This is an excellent summary. I am a swing voter. More Progressive Conservative, though, so I weigh my options with the CPC.
In terms of the key issues you listed (housing, pipelines, crime, economy), the CPC platform spoke to me. But Pollievre and team did a horrific job communicating. I signed up for their emails, and left, tired of the endless "Axe the Tax" and similar simplistic repetitious slogans. Plus, I really hate being called a "patriot." It feels un-Canadian (or overly-American).
Slogans are okay...just temper them. Use your words. Tell me what you're going to do about it, and convince me your plan is right. Don't tell me how bad my life is all the time. If it doesn't resonate with my reality, you've lost me and my vote.
Stick to fiscal policies, drop the identity politics. At every stage, Pierre's rage against the media, defunding the CBC, anti-woke messaging just pushed him closer to Trump. Sure it wasn't a big part of the campaign, but it was enough. Drop it for now, and focus on the big things that need to be fixed. That will get you a bigger tent.
Allow more nuance. If everything is black and white, my reaction to your message will be binary as well. The Liberals didn't totally cause the economic uncertainty, and oddly enough it seems Trump may be following their game (driving dollar down, making exports more attractive). Don't tell me why their plan is bad, tell me why yours is better and how it will work.
I believe Carney is a one-term politician. He's here to guide us through the Trump years. Likely will get a lot of blowback for his handling - good or bad. In my ideal world, the CPC supports the good policies the Liberals come out with, and keep a close eye on any tomfoolery. Come out looking like leaders, ready to take Canada to the next level.
I agree with you - I am anticipating a whole lot of rage against the liberals within 6 months if not sooner. I also think the CPC made a fatal error with not including the media in their campaign tour. Especially at a time when it appears to me that legacy media is attempting to be more balanced after watching the way things unfolded in the US.
And you, Sir, are, as is said, dreaming in technicolor. There are three issues with that proposal.
First, he is a died in the wool greenie; okay, assume that he ignores that.
Second, he has already said that he won't change the "No More Pipelines Act" (C-69, as I recall) and he has already said that he won't change the limitation on resource emissions; okay, assume that he ignores that and reverses his comments.
Third, Quebec. That province has dramatically said "Non!" to pipelines across their province; the Bloc Quebecois has said "Non!" Carney has said "Non!" if Quebec doesn't want pipelines. The feds have the constitutional power to override those assertions but does Carney want to provoke Quebec, particularly given the number of new Quebec MPs in his caucus?
Oh, and a bonus fourth issue. The fact that C-69 won't be revoked or changed (according to Carney's own words during the campaign) means that such a proposal would result in endless hearings, massive costs, delays until the end of time. Result: a time frame that would make such a promise totally worthless.
Oh, and a bonus, bonus fifth issue. The fact of the first four issues would simply confirm pipeline industry decisions to invest in Canada only in a maintenance capacity and to major investments outside of Canada in the US, Mexico, South America (to use the investments in the past few years by major Canadian pipeline companies). Put differently, no pipeline company will risk the massive amounts of capital and delay in such a project. The result would be that the project would be financed one hundred per cent by the federal government and the incredibly incompetent example of the construction of TMX would be magnified endlessly and the cost would probably balloon to much more than 100 billion dollars and would take an insane amount of time to complete (if ever!).
End result: a) I don't expect such an announcement; and b) if I am wrong, any such announcement would simply be more performative stuff - an announcement with no intention or prospect of completion.
It's the Conservatives who call it "the no more pipelines act". You have no idea what he's going to do. You have speculation. You're more than welcome to it. You seem to be suggesting these are normal times. They aren't. I don't think Carney is going to treat them like they are. We'll all find out together.
PS Alberta could have been shipping 20 train loads of oil daily, waiting for pipelines to be built if Jason Kenney hadn't cancelled Noitley's deal, costing Albertans billions.
It is called that because it, as a practical matter, guarantees no more pipelines will be built by the private sector.
As for these being or not being normal times, I expect that Carney will argue that they are not normal times and will then fiddle around and not change those things that need changing.
We will see (or not see).
PS You can argue about Kenney's actions or inactions but that has nothing to do with pipelines. Pipelines are massively more efficient and incredibly safer (ask the residents of Lac Megantic) than rail transport of oil.
NO, it just makes the approval process complex. That doesn't mean it can't be worked around, nor does it mean that a pipeline can't be built. My question, again, is how would Alberta react if he said "let's build it next week"?
Dilbit and Bakken crude are nowhere near the same thing. Shipping from Hardisty will not create another Lac Megantic...which wouldn't have happened if Transport Canada had been even remotely functional at railroad oversight. The MM&A should never have been allowed to operate the way it was. Regardless, there are no legal impediments to running oil trains in Canada, something which happens daily in this country....and could be happening far more if Kenney hadn't killed it, generating even more income for Alberta and Canada. Pipelines that don't exist move no product. Rail can do it tomorrow.
The question I would ask Mr Blanchett when it up, is how he feels about speaking American. It is just an opinion, but I don't think there has been a better time in the last 50 years to discuss pipelines with Quebec. The one thing Carney stressed while campaigning was the need for prompt action, not words. I'm counting on that.
Bill C-69 allows Cabinet to intervene and authorize a project in the national interest, not leaving it stalled in the regulatory morass. Andrew Roman believes that the only way anything will get built in Canada ever again under C-69 is by Cabinet intervention.
Carney has also said Indigenous "consent" will be sought and required for all resource projects. This is not current Canadian law which requires thorough consultation. Just as you and I cannot veto an airport or a highway that "affects" our private property, neither is there an indigenous veto. If Carney wants to escalate to indigenous "consent" (i.e. grant them a veto) he will have to figure out how to tell when the various bands, communities, groups of cronies, and sundry activists and land defenders have actually given consent. There is no legislative body comprising aboriginals exclusively that could indicate binding consent. Theoretically (and practically!) one activist on one reserve could claim that he and his little clique of cronies had not given their personal consent and so the project would be stalled.
If Carney is serious about requiring indigenous consent literally, and it wasn't just a mis-speak, then he is saying resource projects will never happen because there will never be unanimous consent from every indigenous person who figures out that withholding consent means the resource company will sweeten the deal with more money in hopes of gaining the consent of that last holdout. The idea is to extract every dollar possible from the value of the project without causing the investors to say "Fuck it" and walking away, as KM said with TMX.
Leslie, I agree with you and I think that this morass is simply symptomatic of the vast stupidity of the last government that they wanted to look good to their constituency but did not consider the ramifications of their stupidly obscure drafting of law. For example, "the intersection of gender and ..." No one even knows what that means but that is the law.
You correctly mention KM simply getting disgusted and walking away. In their case the saw the panic in the JT government and held up the LPC for an obscene amount of money. Good for KM!!!
It is instructive that Canada's major energy companies have invested literally tens of billions of dollars outside the country in the intervening period and they simply have no appetite to return and invest in Canada. To me the interesting point is that those pipeline companies have such massive amounts invested outside Canada that I expect those companies to remove their head offices and places of incorporation from Canada to elsewhere (Houston, perhaps?) at some point in the near term. Another industry chased away by the (non) geniuses at the LPC.
Good point, Ken. A lot of the discussion about pipelines here is around the idea that "we" are going to build the pipelines. But "we" don't build anything, except by Crown corporation -- you know, High-Speed Rail from Ottawa to Québec City so the separatists can confab with each other and then go for dinner and strippers in Montréal. As you point out, the people who build pipelines are syndicates of investors putting up their private money for energy companies like TC to build them, and they will do that only if the prospect of return on investment from tolls is better than the opportunity cost of capital. (Does Europe really want our oil and gas that badly?) All "we" do as Canadians is hope "our" government gets out of the way and makes it clear how much it dares to thwart obstructionism. Even if the government really wants a pipeline, someone else has to put up the money to build it. We don't really want another TMX Crown corporation building it as a public work. Do we?
