Jennifer Tennant's Blog

With the possible pending election, could something like an attack on Libya possibly harm the chances of a re-election for the Conservatives? During a time of war, the voters typically tend to want to stay with the existing party. However, it is also possible that the opposition parties could use this war as a tactic to promote negative media around the Conservative party. In this case, because of the nature of the war, I feel that maybe the other parties won’t say anything against the Conservatives decision to enter this war. Although, during an election, is it possible that the other parties could do almost anything to help them at the polls? Somehow I doubt that they will bring up the Libyan war.

Is Harper trying to implement things to decrease his changes of losing the budget or losing an election if one is to happen? What would be the best strategy at this point in time for Harper? It seems obvious that the Canadian voters do not want another election, and it is quite possible that the NDP also do not want another election, from fear of not having enough support of the Canadian voters; so is Harper in the clear for this budget? My guess is probably not completely, however, I’m sure he realises the impact the results of this budget vote will have on the country, and realises that it is probably in the best interest of the voters and some of the parties to not have an election in the near future.

Is it possible that the other parties could be trying to pick apart possible issues that may not otherwise be a big deal, just to make the Progressive Conservatives look less qualified to run a government around the time the budget is to be released? Or, alternatively, could the PC’s be attempting to avoid displaying certain information that may make them look unfavourable to the voters and other parties? I understand why misleading MP is an important issue, but who should be directly blamed for this mistake? If the governing party felt that they were providing sufficient enough information, are they really at fault? However, if the governing party did not delve deeper into the issue at hand and failed to provide all the information that they could find, should they be blamed for their mishap?

The NDP realises that the Conservatives would greatly like their support of the budget; without another parties’ support, the Conservatives budget won’t pass, thus causing an election. So it is understandable that the NDP are airing ads that promote the changes that they want to make. However I wonder, is an election in the best interest of the NDP? Do they feel that they will win an election if one is called soon? If not, are they hoping that the Conservatives will change their budget to support more of the NDP’s wishes? Furthermore, did the NDP really not think that people would notice that the concerned citizen was the same person in both British Columbia and Ontario? Or did they not think that it was important?

A poll such as this one is something that could greatly affect a candidate such as Cristy Clark. When I first read this article, I was immediately taken back by the allegations the poll made. My first instinct was that Falcon was just trying to secure more votes for him, and thus was trying to make his competition look bad. Then I thought that maybe Clark was in fact going to do what to poll predicted. Regardless of the truth, I wonder: is it just to create a poll such as this one? Would making Cristy Clark really help Kevin Falcon’s running for Liberal Leader?

In a time where there are many issues around budget cuts or lack of any form of service that Canadians want, why then are the people complaining about Canada lowering the number of immigrants allowed into the country? Immigrants just increase the tax dollars that must be spent on processing them, and sometime paying for their living expenses once here. That consequentially means less money that can be spent on other programs that are in need of some help from the government.  That is something that can greatly harm to current political party in power: if they have to cut spending on other programs, the people who are affected by such cuts may become dissatisfied with the party, thus creating the party to lose support.

The government should choose a budget that is in the best interest of all Canadian citizens. It should be something that benefits the country as a whole, as well as each province equally. The budget should also be structured for the future: it should allow for further development down the road and help maintain Canada’s growth. When creating this year’s budget, should Flaherty ignore the requests of the other parties and create a budget that he feels is best for Canada as a whole, regardless of if it includes possible ideas from the other parties, or should he guarantee his party’s vote of confidence and comply with another party’s requests?

Canada has been known to accept people from around the world who are in need of a safe place to protect them from their home countries. However, when it comes to situations such as the situation with a Tunisian citizen, Canada seems to act based on the wishes of Tunisia, something that consequentially pleased the Tunisian Canadians. In this case, the Tunisian ambassador to Canada asked Canada if they could freeze the assets of a member (Belhassen Trabelsi) of the Ben Ali family: the family who Tunisia’s former dictator belongs to.  The Tunisian ambassador was acting on the best interest of the Tunisian people, and was honouring the international arrest warrant for the former dictator. The issue with that Trabelsi had stolen large amounts of money from Tunisia.

What political implications would this event have on the Canadian government? It is possible that this could improve Canadians’ feelings towards the people Canada allows into our boarders? My feel is that the Canadian government acted in a manner that not only honoured the Tunisian people, but also Canadians altogether. When it comes to granting citizenship to refugees, is there a line that shouldn’t be crossed? When those people could pose a political or physical threat to Canadians, is it possible that the Canadian government being too lax?

There have been countless examples of people who are tied to various international gang organizations or have committed crimes in their home countries who are granted citizenship or residency in Canada. Over the past year, there have been boats arriving in British Columbia from Sri Lanka, said to have Tamil Tigers on board. These people were taken in by the government, treated medically, given food and accommodation, and processed through immigration Canada. Although most of those people had full right to take refuge in Canada, could it not be possible that some were coming to Canada because they had heard about Canada’s relatively relaxed immigration policies? Should policies be put in place to prevent our tax dollars from being spent on possible gang type groups from gaining residency in Canada?

Last week some of the federal political parties began running “attack” ads. They depict information about why a certain political party leader has done the country wrong, or does not have the country’s best interest in mind. Although these ads are common around times of elections or political instability, are they actually benefiting the parties? Could it be possible that people think less of the parties who created them? These ads inevitably anger some people who disagree with the statements made, thus making more people dislike the particular party that produced the ads. Although some people may typically vote for that political party, it is quite possible that these ads could cause those with neutral opinions to form a stronger opinion against that political party. Is it worth producing “attack” ads if it means losing some potential extra votes?

Have you ever been reading an article online and had an advertisement pop up, blocking your view of what you were reading, and causing you to lose your place? These ads that pop up, whether it is in a separate browser or something that just rolls over whatever you’re reading, seem to constantly invade my personal internet browsing space. I know they’re meant to help break through the clutter of everyday life and virtually hit us in the face with the ads in an attempt to make us actually remember the product or service, but when does it become too much? When do those ads start to work against themselves? Personally, if I have something pop up on my screen, I immediately think that it could be a virus, and exit the pop up browser. However, not everyone would do that; many people would likely view the page. Typically however, the ad is something that seems like it has little value attached to it. Why then, would a company advertise in a channel that seems so useless? My guess is that those products or services that are being advertised would likely be for companies that feel as if they may not get much success selling their products or services in many other places…so making pop up ads may be the best option for such companies.

On another note, how would you feel about being asked to take a survey every time you go to a certain web page? Say you had just bought a product online, and then were asked to take a survey. Would that annoy you as much as a pop ad would? Probably not. But would it possibly decrease your chances of browsing that particular web site again? Maybe. Although you are given the choice of taking the ad or not, would you feel some obligation to take it, since you just bought something? Maybe, maybe not. My guess is you would only take the survey if you had something definite to say: maybe you were not impressed with the web site, or maybe you enjoyed your experience of browsing the site. That leads me to wonder… would asking people to take online surveys decrease the overall positive response to the product itself?