Mulcair on Thatcher

[Smallc]

So Mulcair will keep an iron grip on his party, decide policy himself, because the public can't handle the truth?

That, and the Canadian public likes moderate government. No one is going to govern to the extremes if they ever hope to win an election again.

[overthere]

Doer-style pragmatism is what I expected when I voted for him as leader. But, as Derek notes, Thatcher was not a moderate pragmatist. She is one of the most radical right-wing ideologues to govern a major Western democracy in contemporary times. It would be different if Mulcair had been praising Bill Clinton or Tony Blair (both of whom still make me uncomfortable tbh).

Thatcher was the perfect leader for the Uk at a point when they were basically bankrupt.

True, any dsiplay of spine by a leader paralyzes many with fear and loathing, but she did it right for the most part. She was the very first Brit leader in a generation or more who recognized that the social contract was not divorced from a need to pay for it.

[overthere]

Mulcair's isn't really all that left wing. He hasn't said anything about raising taxes for people, and is doing a switch - lower small business taxes for higher corporate ones.

How do you get daycare for every Canadian chikld for $15/day without increasing taxes? Do you find his silence reassuring? The money fairy cometh?

[socialist]

How do you get daycare for every Canadian chikld for $15/day without increasing taxes? Do you find his silence reassuring? The money fairy cometh?

I thik there has to be more incentives for parents to raise their own kids. I don'y know what those would look like though.

[Smallc]

How do you get daycare for every Canadian chikld for $15/day without increasing taxes? Do you find his silence reassuring? The money fairy cometh?

First, it's 1M children, and second, I don't like the plan. That said, returning the TFSAs to their earlier limits, cancelling income splitting, and raising corporate taxes will see very few people pay more tax and raise the necessary money at the same time.

[overthere]

I thik there has to be more incentives for parents to raise their own kids. I don'y know what those would look like though.

Income splitting?

[Argus]

Mulcair's isn't really all that left wing. He hasn't said anything about raising taxes for people, and is doing a switch - lower small business taxes for higher corporate ones.

There is no way the NDP can carry out their main election promises without either raising taxes or going deeper into debt. Same goes for the Liberals.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Argus

[overthere]

First, it's 1M children, and second, I don't like the plan. That said, returning the TFSAs to their earlier limits, cancelling income splitting, and raising corporate taxes will see very few people pay more tax and raise the necessary money at the same time.

But raising corporate taxes would mean many lost jobs, of course. Oh I see, if you are unemployed you can stay home and lok after the kids.

Income splitting is geared towards stay at home parents- people who wouldn't need a daycare subsidy- isn't cancelling income splitting going to cost more for daycare, not less?

And doesn't slowing down savings rates by canning TFSAs just mean the state has to provide more support to people when they retire.

I'd have to see more numbers to comprehend how these measures could possibly fund 1 million kids in subsidized daycare.

And all just at the time when many boomers start to draw on state pensions and start to really suck the life out of health care.

How do you see that working?

[socialist]

Income splitting?

Great point. I would rather kids be raised by parents than by the state.

[Icebound]

Great point. I would rather kids be raised by parents than by the state.

Noble goal.

But 2 things conspire against it....

1... Over the years, We have created an economic system, where low income families need more than one income to meet essential expenses, ...and

2... People are raising families later in life after having already experienced the mental stimulation and satisfaction of career... And they are not about to give that up.

To make it work, you need to find a way to encourage younger marriages, home child care in the early years, then pursuing a career later...early thirties, or later. It's actually better for families to do that, but they don't seem to realize it, and insist on "becoming established" before raising a family.

Thinking out loud here... It might make sense to limit child care benefits based on the PARENT's age, encouraging early children... and to have some extra adult-education grants so people won't feel "left behind" if they decided not to pursue career right away. Would be lots of details to work out... but something like that would probably need to be done to meet your goal...

Most likely: It will never happen.

[cybercoma]

And he was almost a conservative. But the money was not good enough.

Go ahead and ignore what Conservatives at the time have corroborated about him being a policy advisor on the environment and turning it down when he realized they were diametrically opposed on the issues.

[cybercoma]

Who cares if Mulcair is like Doer?

People who think critically rather than picking a team and pretending the election is a sporting event?

[cybercoma]

The NDP hasn't really advocated for individual MPs to have greater autonomy. If anything, they would probably have less under a PR system.

(This is one issue where I tend to disagree with them.)

There's no way in hell the MPs would have less. They don't have any autonomy now, no matter where they sit in the House.

[cybercoma]

That, and the Canadian public likes moderate government. No one is going to govern to the extremes if they ever hope to win an election again.

Especially with a minority government.

[Derek 2.0]

People who think critically rather than picking a team and pretending the election is a sporting event?

Fine, is Mulcair another Doer? Or Thatcher? Or somewhere in between?

