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

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Yes I know. Did I say they didn't?
    So banded tax rates are leftist in your opinion?

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    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.
    How is it that a very far to the right party like UKIP is advocating higher tax rates than a so called leftist Liberal Party in Canada (and indeed the land of the free further south)? It wouldn't be just about budgets, since UKIP could just cut.

    Remember it was the Liberal Party that eliminated the budgetary deficit in Canada in the 90s.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    That doesn't mean that they aren't a regrettable, left wing move for Canada, compared to the status quo ante there.
    What you are seeing is not some leftist takeover in Canada but a move towards the centre ground after years of a solidly right wing government.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    So banded tax rates are leftist in your opinion?
    No.
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    How is it that a very far to the right party like UKIP is advocating higher tax rates than a so called leftist Liberal Party in Canada (and indeed the land of the free further south)? It wouldn't be just about budgets, since UKIP could just cut.

    You are being "economical with the truth." Or just don't know it, I don't know which.What you are referring to is the new Federal Tax Band of 33%, and comparing that to UKIP's proposed top rate of 40% starting at £55,000 (plus NI). What you are not including are taxes levied by the Provinces in addition.

    The Toronto Globe and Mail did the Maths:

    "New Brunswick would be affected the most. The combined top tax rate in New Brunswick would increase to 58.75 per cent, including an increase announced in this year’s provincial budget that raises the rate on incomes above $250,000. Nova Scotia would have the second-highest combined rate at 54 per cent, followed by Ontario at 53.53 per cent, including the provincial surcharge. Quebec’s combined top rate would be 53.3 per cent, followed by 51.37 per cent in PEI, 50.4 per cent in Manitoba and 49.8 per cent in British Columbia."
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    What you are seeing is not some leftist takeover in Canada but a move towards the centre ground after years of a solidly right wing government.
    It is not a "leftist takeover" but it is a move to the left. And I doubt it will be successful as I said in my first post. Rates of 58.75% are likely to lead to a reduced tax take phenomenon known as the "laffer curve."
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    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.
    It's an increase in the tax that the top 1% have to pay, though.

    And, it's fallacious to use Britain as a reference point for what is left and right: the Liberal Party were hardly going to hugely increase taxes on the wealthy, were they? But, neither do Labour in Britain: tax rates will only be gradually shifted by the vast majority of parties in any country: Labour currently want to move the top rate of income tax up to 50%, but if the starting point was 30% rather than 45%, then they'd shift it up to maybe 35% or 40%, not 50%.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Now you are just making stuff up.
    It's certainly the case that in some parts of Canada, the richest will have to hand over more than 50% of their income. The BBC simply puts it as follows: "richer Canadians can expect to face a higher tax bill, handing over more than half their income in combined federal and provincial taxes."

    I don't just make things up.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    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.
    The Conservatives were widely criticised for doing essentially nothing on climate change, and were perhaps second only to Tony Abbott's Australian government on how bad they were on the issue in the developed world.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    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.
    Left-wing simply means favouring social equality as opposed to social hierarchy and social inequality. So, feminism is a fairly left-wing position to take. Again, though, I described the Liberal Party as liberal-left, which is what the original poster did too.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    A reflection of their social liberalism rather than anything to do with left/right spectrum.
    True (on the cannabis issue), and both Corbyn and the Liberal Democrats seem to agree that we should at least look into decriminalising cannabis, if not legalising it.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    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.
    Well, as I've already demonstrated, the Liberals want to increase the welfare given to the elderly and invest in healthcare, which you specifically stated was a no-growth area.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Nonsense. They would be slightly to the right of the Liberal Democrats.
    The Liberal Democrats who signed up to massive spending cuts and were prepared to implement further austerity? I don't think so.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    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.
    Labour want to double healthcare spending and print money? Both of those claims are false. My point simply is that people who support the policies of the current Labour administration, including myself, would have been more in line with the Liberals; Conservative voters would have been more in line with the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats would have been more in line with the NDP, given that both wanted a "stronger economy and a fairer society", stronger economy taken to mean deficit reduction.

    That's a rough guide, but the only real differences between Labour and the Liberal Democrats today are on public ownership and austerity: as far as I'm aware, the NDP did not want to bring large sectors of the Canadian economy into public ownership (in fact, they explicitly "left this behind" in 2011, in their shift to neoliberalism, which very strikingly resembles Tony Blair's actions in purging socialist ideas from the Labour party's constitution), and the NDP agree with the Liberal Democrats on deficit reduction.

