Canadian Political Polls

[normanchateau]

Most voters will likely split along NDP or Conservative lines with the demise of the Liberals if it came to pass. The Greens might eventually make inroads but it is just as likely they'd be bringing up the rear for decades to come.

Or the Greens might eventually form a coalition with what's left of the Liberals analagous to Britain's third party, the Liberal Democrats.

[jdobbin]

Or the Greens might eventually form a coalition with what's left of the Liberals analagous to Britain's third party, the Liberal Democrats.

Anything is possible. All elements of the left might want to merge if it looks like Alberta where the same party stays in power for decades. However, we have seen that didn't work out so well.

[normanchateau]

All elements of the left might want to merge if it looks like Alberta where the same party stays in power for decades. However, we have seen that didn't work out so well.

Alberta seems different from the rest of Canada in that they have a right wing majority so vote-splitting is less relevant. No wonder Harper wanted to put a firewall around Alberta to protect it against the rest of Canada.

[blueblood]

I don't know about that. It seems that there are very few if any progressives or Red Tories left in the Conservative party that I'd like to see elected and I feel there is certainly no room for me in a party like that. Likewise, the NDP would have no room for my belief in fiscal conservatism and lower taxes.

There is a rump of the provincial Liberal party still left in Manitoba. It has climbed out of the 1980s where there were no seats and where the party didn't run a full slate of candidates. They held on to their two seats by the skin of their teeth in the last election this past year. I do all I can to support it, even ran as a candidate but if it ceased to exist, I would probably drop out of provincial politics. I just don't feel that the provincial NDP or the Tories is the right fit for me.

Some say if you don't vote, you can't complain. However, if I couldn't live with my vote, I wouldn't vote.

If I lost my federal option, I'd probably just withdraw from being involved altogether. I'd do my best to keep that social liberal/fiscal conservative option available but in the end, I'm only one person and can only do so much.

I think Harper is throwing the extreme right under the bus, he has to in order to get his majority, his main cabinet members are progressive. In the SSM marriage vote, there were tories that went against the party line. Even the provincial tories in Alberta change a little bit to hold onto power, likewise with the MB NDP.

[normanchateau]

I think Harper is throwing the extreme right under the bus,

Harper is the extreme right. He even opposes embryonic stem cell research. With a minority government, he has few prospects for passing socially conservative legislation. Thanks to the opposition, even his six months for one marijuana plant legislation are stalled in the Commons Justice Committee.

[jdobbin]

Harper is the extreme right. He even opposes embryonic stem cell research. With a minority government, he has few prospects for passing socially conservative legislation. Thanks to the opposition, even his six months for one marijuana plant legislation are stalled in the Commons Justice Committee.

There are certainly aspects of social policies I could not stand to support at any time.

I have never used marijuana at any time in my life because I have no interest in it at all but it always amazes me how pot smoking Conservative supporters seem to think jail records and time for casual users is a suitable punishment. I perosnally think it is a waste for resources.

What really galls me is the lack of fiscal conservatism. They have spent $8 billion since June mostly on unbudgeted spending commitments.

[blueblood]

Harper is the extreme right. He even opposes embryonic stem cell research. With a minority government, he has few prospects for passing socially conservative legislation. Thanks to the opposition, even his six months for one marijuana plant legislation are stalled in the Commons Justice Committee.

Then why didn't he have a whipped vote on SSM? Why no abortion debate? If he's as extreme right as your assuming, those social issues would be priority one for him.

[jdobbin]

I think Harper is throwing the extreme right under the bus, he has to in order to get his majority, his main cabinet members are progressive. In the SSM marriage vote, there were tories that went against the party line. Even the provincial tories in Alberta change a little bit to hold onto power, likewise with the MB NDP.

I'm not convinced that a majority might bring same sex marriage back to the fore.

It is the social conservative policies that will always make me hesitate about voting Tory.

[jdobbin]

Then why didn't he have a whipped vote on SSM? Why no abortion debate? If he's as extreme right as your assuming, those social issues would be priority one for him.

As you said, he wants a majority. Once he has it, I expect things like that would be a priority for him. He doesn't do transformative politics. It would be done in increments. For example, death penalty for killing a police officer. Then it would move on to other things. Next example, charging someone with murder for the death of a fetus. Then it would move on to other things.

[normanchateau]

Then why didn't he have a whipped vote on SSM? Why no abortion debate?

Because he didn't and does not yet have a majority.

The six months for one marijuana plant legislation is embedded in omnibus crime legislation which includes tougher sentences for violent crime and gun-related crime. Most Canadians, myself included, support tougher sentences for violent crime and gun-related crime.

[blueblood]

Because he didn't and does not yet have a majority.

The six months for one marijuana plant legislation is embedded in omnibus crime legislation which includes tougher sentences for violent crime and gun-related crime. Most Canadians, myself included, support tougher sentences for violent crime and gun-related crime.

And why would he want to lose the next election by implementing such sweeping change?

As for the pot legislation, don't do pot and you won't go to jail. Boo hoo. If smoking pot is your number one priority I suggest emmigration as not even the Liberals are going to put in change. It's the law of the land and the people have spoken.

Edited September 5, 2008 by blueblood

[normanchateau]

And why would he want to lose the next election by implementing such sweeping change?

Perhaps he has principles. Some Evangelical Christians do.

[blueblood]

Perhaps he has principles. Some Evangelical Christians do.

