a source of funding... When governments run deficits, they are essentially deferring the inevitable. Banks and investors benefit because they will collect the interest. That's why it's always better to pay as you go rather than to chalk up a shortfall." However, he does not prioritize paying down the debt above maintaining and expanding social and environmental programmes and investing in industrial strategy, although he does favour paying it down. (from http://www.conservative.ca/policy/plan/ ) Flaherty was forecasting a balanced budget in October: http://www.conservative.ca/press/other_stories/conservatives_help_keep_canada_on_track_to_a_balanced_budget The Liberals brag about their record with balancing the budget, slam the Conservatives for failing in that area, and claim that they "would focus on deficit reduction" (among other things) here: http://www.liberal.ca/issues/economy/ I mean, would Justin T advocate balancing the budget and paying down the debt before helping unemployed people during a recession? If it meant unconscionable hospital wait times with an aging population during a rough year? There are times when a balanced budget should not be the #1 priority imo, although it's certainly a worthwhile goal much of the time. My personal #1 (in general terms) would be promoting world-class education, research, creativity, and innovation within Canada. Other issues that would be of high importance to me are: - reducing wait times for health care and ensuring that we have a sustainable high-quality public system - tackling the high rate of poverty - environmental sustainability - getting the hell out of Afghanistan

Come on, that's a motherhood issue. Every party leader has advocated balancing the budget. Some might not make it the #1 priority and I think they're right not to. I've got nothing against JT or his views, and I prefer him to Ignatieff tbh, but this isn't exactly brilliant or visionary.

I'll give you charismatic and polished. What new ideas has Justin Trudeau presented? PET clearly had an original and challenging vision, like it or loathe it.