    At the last election, apart from on specific policy issues such as reducing tuition fees by £3000, there was essentially no difference between Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Could have been worse. We could have got Mulclair.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)

    Somebody doesn't have a clue about Canadian politics.
    But quite honestly WTF does? Canadian politics is about as interesting as watching paint dry even at Federal level. At provincial level it's too awful to consider. If you really are considering suicide I suggest watching the Saskatchewan legislature in session on TV. If you had any doubts about going through with it before you won't after watching five minutes of that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    So banded tax rates are leftist in your opinion?
    No.
    So what is your point about the top rate of income tax?

    Prior to this policy commitment, there was a 29% tax for those earning over 138,500 CAN$. This new policy is hardly radically additive, or in any way innovative to the existing tax system. And it isn't leftist, since the (UK) Liberal Democrats, a centrist party, supported Labour's additional 50% income tax

    As said, this is about moving Canada back to the centre ground after quite a long period of a government on the right.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    You are being "economical with the truth." Or just don't know it, I don't know which.What you are referring to is the new Federal Tax Band of 33%, and comparing that to UKIP's proposed top rate of 40% starting at £55,000 (plus NI). What you are not including are taxes levied by the Provinces in addition.
    And we have local taxes in the form of council tax

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    The Toronto Globe and Mail did the Maths:

    "New Brunswick would be affected the most. The combined top tax rate in New Brunswick would increase to 58.75 per cent, including an increase announced in this year’s provincial budget that raises the rate on incomes above $250,000. Nova Scotia would have the second-highest combined rate at 54 per cent, followed by Ontario at 53.53 per cent, including the provincial surcharge. Quebec’s combined top rate would be 53.3 per cent, followed by 51.37 per cent in PEI, 50.4 per cent in Manitoba and 49.8 per cent in British Columbia."
    No idea where those figures, since they do not correspond with Canada Revenue Agency's own tax scales

    http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    It is not a "leftist takeover" but it is a move to the left.
    It's a move to the centre ground.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    It's an increase in the tax that the top 1% have to pay, though.
    Hardly a preserve of the left. I said said to the other poster, prior to this policy commitment, there was a 29% tax for those earning over 138,500 CAN$. This new policy is hardly radically additive, or in any way innovative to the existing tax system.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    And, it's fallacious to use Britain as a reference point for what is left and right: the Liberal Party were hardly going to hugely increase taxes on the wealthy, were they? But, neither do Labour in Britain: tax rates will only be gradually shifted by the vast majority of parties in any country: Labour currently want to move the top rate of income tax up to 50%, but if the starting point was 30% rather than 45%, then they'd shift it up to maybe 35% or 40%, not 50%.
    Maybe reflecting the fact that Canada wasn't a very left wing country to begin with, thus making the Corbyn comparisons with a mainstream political party there even more ludicrous.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    It's certainly the case that in some parts of Canada, the richest will have to hand over more than 50% of their income. The BBC simply puts it as follows: "richer Canadians can expect to face a higher tax bill, handing over more than half their income in combined federal and provincial taxes."

    I don't just make things up.
    No idea how BBC came to that conclusion. The Canada Revenue Agency's own banding figures don't tally with the BBC's conclusion.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    The Conservatives were widely criticised for doing essentially nothing on climate change
    Neither did the precedent government of the, er, Liberal Party. So lefty of it obviously.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Left-wing simply means favouring social equality as opposed to social hierarchy and social inequality.
    Yes.

    The left want equality of outcome
    The centre want equality of opportunity
    The right don't care about equality

    (Original post by viddy9)
    So, feminism is a fairly left-wing position to take.
    If it is feminism that leads to breaking down the structures that keep women down and stops them from reaching positions of power, thus giving them equality of opportunity, then it is a centrist position.

    If it is feminism that puts women in positions of power proportionally on parity with men, then it is equality if outcome, and a leftist position.

