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

[Resolute 14]

Ehh, I'll say right now that it will probably be a failure. The trashing of oil prices is going to hurt, regardless of what one thinks of how the Conservatives handled the budget.

[Tinordi]

I guess recklessly getting rid of that surplus with the least efficient of tax cuts wasn't such a hot idea then Resolute? Who needs a contingency surplus reserve when you attempt to prioritize oil development as your key economic strategy and when oil prices have no where to go but up?

[Hemi-Cuda]

I'm not sure how any rational person can support the conservative party anymore. Senate scandals, anti-science platform, increased support for a US styled drug war, incredibly poor financial planning. I want the Liberals in power just to get Harper out and to finally get some progression on social policy that has remained stagnated for the last decade, I don't really care who they have as their leader at this point

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Needed for who? I honestly don't know if this infrastructure is needed or not, but if it is, who needs it?



Because they don't think it's needed?

If you're the type of person that believes that a better energy industry equates to a better Canadian economy, then you would probably want infrastructure in B.C. Opening up Asian markets should mean a potential rise in natural gas prices opening up more drilling inventory, landsale investments, jobs, growth, capital investment, royalties, resource benefits... etc.

I believe B.C. people don't want the infrastructure because they will assume all the risk as a province. That's fine to have that opinion, but I was responding to the erroneous position that only people in Alberta and Quebec are out to serve their own interests ahead of the nations, which is total BS. Everyone is.

[Brad Marsh]

Stephen Harper had been an MP for 8 years, was official leader of the opposition for 4 years, and had facilitated the merger of the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives prior to becoming PM. He was a founding member of the reform party, and was elected leader of the Canadian Alliance and then the newly formed Conservative Party of Canada, again all before becoming PM. While he may not have had significant experience in business, or in academia, he had a considerable amount of political experience.

Justin Trudeau has been an MP for 6 years, and at one point was the critic for Youth and multi-culturalism and amateur sport. He has been the leader of the Liberal party for about a year and a half. His election as leader of the liberal party was effectively uncontested. His party holds 35 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, less than half of what is held by the official opposition.

Sorry, for better or for worse, Harper at 45 and 46 years of age had accomplished far more in the political arena, and had substantially more political experience, than Justin Trudeau has currently.

For those critical of Harper's handling of the Canadian economy, and comparing post-2008 debt levels and economic performance to the Chretien years as the basis for their conclusions, I would suggest that a more balanced comparison would be that of Canada's current economic performance to that of almost any other G8 or G20 nation. The fundamentals of our economy are among the best of any economy in the world, and we are very fortunate that our economy has fared as well as it has. I certainly don't pretend that this is because of Harper, but probably some of the credit does belong to the governing party and its policies.

Serious question for those who are supportive of Trudeau: Are you really taken with the new Trudeau/Liberal platform, and if so in what way, or are you just looking for an alternative to the Harper government?

I ask that sincerely, because it isn't at all clear to me what Trudeau has accomplished, or what he's indicating he can accomplish if he's elected as the next PM. And frankly, the arguments I'm reading in this thread seem to be opposing Harper and his policies rather than anything really in support of Trudeau and his positions.

[Brad Marsh]

Double Post

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

That's fine to have that opinion, but I was responding to the erroneous position that only people in Alberta and Quebec are out to serve their own interests ahead of the nations, which is total BS. Everyone is.

This statement is very telling.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Brad Marsh

Stephen Harper had been an MP for 8 years, was official leader of the opposition for 4 years, and had facilitated the merger of the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives prior to becoming PM. He was a founding member of the reform party, and was elected leader of the Canadian Alliance and then the newly formed Conservative Party of Canada, again all before becoming PM. While he may not have had significant experience in business, or in academia, he had a considerable amount of political experience.

Justin Trudeau has been an MP for 6 years, and at one point was the critic for Youth and multi-culturalism and amateur sport. He has been the leader of the Liberal party for about a year and a half. His election as leader of the liberal party was effectively uncontested. His party holds 35 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, less than half of what is held by the official opposition.

Sorry, for better or for worse, Harper at 45 and 46 years of age had accomplished far more in the political arena, and had substantially more political experience, than Justin Trudeau has currently.

For those critical of Harper's handling of the Canadian economy, and comparing post-2008 debt levels and economic performance to the Chretien years as the basis for their conclusions, I would suggest that a more balanced comparison would be that of Canada's current economic performance to that of almost any other G8 or G20 nation. The fundamentals of our economy are among the best of any economy in the world, and we are very fortunate that our economy has fared as well as it has. I certainly don't pretend that this is because of Harper, but probably some of the credit does belong to the governing party and its policies.

