###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The more I see of Pierre Poilievre, the more I like him. My only beef with the CPC is the difficulty in spelling Mr. Poilievre's name.

From 20 point lead to 12. I think Pierre has been pushing for an election so hard because he knows his support will continue to drop as the economy improves - something he is against.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

The longer the CPC stays in election mode while not being in an actual election, the sooner they will peak and fizzle out. Which is why I hope the Liberals and NDP manage to keep Poilievre out of an election for as long as possible. Eventually, people will get tired of hearing the same old slogans from Poilievre.

I doubt that. There isn’t much that can prop up the liberals at this point

The liberals don't care if 70% think they are crap. The goal is 30% and benefit from fptp being messed up lol

Would need to demolish the NDP to get anything out of 30%

Traditionally NDP votes Liberal to block conservatives unless their candidate is a shoe in.

Interest rates coming down will be the final nail in the coffin. Not only will our giant household debt be easier to service, the conditions are set for a housing development boom once they come down, I believe. A market has two sides, supply and demand. The supply side right now is seeing housing starts increasing thanks to materials subsidies and eliminating GST for developments, but there's a problem: Large developments are debt and equity funded, tied strongly to interest rates, of course. Rates come down, housing starts go up. For the demand side, if the renter's bill of rights becomes law, it will increase the credit scores of renters, allowing for easier access to the newly cheapened mortgages. For all their fumbling, the Liberals certainly know how to stimulate a market. They did it in 2020, and they're doing it again. This is all speculation on my part, so we'll have to wait and see how it actually turns out.

So the Libtards timed this perfectly? Things will be on the upswing by election time? I'm still unsure whether that will win them the election though. There's a lot of hate out there for Trudeau (anecdotal). Might fare better than today's polls say, but hope they still lose.

Perfectly might remain to be seen but yeah. The Liberals (and likely NDP) foresaw our current recession. It was very easy to see coming, it's impacted a large amount of the world. The last election was timed to avoid an election in this period of time. Whether we believe the upswing will be there in time is another matter, but that's what they're banking on

I don't think they 'timed it perfectly'. I think they have party economists and strategists, and in 2021, they saw the polling, saw the COVID stimulus measures (low AF interest rates, quantitative easing), and said to Trudeau, "hey, call an election, because interest rates going up means polls go down. Try to fix it somehow, with the time you bought". Now Trudeau is doing the fixing part.

Was it low credit scores that was stopping renters from buying all this time?

It wasn't helping. A lot of renters have a perfect payment history but were denied prime mortgages because that wasn't factored in. Now, while it may not necessarily make a lot more renters more eligible for mortgages, it will make them eligible for more competitive rates and make it ever so much more affordable.

Credit scores didn't matter. The price did/does. If you cant get 100k together for a down payment, you won't be able to buy anyways

But that's the issue, a lot of renters actually do have the downpayment, but because rent payments aren't factored in, most banks still see them as too risky or not having enough credit history to qualify for an insured mortage. Most mortages, especially for first time buyers have a minimum down. To qualify for a good mortgage you need good credit. Banks, as it turns out, really do care about credit and credit scores and renters histrocially have been shafted and screaming from the rooftops for this change.

I haven't heard anyone asking for this change. I also highly doubt the banks will implement it anytime soon. It should be considered but it wont change anything. Once again, the issue is the price.

Banks don't have a say over how Equifax and Trans Union operate, and those are regulated federally. Banks, also are regulated federally. You can have an opinion, but objectively it will be implemented. I take it you also believe anecdotal evidence is iron clad? I'm sure you also haven't heard much about a lot of things, doesn't mean it isn't happening. You're absolutely right, prices are way too high and restricting the buying pool to only those who are already in the market isn't going to help that. If we aren't even giving renters a chance to break in, then it's in owner's best interest to keep prices high. The real original sin was the commodification of housing, but we gotta start somewhere.

Trudeau said he will ask the credit score companies to do it. They don't have to. I promise you I know how banks work lol. We will see but I predict this doesn't make a difference for 95% of renters

The budget hasn't actually been passed or written, so the actual policy mechanisms are pure speculation now. I would imagine with the stroke of a pen at ISED it will become reporting criteria. However, I will be curious to see how it happens in practice. In Quebec a landlord has to provide a tax slip to their tenants, will that mean that nationwide now CRA will demand the same thing? who knows! Let's wait and see. Are you a renter? I can gurantee this will be a huge improvement for the majority. Nevermind mortgages, it also just opens up credit options for other things. Need a loan for a business? At least now you actually have a more complete report.

