it's an interesting thought. but, by some estimates, if even a quarter of the undecideds vote as a block, it could swing the election. you have quite a bit of room to move on this hypothesis in being absolutely right, and yet being absolutely wrong. for that reason, there's almost no way to write off the undecideds - even if they overwhelmingly abstain, the few that don't are still the key in who wins, should numbers stay static.

if you look at how the 30/30/30 split has developed since august, the conservatives have more or less been flat while the ndp has lost a few points to the liberals. all of the data suggests almost all of the swing is on the left. i would expect the undecideds to eventually push one of those two parties up by a few points.

depending on where it happens, it could be disastrous for harper or it could save his hide. if the liberals get the bump, and it's largely in ontario, it could push the conservatives into third. but if the bump the liberals get is mostly in quebec and tepid in ontario, then you end up with equally sized opposition parties in a harper minority. conversely, if the ndp get the bump and it's mostly in ontario, you end up with conservatives winning tons of splits; if they get the bump and it's in bc, it could win them a small minority.

right now, it seems to be the liberals that are trending. but, even so, their gains may come at the expense of allowing mulcair a chance at governance, as they push tory seat totals in ontario down, but not enough to get over ndp dominance in quebec.

the point is, the undecideds are still huge - even if the vast majority stay home, in the end.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-undecideds-sep21-1.3237086

as a tenant, i'd consider a "no children" clause to be a selling point. i'd even be willing to accept a short-term increase in rent to help the landlord pay the fine.

there needs to be options for people that decide to have children. but there also needs to be options for people that have decided to not have children.

www.cbc.ca/news/business/got-kids-find-another-place-to-live-1.3233761

Donald D
Jessica, you have every right not to have children if you don't want to have them. You also have every right not to endure excessive noise in your dwelling. But neither you nor landlords are allowed to control how others respect the noise requirements in a building, and you certainly don't get to decide that families with children cannot live in the same building as you.

Your neighbours could be gay, black, Amish, wheelchair-bound, pet owning parents, and as long as they respect the noise and cleanliness regulations of the building, you get no say

jessica murray
i'm an anarchist, so i don't believe in property rights, which means i don't believe in tenants rights. rather, i think that the people that get to decide who lives in a building are the tenants, themselves.

if the tenants of a building decide they don't want kids in it, then it's up to the government to try and stop them. and, as mentioned, i'd be willing to help pay the fine.

you can throw around the language you'd like all you want, the question is what is it that you think you're going to do to enforce it? the only thing you can do is go to the human rights commission and get a fine. and, i'll gladly pay the fine and keep the restriction, thanks.

Sid
How idiotic and uncaring of you

jessica murray
well, it works both ways. it just means that people that want kids will need to organize to create spaces that are welcoming of their lifestyle decisions. i'd even support a little government help in doing that. but, not at the expense of my own peace.

Leopold August Wilhelm Dorothe von Henning
This isn't about "options", but human rights.

jessica murray
well, i'd question whether this is a valid application of human rights law; i don't think i'm paying to get around a rights abuse, i reject the idea that it's a rights abuse in the first place.

as mentioned, i would support the government subsidizing segregated housing units for people with children. that is the proper rights balance that respects their rights to housing and my rights to not be annoyed by them.

700kotchi
You reject anything that doesn`t fit your point of view it seems. See above.

jessica murray
this is the standard boneheaded reaction to my generally very subtle and sometimes quite complex arguments.

700kotchi
I don`t think you need worry about ever having children.

jessica murray
the most important thing that my parents taught me is not to have children. unless you have a lot of wealth to throw around, your goals immediately change. you no longer live for your own dreams; you must live for those of your kids. it's a type of martyrdom.

--

jessica murray
my post seems to have been disabled because it had the most likes and contradicts the message in the story. it's not remotely offensive. and that's pretty weak, cbc. rather than post it again, i'd request that you re-enable it.

Stan
(something about flagging the post)

jessica murray
and, you accuse me of not accepting the views of others? i've never flagged anything in my life, other than spam.

that's blatantly frivolous censorship.

original post:

as a tenant, i'd consider a "no children" clause to be a selling point. i'd even be willing to accept a short-term increase in rent to help the landlord pay the fine.

there needs to be options for people that decide to have children. but there also needs to be options for people that have decided to not have children.

there's nothing flaggable, there.

if people are going to abuse the flag function, it should really be disabled.

you're lucky there's not a legal process here, because you don't have anything close to a valid argument.

Extrapolate
My post has disappeared as well. Is that all it takes...to have someone who disagrees flag it ?

