the ndp's position on the pipelines is that they want to use the environmental review processes to shut down the opposition. they're clear as day about it. it's a pr strategy for the oil industry. what they want are these review processes that they can take out and wave in front of the crowd and say "look. we studied it. it's safe. we're building it.". but, the liberals are not a progressive option on pipelines, either - although they are probably a better option on investment in green infrastructure. this has been a big election issue in canada for several years, coming out of the liberals trying to swallow the greens in 2008 by adopting almost their entire platform. the ndp have tended to lean towards carbon trading ideas (which everybody knows don't work), while the liberals have toyed with carbon taxes, rewrites of the tax code to penalize heavy carbon users, subsidizing renewable industry and other things of the sort - which are all classical liberal economics ideas, remember. all three parties will try to build pipelines; this is not an issue on the table. but, the liberals are the better bet for trying to position us moving out of a carbon economy. think of it like this: the liberals don't want to bite this, but they want to put things in motion for the future. the ndp want to reroute the tax money towards services. it doesn't make sense to boost taxes on oil companies and then try and shut them down; if you're boosting taxes, you want to help the companies grow - that's why you're boosting taxes, to get higher revenue streams.
but, here's some good news: alberta crude is low quality. it sells at about $20 less than texas crude. that means it's currently selling around $20. but, it's also very expensive to make and very expensive to transport. on top of that, there is massive indigenous opposition to the pipelines. the pipelines may not get built due to a combination of legal headaches and a lack of profitability. and, it's in that context that ideas to move past carbon should take precedence.
but, ironically, the conservative propaganda seems to be drowning out the reality. they keep calling the ndp anti-oil and making a big stink about it. and, despite the fact that it's not actually true, it's probably helping them substantially. it's a function of how out of touch the government is.
the only serious possible wrench is related to syria. both the liberals and the ndp will probably remove themselves from active combat. on a smaller note, they're both likely to legalize marijuana outright (although the ndp are calling from decriminalization & study, and the liberals are calling for immediate legalization). nowadays, i think that's less of a major concern than it was before. we came close to legalization in the early 00s, but the bush administration essentially vetoed it (not legally, but through threats).
i also need to point out that it really hasn't been a two party state. the ndp has never held power, but they've had huge amounts of influence. for example, back in the early 70s, they got the liberals to nationalize the oil industry in exchange for supporting the budget. yeah. we had a state oil company until the 80s, when the conservatives spun it back off. and, it was the ndp's refusal to support what was really a pretty good liberal budget that got us into this conservative mess (because they didn't want that pretty good liberal budget to pass, because they felt that would hurt them).
but, the ndp doesn't talk like that anymore. they would prefer trade agreements with countries that have comparable labour standards. but, they've made it clear as day that they will sign the tpp and they will support oil pipelines - although they'd rather pipe it to new brunswick so they can build refineries in the country. and, they're running on a platform of fiscal conservatism: functional cuts to health care (that's perennially an important election issue in canada) and balanced budgets.
the actual reason the ndp have been ahead in the polls is that they've managed to confuse people about an anti-terrorism bill, called c-51. it has the kind of government spying provisions in it that nobody likes. now, the conservatives had a majority at the time it was tabled, so it was going to pass, regardless. the liberals took the position of opposing the bill, but trying to make amendments to it. the ndp took the position of opposing the bill, and then politicking around the liberal amendments. the result is that the public gets the impression that the liberals supported the bill and the ndp opposed it, even though they basically have the same position on it. this resulted in a big swing from the liberals to the ndp that hasn't yet receded, but may be starting to. the corporate media has refused to talk about this, and instead points to everything else you could imagine - the alberta election, conservative ads, trudeau's comments on syria, even marijuana legalization (which actually has ~80% support). so, even the narrative as to why the ndp is ahead is warped by the conservative-dominated media. the actual truth is c-51.
i'll tell you a way that the liberal democrats could win in texas: run a right-wing independent. the alberta election had three major parties:
- the wildrose party (tea-party style hard right)
- the conservative party (they're moderate republicans/democrats in alberta)
- the ndp (they're not very left-wing in alberta, either)
a lot of ridings had the conservatives and wildrose get as much as 65% of the vote between them, which let the ndp sneak through on the split. it wasn't a shift in public support, it was just vote splitting on the right.
as an aside, the greens are in clear opposition to the chapter 11 style sections of the tpp. and, they could get close to 10%.