It is a season in which even the most jaded observers of federal politics can only look on in slack-jawed, googly-eyed wonder. Here is a press release from the NDP web site:
Liberals on board with Conservative tax hikes: Despite publicly opposing the Conservatives’ HST plan, Michael
Ignatieff is now endorsing it. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty
confirmed today that Ignatieff has guaranteed that the federal Liberals
will follow through with the highly unpopular plan should they form the
next government.
Ignatieff is now endorsing it. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty
confirmed today that Ignatieff has guaranteed that the federal Liberals
will follow through with the highly unpopular plan should they form the
next government.
Yes, dear reader, you understood correctly. The federal NDP has decided that the cause of social democracy will be advanced by positioning itself as the anti-tax party.
Could someone who is acquainted with the people who wrote that press release please direct their attention to these posts?
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative 
You just don’t understand politics at all.
Your posts for the NDP have highlighted, IMHO, one of the great shortcomings of the (academic/public) economics profession.
Perhaps economists just “don’t understand politics at all”, but the inability to explain the costs and benefits of economic policy to the voting public is embarrassing. Economists from all over the political spectrum have endorsed combinations of non-distortionary taxes and targeted income transfers, but both are insanely unpopular. I blame economists for this. Ive enjoyed Stephen’s posts for the NDP, but they have also highlighted the gap between sound economic policy and the political discourse in this country.
I apologize if this post came across as pompous “I know whats best”, that was not my intention. It just honestly seems that some of these themes have been repeated ad nauseam by economists without ever entering the public discussion.
Mankiw had a similar post(http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/06/on-inequality.html), and im sure that there are many other examples floating around but its too early for my brain.
I dunno – we may just be in a bad equilibrium. Have you read the post “The anatomy of anti-economics“, where I quote a passage from Paul Krugman on that point?
Yah stephen it is real mystery why a party that had been tarred and feathered with the missive of “tax and spend” now sits on the other irrational side of the spectrum. Please confront something we don’t already lament but understand.
They should wear the tar and feathers with pride. The case for increased taxes and spending is just sitting there, waiting for someone to make it.
Somebody is making it – you’re just focused on the wrong people.
Stephen:
I’m not sure what you mean when you say the NDP is positioning itself as an anti-tax party. The HST is, in effect, a tax break for capital intensive businesses, yes? Also, I think the NDP suspects the productivity gains from the HST will mainly accrue to the top income groups, as has happened in the US over the past 15 years or so. I am in favour of the HST, but I can see why the NDP isnt.
Mike: Point taken. I think I’m going to have to pay closer attention to the Greens next election.
Matthew: I was reacting mostly to the title the NDP chose for its press release. In seven words, we have Liberal=Conservative=tax increases=bad. At least, I’m pretty sure from the phrasing that we’re supposed to infer that they’re bad.
Politically this is not hard to understand. The NDP is going after NDP-Reform swing voters. It’s called populism.
It’s not even clear that the result will be bad policy. One response to an effective opposition campaign could be to sweeten the deal for lower income people.
The NDP has struggled for decades with the notion that it is basically just a pro-tax party. Every election it is pilloried as “the party that will raise your taxes.” Is it really that hard to believe that the NDP would try to capitalize on the fact that it happens to be on the anti-tax side this time?
Nor is this new. For a long time the NDP has contended that expanded social programs can be paid for largely with taxes on higher incomes, and that taxes for the low-income should be cut or eliminated. You may question the accuracy of this belief, but not its sincerity.
It is true the the countries with the best welfare systems don’t usually have particularly progressive tax systems. Those New Democrats who are aware of this tend to place the blame on conservative parties in those countries.
Those new Democrats would be wrong to do so. They should read those posts I refer to.
Not having a two Party system is a big advantage in educating voters. For starters if you own the MSM you can’t attack everyone and like in the election Leader’s Debates you can gang up on the bully if necessary. Bound to have a friend or family member force some NDP ideas into the conversation at dinner or work. The only happens in America during their election Primaries, otherwise their viewpoint tends to be Cold War binary says this thesis.
I think Stephen that New Democrats are privately more sympathetic to your ideas than you give them credit for. Most would like nothing better than to replicate the Swedish model in Canada. But Canadians simply won’t accept taxes of 48% of GDP, not even if they get Swedish social services in return. Indeed, the NDP has remained a distant also-ran for its 75-year history to a large degree because of the public’s fear that it will raise taxes to European levels.
Canadians will accept taxes around 33% of GDP or so. Higher than that, and anti-tax platforms become an invincible electoral formula. The NDP, believe it or not, does recognize this. It has been a long time since the NDP openly called for European levels of social services. They have placed far their energy instead on reforming the tax system in a progressive direction. That arguably makes sense given the political constraints of Canada.
That’s not how I see it. The Nordic model makes use of low corporate taxes and high consumption taxes, and the NDP has consistently marched away from this model.
I can’t believe that this is some sort of strategic retreat; it’s much more likely that this reflects a stubborn refusal to learn anything from anyone. Or to even talk to anyone outside its own circle.