Derek 2.0

No more than the past weeks suggestion that the death of the young boy was at the feet of the Tories/Harper/Alexander

More telling:

And latest from EKOS: It goes on to suggest that Harper's drowning of Syrian children on Turkish beaches has given him a bump: As I said above about firm party bases to build upon.........

I don't know, aside from those polls posted here or on the front page of several news sites I go to, I pay little attention to public, private polling......Poll standings are of little importance, understanding what drives polls, the what for and why, is the key to electoral victory.

I largely agree....One, as shown by Nanos several days ago, I doubt the Tories were in the dank basement, inversely, I doubt the Tories have seen a 6-7% surge in under a week.

The actual numbers in various polls mean little to me, but this number will be key in a tight race closer to election day: All parties, like a building, require a firm base on which to build upon........

Last night's Nanos tracking:

From your link: To suggest UKIP played a key role in the outcome is akin to saying the Green's influence heavily here..........

UKIP (a right of center party) paid little on Labour's demise, and was expected to bleed the Tories vote share (which it did to an extent). Labour lost its base in Scotland to a surge in the SNP (despite the previous year's no vote), which is attributed to Labour having to downplay Tory attacks (started by Crosby) that Labour would topple the Government and sign a pact with Scottish separatists, forcing Labour (rooted in Scotland) to campaign against Scottish interests. Furthermore, such notions of a Labour/SNP Government, forced Liberal-Democrat voters (in Wales and in the South-West of England) to vote Tory blue, forgoing their previous support as Cameron's junior partner in his previous Government..........this, coupled with humanizing Cameron in the last several weeks and precision wedges in each constituency the Tories had a chance of gaining and the result was clear. The Tories didn't get "lucky", as it was a thought out strategy by Crosby, who's own internal polling predicted a ~305-333 seat win, despite private polling saying a weak minority (at best) going right up to election day........ Right of center parties pay Crosby close to a million dollars for several weeks/months work for a reason.....

Truth is stranger than fiction.........enter the Wizard of Oz........Crosby turned an expected Labour minority, supported by the SNP, into the Cameron majority inside a month.

By speeding up the process you mean the influx of ~100000 Vietnamese refugees settled in Canada from the end of the Vietnam war in 1975 through to ~1985? Likewise, why would their have been "filthy commies" fleeing their workers paradise?

Right, like they did with their successful campaign in Chechnya and the North Caucasus region.........but only on an expeditionary scale into Syria like their past war in Afghanistan

Might as well.........as neither Mulcair or Trudeau have yet to offer any details on how they would speed-up said process.

Where have they done so, and where do said officials come from? Do they propose pulling CIC/CBSA agents from other visa centers, hence reducing the process from other regions in the World?

I don't think the retired General's sentiments are wrong, but (like Trudeau and Mulcair) has yet to explain how the current process can be cut down by all most 2/3rds the time, with 5xs the proposed refugees............Likewise, I disagree with your assessment on his credentials, Hillier's opinion would carry more weight if the discussion was involving a peacemaking operation in Iraq/Syria, but it clearly is not.........hence, until a senior/former member of the RCMP/CSIS/CBSA/CIC explains how the process could be sped up to meet such lofty goals, I'll differ to the present process timeline as highlighted above from CIC.

Ahhh no, its quite accurate: Where are these resources? CIC states it takes upwards of a year+ to process a refugee. Political will does not equate to good public policy.

