Liberal lefty outsiders win Canadian election

Calling to run a deficit and increase public spending and investment, as well as higher taxation at the top is lefty by today's standards.

The ndp had actually been dragged to the right under mulcair and arguably were liberals were more left in this election.

If he wants to allow free movement with the skilled Brits and Americans i'll cheer him. Inviting the the third world is not advantageous though.

Not in defense.

The deficit is for a defined period of time, and it is for capital investment in infrastructure (i.e not sinking it into non growth areas like healthcare, social care, pensions and welfare)

Whenever a centrist party takes over government, it usually involves sailing the country back to the centre ground. So when they take over from a Conservative government, it usually involves things that involve increasing expenditure. When it takes over from a Labour government, it usually involves things that involve decreasing expenditure.



The NDP may have move rightwards from it's previous position, but it is still to the left of the Liberal (desiring expansion of expenditure on welfare programmes, tax on business, reintroduction of the minimum wage, regulation of utilities)

Erm, they are not "liberal lefty", they are liberal centre ground.

They want to reduce income tax for those earning less than 90,000 CAN$, and reduce national insurance contributions across the board. Hardly the high tax party of the left. The Canadian equivalent of the leftish Labour party is New Democratic Party

And they are not outsiders at all. They are the natural party of government in Canada, having governed for almost seven decades in the 20th century, including most recently from 1993 to 2004

Somebody doesn't have a clue about Canadian politics.

They want to raise taxation on the top 1%, were widely perceived to have outflanked the socialist NDP on the economy (by pledging to invest to grow and oppose austerity rather than to "balance the books", which is what the NDP were saying they'd do), they'll actually take action on climate change, they're a pro-choice feminist party and they want to legalise cannabis. They do also want to increase certain aspects of welfare, such as the Guaranteed Income Supplement to help pensioners in poverty.

Also, they do want to invest in your so-called no-growth areas: "While Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair both promise more cuts, Justin Trudeau will invest in people, and things that make our everyday lives better. Transit. Roads. Clean energy. Schools. Hospitals. The basic infrastructure our economy needs to grow and we need in order to get ahead."

Nobody's saying they're the high tax party of the left, but leftism is not synonymous with higher taxation (although, again, the wealthiest in Canada will have to give up more than half of their income in combined federal and provincial taxes under the new Liberal government).

Unfortunately, it's the Conservatives in Britain who have made investing to grow synonymous with 'loonie lefty' policies, which I agree does to disservice to right-wingers who understand basic macroeconomics and acknowledge that austerity is an economically illiterate policy.

If I had to define the Liberal position, I think liberal-left is the best definition. And, out of the parties in Britain, they most clearly resemble Corbyn's Labour, who also want to invest to grow, accept more refugees, increase taxation on the wealthy, repeal anti-trade union laws, and take action on climate change. Nonetheless, the only thing that matters is that Harper's idiotic government is gone. And, given that the NDP were adopting the deficit fetishism which has plagued Britain, the Liberals were the best choice for the Canadian people.

Congratulations Canada. First Abbott goes in Australia, now Harper has gone in Canada. Given that the Paris Climate Change Negotiations are very soon, this excellent news.

This is what I was trying to say except it is much better and more well informed

Like you said. They share a lot with Corbyn's Labour.

Isn't it hypocritical to demand all Muslim Women to remove the Niqab though? I've met many Muslim women who love the Niqab and hate how people tell them they don't have to wear it even though they WANT to wear it. These same people who are the loudest to cry against MOOOSLEEEMS imposing their beliefs do the same to others. IMO I can understand why people feel uncomfortable around the Niqab (obviously not showing face) but really how much does it effect you

Syrians are actually highly skilled. And Canada's economy has boomed under the past decades of immigration, including from the (shock horror) third world

And why is that?

I'm not convinced of that given the country was pretty poor before the Arab Spring.

An increased labour force does increase output. Immigration to Canada is quite restrictive. They don't just allow a horde of third worlders to come every year. At any rate, a larger labour force does increase output however that doesn't tell us whether asylum seekers will make a net contribution before they claim their pensions.

Because most Conservatives are not libertarian in foreign policy. Cutting your defense budget and leaving the world to it does not satisfy a nations self interest.

Great to see some Tories getting beat.

Another interesting thing is that the liberals hardly got any Tory switchers - what gave them the victory was getting 4 million non-voters to vote.
It can be done.

Because it was run as some quasi-Marxist socialist state. In comparative monetary terms, it was seen as poor by international standards, but this hid the fact that living standards were reasonable against low cost of living/weak currency. Much like the former soviet/socialist countries, its population was well educated who suffered the inability to reach their potential meaning the country never reflected its human capital, and continuous emigration meant the very large pre-war Syrian diaspora was highly skilled and well educated.

Some of the most successful economies of the world are built on immigration. Look at the USA, Canada, Singapore, Australia.

It is now beyond question that immigration is beneficial (usually in the context of limited welfare)

So why are most Conservatives still libertarian when it comes to energy and climate change? Assuming you accept the science of man-made climate change (backed the vast vast majority of scientists working in the field), the threat to our security from climate change could arguably be far greater than the threat of armed or malicious attacks against the world and this country.

Perhaps.

Yes, but that immigration came mainly from Europe who led the world for centuries, not comparable. Of course immigration has long term benefits (especially if the children integrate) but in the short term its not all applicable to say that third world immigration is of net benefit. Most of those places imposed border controls by WW1.

Self interest and idiocy, varies by country. The UK and Canada for example are likely to benefit from increased warming (in the UK it could be as much as 3C before we see a net cost) albeit the US and Australia are a bit idiotic in not moving against it (though the likes of Elon Musk are making some progress on emissions).

Calls to coup Corbyn and replace him with a slick young centrist will intensify but may be misplaced

Main point of election was to oust Harper who has been even more odious and anti-democratic than other Anglosphere blue parties

Liberals won due to tactical voting by NDP supporters

Prior to a few weeks ago Liberals exhibited classic pattern of social democratic red parties tainted by government: polling third place well behind insurgent NDP

Heartened by electorates reaction to Trudeaus deficit plan which will give Canada a huge advantage in an era of low interest rates and surplus worship across the Western world

Also disengagement from the Middle East and rejection of Harper's nasty racism

Overall I am a "Tru believer"

Secondly taxation bands (which get proportionally higher with higher income) are not the preserve of the left at all, in fact flat taxes (one level of income tax for all) exist only in either very right wing jurisdictions or relatively poor and/or corrupt ones (where complex tax arrangements are not manageable for the state to administer and assure): taxing the top 1% of the population is therefore hardly leftist, and would feature in a large number of centrist parties' manifestos and would appeal to a large number of voters on the right of the spectrum.



.

It IS pretty left wing, you know. Certainly in ideological terms. The top 1% of the population produced 10.6% of the total Canadian tax take before this measure.

Is it just a symbolic act of bash the rich populism or is it intended to raise money? I am guessing both, but it will be interesting to see how successful it is at increasing total tax revenues in practice...

Except it isn't. Most countries have banded takes rates that increase proportionally with income.

This top rate at 33% (lower than what UKIP here propose) is 4% higher than the tax band below it, with the basic tax rate band being 15% (thus a difference of 17% between top and bottom, against 35% in the UK). Bear in mind that the US taxes an equivalent income at 33%, and indeed goes all the way up to 39.6% for higher earners.