    The Liberal Party are committed to the former.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Again, though, I described the Liberal Party as liberal-left, which is what the original poster did too.
    And you are both incorrect in doing so.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    True (on the cannabis issue), and both Corbyn and the Liberal Democrats seem to agree that we should at least look into decriminalising cannabis, if not legalising it.
    For every one things you find Corbyn taking a liberal position on, you will find him taking many many more things he is taking an authoritarian position on.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Well, as I've already demonstrated, the Liberals want to increase the welfare given to the elderly and invest in healthcare, which you specifically stated was a no-growth area.
    It's very insignificant compared to the bulk of spending which is earmarked for growth sectors (infrastructure and investment in skills and the young)

    (Original post by viddy9)
    The Liberal Democrats who signed up to massive spending cuts and were prepared to implement further austerity? I don't think so.
    They most certainly are centre ground.

    The Liberal Democrats came into power - as a small minority player within a Conservative coalition - against a backdrop of;
    -13 years of Labour government
    -an enormous and unsustainable public spending deficit.

    It was therefore natural that in taking the position of the centre ground from a precedent left wing government and the need for deficit reduction to avoid catastrophe, that they would support cuts. Indeed, even as a small player, they were able to provide some steer on the nature of the cuts, with cuts likely to leads to inequality of opportunity avoided. That's Liberalism for you.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Labour want to double healthcare spending and print money? Both of those claims are false.
    Jeremy Corbyn has made claims of doubling the NHS's income http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33772024

    And his "people's" quantitative easing is just that; printing money.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    My point simply is that people who support the policies of the current Labour administration, including myself, would have been more in line with the Liberals
    Three issues

    One, there is (fortunately) no Labour administration, and highly unlikely to be one under the current leadership.

    Second, you may identify with the Canadian Liberals, but that may be because you are a Liberal, as so many sensible people from both the Labour and (UK) Conservative parties are. They just don't realise it.

    Third, Blairite voters may have voted Liberal and NDP. Corbynite voters would probably vote Communist Party. In fact the Communist Party policies look very similar to Corbyn's (energy and transport nationalisation, increase tax on business, state housebuilding, raising minimum wage, distancing from US hegemony, oppose free trade). None of these feature in the Liberal Party's commitments, and are all the sorts of things that Corbynistas would love (admittedly, state housebuilding is the only sensible one)

    (Original post by viddy9)
    ; Conservative voters would have been more in line with the Conservatives,
    Some Conservative voters here yes, but there are many Conservative voters here who are not that right wing, they are just scared of Labour (and false claims of SNP coalitions) that they vote Conservative because of a weak centre ground party (the Liberal Democrats).

    But all UKIP voters would be voting for the (Canada) Conservatives

    (Original post by viddy9)
    and the Liberal Democrats would have been more in line with the NDP, given that both wanted a "stronger economy and a fairer society", stronger economy taken to mean deficit reduction.
    Nope. The NDP is supported by labour unions. Whilst some voters wouldn't know the difference, the core Liberal Democrat vote would not vote for a union backed party, and they would loose their activist base if it was the case

    (Original post by viddy9)
    That's a rough guide, but the only real differences between Labour and the Liberal Democrats today are on public ownership and austerity
    Absolute nonsense.

    The Labour Party are authoritarian, left wing and financed by labour unions and party members (corporate donations are no more)

    The Liberal Democrats are liberal, centrist, and financed through party members, traditional fundraising and limited corporate donations

    The two parties are worlds apart on so many issues.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    : as far as I'm aware, the NDP did not want to bring large sectors of the Canadian economy into public ownership (in fact, they explicitly "left this behind" in 2011, in their shift to neoliberalism, which very strikingly resembles Tony Blair's actions in purging socialist ideas from the Labour party's constitution)
    Yes, the NDP are similar to Blairite Labour (a wing of the party that is being successfully purged)

    (Original post by viddy9)
    and the NDP agree with the Liberal Democrats on deficit reduction.
    That seems to be the only similarity.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    At the last election, apart from on specific policy issues such as reducing tuition fees by £3000, there was essentially no difference between Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
    Then you weren't paying attention
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    So what is your point about the top rate of income tax?

    My point is that in your original post you misunderstood how the Canadian income tax system works. There are two different forms of tax on income, (which varies province by province) and you only provided data on the Federal component.

    Clearly this is not a meaningful comparison with our (non federal) system. To do that you have to add the two together as the source I quoted did. (Together with adding some disparate Provincial "Surchages" and the like).

    You also made no allowance, in your original comment, for the qualitative and quantitative differences in the two country's budgetary circumstances. We spent over a hundred billion more than was raised in taxation last year, nearly 6% of GDP. Canada collected more tax revenue than the Government spent.