SquareDeal
How many. Is it in Bill C-51

jessica murray
while it seems as though this response is sardonic, the truth is that that's a good question. but, if so, i think it is codifying long existing practice. i can't be sure if i'm crosslinked to my 2008 election persona, but i was certainly dealing with censorship then, too.

and 2011, too, of course.

a large percentage of the people fleeing are actually christians.

the association of religion with the right-wing is a certain sort of religion - one that aligns with right-wing values. in that sense, it's sort of a meaningless correlation, other than to point out that a certain amount of religious interpretation leans to the right. the way we tend to understand this has cause and effect backwards.

there was actually a large amount of focus put onto this issue in the united states a few years ago. left-leaning internet sources felt some kind of urgent need to get across the point that, statistically speaking, christians prefer more communitarian interpretations of christianity that point more towards ideals of utopian socialism. these christians seem to have more numerical power, but they don't seem to be as politically mobilized as the smaller group of christians that seem pre-occupied with vengeance, and are driven very strongly by opposition to abortion.

there's no reason to think that isn't also true in canada. however, canada also has a different political tradition insofar as religion exists in it's political spectrum, because we have historical toryism - which, while existing on the right of the spectrum, holds much more closely to the communitarian concept of christianity. this is going to hold pretty closely to the reform/tory split in the conservative party.

the bigger question is where these people may feel they have to go. the ndp has a history in the prairie gospel, but that itself is a mixed bag in terms of historical vengeance-based policies, mixed with communitarian policies. but, it's barely a faint memory in the ndp of today.

one would suspect that this voting bloc may feel too alienated from the secular visions of the other parties, in the sense that there isn't a grassroots to blur that secular vision, like there is in the conservative party grassroots.

but, i think the article at least makes the point that these people would take a better option, if they saw it available to them.

30% is the floor, guys. +-. 27, minimum. i'm not making that up. that's historical reality.

globalnews.ca/news/2232630/christians-say-syrian-refugee-crisis-could-affect-how-they-vote-in-federal-election/

it's not the 70s. nobody cares about the debates anymore.

her insistence on the debates being an issue merely demonstrates that may is out of touch and needs to make way for younger people.

she'll reach more people over twitter. it actually gives her an advantage, as she's able to set the narrative - if she uses it.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/20/greens-file-complaint-to-cra-in-bid-to-get-elizabeth-may-into-munk-debate_n_8166226.html

wayne gretzky is a high school dropout. that is one of harper's major voting bases. and, frankly, if you're so uninformed that you would allow him to sway your vote, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote, either. non-issue. next...

ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/the-gargoyle-gretzky-to-endorse-harper-but-cant-vote-for-him

well, i got my forms mailed today. that's to cancel my student loan.

i can't be certain what the bureaucracy will do, but my understanding is that they basically can't overrule the doctor.

so, i'm celebrating this week. which means listening, but carefully - i know i can't mix when i'm celebrating.

and, it means making some different lifestyle choices starting next week.

...because it is critically important to maintain the existence of a species that sees us as prey. i suppose their plans are to breed thousands of them and release them back into the wild, where they can go back to their natural diet of villagers?

www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/zoo-spares-tiger-who-killed-zookeeper/57457/

see, the unfortunate thing is that it took you so long to figure this out. i figured this out about 25 or so. but, i think you still haven't quite figured it out.

you're still lost in the misunderstanding that we live in a meritocracy. but, if you look around a little bit more closely, you will hopefully see that your problem is not that you do, but that you don't - that we live in a system defined by rampant nepotism and corruption. we don't get ahead based on what we're able to accomplish, we get ahead based on the family we're born into and our ability to build social connections up the ladder, often in direct contradiction to our actual abilities. we would benefit from more meritocracy and less class hierarchy. a social reformation, if you will.

what they told me when i was in school was that i was brilliant. i came back at the 99th percentile of all the intelligence tests, for as far back as i can recall. i'll still ace just about an iq type test you can throw at me. but, i also failed the situational judgement tests in the 00s. three times. it's not because they demand the exceptional, it's because they demand conformity. i'm in the strange position of not being able to tell them what they want to hear because i'm so isolated from the people around me that i don't know what they want to hear. the only way i'm able to approach something like that is with logic, which is the wrong way to approach it. it's a test of whether the candidate is properly conditioned to behave in a hierarchical workforce. for me to pass the tests, i'd have to take courses in workplace behaviour that teach me the correct way to defer to authority and when i should not think for myself.

what i figured out about the age of 25 is that it's a waste of time to bother dreaming. i mean, it doesn't matter anyways. even if you get to where you want to get to, you've accomplished nothing of any value. so, i went back to school because i didn't want to get a job - i'd rather smoke a joint in the park and read a book under the tree.

the solution to the conundrum is to stop pretending you want the things you don't have. if you wanted them, you'd have already accomplished them. you studied science instead because you preferred it. so, stop letting the society define you, and take control of yourself, instead. if you can do that, you'll realize that you're happier reading that text book in your parents' basement than you would be otherwise. and that that's why you're doing it in the first place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pglv6VrA8ro

wait. this is the finance minister of the supposedly left-wing syriza party? he's got stiglitz shaking his head, and stiglitz is hardly a socialist. the real left media told us from the start that these guys are pseudo-leftists and you shouldn't expect much of a break from the status quo.

but what i found interesting about this video is how openly he suggests that the crisis is meant to stimulate a political union, and how easily stiglitz seemed to agree with him. this is generally considered to be in the realm of conspiracy theory, or at least in that space of somewhat heavy-handed left-wing analysis that tends to look like conspiracy theory to most people. but, nobody blinks an eye, here. it's just stated as obvious.

the truth is that stiglitz was very patient with this guy. the correct answer is that there is nothing that greece can do without looking at the framework of the eurozone. you can spend as much money as you want, it doesn't change the fundamental reality that the system is impossible. and, he even seems to agree with that and says "but...".

no. there's no "but". it's political union or bust.

