Evening Star

Well, there's this (although it sounds much less exciting to me): http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-mulcair-automotive-jobs-ontario-1.3220598

Yeah, the NDP has been trying really hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I wonder if the NDP will try to shift a little back to the left to distinguish themselves.

I had been convinced that this election would confirm a realignment similar to what happened in the UK in the 1920s, when the once-dominant Liberal Party turned into a boutique third party, leaving a contest between a conservative party and a labour party. If this continues, though, we might end up with a liberal vs labour contest.

Is this still true? I thought they had changed to a one-vote-per-member policy some time ago.

Tbf, all she said was that he has more class than the whole Conservative cabinet put together, not that he is especially classy in and of himself.

Even if the Tories try to hold onto government without a plurality...?

I think they do intend to legalize it, by the definition of "legalize" that I and ReeferMadness and Smallc and the authors of RM's link all use and understand. No one says that alcohol is decriminalized but not legalized. There are all sorts of regulations on dairy products in Canada but no one says that they are decriminalized as opposed to legalized.

I agree with you about the semantics, Reefer, but I think cybercoma is also right that it's just a semantic issue and that he has given us clear options if we overlook the terminology. I changed my vote.

Seriously, is there any sort of good or service that is completely 100% unregulated?

Actually, I admire a lot of things that PET did. JT is no PET and, until fairly recently, I disliked him more than Harper. I don't think he or the LPC were effective in the House. His stance on C-51 was pathetic: he and his party voted in favour of it but he more or less said he was doing this so the CPC wouldn't be able to attack him. He has been willing to work with people for whom I have little respect, such as Adams/Soudas and Bill Blair. In the Maclean's debate, I thought his contributions were generally shallow and vague and his closing speech seemed like self-parody. Oddly, though, recently, the NDP and Mulcair seem to have become MORE wishy-washy and shallow in terms of policy, presumably under the advice of campaign strategists, while JT and the LPC have actually been making sensible statements.

Yeah, that's how I've always understood the two terms. What is the source for the definitions used in this survey?

Yeah, that's not how I've ever understood "legalized" vs "decriminalized". By this definition, virtually nothing is legalized since there are laws of some sort pertaining to almost everything. I thought "decriminalized" meant that something is no longer listed as a criminal offence but could still be regarded as a civil offence.

Oh, I think I actually meant this when I voted for "legalization": This is basically the same status as tobacco and alcohol?

I am under no illusions that they will even win a seat but, interestingly, the Communist Party seems to have basically become a Keynesian social democratic party.

I thought JT was ridiculous in the debate. However, there have been a few reasons why the Liberals have been starting to seem a little more viable in my eyes: i) their willingness to run some deficits to invest in infrastructure during rougher economic times, as opposed to the NDP's confusing messages on economic policy ii) a more reasonable policy on the Senate than the NDP iii) a somewhat more reasonable approach to electoral reform than the NDP iv) legalization of marijuana as opposed to decriminalization v) clearer proposals for open government Edit: vi) They have a platform. Interestingly, they want to take in far more Syrian refugees than the NDP does. Edit: the NDP's approach seems like a more realistic way to start to me. C-51, Bill Blair, and Liberal parties' general records on handling protests will likely keep me from voting for the LPC, though.

She was great in the Maclean's debate but, you know, just because people think she's doing a good job as Green Party leader does not mean that they think she will do a good job as Prime Minister of Canada. Ed Broadbent often got the highest job approval/leadership rankings in polls in the 80s fwiw.

From June: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/wednesday-federal-immigration-minister-chris-alexander-shrimp-slave-ship-authentic-rembrandt-and-more-1.2903509/immigration-minister-chris-alexander-on-bill-c-24-syrian-refugees-and-his-hanging-up-on-us-1.2903514

The article in the OP is from July.

Did you watch the clip? Alexander said the same thing that you are saying here and Barton and Opposition MPs listed many previous instances where it had been brought up, both in the media and in the House.

By someone who worked for the NDP for years: http://theleftchapter.blogspot.ca/2015/09/the-follies-of-ndp-running-right-wing.html

I'm waiting for them to release their platform but right now, I'm questioning whether I even know what they stand for, exactly.

Yeah, I think the NDP was benefiting from a genuine resurgence in left-leaning sentiment globally and a fatigue with the two old-line parties in Canada. I don't think people wanted the NDP to become the Liberals.

The story is terrible, the government could be doing more, and I'm with you all the way on the access to information issue. Is this particular incident Alexander's fault, though? From what I'm reading, it was the UN that wouldn't recognise the boy's family as refugees and the Turkish government that wouldn't issue an exit visa. Was Alexander just following protocol then?

For this reason, I don't exactly call it "Harper's plan".