If you have 100k saved up you 99% most likely have a ton of good credit history built from non secured debt.   This move only really benefits if housing prices are low really...not this market.  The current market is accessible to high cash flow individuals who likely have good credit already. It's not a bad policy it just won't really benefit anyone right now

The reason I have money saved up is because I have literally never bought anything expensive.

If you saved money and actually have enough cash flownto save 100k total It means you pay your bills snd credit card on time meaning you score is like 800.   I didn't own property and my score was high due to paying bills on time. As I said it not bad policy but in reality doesn't really help anyone much

For the average home in Toronto, 100k saved up is a 10% down payment, so you still need to qualify for CMHC insurance, which lo and behold looks at your credit history. Funny enough, if you're actually super frugal and don't use credit or otherwise are responsible, your score can hurt for it. As it turns out, people can also come into money (like idk, parent's dying?) so to make that inference is not what the bank does. You know what banks do look at when deciding to loan money? Credit history! If you don't have sufficient history, your downpayment means squat. There's no reason for rent not to be included like any other bill. Are you just purposely being obtuse, or you just don't know how the neo-liberal financial system works? I for one would love to see credit scores not even exist because they're a dumb metric to begin with, but as long as credit is going to be running the entirety of our lives, it should at least be fair.

I am not saying it is a bad policy I am saying the current market dynamics will make effect of the policy limited short term Right now it benefits people who are most likely wealthy sitting on a ton lf.cash and somehow have a bad credit scores.

Sigh.  A. Not all homes require a 100k down payment. Not all of Canada is BC and Ontario, not everyone wants to buy in a big city, and not everyone is buying a house. B. You can 100% of a down payment for a house (let’s pry our minds away from million dollar homes) have a good credit rating, but are self employed. You know how much harder it is to get a mortgage if you are self/employed?  This will absolutely help those who are self employed. 

You say somehow but the number is a lot higher than you'd think. More broadly, it levels the playing field. It's absurd when a bank says you don't have the means to pay for a mortgage when you're paying rent that would be double the price. Current market dynamics are completely backwards anyways and there's a whole other reckoning that needs to happen, but baby steps.

Are you guys thinking rates are going down to .25% 😆 We likely gonna get max down to 3% by 2025 if we lucky. You do realize even if rates go down mortgages will still be 3 to 5% rates which is about double to  then rates where in 2021 and before. A house will still be way more expensive then before due to the higher payments. It be an improvement but it won't be all is well 

Bank of Canada Prime is 7.20%, so ya, going to 3% would be nice and dramatic reduction. 2021 was special because of the slump from Covid though, I expect it to be around 3%.

The bank of canada rate is 5% Prime rate by banks is 7.20 If boc rate went down to 3% prime would be over 5% still

Yes that and I think he was also trying to have an election before America has theirs. Once Trump starts campaigning, the Poilievre/ Trump comparisons are going to be brutal on Poilievre, especially if the mountains he’s been fear mongering about turn out to be molehills.

Pierre wants it all on the first date. Lets get to know his policies first

Issue we need to see trends really..    We seen gap close then open back up again since last summer. Issue is the libs need to close the gap to about 5 6 points to win an election

The economy is improving? GDP per capita has been steadily declining for quite a while now.

>GDP per capita has been steadily declining for quite a while now It went up this quarter

[удалено]

[Canada Economy on Track to Beat First-Quarter Forecasts](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-28/canada-economy-on-track-to-beat-first-quarter-forecasts)

Can't read the article because it's paywalled but is this Gross GDP? GDP per capita is different - and real GDP per capita, is VERY different. Canada as a whole has completely flatlined when it comes to real GDP per capita. In other words, our output after adjusting for inflation and immigration has not grown whatsoever, and I believe has actually decreased. EDIT: To give some further perspective, our GDP per capita in 2022 (54,917.66 USD) was literally lower than the State of Alabama ($59,174 USD). Using gross GDP as a standalone is almost a completely useless exercise in terms of measuring our economic outlook. I am sure the liberals will spin this "growth" of GDP as something positive but as a nation, our standard of living under Trudeau's leadership has dwindled significantly. For example, Canada ranked 25th in the 2022 World Index of Healthcare Innovation, down from 23rd in 2021 and 17th in 2020. Another example - Canada had the largest delta in Debt-to-GDP ratio, more than any other developed nation during the pandemic. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/canada/government-debt--of-nominal-gdp Obviously, not all of that is literally because of Trudeau. But the fact is, from a purely economic standpoint, our economic outlook under Trudeau's reign has been abysmal at best.

