Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Liberal lefty outsiders win Canadian election watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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 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.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The ndp had actually been dragged to the right under mulcair and arguably were liberals were more left in this election.
    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)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    Syrians are actually highly skilled. And Canada's economy has boomed under the past decades of immigration, including from the (shock horror) third world

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Not in defense.
    And why is that?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    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)
    Aye you know a lot more about this than me.
    Still, pleasing to see the tories lose to a party left of them offering centre left policies, even if they are centrist themselves.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    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 :yy:

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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    This is what I was trying to say except it is much better and more well informed :yy:

    Like you said. They share a lot with Corbyn's Labour.
    Aye his posts are always of an exceptionally high standard which makes it funny when a UKIPer/Tory boy replies to him with 'boo immigrants and poor people'.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Hus stance on drugs legalization is fantastic.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by YSoSerious)
    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
    It's an obvious issue in court as it impedes the judicial process and in education as it hinders communication with the pupils.

    It's also very rude. How am I meant to to communicate with someone who won't show me their face? That's a persona issue though and personal objections shouldn't decide law.

    The main legal reason is public policy. Canada promotes an integrationist immigration policy, in which people are welcomed but must adapt to Canadian traditions, beliefs and norms. It has proved very successful.

    The veil is a clear obstruction to that and a symbol of a refusal to integrate into Canadian society. If you are so desperate to cling to these practices then do not live in a country where they are not accepted.

    If I moved to Saudi Arabia (heaven forbid) then I would follow the norms there and behave in an ultraconservative way. The same applies here.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    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)
    Firstly the Liberal Party top rate of income tax would be 33%, which is less than the top rate of income tax advocated by both the (UK) Conservatives and UKIP. Hardly leftist.

    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.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    , they'll actually take action on climate change
    That is the case of all the parties in Canada; taking action on climate change is not the preserve of the left. Increasingly on the right it is being realised that climate change poses a huge risk to security, more so than the traditional threats to security that those on the right fret about.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    , they're a pro-choice feminist party
    As all centrist parties are (which are invariably more liberal), often more so than leftist parties (which had an unfortunate tendency to drift towards authoritarian positions). Indeed the (Canada) Conservative Party's position is not to support any legislation to regulate abortion (Canada having one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, with abortion allowed on demand.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    and they want to legalise cannabis.
    A reflection of their social liberalism rather than anything to do with left/right spectrum.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    They do also want to increase certain aspects of welfare, such as the Guaranteed Income Supplement to help pensioners in poverty.
    And the NDP want to to expand welfare far more.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    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."
    Right, so you don't know what growth and non-growth areas are.

    Non-growth areas of public spending are invariably ones that involve delivering infrastructure and services to maintain a standard, the knock-on macroeconomic effects of which lead only to increasing consumption (consumption driven economies being weak and non-sustainable). This basically means many welfare payments (though some, such as childcare subsidies would not be classified as non-growth) and services which are primarily used by terminally non-productive members of society (the elderly and disabled) which is mostly health, social care and pensions.

    Growth areas of public spending are ones that involve delivering infrastructure and services that increase productivity, the knock-on macroeconomic effects leading to increasing production and economic growth. This is basically national infrastructure, namely transport, communications, energy, as well as skills development which is education. This is the focus of the Liberal Party.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    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).
    Now you are just making stuff up.

    Even under the new 33% tax band (those earning great than 200,000 CAN$), the vast majority of Canadians that fall into it could not loose more than half their income to federal and provincial taxes, with it only being possible in Manitoba, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (a small fraction of Canada's population I may add) for those earning significantly more than 200,000 CAN$ (in the case of Manitoba and New Brunswick, probably more than a million CAN$)

    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    No, they have invested in growth, namely education, apprenticeships, energy and transport infrastructure. Some of your misunderstanding here may stem from not understanding what investment in growth areas means.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    Nonsense. They would be slightly to the right of the Liberal Democrats.

    They don't want to nationalise sectors of the economy, don't want to introduce maximum wages, don't want to double healthcare spending, don't want to print money. I could go on.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    A leader who bows down to islam is never good
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm not convinced of that given the country was pretty poor before the Arab Spring.
    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.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    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)

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    Not by Corbyn.

    A definition of the condition suffered by his supporters can be found below:

    "Delusion, in psychology, a rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of the beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence. They vary in intensity, extent, and coherence and may represent pathological exaggeration of normal tendencies to rationalization, wishful thinking, and the like."
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    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).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    The immigration came from everything

    I usually credit the right with better long term strategic thinking than the left. Clearly not in this case.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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).
    Is this a serious position you are taking?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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"
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    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"
    As someone who's natural part of choice should be something like the NDP I probbaly would have voted for the Liberals instead regardless fo tactical voting. The NDP were campaigning on a pro austerity stance.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    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...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Except it isn't. Most countries have banded takes rates that increase proportionally with income.
    Yes I know. Did I say they didn't?
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    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.
    I don't disagree that these proposals are better than we have in the UK. Taxation levels here are an utter disgrace. Unfortunately we have a massive budget deficit, unlike Canada, which had a small surplus last year I believe.

    That doesn't mean that they aren't a regrettable, left wing move for Canada, compared to the status quo ante there.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.