    That explains why UKIP have to be cautious in advocating tax cuts, presently, desirable though they would be.
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    No idea where those figures, since they do not correspond with Canada Revenue Agency's own tax scales

    http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html
    This is where they came from.


    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle24263994/
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    It's a move to the centre ground.
    Wealth taxes on the highest earners are a left wing measure. Whichever way you try to spin it.

    Whatever. I'm done with this colloquy. I'll leave readers of this thread to decide whether leaving the rich with just over 40 cents in every Dollar earned (in some Provinces) is a centre ground, UKIPesque policy, or not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    My point is that in your original post you misunderstood how the Canadian income tax system works. There are two different forms of tax on income, (which varies province by province) and you only provided data on the Federal component.

    Clearly this is not a meaningful comparison with our (non federal) system. To do that you have to add the two together as the source I quoted did. (Together with adding some disparate Provincial "Surchages" and the like).
    Er, I included the Provincial Taxes in my response to claims that some Canadians will be paying more than half their income in tax, hence the distinction of a small number of sparely populated provinces with top rates of income tax above 17% (thus pushing combined federal and provincial tax above 50%), indicating also that people would have to be earning significantly more than 200,000 CAN$ before paying more than half given the lower rate of tax much of their income would be taxed at.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    You also made no allowance, in your original comment, for the qualitative and quantitative differences in the two country's budgetary circumstances. We spent over a hundred billion more than was raised in taxation last year, nearly 6% of GDP. Canada collected more tax revenue than the Government spent.

    That explains why UKIP have to be cautious in advocating tax cuts, presently, desirable though they would be.
    UKIP are quite happy to be candid about what they want to cut. If they wanted to cut budgets in line with their tax cuts, they would. But they don't.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    This is where they came from.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle24263994/
    And here is the data on federal and provincial tax rates that I already provided for you: source being the Canada Revenue Agency (their equivalent of our HMRC)

    http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Wealth taxes on the highest earners are a left wing measure. Whichever way you try to spin it.
    Right, so you are now totally contradicting yourself, since you earlier said here that banded tax rates are not leftist.

    It's fine for you to believe either way, but it would be helpful if you were not flip-flopping all over the place.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Whatever. I'm done with this colloquy. I'll leave readers of this thread to decide whether leaving the rich with just over 40 cents in every Dollar earned (in some Provinces) is a centre ground, UKIPesque policy, or not.
    That's fine, run away

    Even by your own incorrect new rates of combined income tax quoted (New Brunswick, 58.75 %, Nova Scotia 54%), the old rates of federal income tax (at 29% for top rate) would have meant they could already have been paying more than 50% of their income in tax......under a right wing conservative government! So much for the alleged "leftist" Liberal Party
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)

    That's fine, run away

    Don't be childish.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Hardly a preserve of the left. I said said to the other poster, prior to this policy commitment, there was a 29% tax for those earning over 138,500 CAN$. This new policy is hardly radically additive, or in any way innovative to the existing tax system.
    Neither is raising income tax by 5% on the richest in society (Labour's current policy)

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Maybe reflecting the fact that Canada wasn't a very left wing country to begin with, thus making the Corbyn comparisons with a mainstream political party there even more ludicrous.
    Once again, I'm talking about which party people in this country would have voted for out of the three serious contenders, and I maintain that current Labour supporters would have voted for the Liberals; current Liberal Democrats would have voted for the NDP and current Conservatives would have voted for the Conservatives.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    No idea how BBC came to that conclusion. The Canada Revenue Agency's own banding figures don't tally with the BBC's conclusion.
    According to Canada's Globe and Mail: "New Brunswick would be affected the most. The combined top tax rate in New Brunswick would increase to 58.75 per cent, including an increase announced in this year’s provincial budget that raises the rate on incomes above $250,000. Nova Scotia would have the second-highest combined rate at 54 per cent, followed by Ontario at 53.53 per cent, including the provincial surcharge. Quebec’s combined top rate would be 53.3 per cent, followed by 51.37 per cent in PEI, 50.4 per cent in Manitoba and 49.8 per cent in British Columbia"

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    The left want equality of outcome; The centre want equality of opportunity; The right don't care about equality
    Your rigid definitions of left, right and centre are hilarious, and ignore the fact that inequality of outcome leads to more inequality of opportunity.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    For every one things you find Corbyn taking a liberal position on, you will find him taking many many more things he is taking an authoritarian position on.
    Incorrect, but I'd dare you to give us some examples anyway.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    It's very insignificant compared to the bulk of spending which is earmarked for growth sectors (infrastructure and investment in skills and the young)
    Shifting the goalposts to suit your own preconceived viewpoint. Sigh.