So let me get this straight. Harper who is a brilliant political strategist, spent all that time uniting the right, building the party, getting into government, quite possibly getting a majority this time around, then is going to throw all that away to impose some outdated laws??? Oh yes he's going to impose those laws only to get smashed the next election and have them reversed by the next party . I don't know if I put in years of effort to get into the PM chair, I wouldn't want to piss it away by banning SSM and abortion. Oh and then there is the constitution which limits his power, not to mention party brass. No Harper is going to stay PM as long as the electorate will let him, and in this country that means coming to the centre which he and his party have done. As for the Harper hidden agenda, it's time to take off the tin foil hat and lay off the dope, it's making you paranoid.

[M.Dancer]

Scary Scary

[Argus]

I'm not convinced that a majority might bring same sex marriage back to the fore.

It is the social conservative policies that will always make me hesitate about voting Tory.

Oh please. You are a lifelong Liberal and were a Liberal candidate. Nothing would convince you to vote Tory.

As for SSM. The party is pretty much tired of it. If they got in as a majority I think they have a lot more improtant items on the agenda than fighting the supremes and the media over gay marriage.

[Argus]

Perhaps he has principles. Some Evangelical Christians do.

That certainly puts them one up on Liberals.

[Argus]

As you said, he wants a majority. Once he has it, I expect things like that would be a priority for him.

I suspect his priorities will mostly be economic; reigning in the size of government and slashing corporate welfare - hopefully, and taxes. I don't know if they would get into the death penalty or not. Possibly a private members bill might introduce it, but I doubt it would be a government priority and I doubt it would be a whipped vote, which means it likely wouldn't pass anyway.

[blueblood]

As you said, he wants a majority. Once he has it, I expect things like that would be a priority for him. He doesn't do transformative politics. It would be done in increments. For example, death penalty for killing a police officer. Then it would move on to other things. Next example, charging someone with murder for the death of a fetus. Then it would move on to other things.

If Harper invoked any of those increment things in the slightest degree, it would get him tossed, the opposition would have cannon fodder to no end. A majority gov't is not the keys to the toy store.

[jbg]

The thing is, despite all of his problems, he's STILL been the best Prime Minister this country has had in my lifetime. He's not a great choice, but compared to the other options, he's spectacular.

Arguably Canada's best PM since Macdonald. And only when he was sober.

[jbg]

Catastrophe for us all, McCain will win in the US and Harper will have a majority government in Canada.

If the leftside parties would take the trouble to nominate candidates that are other than patently unelectable you wouldn't need to post this. I personally would prefer to vote for Democratic policies and candidates here in the States but cannot in this election.

[jdobbin]

If Harper invoked any of those increment things in the slightest degree, it would get him tossed, the opposition would have cannon fodder to no end. A majority gov't is not the keys to the toy store.

I don't think so. It will seem so inconsequential at first and would probably be supported. People would say that it would make sense to have the death penalty for killing a police officer. Then it would make sense for serial killers.

Bet you could find support in these forums right now for it. Baby steps to an actual death penalty in Canada.

I use that as the most prominent example. There would be a whole host of policies that they could be done with.

And none of them would seem worth throwing a government out over.

[jdobbin]

Oh please. You are a lifelong Liberal and were a Liberal candidate. Nothing would convince you to vote Tory.

I've never had a Flora MacDonald or David Crombie run in my riding. I never had anyone moderate to speak of. My candidate from the PCs was considered one of the most right wing candidates and that was compared to almost the entire Alberta caucus. My candidate from the Alliance was similarly far right on a host of issues that drew national notice.

I've never had someone of the calibre of Stanley Knowles from the NDP run in my area either. They have always run also candidates that filled their slate, many times from some other riding.

As for SSM. The party is pretty much tired of it. If they got in as a majority I think they have a lot more improtant items on the agenda than fighting the supremes and the media over gay marriage.

If you say so, the legislative mandate remains with Parliament as does the notwithstanding clause.

[jdobbin]

I suspect his priorities will mostly be economic; reigning in the size of government and slashing corporate welfare - hopefully, and taxes. I don't know if they would get into the death penalty or not. Possibly a private members bill might introduce it, but I doubt it would be a government priority and I doubt it would be a whipped vote, which means it likely wouldn't pass anyway.

I've seen no evidence that he is has restricted spending. Nor has he indicated where he would be cutting. Since June, he has introduced $8 billion in spending.

Incremental conservativism means being able to point to private members bills that enact government policy by way of a majority. Harper can say it is not a priority while getting the bills that some social conservatives want.

[Bryan]

He doesn't do transformative politics. It would be done in increments. For example, death penalty for killing a police officer. Then it would move on to other things. Next example, charging someone with murder for the death of a fetus. Then it would move on to other things.

I hope you are right about that, but I really fear it will never happen. Harper is just nowhere near as socially conservative as that. If anything, he's gone out of his way to alienate the social right in this country.

I don't think so. It will seem so inconsequential at first and would probably be supported. People would say that it would make sense to have the death penalty for killing a police officer. Then it would make sense for serial killers.

Bet you could find support in these forums right now for it. Baby steps to an actual death penalty in Canada.

I know I'd support it. That would push me from just saying I support the CPC, to to actually funding the party and actively campaigning for them.

[M.Dancer]

I don't think so. It will seem so inconsequential at first and would probably be supported. People would say that it would make sense to have the death penalty for killing a police officer. Then it would make sense for serial killers.

I'm comfortable on bith counts. Also for child sex offenders. Foirget chemical castration....

I'm also okay with regular lashings for serial sex offenders.

All the above is of course conditional on an iron clad case that has been reviewed and vetted.