Good points, added to this key point from the radical CBC I feel we should equate the current refugee crisis with that of homelessness. With homelessness, as a society, our varying levels of Government use a given portion of our tax dollars to fund social programs to help alleviate some of the symptoms, this we could equate to foreign aid. Though we might quibble on the amount spent (or not spent), I would assume most would agree with the practice on principle. On top of taxpayer funded relief for homelessness, I would also assume, many of us also contribute through various avenues out of pocket, be it donations to the Salvation Army bins or the local food hamper, up to large cash donations to various charities like the United Way. Furthermore, a lesser percentage of us may actually even donate time, be it through the local soup kitchen or other such groups. This we could equate to private donations to charities or joining one of the various aid groups like Red Cross or MSF to help make a difference. This brings us to accepting refugees into our country…………I doubt very much there are many of us that are so pious to suggest that they take in homeless people themselves….some do, and they are deserving of praise. But I doubt very many would ever consider the notion sans some semblance of a screening process, let alone accept homeless folks from an area in the community ridden with street crime….But we should be prepared to bring in thousands of refugees at a drop of a hat, from a war torn region, that breeds an ideology that teaches them to hate us…………brilliant. Now several media sources are reporting that several extremists have been arrested among the refugees.........I don't know how accurate the reports are, but it all boils down to the law of averages.........all it would take is just .25% of the presumptive 10000/25000 refugees to adhere to radical Islam to equal ~20-60 possible terrorists brought into Canada..........That is not to say we shouldn't bring in refugees, but they do need extensive screening prior, and the NDP/Liberal policy of bringing them here first, than sorting them out, is nothing more than putting partisan politics ahead of sound public policy.......

Interesting look on how tiny Jordan is able to cope with the Syrian refugee crisis: The creation of "safe zones" for refugees, inside Syria, along the Jordanian border, protected by the Royal Jordanian Air Force and armed Syrian refugees is notable.........further still, such a force has been able to fend off both Assad's forces and ISIL is better still... As it goes onto say: The diplomatic issues with Turkey are clear....they don't like Kurds.......The solution, we aid in setting up similar "safe zones" along the Northern Iraqi-Syrian border, in Kurdish controlled regions......If the Turks can't be resolved with this notion (i.e. they start attacking said region), we revert back to what T.E. Lawrence did nearly 100 years ago for the Arabs in their fight against the Ottomans (Turks).....We provide them (field) guns......better said, instead of the current policy of providing small arms, we up the ante to include heavy weapons and training in their operation, weapons that wouldn't defeat the Turks, but make them uncomfortable......I think just the threat of such a notion would force the Turks to cease their current attacks against the Kurdish populations.... .....well addressing another major cause of the Syrian diaspora.

Vietnam is hardly an ally of Communist China.....

Yes, the West is fighting ISIS/ISIL........Syria is fighting ISIS/ISIL, in addition to non aligned groups, like other Muslims and Kurds attempting to overthrow the Assad regime........And from your link, the Americans are concerned with Russia supplying Assad because: Such groups would be the Kurdish Peshmerga for example.....

Troll? That's odd, I thought this was a discussion board, furthermore you responded to my post..........I suppose your cited Westphalian doctrine isn't worth discussing after all.

Is it silly to ask for clarification for ones own point of view? Your bespoken principle of Westphalian sovereignty further precludes all forms of intervention, including humanitarian aid........following this principle, if Assad refused humanitarian aid for his self defined opponents, be they political/religious/ethnic groups etc within his country we would be forced to oblige. Likewise, if Assad demanded all Syrian refugees be extradited back to Syria to face charges of State treason, terrorism, apostasy etc here too we would be forced to oblige......... That seems rather silly.........

So you're in agreement with the Western military assistance afforded to the Government of Iraq? Inversely, if the Assad regime requests further assistance from Russia in quelling the Syrian civil war, that too would be ok with you? I find it odd that you refer to a 17th century treaty, whose signatories spent the ensuing time since fighting each other and involving themselves in each others civil wars.........

And an opinion piece from the Toronto Star: A case to "whip out our CF-188s" even further over the skies of Syria? So, to save potentially millions more Syrians, including small children like Alan Kurdi, should the West, including Canada, broaden the current mission, to not only include targeting ISIS on the ground in Syria and Iraq, but also the Syrian Assad regime's air force? One possible hitch in such a plan though........ So to prevent a growing humanitarian crisis, do we start engaging the Assad regime, with the chance we could also face off against the Russians?