If Canada gives the Tories another majority after all that's happened, the message we'd be sending is, "You can literally get away with anything." There's no telling what they'd try.
Yeah. He'll probably flood our streets with armed soldiers.
Soldiers ... with guns ... in our streets.
In Canada.
Abortion is political suicide in Canada. There's a reason Harper has stated that he wouldn't re-open the abortion debate.
In the off chance the Cons get another majorit (I don't think they will), I would hope the public and the opposition parties ride their ass so hard and keep them on the extreme edge. The destruction and erosion of data and encroachment on our rights is more than enough reason for me to practically harass my future MP about it, let alone vote. Governments that are in power too long assume they can take advantage of voters. We in Alberta know that all too well.
The Liberals were punished by their base in recent elections for the way they were carrying themselves. The CPC places offensive and misleading ads all the time and seem to get rewarded for it.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
The Liberals were punished by their base in recent elections for the way they were carrying themselves. The CPC places offensive and misleading ads all the time and seem to get rewarded for it.
Someone in the provincial thread said something along the lines that the NDP are the most ideological party they've ever seen, but I can't think of a more ideology-driven party in the last four decades than the Harper Conservatives and their base. I'm not painting all CPC voters with the same brush because I know that most of them definitely don't represent that same base, but it's really hard to see how the Harper Conservatives and the NDP are not, at minimum, two sides of the same coin.
Someone in the provincial thread said something along the lines that the NDP are the most ideological party they've ever seen, but I can't think of a more ideology-driven party in the last four decades than the Harper Conservatives and their base. I'm not painting all CPC voters with the same brush because I know that most of them definitely don't represent that same base, but it's really hard to see how the Harper Conservatives and the NDP are not, at minimum, two sides of the same coin.
Can't see how 'ideology driven' applies to this NDP. It's hard to know what Mulcair's NDP even stand for right now - which probably appeals to no one, and I guess we see that in the polls now.
Can't see how 'ideology driven' applies to this NDP. It's hard to know what Mulcair's NDP even stand for right now - which probably appeals to no one, and I guess we see that in the polls now.
I think everyone can believe that the CPC and LPC are sort of ideologically mushy big-tent parties. They sort of move right and left within a pretty defined parameter in order to win votes in different regions. This has what has lead both of them to basically be parties trading off between ruling and opposition for Canada's history. Pretty simple stuff.
I think the NDP thought that they could make that move too, and basically replace the Liberals as the natural governing choice for a progressive big-tent that included inner-city urban voters across Canada, rural parts of Ontario and BC, and soft nationalists in Quebec. The problem I think is that too much of this was based around the mass appeal of a single leader, and less based around a believable shift away from their core ideology of socialism.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Can't see how 'ideology driven' applies to this NDP. It's hard to know what Mulcair's NDP even stand for right now - which probably appeals to no one, and I guess we see that in the polls now.
Yeah, this has been a bizarre campaign for Mulcair and the NDP. I think they thought they had it in the bag when Trudeau botched C-51 and Harper started to slide, so they tried to play it safe by occupying the traditional Liberal, brokerage party position, and they've failed to appeal to anyone because of it. All of their positions, save for universal daycare and this latest thing about eliminating interest on student loans just straddles the middle. Trudeau subsequently flanked them on the left on social policies, and then promised a more realistic and appealing economic package. Hell, they've even been outflanked on student loans by the Greens, who've promised to eliminate student debt and implement free tuition.
It seems like every couple of elections we see this happening, where the party who gets out in front early against an unpopular incumbent decides to play it safe and subsequently loses the election because of it. We saw it in the last B.C. provincial election, too. The other common denominator is that in both situations the NDP picked a terrible candidate. Dix had the personality of a front porch, and Mulcair is flat-out unlikable.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
The problem I think is that too much of this was based around the mass appeal of a single leader, and less based around a believable shift away from their core ideology of socialism.
Yeah, I think the prudent move for the NDP would've been to shore up support on the left and run on their socialist/socially-progressive roots. Right now they're just in no-man's land.
Except whereas the Niqab issue has affected exactly two people, this issue affects a lot more.
The chances of this debate being re-opened by the Conservatives due to the opinion of a small group of backbenchers is zilch. They are in the business of winning elections. It's a non-issue, a sideshow.
The chances of this debate being re-opened by the Conservatives due to the opinion of a small group of backbenchers is zilch. They are in the business of winning elections. It's a non-issue, a sideshow.
True. That said, if I were the Liberals, it might be good strategy to put it out there. Point out the hypocrisy of being for women's rights in one situation but not the other.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Everyone knows that people in all parties privately hold a view on abortion that deviates from the politically-correct standard that we are all supposed to hold publicly.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
The chances of this debate being re-opened by the Conservatives due to the opinion of a small group of backbenchers is zilch. They are in the business of winning elections. It's a non-issue, a sideshow.
It will only remain closed if Canadians continue to punish candidates who make it an issue like they have been for the last 25 years.
I don't think that was the biggest issue. They used a guy who was a player in the Glen Clarke government. Literally the only two things that had to be in candidate selection play book were "A small amount of charisma or political savvy" and "Not associated to Glen Clarke IN ANY WAY." Leave it to the BC NDP to #### up a god damn tap in like that. Then again this is a party that had the leader of the the Province dead-to-rights after he got nailed with a DUI and let him get up, and win re-election. Debacle of monumental proportions.
True. That said, if I were the Liberals, it might be good strategy to put it out there. Point out the hypocrisy of being for women's rights in one situation but not the other.
Your strategy is for Liberals to raise the fear bell over something that won't happen?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Your strategy is for Liberals to raise the fear bell over something that won't happen?
Why not? It plays well when the CPC does it. There's no reason to believe it wouldn't work with voters on the other side of the spectrum when it comes to their trigger issues.
I mean sure. I just think it's hilariously hypocritical that you complain about the niqab being made an issue, when you think they should make something significantly more serious an issue when it's not one.