A better question, are the Trudeau Liberals more progressive than the Mulcair NDP?

[cybercoma]

There is no way the NDP can carry out their main election promises without either raising taxes or going deeper into debt. Same goes for the Liberals.

And the conservatives throwing around credits like they're confetti? They'll just miraculously balance the books, despite history showing they don't know how.

[Evening Star]

A better question, are the Trudeau Liberals more progressive than the Mulcair NDP?

I can't see a reason to believe that they are; nor do I think that even they present themselves that way.

[cybercoma]

Great point. I would rather kids be raised by parents than by the state.

I'd rather we take everyone's children away and have them raised by a pack of polar bears in the arctic circle.

[Derek 2.0]

I can't see a reason to believe that they are; nor do I think that even they present themselves that way.

Why? I would think the Trudeau Liberals Eat the Rich tax hikes would very much so lend to their "progressive street cred".......likewise their promise to legalize pot......

[Moonlight Graham]

Who cares if Mulcair is like Doer? Mulcair has voiced support for Thatcher's economic policies, which are night and day compared with the NDP's own policies.

It was 14 years ago. It's very possible his thinking changed in 14 years.

[Derek 2.0]

It was 14 years ago. It's very possible his thinking changed in 14 years.

Sure, likewise, its just as possible that his thinking hasn't changed, or changed very little...........

Don't get me wrong, if Mulcair subscribes to a form of neoconservative economics, further to the right of Harper, I'm not put off the least.......likewise, if suggested by others in this thread, Mulcair would ignore the socialist policies of the NDP and govern from the neoconservative right on tax and economic policies, pay some lip service to the environment and working poor, I'd consider that fairly centrist......If he left my guns alone, I'd considered voting for him.

[Evening Star]

Why? I would think the Trudeau Liberals Eat the Rich tax hikes would very much so lend to their "progressive street cred".......likewise their promise to legalize pot......

I'm pretty sure you realize this already but they're actually proposing to lower taxes for the top 1/3 of income earners, except for the tiny sliver who make over $202K. It's not an especially progressive policy. (They're proposing to cut taxes in the $44701-$89401 bracket, which means a tax cut for anyone who makes over $44701, and they want to add a higher tax bracket for people who earn over $200K. You'd have to make over $202K before your increased taxes in the new bracket are actually greater than your savings from the other tax cut.) If they wanted to create a more progressive income tax cut, they could just propose increasing the basic personal exemption. Rolling back TFSA contribution limits, increasing capital gains taxes, and cancelling income splitting are also more progressive taxation ideas imo.

Legalizing marijuana is a good idea, and 'progressive' in an entirely different way.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'progressive street cred', although it sounds patronizing. The NDP are clearly more liberal on civil liberties issues, are proposing a new social programme (one I'm ambivalent about), have a stronger emphasis on promoting labour participation and co-operative enterprises.

[Evening Star]

It was 14 years ago. It's very possible his thinking changed in 14 years.

The thing is that I'd think nothing of it if he just said something like "That was my thinking at the time. I have since realized ..." But he hasn't said anything of the sort. What he has said is that he was advocating pragmatism at the time and is still a pragmatist about wanting to provide effective services. It's just strange to invoke Thatcher's name in that context. It probably doesn't add up to a whole lot at the end of the day but it's curious.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm pretty sure you realize this already but they're actually proposing to lower taxes for the top 1/3 of income earners, except for the tiny sliver who make over $202K. It's not an especially progressive policy. (They're proposing to cut taxes in the $44701-$89401 bracket, which means a tax cut for anyone who makes over $44701, and they want to add a higher tax bracket for people who earn over $200K. You'd have to make over $202K before your increased taxes in the new bracket are actually greater than your savings from the other tax cut.) If they wanted to create a more progressive income tax cut, they could just propose increasing the basic personal exemption. Rolling back TFSA contribution limits, increasing capital gains taxes, and cancelling income splitting are also more progressive taxation ideas imo.

Legalizing marijuana is a good idea, and 'progressive' in an entirely different way.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'progressive street cred', although it sounds patronizing. The NDP are clearly more liberal on civil liberties issues, are proposing a new social programme (one I'm ambivalent about), have a stronger emphasis on promoting labour participation and co-operative enterprises.

I'm quite aware of both the Liberal and NDP tax policies........only the Trudeau Liberals plan to raise both mine and my wife's taxes......."social and civil liberty issues" I don't really care about, and if I'm not mistaken, aren't the Liberals also proposing some form of National Daycare?

What Labour participation policies are the NDP promoting? I thought they were after "small business", I would think further unionized labour would be a net-negative for "small business"....

[Smallc]

There is no way the NDP can carry out their main election promises without either raising taxes or going deeper into debt. Same goes for the Liberals.

Shrinking TFSAs and cancelling income splitting, as well as raising corporate taxes is...just not in a way that most people will notice.