Federal Election Polls

[ToadBrother]

Agreed, Mulcair's calculated risk of fiscal moderation - no deficits - did not pay the returns he hoped and Trudeau's gamble of running several deficits to prime the economy seems to be a winner. Whatever the reasons, five separate pollsters now confirm the NDP is in decline.

Let me be the first to trade my NDP placard for a 'real change' Liberal lawn sign.

The Liberals are doing what they always do; campaign from the left, and govern from the center, or as was the case in the 1990s, from slightly right of center.

I actually feel a little sorry for the NDP. I know a number of NDP supporters personally, and they were all floating on air. I warned a good friend of mine that anyone who discounts the Liberals ability to steal thunder is doomed to be disappointed.

I can't say whether the Tories will win or not. Half of me suspects they might be able to pull it off. But long term, especially as Quebec seems poised to crush the "Orange Crush", I see Canadian politics returning to the old balance that was upset with the Progressive Conservatives' meltdown 22 years ago. Grits vs Tories, with the NDP as a third party.

And to think, a few months ago, I watched a coworker declare "The Liberals have to accept their finished, and should unite with the NDP!"

[cybercoma]

Justin Trudeau is in trouble. He's been caught saying that terrorists shouldn't lose their citizenship and the scared bigots in this nation aren't going to like that. Apparently they think it's a good idea to release these people and ship them to another country, where they can continue to commit their terrorist activities, rather than treat them as citizens and lock them up for life. It's almost as if Conservatives are intent on creating more terrorists, so their buddies in the military-industrial complex have more money-making wars for their profit.

[ToadBrother]

Justin Trudeau is in trouble. He's been caught saying that terrorists shouldn't lose their citizenship and the scared bigots in this nation aren't going to like that. Apparently they think it's a good idea to release these people and ship them to another country, where they can continue to commit their terrorist activities, rather than treat them as citizens and lock them up for life. It's almost as if Conservatives are intent on creating more terrorists, so their buddies in the military-industrial complex have more money-making wars for their profit.

Whatever the Tories' intentions, I'm fairly uneasy about people with dual citizenship having that citizenship stripped, creating a situation where they are effectively treated very differently before the eyes of the law than someone who only has Canadian citizenship. I'm not trying to defend the terrorists or would-be terrorists that would be affected by the new rules, but it does raise some troubling points.

[cybercoma]

You know, I'm not opposed to people being stripped of their citizenship under the appropriate circumstances if a really good argument could be made for it. Giving that power to the prime minister, which is a political and partisan position, is such a horrible idea though. I don't know how anyone could support it. There should be oversight and it should only be carried out by the courts for the most egregious offences. Even then, it's unclear how a law like that would hold up to the Constitution. I'm not exactly sure what good it accomplishes when that person should spend life in prison anyway. I don't think it's very smart to be stripping these people of their citizenship and kicking them out of the country where they can continue to mount attacks against us or our allies. Especially if the countries we're sending them to are already staging points for terrorist activity. The legislation appears to me to just be pandering again to that segment of Canadian society that's xenophobic.

[Vancouver King]

Oh for a return to the political salad days of a revelation-a-day Duffy trial and the Tories back on their heels.

Consider this: Only 2 - count 'em 2 - women have been refused Canadian citizenship since 2011 for failure to remove their niqabs. An entire regions electoral direction has been impacted by the facial clothing worn by a number of recent women immigrants who could comfortably fit in a phone booth. It is to weep.

The political puppet master in charge of this almost-diabolical wedge issue continues his inexorable march to victory.

[ToadBrother]

You know, I'm not opposed to people being stripped of their citizenship under the appropriate circumstances if a really good argument could be made for it. Giving that power to the prime minister, which is a political and partisan position, is such a horrible idea though. I don't know how anyone could support it. There should be oversight and it should only be carried out by the courts for the most egregious offences. Even then, it's unclear how a law like that would hold up to the Constitution. I'm not exactly sure what good it accomplishes when that person should spend life in prison anyway. I don't think it's very smart to be stripping these people of their citizenship and kicking them out of the country where they can continue to mount attacks against us or our allies. Especially if the countries we're sending them to are already staging points for terrorist activity. The legislation appears to me to just be pandering again to that segment of Canadian society that's xenophobic.