    If you could share the figures with us concerning the spending earmarked for growth and non-growth sectors, that would be nice. Thanks.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    The Liberal Democrats came into power - as a small minority player within a Conservative coalition - against a backdrop of;
    -13 years of Labour government
    -an enormous and unsustainable public spending deficit.
    Irrelevant. Instead of accepting basic macroeconomics, which demonstrates that higher public spending and investment during a recession is the tried-and-tested method of increasing confidence and reducing deficit-to-GDP ratios, the Liberal Democrats consciously accepted the mutterings of a fringe group of free-market fundamentalists, which called for ordinary people to pay the price for a financial crisis caused by the financial sector.


    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Jeremy Corbyn has made claims of doubling the NHS's income http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33772024 And his "people's" quantitative easing is just that; printing money.
    Neither of these policies have been adopted by Labour.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Second, you may identify with the Canadian Liberals, but that may be because you are a Liberal, as so many sensible people from both the Labour and (UK) Conservative parties are. They just don't realise it.
    Nope, I'm certainly not a liberal, but the Liberals were offering the best platform as opposed to the NDP-Conservative neoliberal orthodoxy.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Nope. The NDP is supported by labour unions. Whilst some voters wouldn't know the difference, the core Liberal Democrat vote would not vote for a union backed party, and they would loose their activist base if it was the case.
    When their policy agenda is similar, I doubt it would make much difference.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    The Labour Party are authoritarian, left wing and financed by labour unions and party members (corporate donations are no more)
    Authoritarian? No more so than the Liberal Democrats. In fact, under Corbyn, Labour will promote democracy in the workplace, more workers' self-management, and so on.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Then you weren't paying attention
    So what was significantly different, apart from specific policy issues, about Labour and the Lib Dems at the last election? A broad agenda such as deficit reduction is a massive similarity between the Lib Dems, Miliband's Labour and Mulclair's NDP, because it refers to your overall economic plan.

    Gimmicks like energy price freezes and reducing tuition fees really don't count as substantial differences. When Nick Clegg went up against Harriet Harman in PMQs, it was striking that, when Harman criticised him for backing the bedroom tax, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the rise in tuition fees, Clegg chose to respond by condemning Labour as "the party of 40p [tax], sweetheart deals in the NHS, the party of Fred Goodwin, and the party against apprenticeships".

    Indeed, Clegg was nostalgic for the pre-2010 era, when there were actually dividing lines between Labour and the Lib Dems on the Iraq war, civil liberties, tuition fees, electoral reform, tax, banking regulation and NHS privatisation.

    Labour and the Lib Dems also both wanted a mix of tax rises and spending cuts to reduce the deficit. As for other issues, they overlapped substantially:

    - A referendum on EU membership the next time any powers are transferred (and support for an "in" vote)

    - The introduction of a mansion tax on property values above £2m

    - The reduction of the voting age to 16

    - The removal of Winter Fuel Payments from wealthy pensioners

    - A 2030 decarbonisation target

    - An elected House of Lords

    - Greater oversight of the intelligence services

    - Radical devolution from Westminster to local authorities and city regions

    - Party funding reform

    - An end to unqualified teachers in state schools

    - A ban on for-profit free schools

    - Tougher banking regulation and the potential separation of banks' retail and investment arms

    - A mass housebuilding programme, including new social housing

    - The Human Rights Act
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Neither is raising income tax by 5% on the richest in society (Labour's current policy)
    "Current policy" as in the one set under Miliband, or "current policy" under Corbyn. Since your figure there is from Miliband's Labour. Corbyn has indicated he would be happy to go higher.

