2018 Polls

645 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

What poll questions might look like if climate justice mattered

The Liberals’ strategy on Kinder Morgan relies on excluding moral truths from the national conversation

With a parliamentary majority at his back in the last years remaining to take the ambitious action needed to prevent extremely dangerous climate change, Justin Trudeau showed the nation last weekend that he is ready to step up in times of emergency.

Not, mind you, the increasingly alarming climate emergency, but rather the emergency of Kinder Morgan threatening to pull out of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project if the government cannot assure the company by May 31 that disruptions will end.

With the same decisiveness with which he told Canadians he would be dropping the widely supported proportional representation electoral reform he once campaigned on, Trudeau quickly reassured Kinder Morgan the government was in talks to bail the company out with taxpayer money if necessary.

Trudeau’s gamble is that there exists a sizeable middle-of-the-road Canadian electorate who, with the right messaging, can be sold on policy that commits us to continued fossil fuel extraction.

https://ricochet.media/en/2183/what-poll-questions-might-look-like-if-cl...

progressive17 progressive17's picture

His gamble is that most people want to carry on in their something-for-nothing greedy ways and ignore the reality around them and their cell phones. I think he has nothing to worry about in that respect.

 

SocialJustice101

Pondering.  I'm not so convinced.  If someone is against the pipeline, why are they praising the Alberta NDP?  And why never mention the Conservatives?  There are many NDP-Con swing ridings, especially in Western Canada.  The lack of consistency makes me suspect trolling/manipulation by a right-wing element, not a hyper-partisan NDP strategy.

Pondering

SocialJustice101 wrote:
Pondering.  I'm not so convinced.  If someone is against the pipeline, why are they praising the Alberta NDP.  And why never mention the Conservatives?  There are many NDP-Con swing ridings, especially in Western Canada.  The lack of consistency makes me suspect trolling/manipulation by a right-wing element, not a hyper-partisan NDP strategy.

More like defending the Alberta NDP. I am strongly opposed to the pipeline but I understand that it is a political deal breaker in Alberta. If she failed to defend it as strongly as Kenney the NDP would be wiped out in the next election. Left, right and centre for political parties is defined in relation to one another not as absolutes. Ultimately she was elected to represent Albertans. She would be going against them not representing them if she didn't fight for the pipeline. 

While there are some NDP-Con swing ridings I would not refer to them as "many" on a National basis. The western provinces together add up to about 18% of the Canadian population. Federally they go Conservative to such a massive degree they are hardly in play politically. It's very common for NDPers here to vent all their frustrations on the Liberals. I rarely read criticism of the Conservatives federally. It's usually Kenney or Ford. 

There are other factors. The threads that generate the most action are either on current events or they are controversial on this board. As PM Trudeau hits the jackpot on current events. He not Scheer is in power. There isn't a lot to say about Scheer. Trudeau is controversial because he did outflank the NDP on the left. I wanted cannabis legalization. The Liberals were the only party to go for it and they have delivered. They have some more progressive plans to take the 2019 election. The primary competition to the NDP is the Liberals. I just think it is a mistake to focus on them or the Conservatives or what either is doing. I think the NDP needs to put blinkers on and focus on Canadians not the other political parties or who is left right or centre on what. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

Left, right and centre for political parties is defined in relation to one another not as absolutes.

...

I think the NDP needs to put blinkers on and focus on Canadians not the other political parties or who is left right or centre on what. 

All in one post. Bravo.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

So if the "right" is Nazi, and the "centre" is Ayn Rand objectivist, does that mean the "left" is Conservative?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

If she failed to defend it as strongly as Kenney the NDP would be wiped out in the next election.

..it's much more complicated then this. yet this gets repeated over and over again as if it were true. notley and the ndp i understand when elected were effective critics and a counterbalance to the oil industry. once they took power that reversed. why is important to understand.

..the alberta population is not of one mind. i believe they are people just like any other people in canada. i believe they understand the destruction the tarsands project is doing to their province and in fact the globe. what is lacking is an alternative.

..the ndp had the oportunity once elected to produce one. they didn't. why? because they didn't have one or the deep state oil industry was to powerful to oppose. i believe it is both these things and this imho is the crux of what we must overcome everywhere.    

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

If she failed to defend it as strongly as Kenney the NDP would be wiped out in the next election.

..it's much more complicated then this. yet this gets repeated over and over again as if it were true. notley and the ndp i understand when elected were effective critics and a counterbalance to the oil industry. once they took power that reversed. why is important to understand.