The real problem here comes when one of them gets sent back to, say, Syria, where human rights abuses are pretty well documented. At that point, there will be inevitable appeals, and a fair chance that they won't be permitted to be thrown out of the country, so now we'll have a class of effectively stateless terrorists.

[Army Guy]

I agree, sounds similar to the laws regarding being a traitor, rarely used because they may not hold up to constitution review. This one i don't see justice being done, just sending the problem away for someone else to deal with it....perhaps tougher new sentences could be the answer....but then again Canadian jails would be a vacation home for these guys....

[Army Guy]

Oh for a return to the political salad days of a revelation-a-day Duffy trial and the Tories back on their heels.

Consider this: Only 2 - count 'em 2 - women have been refused Canadian citizenship since 2011 for failure to remove their niqabs. An entire regions electoral direction has been impacted by the facial clothing worn by a number of recent women immigrants who could comfortably fit in a phone booth. It is to weep.

The political puppet master in charge of this almost-diabolical wedge issue continues his inexorable march to victory.

Why is this even a news worthy topic, what do these women do for driver lics, when they go to the bank , get pulled over for a driving offence, or check, when going to the airport to board a flight, showing their passport.....picking up prescriptions at drug mart.....there are thousands of places where all people must show there faces....why not make this another one....what is the big deal.....and why does this offend you....

[angrypenguin]

I agree, sounds similar to the laws regarding being a traitor, rarely used because they may not hold up to constitution review. This one i don't see justice being done, just sending the problem away for someone else to deal with it....perhaps tougher new sentences could be the answer....but then again Canadian jails would be a vacation home for these guys....

I'd much rather see them deported then having to pay for their time in jail.

[Hydraboss]

...rather than treat them as citizens and lock them up for life....

The "little terrorist" is eligible for parole in 2016.

That's what you consider "life"??

[angrypenguin]

The "little terrorist" is eligible for parole in 2016.

That's what you consider "life"??

Precisely.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Let me be the first to trade my NDP placard for a 'real change' Liberal lawn sign.

Yes I was planning to vote for NDP but now seriously considering to switch my vote to Liberals. What the NDP voters should realize is that if numbers stay the same until the voting day (that is Liberals and conservatives in tight race with NDP a distance of 4%+ second) then a vote for NDP is effectively the same as voting for conservatives. I am sure this is not their intention at all but in reality that is why they will do by keeping their votes to NDP which will have no chance of forming the next government effectively they pop up the Tories to get enough votes to overtake the Liberals and form the next government.

Edited September 30, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Hydraboss]

It always amazes me that NDP and Liberal types always bang the drum about "blind partisanship" on the part of Conservative supporters, but are more than willing to drop their support of their party for another that has drastically different views - just so they can vote to block someone. If these people are so convinced that the party they support is closely aligned with their personal beliefs, why are they ready to drop everything they believe in to try to influence the outcome of an election? If their ideas are so "right for Canada" shouldn't they have faith that enough other Canadians will see it their way and vote for their favored party?

[angrypenguin]

It always amazes me that NDP and Liberal types always bang the drum about "blind partisanship" on the part of Conservative supporters, but are more than willing to drop their support of their party for another that has drastically different views - just so they can vote to block someone. If these people are so convinced that the party they support is closely aligned with their personal beliefs, why are they ready to drop everything they believe in to try to influence the outcome of an election? If their ideas are so "right for Canada" shouldn't they have faith that enough other Canadians will see it their way and vote for their favored party?

Agreed. I have voted NDP/Conservative/Liberal in my life, and I did so by voting for the party that aligns to my values the most. (Ok, before the Cons I voted for others that preceded them), but yeah, this vote splitting thing, really? People fought and died in world wars, and that's how people are voting? It's an insult.