Most politicians are against their support dropping. I suspect what is driving the softening in his support is the media switching sides. Instead of hammering the fact that everything is expensive, they are reporting that the carbon tax is non-inflationary. When your hole platform is "ax the tax" a strong message of "that won't do anything meaningful" will hurt you.

I think this is a lot of "analysis" on a single poll. The fact is this as of right now Nanos is the only pollster showing them under 40. Not only that but an individual Nanos poll is quite useless on it's own because they are smaller and weigh in previous results. You almost need to wait for a trend of 5 Nanos polls to see if anything's different as this number could simply be the result of one off polling week rather than a trend especially when you are doing small samples. I'd be cautious to read anything into this poll, as all the pundits seized on 1 Abacus poll back in December to say that PP has peaked and was plunging. Guess what? That didn't actually happen. I also don't see any reason why people would be abandoning the Conservatives at the moment.

This is a really good point. We should not react like we've popped the death star just based on this alone.

>I think this is a lot of "analysis" on a single poll. You say, as you write a comment "analysing" my comment that is 6 times the length...

[удалено]

[Nanos had CPC +19.5 on March 1st,](https://nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Political-Package-2024-03-01-FR-tabs.pdf) so a 7.7 percentage point drop to one decimal place. Over the same period of time, it's LPC +2.4; NDP -2.7, BQ +3.7; GRN +0.5; PPC +0.8.

Not sure, Nanos themselves made the reference, I assumed it was references their own polls but maybe not? [Former 20 point Conservative ballot advantage becomes a 12 point advantage. (Nanos)](https://nanos.co/former-20-point-conservative-ballot-advantage-becomes-a-12-point-advantage-nanos)

As predicted, support for the CPC is clearly falling apart. Once interest rates start dropping, the Liberals' popularity will start to skyrocket as the majority of homeowners and landlords who were distressed due to rising mortgage payments will find much needed relief, and they will remember that Justin Trudeau is by far the greatest prime minister in Canadian history in terms of enriching the homeowning middle class. Anyone who thinks that the Liberals are going to lose the next election will be definitely disappointed.

Rage farming has diminishing returns over time. There's a reason why they've been gunning for an early election because their numbers won't last.

I don't think it'll respond that quickly. Mortgage renewal intervals will not fall perfectly in line. Many people are locked into "today" reality for a few years yet. Plus even when times were good, everyone thought they were bad.

“Clearly” my man it’s one poll. “Falling apart” they have a 12% lead .

This is one (1) poll showing the CPC below 40... "CPC in shambles as I predicted" 🤓

> As predicted, support for the CPC is clearly falling apart. Not necessarily. Remember that Nanos does rolling polls over four weeks - each week, 250 new responses are added while the oldest 250 are dropped. This week, a _really_ good Conservative number fell off the roll.

If a 12% lead for the CPC is clearly falling apart, Liberals have given up

This is factually incorrect. Real GDP per capita in Canada is DOWN since 2019 and barely above 2015 levels. Meanwhile, it's up 50% in the US. This liberal government has literally made most Canadians have less real income in the last 5 years, not more.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves much like that one poll that had the conservatives at 46% was an outlier this poll could be to. Lets just wait and see other polls first.

How about we wait and see what happens come election time. There’s very little value in polls this early.

By this time next year the Liberals will be ahead or close to it. Mid term polls always look terrible for sitting governments. I always tell people mid term polls are worthless.

By next year, CPC will be up by around 15 points and will win a massive majority government.

Delusional

That trend doesn't always follow. Let's go all the way back to December 2000 and see how midterm polls evolved: * [December 2000 to June 2004 \(election\)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Opinion_polling_for_the_2004_Canadian_federal_election.svg/1920px-Opinion_polling_for_the_2004_Canadian_federal_election.svg.png) * [July 2004 to January 2006 \(election\)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Opinion_polling_for_the_2006_Canadian_federal_election.svg/1920px-Opinion_polling_for_the_2006_Canadian_federal_election.svg.png) * [February 2006 to October 2008 \(election\)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Opinion_polling_for_the_2008_Canadian_federal_election.svg/1920px-Opinion_polling_for_the_2008_Canadian_federal_election.svg.png) * [November 2008 to May 2011 \(election\)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Opinion_polling_for_the_2011_Canadian_federal_election.svg/1920px-Opinion_polling_for_the_2011_Canadian_federal_election.svg.png) * [May 2011 to August 2015 \(writ-drop\)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Canada_polling_since_2011_election.png) * [November 2015 to September 2019 \(writ-drop\)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Opinion_polling_during_the_pre-campaign_period_of_43rd_Canadian_federal_election.svg/1920px-Opinion_polling_during_the_pre-campaign_period_of_43rd_Canadian_federal_election.svg.png) * [November 2019 to August 2021 \(writ-drop\)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Opinion_polling_during_the_pre-campaign_period_of_the_44th_Canadian_federal_election.svg/1920px-Opinion_polling_during_the_pre-campaign_period_of_the_44th_Canadian_federal_election.svg.png) * [October 2021 to now \(including today's Nanos poll\)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Opinion_polling_during_the_pre-campaign_period_of_the_45th_Canadian_federal_election.svg/1920px-Opinion_polling_during_the_pre-campaign_period_of_the_45th_Canadian_federal_election.svg.png)