Apologize if this is a little tangential but is there more to Quebec being so anti pipeline other than environmental issues? And if environmental, is it concern about pipeline leaks or just anti-oil in general? Or is it just a stance to extract some compensation from Feds/Alberta etc for an eventual pipeline? Would love to see a post here on pipeline issues and politics and facts in the future.
Kristie, I write this as an Albertan so this is my appreciation of the issue and, most definitely, is not definitive.
So, as to why, as near as I can tell, the answer is "Yes" to all of the above in varying degrees.
It seems to me that for some people the issue is that they are truly environmentalists. On the other hand, it appears that quite a number of those folks actually drive gasoline/diesel powered vehicles and are environmentalists of convenience and because it is / was fashionable.
As for pipeline leaks, yes, they do occur but such leaks are generally quite limited in nature and quickly remedied. Having said that, any leak is bad news for everyone (although, to be honest, that "bad news" is more bad public relations than actual ongoing harm of any nature - usually).
Now, further as to pipeline leaks, they are relatively rare and, as noted are quite limited in nature. By contrast, movement of oil by rail is much more prone to disaster and, if a derailment occurs, it is much more likely to result in a noticeable spill. In other words, oil pipelines are much safer than shipment of oil by rail.
Ah, compensation! Yes, Quebec is famous for not allowing "Canadian" projects / programs to go forward without extorting (my very deliberate verb) something from the feds / project proponents / etc.
And, bear in mind, that Quebec has a noticeable amount of territory that the resource industry has identified as being ripe for drilling and eventual development of oil and gas but Quebec has passed legislation that prevents that occurring. Many of we in Alberta consider that action as hypocritical and as a way to not generate additional revenue that would cause Quebec to become wealthier and to then not receive equalization payments that are largely funded by Alberta. I know, cynical; which doesn't stop it from being accurate.
A dream. Would be nice (and interesting) but not likely to happen. We need to look at other (perhaps quicker / less costly?) alternatives. Though I am dreaming, too. Would be nice to hear proposals from Alberta on how we could best support / fund / drive their product to market. Proposals may be out there, and I'm just unaware.
Rail is costly and inefficient and more risk due to potential spill on a derailment.. Industry reluctantly went with rail. Oil on rail also bumped agriculture products of rail..
So what? Do you want to get the product to market or not? Considering the cost to build a pipeline, it is not significantly more expensive than a pipeline, and we wouldn't have to sell it at a discount like we are now. How many thousand oil trains have run since Lac Megantic? Dilbit is not Bakken crude. I'd rather it move than sit in the ground. And in a best best-case scenario, a pipeline is at least 5 years away.
The supporter email comments resonates... the party has good policy ideas. Whomever controls the party supporter comms is a donation industry nut job. Please, for the love of God and all that is holy, produce something of substance here. I know it exists.
The last paragraph of this piece is spot-on advice, but I have to say that I am not at all confident that Poilievre will, or even can, take it. He's so good at vamping for the mobs on social media because he gives off more than a small aroma of authoritarianism, and it's populist authoritarianism that appeals to that base. (It's also why I, as a Burkean conservative, wouldn't ever support him.) The problem is that authoritarianism is a deeply wired personality trait. I just don't think he's the person who can broaden his appeal to bring on board conservatives and moderates who are leery of authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism? I'd like to know where you see that in him.
Populism? Sure. But I fail to see an ounce of authoritarianism in his demeanour and platform. If anything he's more libertarian than anything, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, with a dose of traditionalism.
Libertarians guided by the core base sure sound and act authoritarian-their way or the highway. Premier Smith who loves PP is an excellent case in point. Their disdain for the caring society we unite around in the face of Trump is worrying. Hating on our country and saying it is broken are some reasons why the cons certain majority evaporated.
Authoritarianism requires coercion. As far as I can tell, and in light of the last couple of decades worth of Canadian political history, the coercion almost always came from the left, cf vaccine mandates, lockdowns, quarantine hotels, online harms bill, freezing of bank accounts, etc.
Being inflexible, as you described ("my way or the highway") is not being authoritarian. Misguided perhaps, but not authoritarian.
This is the equivalent of leftists calling PP "far-right", what I call verbal inflation, to the point of stripping words of all meaning.
The caring society you speak of, is the very one that gaslit you into thinking that they were the good guys when they were the very ones implementing authoritarian policies.
Trudeau and I suspect Carney, are far closer to authoritarian despots like Xi or Kim than PP or the CPC will ever be.
No, there should be a caucus coup. Everything that happened to Pierre from the day Trudeau's equity was self-inflicted. That there was no plan for it was insane. That there was no pivot when it happened was self-inflicted. Frankly, that he wasn't smart enough to know that supporting the Convoy in and around Ottawa was political insanity suggests Pierre's judgment is no better than Justin's.
Everyone wanted Trudeau gone. Pierre's support collapsing the day he left says it wasn't about liking Pierre; it was about hating Justin. That was painfully obvious. And yet, he didn't see it. And how the hell do you scream for an election for months when you're winning, but not be able to put out an absolutely economically pathetic costed platform until after advance polling has closed?
No, Pierre has to go. Andrew Scheer; the previous title holder on losing an election handed to him on a silver platter said "I am very confident that as we get through the difficult days, the next days and weeks, as we figure some of these things out, we’re going to come out the other side with a more united team, with a bigger team, with more representation from more provinces, and Pierre is the man to deliver that victory". No, Pierre proved beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that he is not. He's toxic, he's obnoxious, and clearly can't pivot to things changing before his eyes. That is not the leader Canada needs at any time, especially now. And there won't be an election for 4 years because those 7 NDPers aren't going to vote against anything. Carney has a majority. I sure hope he doesn't fuck it up.
Read the numbers carefully - there was no collapse of support. He did better then the polls were predicting at his peak. What changed was the NDP switched to the Liberals.
I agree there was no collapse in support but I don't think it was the NDP switching to the Liberals that made the difference.
Last parliament had 338 members, this one has 343 so 5 seats were added. I don't know who won those seats or where they were located but it might be of a little interest to do a deeper dive, maybe.
According to Wikipedia's data, at the time Parliament was prorogued there were
153 Liberals, 120 Conservatives, 33 Bloc, 25 NDP, 2 Greens, 4 Independent and 1 vacancy. Five seats were added (as mentioned).
The results now are 169 Liberal (+19), 144 Conservative (+24), 22 Bloc (-11), 7 NDP (-25) and one Green (-1).
29 seats shifted to the two main parties plus the five new ones indicate that. There was also some shifting between the Liberals and Conservatives.
The Liberals received 479,139 (2.4% of all votes cast) more than the Conservatives but ended up with 25 (7.3%) more seats. If we exclude the 'fringe' parties (including the Greens) and votes that went to independents and just look at the total votes cast that went to the two parties, the difference is still only 2.7%.
This is a clear sign of what Gerald Butts infamously described (quite gleefully if I remember) as 'strategic voting'. It comes down to where the seats are won - GTA, Vancouver and other public sector union strongholds along with having an effective wedge issue.
Also, the Carleton riding was expanded, and the NDP chose not to run a candidate there. I wonder if Gerry Butts had a chat with them ;-). I too want Pierre to stay on as leader. I actually think he'd be good for the country.
I think Butts gloated about voter efficiency. Strategic voting is where the NDP votes Liberal in order to stop the Conservatives from winning through splitting the Left vote. Voter efficiency is different and can operate even with just two parties. It means spreading your vote across the country so you win a lot of ridings by 1000 votes instead of wasting much of it in landslides that still win you only one riding each. That's how you form a government with 33% of the popular vote while the main oppo party gets 34%, twice in a row. Butts issued a playful challenge: "Come on, Liberals. Let's see if we can form a government with 32% next time. How about 30%?" (Quoting freely from memory from 2021)
You could be right, I don’t remember the term he used, I just remember thinking at the time “it’s all just a game to you” or something to that effect. You don’t even have to spread it all across the country, just target a couple of areas with a high concentration of seats in a relatively small area, such as the GTA.
And it continued this time around, it was never about what is best for this country, or its people, it’s about playing the game to maintain control.
That’s a short term way to cling to power, but the support becomes two miles wide and as thin as Saran Wrap.