VOTE for the party that aligns to your values. For heavens sake.

[CITIZEN_2015]

If their ideas are so "right for Canada" shouldn't they have faith that enough other Canadians will see it their way and vote for their favored party?

May be they know what is definitely wrong for Canada (not to mention that it can be possible that more than one party can be almost equally right for Canada) and they try to minimize that chance from happening at the expense of their personal beliefs. To me as long as a party don't follow and is not elected by religious right then that is right for Canada and good for our democracy.

People fought and died in world wars, and that's how people are voting?

Exactly the reason why we should value our democracy and prevent those planning on destroying it to take over.

Edited September 30, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Hydraboss]

...they know what is definitely wrong for Canada (not to mention that it can be possible that more than one party can be almost equally right for Canada) and they try to minimize that chance from happening...

Perfectly fair to say. And I will continue to vote for Harper, even though I truly feel he's a clown for the most part, to block the other two that I feel will do nearly irreparable damage to my province.

edit->sp

Edited September 30, 2015 by Hydraboss

[angrypenguin]

Perfectly fair to say. And I will continue to vote for Harper, even though I truly feel he's a clown for the most part, to block the other two that I feel will do nearly irreparable damage to my province.

edit->sp

Agreed

[Hydraboss]

And I'll be able to live with my decision because there really isn't a party that closely matches my beliefs.

[angrypenguin]

And I'll be able to live with my decision because there really isn't a party that closely matches my beliefs.

Run as an independent

[Kageshima]

Perfectly fair to say. And I will continue to vote for Harper, even though I truly feel he's a clown for the most part, to block the other two that I feel will do nearly irreparable damage to my province.

edit->sp

Curious, what in your mind is the damage the other two would cause?

As a more progressive Albertan myself, I have a unique perspective on what's good and what's bad for Alberta. I understand people being worried about some of the more aggressive, anti-oil NDP & Green policies, but it seems the Liberals have a pretty balanced approach. In the Globe debate Trudeau almost seemed like more of a development advocate than Harper was.

What people outside of Alberta don't realize is that our jobs, our economy, our livelihoods are currently dependent on oil, and that is why so much of Alberta is so blue, because many people view Harper as the best defender of that sector.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong and the damage you're talking about isn't economy-related (which let's be honest, if it's about Alberta, it's usually about Oil & Gas).

[eyeball]

It always amazes me that NDP and Liberal types always bang the drum about "blind partisanship" on the part of Conservative supporters, but are more than willing to drop their support of their party for another that has drastically different views - just so they can vote to block someone.

Perfectly fair to say. And I will continue to vote for Harper, even though I truly feel he's a clown for the most part, to block the other two that I feel will do nearly irreparable damage to my province.

You're amazed?

[angrypenguin]

Curious, what in your mind is the damage the other two would cause?

As a more progressive Albertan myself, I have a unique perspective on what's good and what's bad for Alberta. I understand people being worried about some of the more aggressive, anti-oil NDP & Green policies, but it seems the Liberals have a pretty balanced approach. In the Globe debate Trudeau almost seemed like more of a development advocate than Harper was.

What people outside of Alberta don't realize is that our jobs, our economy, our livelihoods are currently dependent on oil, and that is why so much of Alberta is so blue, because many people view Harper as the best defender of that sector.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong and the damage you're talking about isn't economy-related (which let's be honest, if it's about Alberta, it's usually about Oil & Gas).

One wants to run deficits for 3/4 years and won't guarantee a surplus in the 4th year, and the other will sell his soul to the devil so he can be the first NDP PM.

Is this a serious question?

[Shady]

The topic of discussion is suppose to be federal election polls. Not citizenship standards.

[Hydraboss]

Curious, what in your mind is the damage the other two would cause?

What people outside of Alberta don't realize is that our jobs, our economy, our livelihoods are currently dependent on oil, and that is why so much of Alberta is so blue, because many people view Harper as the best defender of that sector.