Miguel Rodríguez Ruiz
How can the idea of a Federal europe be a left-wing conspiracy their?

*theory

deathtokoalas
+Miguel Rodríguez Ruiz there's a strain of thinking on the left that sees the european union as a kind of fourth reich and - implicitly or explicitly - tends to argue it was planned by nazi banking cartels, behind closed doors.

what i'm getting at is that this perception is really reducible to a question of scale. there doesn't have to be a grand illuminati cabal for it to be basically right.

Giannhs Kwstas
+jessica I dont think he speaks left wingy or right wingy, he speaks common sense. 

deathtokoalas
+Giannhs Kwstas what i'm pointing out is that he is not making any sense at all - he's spouting a lot of hard-right idiocy.

i should also point out that, in canada, "common sense" is doublespeak for "extreme right-wing policies". whenever that term is brought up, you know to expect absolute nonsense. it's broadly used to reject empiricism by pushing disingenuously presented intuition - to replace academic approaches with constructed gut reactions. it's the mark of anti-intellectualism. i don't know if that's also true in europe.

----

Alan Pater
Speaking of a US of Europe is counter productive, I think. Many Europeans hate the idea of modeling themselves after the US.

Perhaps Europe could take a look at the Canadian system? Canada has three territories and ten provinces, each with their own budgets for healthcare, education, welfare, etc.  Yet it remains an optimum currency area.

Alex Khalif
Hi, when Varoufakis talks about a "United States" of Europe, I think he is talking about some sort of "Federated Europe" where the peoples of Europe live in a more harmonious way, with the possibility of a number of shared institutions like a Central Bank. In his previous talks Yanis has stressed that Federation cannot be created in the middle of a crisis & that it will take approx. 20 years to make it happen. The institutions & structures that were created in the 60s, 70s & 80s by the so called technocrats n Brussels, Paris & Berlin have failed spectacularly to deal with the earthquake that hit Europe. Also among Europe's elites the notion of TINA (There Is No Alternative) must be killed off!!

Charly CGN
The Terminus Technicus we use in Europe is "Multi-speed Europe". Nobody seriously wants a "United States of Europe". Yanis Varoufakis is a fool. He and his communist party really should do all of us a favor and leave the Eurozone!

Alex Khalif
Varoufakis maybe an idealist when it comes to reforming European institutions as well as trying to stop Europeans turning against each other...BUT iam certain he is no fool & he is not a member of a "communist" government!

Charly CGN
Yes, of course. The Syriza-Party is a coalition of the radical left. That's the point. You know, I'm from western Germany and because of the subprime mortgage crisis and the corruption in Greece today we have the upcoming right wing-parties Front National (France) and AfD (Alternative für Deutschland - Germany). So, if now Varoufakis is not quick about returning to the negotiating table he is responsible for the rest of Europe to lose its patience.

Alex Khalif
Iam not going to mention anything horrible about the Germans or their culture as I have some distant relatives living there even though I now live in Australia. Iam very disappointed in what Schäuble & others in the government had to say after the meeting with Varoufakis.  They don’t seem to able to differentiate between somebody who is just a technocrat with a degree in Economics & Finance from a person with a deep intellectual understanding of European problems and practical solutions.  The human cost of this whole debacle is too high. Also, its not our responsibility here in Australia to find jobs for unemployed European citizens who have fled the crisis, we have enough unemployed youth ourselves...

taguchi13
Kindly watch the video you're commenting on Christian. It is evident, from your comment, that you have not.

Charly CGN
Right! We desperately need new GLOBAL institutions to deal with the consequences of climate change, inequality, injustice and implement the digital revolution.

TheHomoludens
Right, ´cause central bureaucrats actually solve problems, just look at Brussel...

Fool!

johnselekta
You are part of the problem I think. Media tells you he's a fool, you act like one. He is the only person I can see that wants to start at the top...where to do you think all the money goes? Thin air or a tax haven? Greece won't bring the Eurozone down, the people in power with hidden interests will as they profit from it.

deathtokoalas
canada is indeed the better example, primarily because it has an equalization payment system and the united states doesn't.

you could think of alberta as germany and new brunswick as greece. the way the canadian system works is that the federal government will collect taxes from alberta and send them to new brunswick as an "equalization payment", so that there are comparable standards of living across the country. if it wasn't for this system, the less wealthy provinces would not be able to afford things like healthcare.

that's the reality that greece has to come to terms with: it's economy will never be strong enough to use a german currency without a transfer system.