The Liberals won a lot of ridings in this election with a very small percentage of the popular vote over the second place candidate. (As did the Conservatives and Bloc). But the Liberals are the tired ones who are struggling to shed the image of a disaster in the making. I would be very worried if we head into a recession with high unemployment, high debt and high interest in replacing a government that was given a second chance and blew it.
He had a 25-point lead in the polls and a projection of over 200 seats. He turned it into 144. He failed completely to convince people that he was a better option than the party that had been useless for the last ten years. He didn't lose 60 seats worth of NDP support, because that never existed. He failed to see what was in front of his face. Real leaders don't do that. Feel free to run him again. Don't expect a different result.
I completely disagree with you. Conservative support increased at the voter level. And considering the misinformation that was out there - things like CPC was going to ban abortion, take away women's rights, be hateful to the alphabet crew, etc - there were people on my feed crying tears of relief that they'd still be able to keep their same sex marriage plans. (Yes- I rolled my eyes, nobody was going to take it away so stop being dramatic and spreading lies.)
But that belief was widespread. NDP vote collapsed in part because they don't support the NDP for policy reasons, but because they don't support anything conservative. The irony is that liberals moved center right in this election, taking many of the platforms and policies from the conservatives. It remains to be seen whether they stay center right or whether they move left to try and get the NDP to support them.
Whose responsibility is it to address said misinformation? Are you suggesting that there is no camp within the Conservative Party that wants to restrict abortions? Or the "alphabet crew"? I heard a lot of "Axe the Tax". I didn't hear any bold statements to the media or at his rallies stating "My government will never interfere with a woman's right to choose, or interfere in people deciding who they want to marry". So if you think that was an issue, why didn't Pierre address it head-on, regularly and with the media...of right, he shunned and refused to copp[poertate with the media. Also not leaderlike, and another self-inflicted wound. I think what he said mattered. But if he didn't address misinformation head-on, whose fault is that? Something as simple as getting a security clearance once the writ dropped, but he hedged his bets that he might lose and didn't. Another self-inflicted wound that brought his judgment into question.
NDP support collapsed when Singh signed CASA. Any that was left was gone the day Trump threatened annexation. They are finished as a political movement for the future; largely dependent on Carney's performance, that may well end up with what little is left of them merging into the LPC.
The Liberals made smart strategic moves that neutered the entire CPC platform. Pierre had no answer for it. He continued to try and appease his base instead of going after the people he needed; the ones who didn't want to vote Liberal, but felt it was the only real option. Carney is not Trudeau. he comes across as a real leader. We will all find out together whether he is one. We found out in this election that Pierre isn't. There is no world where you can call losing a 20-point poll lead 4 months ago into a lost election a success....unless you're committed to lying to yourself. This election was a disaster for the CPC, aided by Preston Manning being an idiot, Doug Ford offering payback for Pierre's lack of support, and others within the CPC knifing their own people...Erin's election Part Deux. Red Toryism appears to be back, and it has a majority. Pierre has to go.
If you can come up with a way to counter the selfish prorogation of Parliament in the face of a full blown tariff war, please advise.
The Trudeau resignation was two years overdue and his last parting gift was to sabotage cross party consensus about the tariff issues, leaving the entire playing field to the Liberal Party for three months.
I enjoy that both major parties had literally identical stances on Trump and tariffs but the Liberals still smeared the CPC for wanting to "kneel before Trump" and people bought it. Amazing.
Prorogation should not be permitted(by any party; it's not just a Liberal thing). It's undemocratic. I agree wholeheartedly that Trudeau should have resigned 2 years ago. I cannot remember a time we've had consensus between Liberals and Conservatives. It's pathetic on both sides, since both have good ideas. But it is no longer about what's good for the country; it's about staying in power.
Erin. Rona. Someone who is an adult. Someone smart enough to put the abortion and LGBTQ debates to bed for good. Someone with an actual plan and a vision. Not a rabid attack dog who is arrogant, condescending, incapable of running an even marginally credible campaign...in an election he was begging for, and then completely unprepared to fight. The Liberals found someone who appears to be an actual leader. We'll find out if he is. The Conservatives couldn't even get out a costed plan before advance polls were closed. That was pathetic. So was Pierre's childish games with his security clearance. This was the Conservatives' election to lose, and for the third straight time, they found a way...and all with self-inflicted wounds. Erin would have won a landslide.
You say Poilievre can grow from this, but I have serious doubts. He's been this same politician for 20 years. What evidence is there that he has any capacity to grow? All he's done is get pettier and more vindictive.
Once upon a time, the Conservative selling point was being "The adult in the room" and all I see from Poilievre is a petulant child.
Yes. PP loves the culture wars and loves identity politics. He also loves the spotlight. My nickname for him for years has been the Incel Mussolini. How many pages of pictures were there of him in their newly released party platform? The Liberals had carne on the cover of theirs but I hear there were seven or eight pictures of PP in the CPC platform.
You have forgotten an important factor. Poilievre is TOTALLY UNLIKEABLE and has tied himself to MAGA. As its ruinous effects continue to roil the USA, and Trump implodes, Canadians will find him less and less a choice for PM
Canada First was taken directly from MAGA’s America First platform. Many Poilievre supporters refer to themselves as Maple MAGAs. Guess you missed that-the people at his rallies didn’t.
The connection is so obvious I'm thinking you are deliberately ignoring what's in front of you. Maybe you didn't see any of the Liberal ads where they lined up PP repeating everything that Trump said. This one's short and I've seen ones that longer because he could go on for 5 minutes. https://youtu.be/B9PpVZ5f8pI?si=dr9sDwyddNqSLU70
They should have done many more of these.
The Conservatives bought a messaging franchise from the Republicans and have been pedal to the metal on that from the beginning.
And then there was Danielle Smith letting the cat out of the bag telling American right-wing media that PP is in line with the new American Sopranos regime... just like she is.
Are you unaware that Liberals and Democrats work on each other's campaigns and so do Conservatives and Republicans. It's not pure chance that he's using the exact same words. Both parties spend a lot of money focus testing those lines/slogans. And, yes, that research is shared around the world. It's funny how Scott Moe all of a sudden started talking about "men" in women sports. "It's working for the Republicans so let's try it here."
The slogans and propaganda are one thing and it really tells us nothing about how PP would actually govern. Just like Trump, the CPC identified a lot of issues that are very important to most people but we know Trump has zero interest in helping those people in his country. We have to assume the same about PP.
One of the best 'tells" for me is PP refusing to do Nardwuar's show. On one hand it's nothing but on the other hand it's a chance to show your human side. Carney (as well as Singh, May, Chretien and Paul Martin) had the stones to do it and came off as a really pleasant guy. Poilievre won't do it because he's afraid that people will see what he's really like. He knows Canadians will not like who he really is.
Why is "men" in quotation marks with respect to women's sports? "Transwomen" are men, after all. It's "transwomen" that belongs in quote marks, not men. Why would anyone not want to get men out of women's sports? It's not hateful to want that.
My point is that it's a really tiny, tiny issue best left to school athletic committees. Republicans and other right wingers have managed to magnify it into a huge issue when we're talking about, what?, a couple of dozen people across North america? It's not a terrible problem in Saskatchewan but Scott Moe and others saw an opportunity to use it as a political weapon that has emotional resonance vastly beyond it's actual importance. In short, it's just a trick.
When I first heard Carbon Tax Carney, I thought where have I heard silly Nick names before??? If you don't wish to be accused of being a duck, then don't quack like one.
Disagree respectfully. Trump will not implode. His base loves him and the payoff from his tariff initiatives will be evident by the time the midterms roll around. Agree Poilievre sadly is not liked. Like anyone with a French name and Canadian connections, he is considered a traitor in the Quebec nation . Even his hairstyle makes him look like a “tete carree” (don’t know how to do accents) ( or “square ‘ead” as they say in QC).
Imagine how the Cons would have performed with a leader without a 20 year track record of acting the repugnant creep from your high school Young Reformers club.