..the alberta population is not of one mind. i believe they are people just like any other people in canada. i believe they understand the destruction the tarsands project is doing to their province and in fact the globe. what is lacking is an alternative.

..the ndp had the oportunity once elected to produce one. they didn't. why? because they didn't have one or the deep state oil industry was to powerful to oppose. i believe it is both these things and this imho is the crux of what we must overcome everywhere.    

While there are pipeline opponents in Alberta they are vastly outnumbered. Criticizing the oil industry and shutting it down are two different things.  Being progressive on oil in Alberta means supporting Alberta's oil being used in Canada instead of imports. If we won't do that we should let it get to salt water so we get top dollar. At least that's the accepted propaganda. 

Not supporting pipelines in Alberta is political suicide. It would take more than one session for a government to alter thinking on that. Even most of the Albertans that hang out here and are otherwise progressive still support the pipeline. 

JKR

I think there also seems to be this commonly held belief in Alberta that Alberta should have the lowest taxes and no sales tax. The Alberta NDP has accepted this so it is now boxed in trying to maintain that status quo. If oil prices don't go up soon the only way to maintain that status quo is to increase oil production. If oil prices and oil production both stay the same or go down, Alberta will be stuck with huge deficits and an increasingly unsustainable debt. Something will have to give during the next few years. I don't think any political party in Alberta is about to support a provincial sales tax, at least until Alberta's debt is the worst in Canada, which is still around a decade away if current trends continue.

JKR

SocialJustice101 wrote:

And why never mention the Conservatives?  There are many NDP-Con swing ridings, especially in Western Canada.  The lack of consistency makes me suspect trolling/manipulation by a right-wing element, not a hyper-partisan NDP strategy.

What's also strange about not mentioning the Conservatives is that it ignores the plight of so many Canadians under conservative governments. It should be obvious that defeating conservatives helps very many Canadians even if it means having centrist Liberal governments.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..of course it would take more than one session to implement an alternative. my point is that there was an opportunity to begin this journey that will have to be taken eventually. they didn't even try. the ndp could have introduced pr as well. don't go doubling down that there was no alternative pondering. it's just not true.

..there are a number of ways change could have be sold. increased good paying jobs is one. there are others alternatives that i have posted in the alberta threads. instead the ndp went with expanding the tarsands. it's not enough to justify this expansion because the ndp produced some social benefits. this expansion is/will costing alberta dearly now let alone down the road when the oil industry cannot suck any more wealth out of the province.

..we can continue this conversation in another thread if you want pondering. i don't want to continue here.

NorthReport

You need to settle down as you have now crossed the line.

If we hadn't already had experience here with your kind of tactics in the past, one might assume you are paranoid.

 

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Pondering.  I'm not so convinced.  If someone is against the pipeline, why are they praising the Alberta NDP?  And why never mention the Conservatives?  There are many NDP-Con swing ridings, especially in Western Canada.  The lack of consistency makes me suspect trolling/manipulation by a right-wing element, not a hyper-partisan NDP strategy.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Social Justice 101 is directed at right-wingers and apolitical, not at progressive posters in this forum.   For the record, I am not a member of any political party and I strongly support electoral reform.   I consider myself a practical progressive.  I am the kind of voter that the NDP needs to convince.  The biggest problem with the NDP is vote inefficiency.  They could not even hold the Cons to a minority with 30% of the popular vote in 2011. 

There was no way to predict that outcome as the Orange Crush was occurring.

What was the NDP supposed to do?  Were they supposed to say "stopping Harper is so important, we don't WANT people to vote for us?  We promise not to try and gain seats this year"?  Were they supposed to insist that voters who had turned away from the Liberals had to go back and vote for the Liberals anyway? 

Do you want them to apologize for being more popular than the Liberals in 2011?

​No major party, in any country anywhere, has ever done the equivalent of that.

And there simply weren't any significant number of ridings(there were none at ALL in Quebec), whare an NDP agreement to direct its followers to vote Liberal on "strategic" grounds would have resulted in Harper being denied a majority.  

Nor, for that matter, would it have made any difference if the NDP had voted to support Martin on that no-confidence motion years earlier.  It's been repeatedly proved that the motion would have passed by two votes without NDP support, that defeating the motion would only have delayed that election by a month, that there was nothing that could have happened in that additional month that would have stopped Harper from winning a minority government, and that the Liberals didn't have to wait until that very last moment to put the childcare plan up for a vote.