The short answer: My concern is mostly centered on O&G because that's where I derive my living from, and that directly translates to what I give my kids.

The provincial NDP are pretty much neutered in Alberta. Sure, they'll screw up a bunch of things (like their deferral on royalties is doing right now) but they will learn very quickly not to slay the golden goose. Or they'll be out after their mandate never to be elected again. Pretty simple. Now the federal NDP - now that's a different story. They'll sacrifice Alberta's O&G sector to gain votes down east, and no one will see the effects for a year or two - by which time it will be too late to recover a lot of it. Alberta is still "the colonies" to a lot of folks in central Canada so they will cheer loudly everytime a nail gets put in the coffin. Let's see Mulcair pay for his $15 babysitting program if Alberta is a "have not"...

Trudeau, I admit, is more of a personal disgust thing with me. His scumbag of a father nearly did this province in years ago and it hasn't been forgotten in the oilpatch. Never will be. I'm right in the middle of the O&G industry and have been for well over 20 years, and I will tell you that there are a huge amount of businesses praying that the NDP don't get in, and hoping the Liberals don't.

All in all, if the Liberals get elected, the world won't end. If the NDP do, the financial effects for the country will take a while to ripple but when they do it will be disastrous.

Clearer?

[Kageshima]

One wants to run deficits for 3/4 years and won't guarantee a surplus in the 4th year, and the other will sell his soul to the devil so he can be the first NDP PM.

Is this a serious question?

Wow, some very deep arguments made there. While I certainly respect your opinion I cannot help but argue that both of those statements are fairly flawed. Running deficits has multiple economic benefits, and if it's an idea that's big enough to even be considered it's definitely got some merit to it, besides just being something that sounds odd. Let's not forget that Harper has ran many deficits as well. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to run a deficit to create stimulus, making a plan in advance is pretty important.

The second statement contains no remote factual evidence to back up your claim. If you're going to say really subjective things like that at least try to bring up examples or reasons to support it.

The short answer: My concern is mostly centered on O&G because that's where I derive my living from, and that directly translates to what I give my kids.

The provincial NDP are pretty much neutered in Alberta. Sure, they'll screw up a bunch of things (like their deferral on royalties is doing right now) but they will learn very quickly not to slay the golden goose. Or they'll be out after their mandate never to be elected again. Pretty simple. Now the federal NDP - now that's a different story. They'll sacrifice Alberta's O&G sector to gain votes down east, and no one will see the effects for a year or two - by which time it will be too late to recover a lot of it. Alberta is still "the colonies" to a lot of folks in central Canada so they will cheer loudly everytime a nail gets put in the coffin. Let's see Mulcair pay for his $15 babysitting program if Alberta is a "have not"...

Trudeau, I admit, is more of a personal disgust thing with me. His scumbag of a father nearly did this province in years ago and it hasn't been forgotten in the oilpatch. Never will be. I'm right in the middle of the O&G industry and have been for well over 20 years, and I will tell you that there are a huge amount of businesses praying that the NDP don't get in, and hoping the Liberals don't.

All in all, if the Liberals get elected, the world won't end. If the NDP do, the financial effects for the country will take a while to ripple but when they do it will be disastrous.

Clearer?

On the provincial NDP, I pretty much agree. The royalty review was needed though, the government has been loosing out on a lot of revenue in the past few decades and updating the system was a good idea. Is it the most ideal time to do so? Definitely not. But the money for supporting the public sector has got to come out of somewhere.

I also get why many people are worried about the federal NDP though. They're trying way too hard to cater to the east, so even if some NDPers get elected in Edmonton Alberta's concerns will basically be forgotten. It was a smart move by Notley to not associate herself with the federal NDP.

Concerning Trudeau, though, you got to remember that JT is not PET. Even though he defended him at the debate, mostly for the Charter of Rights and bilingualism, Trudeau has so far shown that he is willing to represent the concerns of Albertans even though he probably won't win many seats here. You got to admit, for a progressive leader, that's a good character trait to have.

Clear.