Is Pierre capable of being anything other than a massive cunt?
Has he ever demonstrated this ability?
Are we confident he can actually pivot to normal without getting stuck in the rictus grin uncanny Valley?
No, the conservatives should not give Poilievre another chance. I don't believe he's capable of changing since he's been this way his entire life. He's not going to suddenly morph into Bill Davis or Peter Lougheed. Both PP and Andrew Scheer should be tossed and sent to the People's Party where their toxic attitudes really belong. This country desperately needs an actual conservative party run on decency and honesty. That party would have one handily.
Gotta disagree on the wisdom of Poilievre staying on as leader. Speaking for myself, I find his personality every bit as grating as Trudeau’s. Another few years of his sneering belligerence, and Canadians will be happy to see him gone. He can’t fake being nice.
Liberals run another wildly manipulative and unfair campaign, this time resorting to authoritarian levels in rigging of election circumstances, waging a propaganda campaign to amplify fear and turn a minor trade dispute into 'the worst crisis since World War 2' which is now somehow about to get resolved, steal from the CPC platform and present essentially zero new ideas, and benefit from unprecedented foreign interference and an equally unprecedented collapse of the minor party vote and...
The lesson you all take from it is that it's all the Conservative leader's fault. The guy who ran a successful two year campaign that ended Trudeau's career and changed public opinion on the carbon tax 180 degrees. Who was about to rush in with a massive majority even with all the quirks you now criticize him for. Whose media strategy was working just fine until 3 minutes ago when every possible circumstance turned against him. Who still delivered the best seat result since Harper and the best vote result since Mulroney. Who lost his seat despite what would normally be a very good result, for the fault of wanting to represent his own constituency rather than swap for East Podunk River, Alberta where he would get 90% of the vote.
It proves that you are all as gullible as the elbows up morons. This is the next step in the Liberals plan - await the circular firing squad on the right to give them another two years of free reign while the CPC picks yet another leader who will inevitably be less than perfect. Give your heads a shake.
Mr. MacDougall forgets that a cohort of us do things like check voting records etc so when PP decides to play man of the people, it is easy to check his voting record and call bullshit. Bringing in the vile J.B. of "Barbaric Practices Tip Line" fame to run the campaign didn't help. I will also tell you the same thing I told Mr. Jerema re: his piece on PP - namely that he is thoroughly unlikeable AND the Cons have yet to control their wingnut social conservative faction. They are entirely too beholden to them - just like the liberals are beholden to their wingnuts. The difference is that we are seeing what happens when religious wingnuts get a hold of a little power in real time when we watch the US.
PP lost because of cultural factors and the American Darth Vader. Back in the halcyon Progressive Conservative, big tent days, there was a fair bit of water in the conservative wine. It often worked, but along came Reform that was far more ideological and the split was created in the aforementioned big tent. The Conservative Party, unhappily wedded between the two factions, is unlikely to win unless it recreates the big tent and ceases to scare the children, particularly those living in urban Canada. The Liberals were seen as a safe haven to get us through the American Darth Vader years and so they won. I concede that had the election been another fortnight the recollection of ten years of Liberal virtue signaling and government bumbling might have recalled the populace's mind to the fact that there was little to nothing to love about them and a different result may have occurred. Carney is anything but a polished politician. The contrast with the overly polished PP helped him.
Couple of minor notes.
The Liberals will not be brought down by the NDP rump for four years. That party is leaderless and in shock as to their suddenly reveal irrelevancy. They're also broke. I doubt Carney will even need to make the slightest concession to them for their seven votes. It will allow him to ignore the Bloc - a very, very good thing.
Carney's cabinet choices and restructuring of the PMO and PCO nexus will be telling. If most of the cabinet are Trudeau retreads and nothing is done with the PMO then Carney's honeymoon will be short absent a complete triumph over the incoherent machinations of the American Darth Vader (which seems quite unlikely).
Exciting article, hilarious writing style. Agree with 90%, except a couple comments1. PP is toast. Has to go. His personality, his arrogance and his creepiness are not fixeable. The sooner they get a new leader the better. 2. The PC arrogance that they didn’t need the media and could just use YouTube was stupid. Agree there. 3. We learned that you can just steal another parties good ideas. This is good for democracy and people. Well played liberals. Who knew it was that easy. 4. Ford and Teneycke should be blacklisted for the rest of their careers, from any party. Their self serving media whoring at the expense of the people and parties that built them was a disgrace. I hope they never work again after this term.
I liked this piece. I just want to add that I found it completely bush league that they didnt even release a proper platform until the week before the election and AFTER advance polling closed. How dumb is that when you are trying to unseat the current government. You gotta tell people WHY they should vote for you, especially when the JT hate was not a factor. Pierre seemed absolutely robotic in the sense that he memorized lines for 2 years and then the environment changed but he kept on with the same lines. I do feel that the #1 factor was the math of losing the NDP vote in so many ridings that Cons would have won if it had the usual split of Liberals and NDP. But even with that, they certainly seemed to want to make it 10 times more difficult for themselves. The stubborness and inabililty to change quickly concerned me about his ability to actually be PM during the Trump administration. If he can't reconcile that with himself then maybe they should dump him. His Copy/Paste way of doing things can't work in the big chair.
During the campaign, David Herle from Curse of Politics watched the interview given by Mr. & Mrs. Poilievre to… someone who I don’t remember, because I would never watch that interviewer otherwise and that interviewer would treat me as the enemy anyway - my eyes aren’t her audience. In any case, David Herle came away almost *liking* Pierre Poilievre. That shouldn’t be surprising - at their core, the vast majority of people are good, and Pierre Poilievre is likely far more than just good.
But,… listening to Pierre Poilievre speaking to his core base, I don’t get the sense that he will say the same thing about me, a professional married to an academic. How does he square that circle / grow the base so there’s a place for us and for the core base that resents and hates people like us, where Pierre Poilievre has fanned that resentment and hatred since he became leader?
Andrew, excellent article. BUT, just like when Matt says we need to start doing stuff, my question is always, “who’s going to do it?”. So, in response to your article, “who’s doing to listen?”
Poilievre is only 45 years old and will learn from this experience. I’m tired of people bringing out the tired trope, but he was 25 points ahead in the polls and blew it. Poilievre wasn’t ahead because voters suddenly wanted Conservatives in power, he was ahead because voters hated Trudeau. Carney was another kettle of fish, with his elder statesman act which gullible Canadian voters fell for hook, line and sinker. Or as Andrew so aptly described it, Carney, a new head on a rotting carcass. The tide will change. Canada has entered its Biden moment. We are always four years behind the U.S. Conservatives should now have a long, deep think and strategize how to build a stronger base in the next two years.
We shall see if he's a statesman or not. Biden left the US with the best economy on the planet and the lowest unemployment in decades. We should be so lucky. But I appreciate you admitting he wasn't that popular. So he had to be better. He wasn't.
This is an excellent summary. I am a swing voter. More Progressive Conservative, though, so I weigh my options with the CPC.
In terms of the key issues you listed (housing, pipelines, crime, economy), the CPC platform spoke to me. But Pollievre and team did a horrific job communicating. I signed up for their emails, and left, tired of the endless "Axe the Tax" and similar simplistic repetitious slogans. Plus, I really hate being called a "patriot." It feels un-Canadian (or overly-American).
Slogans are okay...just temper them. Use your words. Tell me what you're going to do about it, and convince me your plan is right. Don't tell me how bad my life is all the time. If it doesn't resonate with my reality, you've lost me and my vote.
Stick to fiscal policies, drop the identity politics. At every stage, Pierre's rage against the media, defunding the CBC, anti-woke messaging just pushed him closer to Trump. Sure it wasn't a big part of the campaign, but it was enough. Drop it for now, and focus on the big things that need to be fixed. That will get you a bigger tent.
Allow more nuance. If everything is black and white, my reaction to your message will be binary as well. The Liberals didn't totally cause the economic uncertainty, and oddly enough it seems Trump may be following their game (driving dollar down, making exports more attractive). Don't tell me why their plan is bad, tell me why yours is better and how it will work.