    Also bear in mind (as has already been pointed out to you) that the gap between the top rate and bottom rate of federal income tax will be 17% in Canada (15-33%). This compares to "current policy" (Miliband) in UK Labour which would be 40% (10-50%). And who knows under Corbyn, but he's made his views known.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Once again, I'm talking about which party people in this country would have voted for out of the three serious contenders, and I maintain that current Labour supporters would have voted for the Liberals; current Liberal Democrats would have voted for the NDP and current Conservatives would have voted for the Conservatives.
    Most Liberal Democrats would not have voted for NDP

    Blairite/Brownite/Miliband Labour voters would have voted for either NDP or Liberal

    Corbynite Labour voters (and a lot of new Green voters) would have voted Communist Party.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    According to Canada's Globe and Mail: "New Brunswick would be affected the most. The combined top tax rate in New Brunswick would increase to 58.75 per cent, including an increase announced in this year’s provincial budget that raises the rate on incomes above $250,000. Nova Scotia would have the second-highest combined rate at 54 per cent, followed by Ontario at 53.53 per cent, including the provincial surcharge. Quebec’s combined top rate would be 53.3 per cent, followed by 51.37 per cent in PEI, 50.4 per cent in Manitoba and 49.8 per cent in British Columbia"
    This doesn't correspond with Canada Revenue Agency

    http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Your rigid definitions of left, right and centre are hilarious
    ,

    Then provide what you think sum up the left, centre and right's position on equality.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    and ignore the fact that inequality of outcome leads to more inequality of opportunity.
    Now that's hilarious and indicates how little you've thought about this subject.

    The reason that the left/socialist's quest for equality of outcome is so ridiculous, is that it ignores that the causes for some inequality lies in individual choice, innate ability, and genetics, meaning that equality of outcome is always inevitable (save extremely authoritarian measures)

    Tackling inequality of opportunity is about removing the causes for inequality that arise from societal structures, usually economic and discrimination but also include a whole load of other social issues (including things that negatively influence many individual choices and abilities). This leads to a reduction of inequality of outcome, but recognises it can never be eliminated.

    This is why whenever there is some sort of inequality identified, the left always looks for the social causes (thus warranting state intervention) and the conservative right always looks for genetic/choice causes (thus warranting the state to wash it's hand of the issue). Problem is the left purses the inequality even when the remedial social actions have reduced it as much as is feasible (and in the process wasting a lot of money and unnecessarily centralising things). And the right ignores the inequality even when there are some actions that could be taken to improve individuals' opportunities.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Incorrect, but I'd dare you to give us some examples anyway.
    He opposes fox hunting. He supports the public smoking ban. He opposes free trade agreements. Has always wanted the centralisation of the control of schools. He opposed greater transparency of external lobbying on elected officials.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Shifting the goalposts to suit your own preconceived viewpoint. Sigh.

    If you could share the figures with us concerning the spending earmarked for growth and non-growth sectors, that would be nice. Thanks.
    Well the direct mail sent from the Liberal Party in Toronto used the headline of 20 billion CAN$ a year during the 3 years of planned deficit to fund infrastructure (this policy was seen as what won it for the Liberals). Since the deficit is not to exceed 10 billion CAN$ annually, it's safe to say where the deficit money is going.

    Since you believe that this money is going into non-growth areas, the impetus is on you to prove that.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Irrelevant. Instead of accepting basic macroeconomics, which demonstrates that higher public spending and investment during a recession is the tried-and-tested method of increasing confidence and reducing deficit-to-GDP ratios
    There are a number of reasons why expanding public sector spending in that recession wasn't sustainable, and just "doing what has been done before" wasn't going to work. Previous recessions did not occur in the context of such entrenched structural inefficiencies that were going to hold back investment and economic activity. More importantly, previous recessions occurred in the context of assured Western dominance within the global economy, meaning that any spending now would definitely be able to be paid off further down the line when the economy "recovers" and the good years returned; the rise of and competitiveness BRICS are very much a "threat" to this happening again, and there is now MINT behind that as well.

    What happened in Greece is evidence of what would happen without a change in trajectory of public spending and structural inefficiencies. And now, Greece wasn't ruined by the troika, it was ruined by it's own actions.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    the Liberal Democrats consciously accepted the mutterings of a fringe group of free-market fundamentalists, which called for ordinary people to pay the price for a financial crisis caused by the financial sector.
    The latter part is actually partially true. Yes ordinary people (as part of the whole population) had to pay the price for the financial crisis caused by the financial sector. That's what happens in real life. A crisis I may add caused by deregulation of and reliance on the sector that the Labour Party continued and cheerlead during the 90s and 00s.

