Canada Election 2015

[Aylmer]

More movement up for the LPC, but a remarkable 1.5 drop for the NDP. There's also a statistical tie between the NDP and LPC in Quebec (FWIW with such an error margin). The narrative has been set and I think it'll be another four or five points before it stabilizes since the traditional NDP base is about 16-17%.

I totally feel for NDP camp who are seeing their significant pre-election lead melt so rapidly by no real fault of their own. While Mulcair was trying to woo the centre and Trudeau was outflanking their left, the niqab (non-)issue was just enough to shake their base and tip the progressive see-saw. A lot of great NDP MPs who were brought in on the wave are now on their way out on its wake even if they did a dedicated job and ran a flawless local campaign. At the same time, a lot of brilliant Liberal MPs might also now get their chance to lead. I guess that so is the nature of democracy.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Indeed.......

How do you define "free fall"???

Yeah, I'd say that for the very first time we finally have something that would qualify as a freefall!

[Bcasey25raptor]

Cue the nonsensical fear mongering. The TPP has passed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tpp-agreement-atlanta-1.3254569

[lio45]

One thing that I find really interesting in this is that the NDP will now likely be supporting mildly whoever has a minority govt. They will have zero appetite for triggering an election anytime soon, and have lost their chance at a "merger of equals" for a centerleft coalition.

So... we might have a functional minority govt!

[Bcasey25raptor]

I think it's safe to say that the NDP will again be thrown back to their natural place as a protest party. This is good news, I hope the party swings left again as a voice instead of trying to be "Orange Liberals"

For what it's worth, I think we may be entering a Liberal phase again and a majority government run by the Liberals is looking entirely possible if the NDP drop to 16%.

[SteelTown]

Yesterday a friend of mine was listening to the news and she's an NDPer. She heard Mulcair speak somewhere in Ontario about TTP and said "Oh so now he's finally an NDP". I suspect a lot of 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 NDPers are turned off with Mulcair turn to the right.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Cue the nonsensical fear mongering. The TPP has passed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tpp-agreement-atlanta-1.3254569

How is concern about drug patents preventing generic drugs from coming to market for much longer periods nonsensical fear mongering? What about degradation of environmental regulations? From the bit that's been revealed it appears that this trade deal will lead to the lowest common denominator because if one country's environmental laws are seen to impact another's profitability it can be taken to arbitration. I know much of this will be said to be like past trade deals, but the scope (a dozen Pacific Rim countries) and the secrecy are unparalleled. Really we can't have an intelligent conversation about it because we know nothing officially about it beyond the leaked reports. I have serious concerns about it. If even some Republicans in the U.S. are afraid of it it can't be all good.

[Bcasey25raptor]

The main issue with the NDP is they had no real growth potential and they peaked too early.

Mulcair flip flopped too many times and his gaffes did stick.

Trudeau's about to ride a red wave to victory if the polling remains as Nanos says.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

For what it's worth, I think we may be entering a Liberal phase again and a majority government run by the Liberals is looking entirely possible if the NDP drop to 16%.

Would ~16% be within the realm of their historical norms for Canada as a whole, though?

I know that in Quebec, falling back to their normal historical level would be a big fat zero MP. But they normally had a couple dozen seats country-wide, right?

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

How is concern about drug patents preventing generic drugs from coming to market for much longer periods nonsensical fear mongering? What about degradation of environmental regulations? From the bit that's been revealed it appears that this trade deal will lead to the lowest common denominator because if one country's environmental laws are seen to impact another's profitability it can be taken to arbitration. I know much of this will be said to be like past trade deals, but the scope (a dozen Pacific Rim countries) and the secrecy are unparalleled. Really we can't have an intelligent conversation about it because we know nothing officially about it beyond the leaked reports. I have serious concerns about it. If even some Republicans in the U.S. are afraid of it it can't be all good.

No I agree with you and I do have quelms with this deal. But people are describing it as doomsday style end of the nation garbage and frankly, that's ridiculous.

I support the TPP but I'd prefer stronger environmental and medical protections remain.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by lio45

Would ~16% be within the realm of their historical norms for Canada as a whole, though?

I know that in Quebec, falling back to their normal historical level would be a big fat zero MP. But they normally had a couple dozen seats country-wide, right?

Look at 2008 and the years previous to know the answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2008

Yes the Canadian average for the NDP has been in the vicinity of 10%-18%.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Being born somewhere doesn't mean I need to respect or be proud of that place.

Canada performs extremely poorly in the developed world and it's only been getting worse under harper. The Liberals will set Canada back in motion where it belongs.

Also on a side not.

Lets report our neighbours for barbaric practices.

http://www.reportyourneighbour.ca/

Yeah I already posted about that. Could I report those 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 who put truck nuts on their vehicles?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

No I agree with you and I do have quelms with this deal. But people are describing it as doomsday style end of the nation garbage and frankly, that's ridiculous.

I support the TPP but I'd prefer stronger environmental and medical protections remain.

Someone posted an interview with Ralph Nader a week or so back where the former Presidential candidate talked about Canada under Harper and among other things the TPP. He summed it up pretty nicely in that our fates and national sovereignty will be determined by corporate lawyers. To some this is a gross oversimplification but when it comes to the deciding tribunals it's true. Make no mistake this will be bad for the environment as it will lock us all into a several decade bubble of current environmental regulation. It won't all be doom and gloom but the biggest losers under this thing besides our protected industries will be the environment and the general public due to the drawn out intellectual property rights components.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

The main issue with the NDP is they had no real growth potential and they peaked too early.