All of the Liberal talking points on this are conneries.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

My heart goes out to those poor Albertans who cannot afford to pay sales tax.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

You need to settle down as you have now crossed the line.

If we hadn't already had experience here with your kind of tactics in the past, one might assume you are paranoid.

The hyper-partisanship and negativity here seems very toxic. I wonder if it would be possible to communicate more here without so much negativity and hate?

gadar

Coming back to polls

When the Cons used to lead in the polls it was due to Harper's strong leadership.

When the Cons are behind in polls, the polls are rigged.

Who says the Cons are not mentioned, just read between the lines.

SocialJustice101

Ken Burch, I'm not saying the NDP did anything wrong in 2011.  In fact, good for them for picking up what's left of the Liberal Party.    The NDP vote was effective at defeating BQ MPs, but not Con MPs.   It's a tough reality, nothing more.

Ideally, I would like to see electoral reform to prevent fake Con "majorities", and to allow for more NDP-Lib co-operation.   It was a missed opportunity by Trudeau.  He's thinking about 2019, not long term.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Ideally, I would like to see electoral reform to prevent fake Con "majorities", and to allow for more NDP-Lib co-operation.   It was a missed opportunity by Trudeau.  He's thinking about 2019, not long term.

I don't think you understand the fundamental principles of the LPC. Only their own power and monetary reward is important. Long term, there will be more LPC majority governments under FPTP than under PR. Each one will be an opportunity to reward donors, friends and former colleagues. End of story.

NorthReport

JKR,

I agree, so why did you purposely remove the issue that was being addressed in my post if you are not being partisan yourself? 

Just askin'

Quote:

You need to settle down as you have now crossed the line.

If we hadn't already had experience here with your kind of tactics in the past, one might assume you are paranoid.

 

SocialJustice101 wrote:

 

Pondering.  I'm not so convinced.  If someone is against the pipeline, why are they praising the Alberta NDP?  And why never mention the Conservatives?  There are many NDP-Con swing ridings, especially in Western Canada.  The lack of consistency makes me suspect trolling/manipulation by a right-wing element, not a hyper-partisan NDP strategy.

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

You need to settle down as you have now crossed the line.

If we hadn't already had experience here with your kind of tactics in the past, one might assume you are paranoid.

 

 

The hyper-partisanship and negativity here seems very toxic. I wonder if it would be possible to communicate more here without so much negativity and hate?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I wonder if it would be possible to communicate more here without so much negativity and hate?

And hyperbole!

I hope that doesn't count as "hate".

NorthReport

Ha!

gadar

brilliant

gadar

In sports there is stat padding.

If there was something like "post padding" on message boards, I would be the world champ!!!!!!

gadar

Aint that right. 

Now I will just post a random link to make it look like I am serious.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ammunition-lead-gun-owners-1.4636598

gadar

Oh wait that link is actually relevent to the politics of the day. Just not the polls. But if you took a poll of the gun nuts, they will probably support the Cons. And it wont even be a fake poll like the Nanos junk. But what if Nanos did that poll

wow!!!!

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I wonder if it would be possible to communicate more here without so much negativity and hate?

And hyperbole!

I hope that doesn't count as "hate".

I think calling someone "paranoid" is hateful.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

JKR,

I agree, so why did you purposely remove the issue that was being addressed in my post if you are not being partisan yourself? 

Just askin'

Quote:

You need to settle down as you have now crossed the line.

If we hadn't already had experience here with your kind of tactics in the past, one might assume you are paranoid.

 

SocialJustice101 wrote:

 

Pondering.  I'm not so convinced.  If someone is against the pipeline, why are they praising the Alberta NDP?  And why never mention the Conservatives?  There are many NDP-Con swing ridings, especially in Western Canada.  The lack of consistency makes me suspect trolling/manipulation by a right-wing element, not a hyper-partisan NDP strategy.

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

You need to settle down as you have now crossed the line.

If we hadn't already had experience here with your kind of tactics in the past, one might assume you are paranoid.

 

 

The hyper-partisanship and negativity here seems very toxic. I wonder if it would be possible to communicate more here without so much negativity and hate?

Becsuse I tried to concentrate on the issue of your use of the terms, "your kind of tactics" and "paranoid." I guess you think it's ok to use those kinds of terms to describe another poster?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think calling someone "paranoid" is hateful.

I think calling someone "hateful" is paranoid.

#symmetry

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I think calling someone "paranoid" is hateful.

I think calling someone "hateful" is paranoid.