I believe Carney is a one-term politician. He's here to guide us through the Trump years. Likely will get a lot of blowback for his handling - good or bad. In my ideal world, the CPC supports the good policies the Liberals come out with, and keep a close eye on any tomfoolery. Come out looking like leaders, ready to take Canada to the next level.
I agree with you - I am anticipating a whole lot of rage against the liberals within 6 months if not sooner. I also think the CPC made a fatal error with not including the media in their campaign tour. Especially at a time when it appears to me that legacy media is attempting to be more balanced after watching the way things unfolded in the US.
What if he announces the rebirth of Energy East in the next 3 weeks?
And you, Sir, are, as is said, dreaming in technicolor. There are three issues with that proposal.
First, he is a died in the wool greenie; okay, assume that he ignores that.
Second, he has already said that he won't change the "No More Pipelines Act" (C-69, as I recall) and he has already said that he won't change the limitation on resource emissions; okay, assume that he ignores that and reverses his comments.
Third, Quebec. That province has dramatically said "Non!" to pipelines across their province; the Bloc Quebecois has said "Non!" Carney has said "Non!" if Quebec doesn't want pipelines. The feds have the constitutional power to override those assertions but does Carney want to provoke Quebec, particularly given the number of new Quebec MPs in his caucus?
Oh, and a bonus fourth issue. The fact that C-69 won't be revoked or changed (according to Carney's own words during the campaign) means that such a proposal would result in endless hearings, massive costs, delays until the end of time. Result: a time frame that would make such a promise totally worthless.
Oh, and a bonus, bonus fifth issue. The fact of the first four issues would simply confirm pipeline industry decisions to invest in Canada only in a maintenance capacity and to major investments outside of Canada in the US, Mexico, South America (to use the investments in the past few years by major Canadian pipeline companies). Put differently, no pipeline company will risk the massive amounts of capital and delay in such a project. The result would be that the project would be financed one hundred per cent by the federal government and the incredibly incompetent example of the construction of TMX would be magnified endlessly and the cost would probably balloon to much more than 100 billion dollars and would take an insane amount of time to complete (if ever!).
End result: a) I don't expect such an announcement; and b) if I am wrong, any such announcement would simply be more performative stuff - an announcement with no intention or prospect of completion.
It's the Conservatives who call it "the no more pipelines act". You have no idea what he's going to do. You have speculation. You're more than welcome to it. You seem to be suggesting these are normal times. They aren't. I don't think Carney is going to treat them like they are. We'll all find out together.
PS Alberta could have been shipping 20 train loads of oil daily, waiting for pipelines to be built if Jason Kenney hadn't cancelled Noitley's deal, costing Albertans billions.
It is called that because it, as a practical matter, guarantees no more pipelines will be built by the private sector.
As for these being or not being normal times, I expect that Carney will argue that they are not normal times and will then fiddle around and not change those things that need changing.
We will see (or not see).
PS You can argue about Kenney's actions or inactions but that has nothing to do with pipelines. Pipelines are massively more efficient and incredibly safer (ask the residents of Lac Megantic) than rail transport of oil.
NO, it just makes the approval process complex. That doesn't mean it can't be worked around, nor does it mean that a pipeline can't be built. My question, again, is how would Alberta react if he said "let's build it next week"?
Dilbit and Bakken crude are nowhere near the same thing. Shipping from Hardisty will not create another Lac Megantic...which wouldn't have happened if Transport Canada had been even remotely functional at railroad oversight. The MM&A should never have been allowed to operate the way it was. Regardless, there are no legal impediments to running oil trains in Canada, something which happens daily in this country....and could be happening far more if Kenney hadn't killed it, generating even more income for Alberta and Canada. Pipelines that don't exist move no product. Rail can do it tomorrow.
> You have speculation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "Quebec has to agree" isn't speculation is it? Is that not what Mr. Carney said on the campaign trail?
The question I would ask Mr Blanchett when it up, is how he feels about speaking American. It is just an opinion, but I don't think there has been a better time in the last 50 years to discuss pipelines with Quebec. The one thing Carney stressed while campaigning was the need for prompt action, not words. I'm counting on that.
Bill C-69 allows Cabinet to intervene and authorize a project in the national interest, not leaving it stalled in the regulatory morass. Andrew Roman believes that the only way anything will get built in Canada ever again under C-69 is by Cabinet intervention.
Carney has also said Indigenous "consent" will be sought and required for all resource projects. This is not current Canadian law which requires thorough consultation. Just as you and I cannot veto an airport or a highway that "affects" our private property, neither is there an indigenous veto. If Carney wants to escalate to indigenous "consent" (i.e. grant them a veto) he will have to figure out how to tell when the various bands, communities, groups of cronies, and sundry activists and land defenders have actually given consent. There is no legislative body comprising aboriginals exclusively that could indicate binding consent. Theoretically (and practically!) one activist on one reserve could claim that he and his little clique of cronies had not given their personal consent and so the project would be stalled.
If Carney is serious about requiring indigenous consent literally, and it wasn't just a mis-speak, then he is saying resource projects will never happen because there will never be unanimous consent from every indigenous person who figures out that withholding consent means the resource company will sweeten the deal with more money in hopes of gaining the consent of that last holdout. The idea is to extract every dollar possible from the value of the project without causing the investors to say "Fuck it" and walking away, as KM said with TMX.
Leslie, I agree with you and I think that this morass is simply symptomatic of the vast stupidity of the last government that they wanted to look good to their constituency but did not consider the ramifications of their stupidly obscure drafting of law. For example, "the intersection of gender and ..." No one even knows what that means but that is the law.
You correctly mention KM simply getting disgusted and walking away. In their case the saw the panic in the JT government and held up the LPC for an obscene amount of money. Good for KM!!!
It is instructive that Canada's major energy companies have invested literally tens of billions of dollars outside the country in the intervening period and they simply have no appetite to return and invest in Canada. To me the interesting point is that those pipeline companies have such massive amounts invested outside Canada that I expect those companies to remove their head offices and places of incorporation from Canada to elsewhere (Houston, perhaps?) at some point in the near term. Another industry chased away by the (non) geniuses at the LPC.
Good point, Ken. A lot of the discussion about pipelines here is around the idea that "we" are going to build the pipelines. But "we" don't build anything, except by Crown corporation -- you know, High-Speed Rail from Ottawa to Québec City so the separatists can confab with each other and then go for dinner and strippers in Montréal. As you point out, the people who build pipelines are syndicates of investors putting up their private money for energy companies like TC to build them, and they will do that only if the prospect of return on investment from tolls is better than the opportunity cost of capital. (Does Europe really want our oil and gas that badly?) All "we" do as Canadians is hope "our" government gets out of the way and makes it clear how much it dares to thwart obstructionism. Even if the government really wants a pipeline, someone else has to put up the money to build it. We don't really want another TMX Crown corporation building it as a public work. Do we?
Apologize if this is a little tangential but is there more to Quebec being so anti pipeline other than environmental issues? And if environmental, is it concern about pipeline leaks or just anti-oil in general? Or is it just a stance to extract some compensation from Feds/Alberta etc for an eventual pipeline? Would love to see a post here on pipeline issues and politics and facts in the future.
Kristie, I write this as an Albertan so this is my appreciation of the issue and, most definitely, is not definitive.
So, as to why, as near as I can tell, the answer is "Yes" to all of the above in varying degrees.
It seems to me that for some people the issue is that they are truly environmentalists. On the other hand, it appears that quite a number of those folks actually drive gasoline/diesel powered vehicles and are environmentalists of convenience and because it is / was fashionable.
As for pipeline leaks, yes, they do occur but such leaks are generally quite limited in nature and quickly remedied. Having said that, any leak is bad news for everyone (although, to be honest, that "bad news" is more bad public relations than actual ongoing harm of any nature - usually).
Now, further as to pipeline leaks, they are relatively rare and, as noted are quite limited in nature. By contrast, movement of oil by rail is much more prone to disaster and, if a derailment occurs, it is much more likely to result in a noticeable spill. In other words, oil pipelines are much safer than shipment of oil by rail.