Serious question for those who are supportive of Trudeau: Are you really taken with the new Trudeau/Liberal platform, and if so in what way, or are you just looking for an alternative to the Harper government?

I ask that sincerely, because it isn't at all clear to me what Trudeau has accomplished, or what he's indicating he can accomplish if he's elected as the next PM. And frankly, the arguments I'm reading in this thread seem to be opposing Harper and his policies rather than anything really in support of Trudeau and his positions.

Political experience doesn't necessarily impress me. Most politicians are soulless scumbags who are opportunistic whores. More time in that environment isn't always a great thing.

As for your question... I actually voted for Harper the 1st time around (well,whoever the candidate here was for his party) because the liberal scandals and bs were enough for me to help vote them out of power. Same thing this time. Harpers well documented track record as an anti science anti environment leader is enough for me to call it quits supporting him and his party.

NDP isn't a real option for me. I think the reds deserve another shot and Trudeau a chance to lead. My vote is 90% anti Harper, in the same way I voted against the liberals oh so very long ago.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Brad Marsh

Stephen Harper had been an MP for 8 years, was official leader of the opposition for 4 years, and had facilitated the merger of the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives prior to becoming PM. He was a founding member of the reform party, and was elected leader of the Canadian Alliance and then the newly formed Conservative Party of Canada, again all before becoming PM. While he may not have had significant experience in business, or in academia, he had a considerable amount of political experience.

Justin Trudeau has been an MP for 6 years, and at one point was the critic for Youth and multi-culturalism and amateur sport. He has been the leader of the Liberal party for about a year and a half. His election as leader of the liberal party was effectively uncontested. His party holds 35 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, less than half of what is held by the official opposition.

Sorry, for better or for worse, Harper at 45 and 46 years of age had accomplished far more in the political arena, and had substantially more political experience, than Justin Trudeau has currently.

For those critical of Harper's handling of the Canadian economy, and comparing post-2008 debt levels and economic performance to the Chretien years as the basis for their conclusions, I would suggest that a more balanced comparison would be that of Canada's current economic performance to that of almost any other G8 or G20 nation. The fundamentals of our economy are among the best of any economy in the world, and we are very fortunate that our economy has fared as well as it has. I certainly don't pretend that this is because of Harper, but probably some of the credit does belong to the governing party and its policies.

Serious question for those who are supportive of Trudeau: Are you really taken with the new Trudeau/Liberal platform, and if so in what way, or are you just looking for an alternative to the Harper government?

I ask that sincerely, because it isn't at all clear to me what Trudeau has accomplished, or what he's indicating he can accomplish if he's elected as the next PM. And frankly, the arguments I'm reading in this thread seem to be opposing Harper and his policies rather than anything really in support of Trudeau and his positions.

Unfortunately when you compare the Canadian economy to other G7 nations though, it's not that impressive. I think that in terms of unemployment the only one with a higher number is France. Our growth is 'OK'. Not amazing, not terrible, but nothing to crow about. Frankly when the energy issues are factored in over the coming months you wonder how good things are going to look. Yes, it's true that some sectors benefit, and energy isn't everything, but it's a factor to consider.

To me that's just it with Harper. For all this supposed economic prowess, he's done nothing too impressive on that side of things. As far as his actual democratic record, it's repugnant. As I have mentioned, my disdain for voter suppression and pure disregard for democratic institutions is appalling. He obviously is a terrible judge of character given both his Senate appointments as well as his staff and some ministers. He has done almost nothing positive in terms of science and the environment. So remind me again, why would we vote him back in?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by evman150

This statement is very telling.

telling of what?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

telling of what?

"Everyone is" - this is just not true. At all. Your party may be, and your province may be, but don't judge the rest of us with your moral compass.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by evman150

"Everyone is" - this is just not true. At all. Your party may be, and your province may be, but don't judge the rest of us with your moral compass.

What are you talking about? Who is "my party"?

I'm not judging you at all, I'm speaking about human nature. What you imply is not only insulting but a ridiculous assertion. Oh, so the 3 million Albertans are more selfish as a whole than the 5 million British Columbians? Makes sense.

Your statement was outrageous so you got called out for it. Not to mention I just provided you a few examples of how it isn't even true.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Oh, so the 3 million Albertans are more selfish as a whole than the 5 million British Columbians? Makes sense.

Considering most of you vote for the ME ME ME ME $$$$$$$$ screw the environment screw science party?