#symmetry

I shouldn't let the hyperbole of posters get to me. The term "paranoid" hit a nerve.

NorthReport

Exactly. You are purposely presenting one side only of a discussion. We have rarely agreed on anything here so you saw an opportunity to attempt to pile on. That's up to you, but do you think you are being constructive?

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

JKR,

I agree, so why did you purposely remove the issue that was being addressed in my post if you are not being partisan yourself? 

Just askin'

Quote:

You need to settle down as you have now crossed the line.

If we hadn't already had experience here with your kind of tactics in the past, one might assume you are paranoid.

 

SocialJustice101 wrote:

 

Pondering.  I'm not so convinced.  If someone is against the pipeline, why are they praising the Alberta NDP?  And why never mention the Conservatives?  There are many NDP-Con swing ridings, especially in Western Canada.  The lack of consistency makes me suspect trolling/manipulation by a right-wing element, not a hyper-partisan NDP strategy.

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

You need to settle down as you have now crossed the line.

If we hadn't already had experience here with your kind of tactics in the past, one might assume you are paranoid.

 

 

The hyper-partisanship and negativity here seems very toxic. I wonder if it would be possible to communicate more here without so much negativity and hate?

Becsuse I tried to concentrate on the issue of your use of the terms, "your kind of tactics" and "paranoid." I guess you think it's ok to use those kinds of terms to describe another poster?

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Exactly. You are purposely presenting one side only of a discussion. We have rarely agreed on anything here so you saw an opportunity to attempt to pile on. That's up to you, but do you think you are being constructive?

I thought I was being constructive trying to reduce ad hominem attacks. I guess I had the opposite effect.

I also think we agree on many issues.

Do you think you are being constructive?

SocialJustice101

Michael Moriarity wrote:
I don't think you understand the fundamental principles of the LPC. Only their own power and monetary reward is important. Long term, there will be more LPC majority governments under FPTP than under PR. Each one will be an opportunity to reward donors, friends and former colleagues. End of story.

I don't think most people in the LPC would agree with your assessment of their "fundamental principles".   Connections matter to some extend in every party and in every organization.  Hiring only total strangers and giving contracts only to total strangers may be not as practical as it sounds.  

If Trudeau had a minority, he'd probably be more open to moving to PR, especially if the NDP had the balance of power.    Such a scenario might still happen in the future.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Most people in the LPC are dupes, who are in denial about the obvious fact that their party is and always has been owned and operated by the more socially liberal faction of the Canadian capitalist ruling class.

SocialJustice101

Capitalism is a subjective concept.   Are the Scandinavian social democratic countries capitalist?   Yes, to a significant degree, but they still manage to provide a very high standard of living for their citizens, and a social safety net.  I'd bet many NDPers would rather move in the direction of Scandinavia, not Cuba.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Liberals would only like to move it in the direction of their own wallets.

SocialJustice101

progressive17 wrote:

Liberals would only like to move it in the direction of their own wallets.

Not if you consider Trudeau's tax hike on income over $200K.  Politicians don't make that much money compared to corporate CEOs and execs, and even compared to average doctors and lawyers.  

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Let's take this piece by piece.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Capitalism is a subjective concept.

I don't think this is what you really meant to say. I'd guess that you mean capitalism isn't a binary issue, yes or no, but rather a continuum in which there can be degrees of capitalist characteristics. I agree with this, but I also agree with the Marxist analysis that any type of capitalism is inherently unstable and unsustainable, prone to boom and bust, and trending asymptotically to absolute inequality and absolute authoritarianism.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Are the Scandinavian social democratic countries capitalist?   Yes, to a significant degree, but they still manage to provide a very high standard of living for their citizens, and a social safety net.

Yes, they are what we used to call mixed economies. When I was in university, this was the case in Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. as well. It was considered by most people to be a permanent state of affairs. Many articles were written about the coming social problem of excess leisure, as work weeks continued to get shorter with no decrease in wages.

Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney, Clinton, Chretien, Blair, and Martin put paid to that idea for North America and the U.K. The nordic countries and Germany have largely managed to escape the same fate for now, but things are trending rightwards even in those places.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

I'd bet many NDPers would rather move in the direction of Scandinavia, not Cuba.

Come on, man, we aren't talking about becoming Cuba, we are trying to perceive which factions control the political parties in Canada.