Ah, compensation! Yes, Quebec is famous for not allowing "Canadian" projects / programs to go forward without extorting (my very deliberate verb) something from the feds / project proponents / etc.
And, bear in mind, that Quebec has a noticeable amount of territory that the resource industry has identified as being ripe for drilling and eventual development of oil and gas but Quebec has passed legislation that prevents that occurring. Many of we in Alberta consider that action as hypocritical and as a way to not generate additional revenue that would cause Quebec to become wealthier and to then not receive equalization payments that are largely funded by Alberta. I know, cynical; which doesn't stop it from being accurate.
Industry has moved on...
A dream. Would be nice (and interesting) but not likely to happen. We need to look at other (perhaps quicker / less costly?) alternatives. Though I am dreaming, too. Would be nice to hear proposals from Alberta on how we could best support / fund / drive their product to market. Proposals may be out there, and I'm just unaware.
Rachel Notley had started the process of shipping by rail.....which allowed it to go anywhere. Jason Kenney killed it.
Rail is costly and inefficient and more risk due to potential spill on a derailment.. Industry reluctantly went with rail. Oil on rail also bumped agriculture products of rail..
So what? Do you want to get the product to market or not? Considering the cost to build a pipeline, it is not significantly more expensive than a pipeline, and we wouldn't have to sell it at a discount like we are now. How many thousand oil trains have run since Lac Megantic? Dilbit is not Bakken crude. I'd rather it move than sit in the ground. And in a best best-case scenario, a pipeline is at least 5 years away.
The supporter email comments resonates... the party has good policy ideas. Whomever controls the party supporter comms is a donation industry nut job. Please, for the love of God and all that is holy, produce something of substance here. I know it exists.
AMEN!
The last paragraph of this piece is spot-on advice, but I have to say that I am not at all confident that Poilievre will, or even can, take it. He's so good at vamping for the mobs on social media because he gives off more than a small aroma of authoritarianism, and it's populist authoritarianism that appeals to that base. (It's also why I, as a Burkean conservative, wouldn't ever support him.) The problem is that authoritarianism is a deeply wired personality trait. I just don't think he's the person who can broaden his appeal to bring on board conservatives and moderates who are leery of authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism? I'd like to know where you see that in him.
Populism? Sure. But I fail to see an ounce of authoritarianism in his demeanour and platform. If anything he's more libertarian than anything, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, with a dose of traditionalism.
Authoritarianism through libertarianism basically reads as "he's going to stop giving me free stuff and funding media voices that agree with me".
Lol. 100%
Libertarians guided by the core base sure sound and act authoritarian-their way or the highway. Premier Smith who loves PP is an excellent case in point. Their disdain for the caring society we unite around in the face of Trump is worrying. Hating on our country and saying it is broken are some reasons why the cons certain majority evaporated.
Authoritarianism requires coercion. As far as I can tell, and in light of the last couple of decades worth of Canadian political history, the coercion almost always came from the left, cf vaccine mandates, lockdowns, quarantine hotels, online harms bill, freezing of bank accounts, etc.
Being inflexible, as you described ("my way or the highway") is not being authoritarian. Misguided perhaps, but not authoritarian.
This is the equivalent of leftists calling PP "far-right", what I call verbal inflation, to the point of stripping words of all meaning.
The caring society you speak of, is the very one that gaslit you into thinking that they were the good guys when they were the very ones implementing authoritarian policies.
Trudeau and I suspect Carney, are far closer to authoritarian despots like Xi or Kim than PP or the CPC will ever be.
Agreed. And when he loses the next election, can he finally do one?
No, there should be a caucus coup. Everything that happened to Pierre from the day Trudeau's equity was self-inflicted. That there was no plan for it was insane. That there was no pivot when it happened was self-inflicted. Frankly, that he wasn't smart enough to know that supporting the Convoy in and around Ottawa was political insanity suggests Pierre's judgment is no better than Justin's.
Everyone wanted Trudeau gone. Pierre's support collapsing the day he left says it wasn't about liking Pierre; it was about hating Justin. That was painfully obvious. And yet, he didn't see it. And how the hell do you scream for an election for months when you're winning, but not be able to put out an absolutely economically pathetic costed platform until after advance polling has closed?
No, Pierre has to go. Andrew Scheer; the previous title holder on losing an election handed to him on a silver platter said "I am very confident that as we get through the difficult days, the next days and weeks, as we figure some of these things out, we’re going to come out the other side with a more united team, with a bigger team, with more representation from more provinces, and Pierre is the man to deliver that victory". No, Pierre proved beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that he is not. He's toxic, he's obnoxious, and clearly can't pivot to things changing before his eyes. That is not the leader Canada needs at any time, especially now. And there won't be an election for 4 years because those 7 NDPers aren't going to vote against anything. Carney has a majority. I sure hope he doesn't fuck it up.
Read the numbers carefully - there was no collapse of support. He did better then the polls were predicting at his peak. What changed was the NDP switched to the Liberals.
I agree there was no collapse in support but I don't think it was the NDP switching to the Liberals that made the difference.
Last parliament had 338 members, this one has 343 so 5 seats were added. I don't know who won those seats or where they were located but it might be of a little interest to do a deeper dive, maybe.
According to Wikipedia's data, at the time Parliament was prorogued there were
153 Liberals, 120 Conservatives, 33 Bloc, 25 NDP, 2 Greens, 4 Independent and 1 vacancy. Five seats were added (as mentioned).
The results now are 169 Liberal (+19), 144 Conservative (+24), 22 Bloc (-11), 7 NDP (-25) and one Green (-1).
29 seats shifted to the two main parties plus the five new ones indicate that. There was also some shifting between the Liberals and Conservatives.
The Liberals received 479,139 (2.4% of all votes cast) more than the Conservatives but ended up with 25 (7.3%) more seats. If we exclude the 'fringe' parties (including the Greens) and votes that went to independents and just look at the total votes cast that went to the two parties, the difference is still only 2.7%.
This is a clear sign of what Gerald Butts infamously described (quite gleefully if I remember) as 'strategic voting'. It comes down to where the seats are won - GTA, Vancouver and other public sector union strongholds along with having an effective wedge issue.
My two cents worth.
Also, the Carleton riding was expanded, and the NDP chose not to run a candidate there. I wonder if Gerry Butts had a chat with them ;-). I too want Pierre to stay on as leader. I actually think he'd be good for the country.
Liberals and NDP targeting his riding was a shitbag scummy move, but I would expect no less.
Yup. Which is why I think he should stay on as leader. Just to piss them off. I’m petty that way 😂
Close to one in six seats changed hands.
The NDP lost 17 of their 24 seats - 10 to the Conservatives and seven to the Liberals.
The BQ lost 12, with 11 going Liberal.
The Liberals lost 16 seats - all to the Conservatives.
The Conservatives lost 12 to the Liberals, including Carleton, which was one of the ridings that was redrawn.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianConservative/comments/1kcvtim/did_the_riding_of_carleton_really_become_that/
I think Butts gloated about voter efficiency. Strategic voting is where the NDP votes Liberal in order to stop the Conservatives from winning through splitting the Left vote. Voter efficiency is different and can operate even with just two parties. It means spreading your vote across the country so you win a lot of ridings by 1000 votes instead of wasting much of it in landslides that still win you only one riding each. That's how you form a government with 33% of the popular vote while the main oppo party gets 34%, twice in a row. Butts issued a playful challenge: "Come on, Liberals. Let's see if we can form a government with 32% next time. How about 30%?" (Quoting freely from memory from 2021)
You could be right, I don’t remember the term he used, I just remember thinking at the time “it’s all just a game to you” or something to that effect. You don’t even have to spread it all across the country, just target a couple of areas with a high concentration of seats in a relatively small area, such as the GTA.
And it continued this time around, it was never about what is best for this country, or its people, it’s about playing the game to maintain control.
That’s a short term way to cling to power, but the support becomes two miles wide and as thin as Saran Wrap.