    Where your post lacks truth is your claim that the minority status of the Liberal Democrats within the coalition was irrelevant to how austerity was implemented.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Neither of these policies have been adopted by Labour.
    And what policies have been adopted by Labour post May? Oh nothing, because the new leader has barely been sitting at the helm. It's very disingenuous to separate what Jeremy Corbyn wants to do with what is Labour policy at this stage, given the process by which things become official policy within the Labour party takes time.

    It's very disingenuous to start talking about Corbyn's Labour (as if it is was different from Milliband's Labour), but then hiding behind the fact that Labour's "current policies" are all from the Milliband era to distance yourself from what Corbyn says he wants to do.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Nope, I'm certainly not a liberal
    So you're more of an authoritarian?

    Tell me then, why do you support the legalisation of cannabis? And do you support the smoking ban and ban on fox hunting?

    (Original post by viddy9)
    but the Liberals were offering the best platform as opposed to the NDP-Conservative neoliberal orthodoxy.
    But since you love Corbyn, surely the Canadian Communist Party would have been what suited your views? If not, why not?

    (Original post by viddy9)
    When their policy agenda is similar, I doubt it would make much difference.
    There is, because policy agendas before elections are different from behaviours in government. Genuine liberals are disconcerted by the way that trade unions retain a lever on a potential party in government, no matter what they say to try and get elected. And evidence points to the discomfort being justified.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Authoritarian? No more so than the Liberal Democrats.
    How are the Liberal Democrats authoritarian?

    (Original post by viddy9)
    In fact, under Corbyn, Labour will promote democracy in the workplace, more workers' self-management, and so on.
    Yep, so stopping directors (who are responsible to the board/shareholders/owner) from being able to run the business, i.e stop business from being able to function. That's not liberal.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    So what was significantly different, apart from specific policy issues, about Labour and the Lib Dems at the last election? A broad agenda such as deficit reduction is a massive similarity between the Lib Dems, Miliband's Labour and Mulclair's NDP, because it refers to your overall economic plan

    Gimmicks like energy price freezes and reducing tuition fees really don't count as substantial differences. When Nick Clegg went up against Harriet Harman in PMQs, it was striking that, when Harman criticised him for backing the bedroom tax, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the rise in tuition fees, Clegg chose to respond by condemning Labour as "the party of 40p [tax], sweetheart deals in the NHS, the party of Fred Goodwin, and the party against apprenticeships".

    Indeed, Clegg was nostalgic for the pre-2010 era, when there were actually dividing lines between Labour and the Lib Dems on the Iraq war, civil liberties, tuition fees, electoral reform, tax, banking regulation and NHS privatisation.

    Labour and the Lib Dems also both wanted a mix of tax rises and spending cuts to reduce the deficit. As for other issues, they overlapped substantially:

    - A referendum on EU membership the next time any powers are transferred (and support for an "in" vote)

    - The introduction of a mansion tax on property values above £2m

    - The reduction of the voting age to 16

    - The removal of Winter Fuel Payments from wealthy pensioners

    - A 2030 decarbonisation target

    - An elected House of Lords

    - Greater oversight of the intelligence services

    - Radical devolution from Westminster to local authorities and city regions

    - Party funding reform

    - An end to unqualified teachers in state schools

    - A ban on for-profit free schools

    - Tougher banking regulation and the potential separation of banks' retail and investment arms

    - A mass housebuilding programme, including new social housing

    - The Human Rights Act
    The Liberal Democrats were different from the Labour on these issues
    -civil liberties, for which Labour made no credible stand for
    -commitment to the European Union, for which Labour is inconsistent (with it's current leader appearing very much on the eurosceptic side of things): in addition, the Liberal Democrats did not want a referendum on membership
    -immigration, for which the Liberal Democrats are in favour of, and which we all know Labour was not (in its pandering to UKIP)
    -welfare, for which Labour are far more generous on

    These are all very significant areas. I imagine there would be differences in detail across all fields if you were so inclined to compare. Notwithstanding the core values difference, namely that the Liberal Democrats are a liberal party, and Labour are more authoritarian, as well as the discussion further up regarding equality

    It also needs to be noted that parties always move towards the centre ground in the run up to a general election to capture swing voters. Parties are better judged by what they do outside these cycles.
 
 
 
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.