New poll: Harper - Conservatives headed for third place next election?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Because it's largely a contradiction. Socially liberal, or progressivism, is generally in favour of equal rights as in equality in result, as opposed to formal equality. This is basically impossible to achieve without some sort of wealth redistribution.

I'm not onboard with that terminology. Liberal =/= leftist.

Classical liberal economic thought supports the breaking down of barriers to trade to allow the free flow of capital and goods. Canadians are largely onboard with that. They don't want to dial back the clock to the 1970s, when everything from telephone companies to utilities were government owned, costly, and inefficient, and when it took years for goods and services available in the U.S. to make it to Canada. Most Canadians work in the private sector, and want to encourage a business environment that supports entrepreneurship and small business.

Socially liberal means allowing citizens the greatest latitude on personal liberty and private behaviour without endangering other people's freedoms. Canada is a very liberal society, and getting moreso all the time.

Those two belief systems are not contradictory at all. You're talking about leftist dogma, which is more authoritarian than liberalism. We don't talk much about the cleavages between leftist and liberal thought in this country, because the two have been uneasy allies against conservatism for a long time, so those cleavages are glossed over. However, now that conservatism is a dying political credo, the differences between liberalism and leftist politics will become more clear.

Originally Posted by carbonrod

It benefits anyone that chooses to put themselves into a position to take care of their children via a stay at home parent. This is something society should support rather than insist that we all seek two income households and increasingly state-raised children.

You realize daycares are private businesses, right? Or are you talking about state schools vs homeschooling?

And you're overlooking affluent families where mom continues to stay home after the kids are school-age. From what I've seen of these couples in Calgary, mom doesn't spend all day moping floors, ironing, and making hot lunches for the kids to come home to. She's out at Starbucks and yoga with her friends, while her husband brings home the big paycheque. Not sure that lifestyle needs the support of the state (though I see why those folks are happy with Harper for bringing in income-splitting).

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'm not onboard with that terminology. Liberal =/= leftist.

Classical liberal economic thought supports the breaking down of barriers to trade to allow the free flow of capital and goods. Canadians are largely onboard with that. They don't want to dial back the clock to the 1970s, when everything from telephone companies to utilities were government owned, costly, and inefficient, and when it took years for goods and services available in the U.S. to make it to Canada. Most Canadians work in the private sector, and want to encourage a business environment that supports entrepreneurship and small business.

Socially liberal means allowing citizens the greatest latitude on personal liberty and private behaviour without endangering other people's freedoms. Canada is a very liberal society, and getting moreso all the time.

Those two belief systems are not contradictory at all. You're talking about leftist dogma, which is more authoritarian than liberalism. We don't talk much about the cleavages between leftist and liberal thought in this country, because the two have been uneasy allies against conservatism for a long time, so those cleavages are glossed over. However, now that conservatism is a dying political credo, the differences between liberalism and leftist politics will become more clear.

That's a good point and I actually meant to expand on that in the first post. You're right that liberalism and progressivism aren't the same thing. I'd also argue that social liberalism is not effective for addressing inequality, largely due to the fact that it embraces the concept of negative rights as opposed to positive rights. There is some good literature on the nature of Charter challenges and the fact that the ones that succeed are very rarely the types that propose some form redistribution or reparation.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'd also argue that social liberalism is not effective for addressing inequality, largely due to the fact that it embraces the concept of negative rights as opposed to positive rights. There is some good literature on the nature of Charter challenges and the fact that the ones that succeed are very rarely the types that propose some form redistribution or reparation.

'Positive rights' will never get much traction in Canada, besides the treaty rights and other deals negotiated for Natives (which aren't especially popular these days either). We have the liberty to be treated as individuals today because we de-emphasized sub-group identities. It's a good thing Catholics aren't regarded first and foremost as Catholics, and women aren't treated differently by the law than men. There's no political appetite outside academia and the grievance industry for the government to use identity politics to remake the socio-economic landscape. Not least because most people who are members of 'disadvantaged groups' themselves want nothing to do with it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

'Positive rights' will never get much traction in Canada, besides the treaty rights and other deals negotiated for Natives (which aren't especially popular these days either). We have the liberty to be treated as individuals today because we de-emphasized sub-group identities. It's a good thing Catholics aren't regarded first and foremost as Catholics, and women aren't treated differently by the law than men. There's no political appetite outside academia and the grievance industry for the government to use identity politics to remake the socio-economic landscape. Not least because most people who are members of 'disadvantaged groups' themselves want nothing to do with it.

I don't really agree that positive rights, even if intended to be redistributive, are dependent on identity politics. That kind of thinking is rather lazy and disingenuous.

[flamesfan6]

Harper won't be in any televised debate shown nationally.