The Liberals won a lot of ridings in this election with a very small percentage of the popular vote over the second place candidate. (As did the Conservatives and Bloc). But the Liberals are the tired ones who are struggling to shed the image of a disaster in the making. I would be very worried if we head into a recession with high unemployment, high debt and high interest in replacing a government that was given a second chance and blew it.
He had a 25-point lead in the polls and a projection of over 200 seats. He turned it into 144. He failed completely to convince people that he was a better option than the party that had been useless for the last ten years. He didn't lose 60 seats worth of NDP support, because that never existed. He failed to see what was in front of his face. Real leaders don't do that. Feel free to run him again. Don't expect a different result.
I completely disagree with you. Conservative support increased at the voter level. And considering the misinformation that was out there - things like CPC was going to ban abortion, take away women's rights, be hateful to the alphabet crew, etc - there were people on my feed crying tears of relief that they'd still be able to keep their same sex marriage plans. (Yes- I rolled my eyes, nobody was going to take it away so stop being dramatic and spreading lies.)
But that belief was widespread. NDP vote collapsed in part because they don't support the NDP for policy reasons, but because they don't support anything conservative. The irony is that liberals moved center right in this election, taking many of the platforms and policies from the conservatives. It remains to be seen whether they stay center right or whether they move left to try and get the NDP to support them.
Whose responsibility is it to address said misinformation? Are you suggesting that there is no camp within the Conservative Party that wants to restrict abortions? Or the "alphabet crew"? I heard a lot of "Axe the Tax". I didn't hear any bold statements to the media or at his rallies stating "My government will never interfere with a woman's right to choose, or interfere in people deciding who they want to marry". So if you think that was an issue, why didn't Pierre address it head-on, regularly and with the media...of right, he shunned and refused to copp[poertate with the media. Also not leaderlike, and another self-inflicted wound. I think what he said mattered. But if he didn't address misinformation head-on, whose fault is that? Something as simple as getting a security clearance once the writ dropped, but he hedged his bets that he might lose and didn't. Another self-inflicted wound that brought his judgment into question.
NDP support collapsed when Singh signed CASA. Any that was left was gone the day Trump threatened annexation. They are finished as a political movement for the future; largely dependent on Carney's performance, that may well end up with what little is left of them merging into the LPC.
The Liberals made smart strategic moves that neutered the entire CPC platform. Pierre had no answer for it. He continued to try and appease his base instead of going after the people he needed; the ones who didn't want to vote Liberal, but felt it was the only real option. Carney is not Trudeau. he comes across as a real leader. We will all find out together whether he is one. We found out in this election that Pierre isn't. There is no world where you can call losing a 20-point poll lead 4 months ago into a lost election a success....unless you're committed to lying to yourself. This election was a disaster for the CPC, aided by Preston Manning being an idiot, Doug Ford offering payback for Pierre's lack of support, and others within the CPC knifing their own people...Erin's election Part Deux. Red Toryism appears to be back, and it has a majority. Pierre has to go.
If you can come up with a way to counter the selfish prorogation of Parliament in the face of a full blown tariff war, please advise.
The Trudeau resignation was two years overdue and his last parting gift was to sabotage cross party consensus about the tariff issues, leaving the entire playing field to the Liberal Party for three months.
I enjoy that both major parties had literally identical stances on Trump and tariffs but the Liberals still smeared the CPC for wanting to "kneel before Trump" and people bought it. Amazing.
Prorogation should not be permitted(by any party; it's not just a Liberal thing). It's undemocratic. I agree wholeheartedly that Trudeau should have resigned 2 years ago. I cannot remember a time we've had consensus between Liberals and Conservatives. It's pathetic on both sides, since both have good ideas. But it is no longer about what's good for the country; it's about staying in power.
And who would you like to see instead of PP?
Erin. Rona. Someone who is an adult. Someone smart enough to put the abortion and LGBTQ debates to bed for good. Someone with an actual plan and a vision. Not a rabid attack dog who is arrogant, condescending, incapable of running an even marginally credible campaign...in an election he was begging for, and then completely unprepared to fight. The Liberals found someone who appears to be an actual leader. We'll find out if he is. The Conservatives couldn't even get out a costed plan before advance polls were closed. That was pathetic. So was Pierre's childish games with his security clearance. This was the Conservatives' election to lose, and for the third straight time, they found a way...and all with self-inflicted wounds. Erin would have won a landslide.
You say Poilievre can grow from this, but I have serious doubts. He's been this same politician for 20 years. What evidence is there that he has any capacity to grow? All he's done is get pettier and more vindictive.
Once upon a time, the Conservative selling point was being "The adult in the room" and all I see from Poilievre is a petulant child.
Yes. PP loves the culture wars and loves identity politics. He also loves the spotlight. My nickname for him for years has been the Incel Mussolini. How many pages of pictures were there of him in their newly released party platform? The Liberals had carne on the cover of theirs but I hear there were seven or eight pictures of PP in the CPC platform.
You have forgotten an important factor. Poilievre is TOTALLY UNLIKEABLE and has tied himself to MAGA. As its ruinous effects continue to roil the USA, and Trump implodes, Canadians will find him less and less a choice for PM
Tied himself to MAGA? Please do tell how, because he repudiated them every chance he got. "Canada first" is by definition not MAGA.
Canada First was taken directly from MAGA’s America First platform. Many Poilievre supporters refer to themselves as Maple MAGAs. Guess you missed that-the people at his rallies didn’t.
Patriotic rhetoric isn't the exclusive prerogative of the US.
Any nationalistic country-first platform would necessarily look like a similar one in another country.
Correlation is not causation.
The fact that a portion of his base embraced the maple MAGA moniker isn't an indication that he does indeed endorse it. Grassroots movements exist.
The connection is so obvious I'm thinking you are deliberately ignoring what's in front of you. Maybe you didn't see any of the Liberal ads where they lined up PP repeating everything that Trump said. This one's short and I've seen ones that longer because he could go on for 5 minutes. https://youtu.be/B9PpVZ5f8pI?si=dr9sDwyddNqSLU70
They should have done many more of these.
The Conservatives bought a messaging franchise from the Republicans and have been pedal to the metal on that from the beginning.
And then there was Danielle Smith letting the cat out of the bag telling American right-wing media that PP is in line with the new American Sopranos regime... just like she is.
Lol. Did you even read my previous comment?
I repeat for the sleepers in the back: correlation is not causation.
You could put trump side-by-side with any right-wing populist leader in the world and find similar rhetoric.
If you take a political ad at face value, you're either a moron or seriously disingenuous.
I'm not sure which is worse.
So pompous. It is you who suits the word “moron”.
And, there, you said it. Poilievre is a “right-wing populist leader”, just like Trump. Hoisted by your own petards.😆😆👍
Are you unaware that Liberals and Democrats work on each other's campaigns and so do Conservatives and Republicans. It's not pure chance that he's using the exact same words. Both parties spend a lot of money focus testing those lines/slogans. And, yes, that research is shared around the world. It's funny how Scott Moe all of a sudden started talking about "men" in women sports. "It's working for the Republicans so let's try it here."
The slogans and propaganda are one thing and it really tells us nothing about how PP would actually govern. Just like Trump, the CPC identified a lot of issues that are very important to most people but we know Trump has zero interest in helping those people in his country. We have to assume the same about PP.
One of the best 'tells" for me is PP refusing to do Nardwuar's show. On one hand it's nothing but on the other hand it's a chance to show your human side. Carney (as well as Singh, May, Chretien and Paul Martin) had the stones to do it and came off as a really pleasant guy. Poilievre won't do it because he's afraid that people will see what he's really like. He knows Canadians will not like who he really is.
Why is "men" in quotation marks with respect to women's sports? "Transwomen" are men, after all. It's "transwomen" that belongs in quote marks, not men. Why would anyone not want to get men out of women's sports? It's not hateful to want that.
