> That's literally Trudeau in a nutshell. He has done every one of those. Good. That's sensible social policy for any developed nation. If the Liberals weren't

> That's literally Trudeau in a nutshell. He has done every one of those. Good. That's sensible social policy for any developed nation. If the Liberals weren't in the wilderness in the early 2010s they should have done those things then as well. They felt overdue in 2015. While I can't debate the high-level ideals of the first paragraph of the New Left article, its examples of student movements and grassroots activism don't seem like the sort of thing types like Trudeau, Friedland, or Morneau would associate with. The Federal Liberals are far too pro-business and pro-establishment. > I find it quite difficult to see anything in that list that Trudeau stands for. Really? I think the Federal Liberals' attitudes tend to be closer to those ideals than their opposition. The SoCon base of the Tories seem a lot less keen on secularism, individual rights, and freedom of speech. > He's not a Liberal. That's the clear confusion. Yes Chretien and others were liberals. I agree with you, I don't think Trudeau's a liberal. I don't think him, Chrétien, or the Federal Liberals are ideologically that much liberals either. I think they're incredibly centrist and are interested in popular policies that strike them as good government. The good things about that include Medicare in the 60s and fiscal reform in the 90s. The bad things include security theatre like the recent firearm legislation. If you're less inclined to realpolitik and more principled about something you'll likely end up with the Conservatives, NDP, or Greens. > If anything, this is worse than the NDP. What makes you feel that way? I feel like the Federal NDP would have a different paradigm towards spending than the Liberals. Their 2019 didn't even entertain the idea of a balanced budget.