Well, obviously I disagree with just about everything you have written. Obviously fearmongering from the other side of things.
- I've been supporting the NDP on and off since Broadbent (I have voted Green a number of times as well), so where Layton got his health care doesn't impact how I feel about the party and its platform as a whole. Also, Layton didn't know the clinic was for profit when he went there... the procedure went on OHIP.
BS. If you're the leader of a national party, which Mr. Layton was in 2006... you tend to keep track of things. I could see if it was well before then... but that would still make him a hypocrite. He just wanted treatment for his family ASAP. I don't blame him for that. I do blame him for trying to prevent everyone else from that.
- You claim the NDP's environmental policies will cause job losses and ruin the economy, but give no factual basis for this. Typical for fearmongering.
What you call fearmongering, I call likely end result based on economics and corporate behavior. What do companies do when costs escalate? Sacrifice profit? Not if they have a choice. They first cut costs. Most companies employ more people than they need. Doesn't help that Layton wants also to raise the federal corporate tax from 15% to 22.12% federally (straight from his platform).
- The NDP do not advocate raising taxes on the middle class. It's right there in their platform. Insinuating that they would do so even though it is not in their platform - just typical fearmongering.
I don't see anything about raising taxes, or lowering them. He does say he wants to cut loopholes though. Even so, its all about definitions. In Canada today, someone making $75,769/yr. before tax is in the second highest income bracket. The highest income bracket is $123,184. This has not been the case traditionally. Up until 2001, the highest tax bracket was $60,009. Point is, the NDP could claim they are raising taxes on "the wealthy", but they could always change what "wealthy" means, and what "working class" means, depending on how much money they need. Don't say that's fearmongering, because Layton has said he wants to undo a lot of what Martin and Harper did to the tax system. They definitely did that.
- The NDP do have "monitoring and regulating fuel prices at the pump" but suggesting that this is anything at all akin to the NEP is just fearmongering. His plan is even less stringent that what some provinces are already enacting (see
http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local...n?hub=CP24Home )
Regulating prices is exactly what the NEP officially tried to do though. They established a "Canadian Price" and set it well below the "Market Price." Monitoring? fine, as long as its fair and balanced, and lacking an agenda. I don't think widespread regulation would even be possible under NAFTA anymore. As for those provinces, fill your boots... I'm sure they'll love shortages when the big 3 choose not to service them as much.
- Our banks are strong because they are just rolling in profits. Profits gained by charging people absolutely outrageous ATM fees and monthly banking fees. If they were profitable and strong because of their smart banking, well, yeah, they deserve credit. Suggesting that attacking ATM fees is going to destabilize the economy is just fearmongering.
ATM and banking fees are one thing. They're attacking interest rates, loan rates, etc. Essentially, the NDP want the banks to do exactly what got the US in so much trouble. Essentially, force rates low and requirements to a point where people frivolously take on debt and default. I don't need to fearmonger... want proof that's a bad idea, look to Europe and the US.
- The people that I talk to when I knock on doors are NOT people that "have something to gain from their policies"; most are people like me who want their taxes going to things they believe in like health care and education.
Because people are frustrated... and they have every right to be. Canada has a pretty piss-poor cost effectiveness in both healthcare and education. We are not replacing professionals and skilled tradesmen(and women). However, throwing money at the problem is not the solution. However, spending money sounds good... until one gets the bill.
As for the NDP in Ontario, that was just horrible timing and Bob Rae couldn't please anyone. The Mulroney-John Crow recession was taking a huge bite out of the Canadian economy and Bob Rae tried to spend his way out of it. Stupid. Then towards the end of his term, he tried to make spending cuts and just took an axe to everything, pissing off the traditional supporters. It was certainly a mess, I will agree... but the Mulroney Conservatives and John Crow deserve a heap of the blame for that mess. As for BC and Saskatchewan, they both have had some very good NDP governments - and I would think even you would have to say that Roy Romanow proved that NDP governments can be fiscally responsible.
Of course, Mulroney inherited record debt and spending from Trudeau. It doesn't help the balancebooks when he sent the West into a real recession. Bob Rae still proved the point. Dippers want to spend their way out of crisis, by taking money out of the economy. That is historically diasaterous. Saskatchewan is a funny case. Romanow isn't a typical NDPer, but I'd hardly consider the first chunk of his term to be outstanding.
Personally, I can't believe there isn't more than 20% that support the NDP.