My point is that it's a really tiny, tiny issue best left to school athletic committees. Republicans and other right wingers have managed to magnify it into a huge issue when we're talking about, what?, a couple of dozen people across North america? It's not a terrible problem in Saskatchewan but Scott Moe and others saw an opportunity to use it as a political weapon that has emotional resonance vastly beyond it's actual importance. In short, it's just a trick.
When I first heard Carbon Tax Carney, I thought where have I heard silly Nick names before??? If you don't wish to be accused of being a duck, then don't quack like one.
No offence, but those comments read like Liberal party talking points.
My friends would laugh at me being accused of spouting Liberal Party talking points!🤣🤣🤣
Disagree respectfully. Trump will not implode. His base loves him and the payoff from his tariff initiatives will be evident by the time the midterms roll around. Agree Poilievre sadly is not liked. Like anyone with a French name and Canadian connections, he is considered a traitor in the Quebec nation . Even his hairstyle makes him look like a “tete carree” (don’t know how to do accents) ( or “square ‘ead” as they say in QC).
Imagine how the Cons would have performed with a leader without a 20 year track record of acting the repugnant creep from your high school Young Reformers club.
Is Pierre capable of being anything other than a massive cunt?
Has he ever demonstrated this ability?
Are we confident he can actually pivot to normal without getting stuck in the rictus grin uncanny Valley?
Imagine the results with Erin or Rona.....
No, the conservatives should not give Poilievre another chance. I don't believe he's capable of changing since he's been this way his entire life. He's not going to suddenly morph into Bill Davis or Peter Lougheed. Both PP and Andrew Scheer should be tossed and sent to the People's Party where their toxic attitudes really belong. This country desperately needs an actual conservative party run on decency and honesty. That party would have one handily.
Gotta disagree on the wisdom of Poilievre staying on as leader. Speaking for myself, I find his personality every bit as grating as Trudeau’s. Another few years of his sneering belligerence, and Canadians will be happy to see him gone. He can’t fake being nice.
Anti-Poilievre posts here prove one thing.
Liberals run another wildly manipulative and unfair campaign, this time resorting to authoritarian levels in rigging of election circumstances, waging a propaganda campaign to amplify fear and turn a minor trade dispute into 'the worst crisis since World War 2' which is now somehow about to get resolved, steal from the CPC platform and present essentially zero new ideas, and benefit from unprecedented foreign interference and an equally unprecedented collapse of the minor party vote and...
The lesson you all take from it is that it's all the Conservative leader's fault. The guy who ran a successful two year campaign that ended Trudeau's career and changed public opinion on the carbon tax 180 degrees. Who was about to rush in with a massive majority even with all the quirks you now criticize him for. Whose media strategy was working just fine until 3 minutes ago when every possible circumstance turned against him. Who still delivered the best seat result since Harper and the best vote result since Mulroney. Who lost his seat despite what would normally be a very good result, for the fault of wanting to represent his own constituency rather than swap for East Podunk River, Alberta where he would get 90% of the vote.
It proves that you are all as gullible as the elbows up morons. This is the next step in the Liberals plan - await the circular firing squad on the right to give them another two years of free reign while the CPC picks yet another leader who will inevitably be less than perfect. Give your heads a shake.
Christia Freeland ended Trudeau's career. I suspect you weren't trying to be funny, but this was hysterical.
Mr. MacDougall forgets that a cohort of us do things like check voting records etc so when PP decides to play man of the people, it is easy to check his voting record and call bullshit. Bringing in the vile J.B. of "Barbaric Practices Tip Line" fame to run the campaign didn't help. I will also tell you the same thing I told Mr. Jerema re: his piece on PP - namely that he is thoroughly unlikeable AND the Cons have yet to control their wingnut social conservative faction. They are entirely too beholden to them - just like the liberals are beholden to their wingnuts. The difference is that we are seeing what happens when religious wingnuts get a hold of a little power in real time when we watch the US.
PP lost because of cultural factors and the American Darth Vader. Back in the halcyon Progressive Conservative, big tent days, there was a fair bit of water in the conservative wine. It often worked, but along came Reform that was far more ideological and the split was created in the aforementioned big tent. The Conservative Party, unhappily wedded between the two factions, is unlikely to win unless it recreates the big tent and ceases to scare the children, particularly those living in urban Canada. The Liberals were seen as a safe haven to get us through the American Darth Vader years and so they won. I concede that had the election been another fortnight the recollection of ten years of Liberal virtue signaling and government bumbling might have recalled the populace's mind to the fact that there was little to nothing to love about them and a different result may have occurred. Carney is anything but a polished politician. The contrast with the overly polished PP helped him.
Couple of minor notes.
The Liberals will not be brought down by the NDP rump for four years. That party is leaderless and in shock as to their suddenly reveal irrelevancy. They're also broke. I doubt Carney will even need to make the slightest concession to them for their seven votes. It will allow him to ignore the Bloc - a very, very good thing.
Carney's cabinet choices and restructuring of the PMO and PCO nexus will be telling. If most of the cabinet are Trudeau retreads and nothing is done with the PMO then Carney's honeymoon will be short absent a complete triumph over the incoherent machinations of the American Darth Vader (which seems quite unlikely).
Exciting article, hilarious writing style. Agree with 90%, except a couple comments1. PP is toast. Has to go. His personality, his arrogance and his creepiness are not fixeable. The sooner they get a new leader the better. 2. The PC arrogance that they didn’t need the media and could just use YouTube was stupid. Agree there. 3. We learned that you can just steal another parties good ideas. This is good for democracy and people. Well played liberals. Who knew it was that easy. 4. Ford and Teneycke should be blacklisted for the rest of their careers, from any party. Their self serving media whoring at the expense of the people and parties that built them was a disgrace. I hope they never work again after this term.
I liked this piece. I just want to add that I found it completely bush league that they didnt even release a proper platform until the week before the election and AFTER advance polling closed. How dumb is that when you are trying to unseat the current government. You gotta tell people WHY they should vote for you, especially when the JT hate was not a factor. Pierre seemed absolutely robotic in the sense that he memorized lines for 2 years and then the environment changed but he kept on with the same lines. I do feel that the #1 factor was the math of losing the NDP vote in so many ridings that Cons would have won if it had the usual split of Liberals and NDP. But even with that, they certainly seemed to want to make it 10 times more difficult for themselves. The stubborness and inabililty to change quickly concerned me about his ability to actually be PM during the Trump administration. If he can't reconcile that with himself then maybe they should dump him. His Copy/Paste way of doing things can't work in the big chair.
During the campaign, David Herle from Curse of Politics watched the interview given by Mr. & Mrs. Poilievre to… someone who I don’t remember, because I would never watch that interviewer otherwise and that interviewer would treat me as the enemy anyway - my eyes aren’t her audience. In any case, David Herle came away almost *liking* Pierre Poilievre. That shouldn’t be surprising - at their core, the vast majority of people are good, and Pierre Poilievre is likely far more than just good.
But,… listening to Pierre Poilievre speaking to his core base, I don’t get the sense that he will say the same thing about me, a professional married to an academic. How does he square that circle / grow the base so there’s a place for us and for the core base that resents and hates people like us, where Pierre Poilievre has fanned that resentment and hatred since he became leader?
Andrew, excellent article. BUT, just like when Matt says we need to start doing stuff, my question is always, “who’s going to do it?”. So, in response to your article, “who’s doing to listen?”
Poilievre is only 45 years old and will learn from this experience. I’m tired of people bringing out the tired trope, but he was 25 points ahead in the polls and blew it. Poilievre wasn’t ahead because voters suddenly wanted Conservatives in power, he was ahead because voters hated Trudeau. Carney was another kettle of fish, with his elder statesman act which gullible Canadian voters fell for hook, line and sinker. Or as Andrew so aptly described it, Carney, a new head on a rotting carcass. The tide will change. Canada has entered its Biden moment. We are always four years behind the U.S. Conservatives should now have a long, deep think and strategize how to build a stronger base in the next two years.
We shall see if he's a statesman or not. Biden left the US with the best economy on the planet and the lowest unemployment in decades. We should be so lucky. But I appreciate you admitting he wasn't that popular. So he had to be better. He wasn't.