The federal Conservative Party is refusing to participate in the traditional leaders’ debates run by a consortium of broadcasters including CBC, CTV and Global and will instead take part in as many as five independently staged debates in the run-up to the fall federal election.

The Conservative decision puts pressure on other federal political parties to follow suit in abandoning the consortium-run debates which have largely controlled these events for decades.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle24389767/

[taco.vidal]

I think the Liberals have really blown it by not finding a better leader than Justin Trudeau. A lot of people that Ive talked to that don't want to vote Conservative don't see Justin as a viable PM. Its amazing that there such a lack of potential Liberal leadership candidates that they've gone from one disaster in Ignatieff to not being able to find anything better than Justin.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

I think the Liberals have really blown it by not finding a better leader than Justin Trudeau. A lot of people that Ive talked to that don't want to vote Conservative don't see Justin as a viable PM. Its amazing that there such a lack of potential Liberal leadership candidates that they've gone from one disaster in Ignatieff to not being able to find anything better than Justin.

Agreed, I just can't see it with Justin.

[White Out 403]

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

I think the Liberals have really blown it by not finding a better leader than Justin Trudeau. A lot of people that Ive talked to that don't want to vote Conservative don't see Justin as a viable PM. Its amazing that there such a lack of potential Liberal leadership candidates that they've gone from one disaster in Ignatieff to not being able to find anything better than Justin.

Don't forget Dion!

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

Harper won't be in any televised debate shown nationally.





http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle24389767/

That is utter madness. He doesn't want to let the entire country see him at the same time?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I'm not saying I'm a Trudeau fan, but can things possibly be any worse with him?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

I think the Liberals have really blown it by not finding a better leader than Justin Trudeau. A lot of people that Ive talked to that don't want to vote Conservative don't see Justin as a viable PM. Its amazing that there such a lack of potential Liberal leadership candidates that they've gone from one disaster in Ignatieff to not being able to find anything better than Justin.

If they had good policy they wouldn't need star candidates.

[killer_carlson]

Marc Garneau would make an excellent Prime Minister.

Instead of leading the Liberals he is spending his time running around after Justin saying "What Justin really meant was...."

That is the problem with the Liberal party and that is why this election is going to be so difficult for those who are dissatisfied with Harper's performance in this most recent term of office.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

I think the Liberals have really blown it by not finding a better leader than Justin Trudeau. A lot of people that Ive talked to that don't want to vote Conservative don't see Justin as a viable PM. Its amazing that there such a lack of potential Liberal leadership candidates that they've gone from one disaster in Ignatieff to not being able to find anything better than Justin.

Ignatieff though was only a "disaster" politically. In reality, this is a very intelligent guy who I have no doubt would have been totally competent as a PM. Trudeau, not so much, in my estimation and I imagine others'.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

Harper won't be in any televised debate shown nationally.





http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle24389767/

Ugh, that's not what that article says at all:

The decision by the NDP and Conservatives to embrace new debates organized by other media outlets or interest groups doesn’t prevent enterprises such as CBC or CTV from bringing their television cameras to these events and broadcasting them, as well, to Canadians.

[CliffFletcher]

John Manley was the last competent, centrist leadership candidate the Liberals produced. Disappointing that he left politics.

[Ashartus]

The latest EKOS poll shows a 3-way tie, though I suspect the NDP improvements federally, much like in Alberta, are more related to people not liking the other choices than liking the NDP.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

The latest EKOS poll shows a 3-way tie, though I suspect the NDP improvements federally, much like in Alberta, are more related to people not liking the other choices than liking the NDP.

Maybe. I think it more likely has to do with the fact that they were the only party to oppose C-51. I don't know what the climate is in Calgary, but people are pissed about it in Vancouver and Victoria. Not surprised to see the Liberals in third, either, because most of the vitriol I've seen has been directed at Trudeau.

[rubecube]

This is pretty telling:

More Canadians told EKOS they were upset with the direction of the country, and Harper’s approval numbers were down to 30 per cent, with 65 per cent of respondents disapproving of the way the prime minister is doing his job.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau had the highest job approval rating, at 49 per cent, with NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair right behind, at 48 per cent, though the margin of error makes the difference irrelevant.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

The latest EKOS poll shows a 3-way tie, though I suspect the NDP improvements federally, much like in Alberta, are more related to people not liking the other choices than liking the NDP.

The only reason Stephen Harper's Conservatives ever formed the government in the first place is because the voters were angry at the Liberals.

I'm very curious to see if the results from the most recent EKOS poll are real or just a momentary bounce from the Alberta election.

If this really is a 3-way tie, it's going to be one hell of an interesting campaign.



Here is the full report from the poll:

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-conte...ay_14_2015.pdf