These are issues that really matter, and there are bright engaged committed people in all the other parties, but they can’t break out of this partisan straightjacket which really is the enemy of democracy. We have to face it and reduce the power of organized political parties, because five of them can run rough shod during an election, but once their MPs have formed government, that political party structure should back off and let MPs work together to come up with the best possible solutions.

She’s right here. I know it’s tough to have a stable Parliamentary government without the idea that you don’t vote against party lines, but the British system gives MPs more freedom and I think it would be valuable if ours did more of the same. It doesn’t seem healthy to have 308 MPs representing 4 points of view. If party discipline wasn’t as rigid I think May would make a fine New Democrat – I’ve read their platform and I’ve read ours and there’s not a lot of difference.

I approve of her rejection of Milton Friedman, the interviewer had me scared there for a second. I’m not sure about the Guaranteed Livable Income idea – the real question is whether you’d save the money on reducing bureaucracy that you’d lose on giving money to a whole lot of people who don’t need it.

I like that she’s a fan of Steve Nash; he spoke at my elementary school once, before he was really famous.

I’m guessing the Great Man Theory and the Theory of Social Forces are the two different ways of looking at history – I’m impressed she had a quick answer for that one, sort of an opposite-of-Palin moment. Honestly, when our fifth parties are better than America’s first parties….

Ha, Tommy Douglas as greatest Canadian! Knew she was a New Democrat at heart.

I can’t speak to the situation in Vancouver Centre, but Cascadian has a good point. The Green Party can be very interesting, as there seems to be a little more freedom of opinion than in the other main parties.