But anyway, the overwhelming reason for the poverty in Cuba is the sustained economic warfare against it by the U.S., not adherence to socialist principles. Fidel Castro actually tried to make friends with the U.S. after his successful revolution, but they wouldn't even consider his entreaties. So, he was forced to go to their rival, the U.S.S.R. for help. Even so, he managed to make the lives of most Cubans so much better than they had been under the American imposed dictator Fulgencio Batista that he remained popular for 50 years.

 

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:
..we can continue this conversation in another thread if you want pondering. i don't want to continue here.

All I'm saying is she is left of Jason Kenney so she has that vote. 

SocialJustice101

"any type of capitalism is inherently unstable and unsustainable, prone to boom and bust, and trending asymptotically to absolute inequality and absolute authoritarianism."

- Isn't it true of any government/economic system?  It's not just important to "spread the wealth around," but it's also important to spread the power around.   Both governments and corporations are controlled by people, and some of them will be "bad apples", regardless of the system of government.  I don't want either the corporations nor the government getting too much power.  Let them balance each other out.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

SocialJustice101 wrote:

"any type of capitalism is inherently unstable and unsustainable, prone to boom and bust, and trending asymptotically to absolute inequality and absolute authoritarianism."

- Isn't it true of any government/economic system?  It's not just important to "spread the wealth around," but it's also important to spread the power around.   Both governments and corporations are controlled by people, and some of them will be "bad apples", regardless of the system of government.  I don't want either the corporations nor the government getting too much power.  Let them balance each other out.

Yes, any type of hierarchical power structure, economic or political, will lead to corruption. As Lord Acton famously said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That's why I am an anarcho-syndicalist. Only direct control of the workplace by the workers can solve this problem, in my opinion.

MegB

Just popping in to address the issue of how we disagree with each other. Healthy debate and disagreement are more than welcome here. Insinuating that someone has some ulterior motive or is being disingenuous about their politics isn't cool. Not one bit. So let's try to disagree more constructively, okay? Oh, and just a reminder of how bad things can get here. This isn't it. Not even close, so chill.

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

Conservative Majority if an Election Held Now

 

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2841/federal-horserace-april-2018/

So, according to this poll:

The Conservatives lead in Quebec

Elizabeth May is the most popular choice for PM in Quebec

The Green Party went from 3% to 8% nationally

The Conservatives have the same amount of support in BC as the Liberals and NDP combined

The Conservatives have a lead of 21% for 18-34 year olds, and a lead of 1% for those over 65

Since January, the % of NDP voters who approve of Andrew Scheer has almost doubled (12% to 23%)

NorthReport
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'd guess that you mean capitalism isn't a binary issue, yes or no, but rather a continuum in which there can be degrees of capitalist characteristics.

Agreed.  I totally duffed it here one day when I made a glib joke about "Communist" China having a stock exchange.  Turned out they have two!

Quote:
But anyway, the overwhelming reason for the poverty in Cuba is the sustained economic warfare against it by the U.S., not adherence to socialist principles.

Whoops!  Now we're back to the simple binaries.

Are you SURE that a command economy and socialized barbershops had NOTHING to do with it?  It was just ONE country unwilling to trade with them?

SocialJustice101

A government would require enourmous resources to run every single business in a country effectively.   There's nothing wrong with letting the private sector handle all the non-essential industries, as long as they are well regulated to protect consumers and workers from abuse and fraud.  As someone who was born in the Soviet Union, I can definitely appreciate the consumer choice provided by a market economy.

SocialJustice101

NorthReport wrote:

Which is more significant: Fund-raising or Polls?

Liberals won federal election despite ranking third in fundraising

"Record-breaking fundraising for Conservatives and New Democrats didn't carry the day at ballot box"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-fundraising-winners-losers-1.3296947

NorthReport

But is that an anomaly?

SocialJustice101

We don't have much of a frame of reference for that, as it was Harper who cancelled the per-vote subsidy.   

Were Dion and Ignatieff anomalies as well?  I would say so.  Dion had trouble getting a crowd, and we all know about Ignatieff's worst defeat in history of the LPC.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

SocialJustice101 wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Which is more significant: Fund-raising or Polls?

Liberals won federal election despite ranking third in fundraising.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-fundraising-winners-losers-1.3296947

Yeah. Fundraising means little to nothing. When a party out funds the other parties it just means they have richer donors. Big surprise that these richer donors would be funding the Cons.

SocialJustice101

I'm sure Con donors are richer than others, but they also have more donnors.  The Liberals and especially the NDP, should really improve their fundraising activities.

Pages

Topic locked