Yes I do believe that.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

To put on my mod hat for a second: political discussions are best when we approach them with the understanding that politics is a subject on which reasonable people can disagree. However, when every argument is also an ad hominem attack, these debates get very silly very quickly, and I for one would like to avoid that in this thread. Let's make an effort to clash with people's ideas without insulting them or impugning their character. This isn't directed at any particular poster, it's just a blanket warning to everyone that the objective here isn't scoring points, it's positive dialogue between people with different (and yes, sometimes clashing) ideas.

That wound up sounding preachier than I meant it to, but I suspect everyone gets the idea.

Carry on.

[Tinordi]

Brad Marsh: you've just described a person who's never had a real job his entire life. Now you can see that as a virtue, a career politician may make the best politician, but if you hold that view you would not be able to criticise politicians for being politicians because that's that experience you're valuing. Somehow I doubt that you see things that way.

On to your more substantive point that Canada weathered the economic crisis better than most OECD nations, do you not think the previous 15 years of governance was perhaps more important to seeing through that period? Granting that governments have relatively few reactive and effective levers to deal with things like financial meltdowns would the strong banking regulations, the strong balance sheet, and and effective fiscal framework developed by the Liberals be the more likely reason for seeing through the recession as well as we did?

I mean look at Harper's response to the crisis in the first wave. He first told Canadians it was a good buying opportunity, he then did nothing, and finally he was forced to enact a stimulus plan. I mean it takes a pretty myopic view of things to give that government alot of credit.

If you must give him credit, I assume you'll be holding him accountable if the economy goes bad, what with low oil prices, a singular fixation on the oil sector as an economic strategy, and the loose monetary conditions that have inflated assets into the bubble we're currently in?

That would, you know, be consistent.

[Caged Great]

I dislike Trudeau a lot, as I don't think he's done enough or is smart enough to be a good leader of the liberal party for the long term. However, I would take a gamble on him being passable just to get rid of Harper.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Brad Marsh: you've just described a person who's never had a real job his entire life.

Odd that you would describe a person who's been employed his entire adult life, as not having a real job. What do you think Harper did/does every day if he didn't/doesn't have a "job"?

Its certainly telling.

[rayne008]

Can someone elaborate where this "government attack on science" comes from? I see a couple articles from May 2013, but am not sure if that is what everyone is talking about.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by rayne008

Can someone elaborate where this "government attack on science" comes from? I see a couple articles from May 2013, but am not sure if that is what everyone is talking about.

This excellent blog from science blogs covers it nicely:

http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/...al-indictment/

The list is LONG and depressing...

Update 2013.05.27. Over thirty new items added to the list. Thanks to everyone who made suggestions either in the comments or via email.

Additionally, two quick points.

First, as to why this extended series of posts is named the way it is. I am mindful that this blog is hosted on a US-based site so my main aim is to make “The Canadian War on Science” both catchy and mostly meaningful to a broad audience. In that spirit, something like “The Canadian Conservative Government’s War on …” at least initially seemed to me to be too wordy. It’s also fairly common parlance to refer to the government of a foreign country, no matter the internal situation, just by that country’s name. When I say that “France is doing this” or “Japan is doing that,” I of course mean the French or Japanese governments. It’s a kind of shorthand, if you will, that makes more sense on a non-Canadian site where I’m talking about Canada. So, I’m sort of accepting that while this usage will be somewhat annoying to Canadians, it’s both a useful shorthand and the precedent I’ve set for myself.

Second, on scope. I’ve mostly stuck to the natural sciences, environment and some public health topics here rather than looking more broadly at how the Conservative government treats the humanities, social sciences, memory and heritage institutions and just generally any sort of evidence-based policy- or decision-making. That’s purely for reasons of focus and time. It was quite time-consuming to compile this list initially so I was quite aware of just getting it finished. I’ve also received a huge number of suggestions both in the comments and by email and checking and adding those has also been a significant task. While I have in the past blogged about the challenges at, say, Library and Archives Canada, I decided that that would be out of focus for the purposes of this list. I would definitely encourage anyone out there to tackle creating a broader or a differently focused one. I have put this list under a CC0 licences so please feel free to take what I’ve done as a starting point.

Update 2013.10.06. Fifty-two new items added to the list, as detailed here. If I’ve missed anything or there are any errors or if I’ve duplicated some items, please let me know.

Update 2014.10.24. Update with 140 new items, as detailed here. Please let me know if there are any errors or omissions.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by rayne008

Can someone elaborate where this "government attack on science" comes from? I see a couple articles from May 2013, but am not sure if that is what everyone is talking about.