Mulcair flip flopped too many times and his gaffes did stick.

Trudeau's about to ride a red wave to victory if the polling remains as Nanos says.

I'm not sure the trends can be projected... in Quebec, I'd be very surprised if it didn't turn out to be simply a single-issue one-time shedding of votes. Maybe it started a spiral in the ROC, but it could stabilize any time.

[MolsonExport]

Mulcair peaked too early. So often the case with Mavericks and/or third parties.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

So would I. The right reason being, that an actual reason exists!

It's actually not that different.

Let's do an "acid test" based on the type of questions used in the niqab debate.

Is it an established cultural or religious custom for Sikh men to wear a turban? Yes

Does the wearing of a turban while riding a motorcycle cause potential harm to others? No

In this case, we can say that riding a motorcycle with no helmet but with a turban only entails risks for the rider himself. It's his personal choice based on his personal (and religious) freedoms. If I am involved in an accident with one of these guys there is no additional risk to me because this guy is wearing a turban and not a helmet.

Of course, there is the argument that we have universal health care. If the Sikh motorcyclist with a turban gets injured (in a way that a helmet would have prevented) we're all on the hook for his medical bill as taxpayers. This is true in theory, but to invoke the "only two veiled women have been denied citizenship" argument, how many Sikhs with turbans on motorbikes are we talking about? And how many are involved in accidents with head injuries?

The risk for the public purse in this case is extremely low, even non-existent.

So I am not sure there is any real case to be made for banning turbans on motorcycles in a climate where we are as a society very open to granting a variety of exceptions to rules and regulations for religious reasons.

If we allow the niqab in citizenship ceremonies, we can allow the turban on motorbikes.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's actually not that different.

Let's do an "acid test" based on the type of questions used in the niqab debate.

Is it an established cultural or religious custom for Sikh men to wear a turban? Yes

Does the wearing of a turban while riding a motorcycle cause potential harm to others? No

In this case, we can say that riding a motorcycle with no helmet but with a turban only entails risks for the rider himself. It's his personal choice based on his personal (and religious) freedoms. If I am involved in an accident with one of these guys there is no additional risk to me because this guy is wearing a turban and not a helmet.

Of course, there is the argument that we have universal health care. If the Sikh motorcyclist with a turban gets injured (in a way that a helmet would have prevented) we're all on the hook for his medical bill as taxpayers. This is true in theory, but to invoke the "only two veiled women have been denied citizenship" argument, how many Sikhs with turbans on motorbikes are we talking about? And how many are involved in accidents with head injuries?

The risk for the public purse in this case is extremely low, even non-existent.

So I am not sure there is any real case to be made for banning turbans on motorcycles in a climate where we are as a society very open to granting a variety of exceptions to rules and regulations for religious reasons.

If we allow the niqab in citizenship ceremonies, we can allow the turban on motorbikes.

That would be also my own take on it.

"But only two Sikhs so far have been asking for (and getting) this helmet exception, just pretend they don't exist and continue with your life as usual."

It's basically the exact same argument that can get applied to this as well.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

That would be also my own take on it.

"But only two Sikhs so far have been asking for (and getting) this helmet exception, just pretend they don't exist and continue with your life as usual."

It's basically the exact same argument that can get applied to this as well.

Inderjit, rev up your engine and take your lovely Amandeep for a ride!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJS8j9YYB9w

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Of course, there is the argument that we have universal health care. If the Sikh motorcyclist with a turban gets injured (in a way that a helmet would have prevented) we're all on the hook for his medical bill as taxpayers. This is true in theory, but to invoke the "only two veiled women have been denied citizenship" argument, how many Sikhs with turbans on motorbikes are we talking about? And how many are involved in accidents with head injuries?

The risk for the public purse in this case is extremely low, even non-existent.

What if a well-off Sikh wants to sign a discharge to his province's healthcare system for any head injuries resulting from his lack of helmet?

That would totally take care of the "public purse risk" argument, would it not?

And then well-off me could also sign a discharge in order to legally ride with the wind in my hair.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by lio45

What if a well-off Sikh wants to sign a discharge to his province's healthcare system for any head injuries resulting from his lack of helmet?.

But the health care system doesn't work that way.

Right now, the patient arrives by ambulance to the hospital, receives emergency care and is admitted to the hospital. All costs incurred by the hospital are covered by the stipend the regional health authority receives from the government.

So, what happens if this Sikh has signed a waiver saying he is responsible for his own health care costs because he (stupidly) wants to ride a motorcycle and he believes he can't wear a helmet because his religion mandates he must wear a turban at all times in public. Will the hospital turn him away if he arrives without public (or private) insurance? Of course not - care would be given in the usual manner and hopefully he would recover.

The health authority would try to recover their costs from the patient, but unless he were independently wealthy, he would end up declaring bankruptcy and the health authority would be left holding the bill. This would affect the authority's bottom line and either (1) the government would end up covering the costs anyway or (2) the health authority would have to balance their budget by cost cutting elsewhere in the system.

If you want state sponsored health care, you have to play by the rules. There's no opting out for religious (or other) reasons......