Why would anyone vote for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals?

The support for the Liberal Party of Canada in 2015, much like how to get the caramel into Cadbury’s Caramilk bars is one of life’s little mysteries. Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have been in power for almost 10 years, a time when a lot of voters, many of them the low information type, want to see him gone just because it is time for a change. And the longer he has been in power, the more a lot of Canadians on the left have succumbed to the Harper Derangement Syndrome, a popular affliction that seems to only affect those on the left of the political spectrum.

Recent polls suggest while the October 19 election is too close to call, the NDP are dropping and while once leading in the polls, could be heading for a third place finish. A recent Nanos poll have the Conservatives at 32.8%, followed by the Liberals at 31.7% and the NDP down to 26.1%. The latest Forum Research poll puts the Conservatives in the lead at 34% while the NDP and the Liberals are in a virtual tie at 28% and 27% respectively. What is interesting is not the split between the Harper and anti-Harper vote but why so much of the left wing vote is going to the Liberals under the hapless leadership of Justin Trudeau. A reason for the decline in support for the NDP in Quebec is the party’s opposition to banning women from wearing niqabs while taking the citizenship oath. Quebec is less likely to accommodate other cultures than is the rest of Canada. But there is very little difference between the Liberals and the NDP. Both opposition parties are opposed to Canada’s involvement in the bombing of ISIS targets and both deplore the Conservatives’ passage of a law that would strip dual citizens of their citizenship for terrorism-related convictions. Both parties are willing to spend, spend, spend in order to make things better for the middle class they feel is so beleaguered. And both parties would abolish or reduce some of the tax benefits the Conservatives have given to families.

---

With their similar policies, the differences can be seen in the quality of leadership the Liberals and the NDP have. In this, there is virtually no contest. Compared to the NDP’s Tom Mulcair, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is simply not bright enough to have any responsible position in government, let alone lead Canada. Nowhere can the difference between the two contenders be seen as in their views on Bill C-24, the law that allows for Canadian citizens to be stripped of their citizenship. They both make the same arguments against the law but there is a sharp contrast in the way they express their opposition. Both Trudeau and Mulcair says the law creates a category of second class citizens. While this is true, it is not really the issue. The issue is should Canada have the ability to get rid of a citizen that has citizenship elsewhere if that person is a convicted terrorist, bent on attacking Canada’s military and innocent civilians. Muclair makes his argument based upon the notion of two levels of citizenship while, even if you oppose this it is a valid argument against the legislation. Trudeau on the other hand said, “The Liberal Party believes that terrorists should get to keep their Canadian citizenship…because I do.” Trudeau approaches the issues not from the point of view of Canada and the security of citizenship but from the point of view of the terrorist. He feels sorry for terrorists like Zakaria Amara, the first person to have his citizenship revoked for terrorism. Had Amara been successful in setting off bombs in downtown Toronto it could have resulted in more deaths than those in the United States on 9/11. Justin’s sympathies are definitely with Amara who could be stripped of his citizenship and deported to Jordan while Mulcair looks at the bigger picture. Mulcair said he opposes the law because it could result in Canadians losing their citizenship for robbing a bank. The law is currently limited to convictions for terrorism and treason. Is this a valid reason? Again, it is whether you agree with Mulcair or not. Harper, in an interview with London, Ontario talk show host Andrew Lawton, left the possibility open to changing the law to include loss of citizenship for those who are convicted of other serious non-terror related crimes. Trudeau’s similar but childish argument is that Canadian citizenship is now conditional upon “good behaviour.” In other words, the “hair apparent” thinks that taking up arms against Canada or its military or planning and committing acts of terrorism is simply bad behaviour. Or perhaps the man child thinks a dual citizen who doesn’t eat all his broccoli or hummus or whatever, will end up losing his citizenship. Anyone who wants to see the Conservative government come to an end but is supporting the Liberals is obviously living in the past. Only the intelligence of the leader separates the NDP from the Libs. The Liberals are just as far to the left if not more as the NDP is but there are undoubtedly many who won’t vote for the NDP on principle because the party describes itself as socialist. The Conservatives have run a successful ad campaign accusing Trudeau of just not being ready but like most political ads, they are not absolutely truthful. They were crafted in an attempt to get Liberals dissatisfied with the Boy Blunder to vote Conservative. The truth is Justin Trudeau will never be ready. He’s proved that over and over.