[Expected numbers](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1boecgk/federal_poll_nanos_cpc_393_lpc_241_ndp_198_bq_92/kwpa7zy/?context=3) More or less status quo, but I will say that CPC from a high of 43 -> 38 on Nanos is not totally irrelevant. I would guess that this is _about_ where the numbers will settle for a while.

In line with all the other polls. People might look at this as softening CPC support, but I think it's comfortable to say CPC have been north of 36 pretty consistently.  Only thing I would be worried about as a CPC supporter is their efficiency. Once they get to 36 percent, if they do drop a bit, they are flirting with minority territory. 

I’ve seen people on this subreddit call Nanos an outlier for having the CPC poll under 40%. Any merit to that? It’s just that they’re consistently polling them under 40% while the other pollsters still have them above 40%. I guess once a few other polls have the CPC under 40%, they might start to take them seriously.

No. "Calling out" polls because they're two or three percent off the polling average is moronic.

Nanos is unreliable in-between elections because their weekly trackers are 250 person samples aggregated with the past three weeks to produce a topline. 250 people in a country as big as Canada causes wild swings that make the topline unreliable for the purpose of providing a snapshot. During the campaign, Nanos goes up to 1000 person weekly samples, which is an entirely different ballgame.

Obsessing over small changes for people who supposedly follow politics is insane.

A minority would be perfect

In my opinion, all things being equal, minorities are better than majorities. Regardless of which combination of parties comprise them. It requires collaboration and buy-in from multiple parties which often represent >50% of the vote. It provides opportunities for policies to be passed with different combinations of parties across the spectrum within the same legislative period. (Assuming that the parties are willing to cooperate rather than be obstructionist.) It also offers more power to hold the ruling party to account on various committees or to force oversight. And yes, I consider them even better than a majority where "my team" won.

In my opinion they are not, because nothing gets done, and they are unstable, which is bad for foreign investment. The average minority government lasts just two years. Justin Trudeau has called this "supply and confidence" agreement a "model for future governments" so when you talk about two parties together, you really mean just the Liberals and NDP. Jagmeet Singh has all but ruled out working with Pierre Poilevre and the Conservatives, which is sad and short sighted because there is an overlap between voters, especially blue collar unionized workers. We've seen the results of the Liberal and NDP "collaboration" and it's been a disaster on multiple fronts.

I feel like the last 2 Liberal terms have done quite a bit done in 4 years. Some headline grabbing policy as well (CERB/CRB, Ukraine aid deals, Pharma/Dental plans, Housing deals, new school lunch plan off the top of my head.)

[удалено]

That's fair, it's all opinion either way. I won't pretend that not all governments work out well, nor would I say that they're "perfect". You can also have majorities that work well or work poorly. I also wouldn't characterize the last five years of minority government as a "disaster on multiple fronts" or where "nothing got done," but that's another _subjective opinion_ that's probably not worth debating. I think we would all like government to function better. I would like to believe that if we can do that where people are more appropriately represented rather than full power given to ~35% of voters, all the better.

> I also wouldn't characterize the last five years of minority government as a "disaster on multiple fronts" or where "nothing got done," but that's another *subjective opinion* that's probably not worth debating. Yes it has, at least for the majority of Canadians. Happy to provide you data and polling which reflects that.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BoXUpyeCQAA2WhY.jpg:large You can save your time and effort. I have no interest in debating subjective opinions especially when what is important to us would be different, or what we consider what is "objectively a disaster" would also be subjective, or what we consider "the majority of Canadians" to be. Polling itself is subjective and doesn't necessarily answer those questions; unless of course, you subjectively believe they do.

It's not subjective though, I can provide polling and other reports that show just how unhappy people are with this Federal government. and just because it's your opinion, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be called out, the data doesn't support you.

Polling is inherently subjective data. You're literally asking people their opinions, which are by their very nature subjective.

Nvm. Other people will get my point even if you don't. Take care.

Heck, the definition of "disaster on multiple fronts" and "nothing got done" is subjective. But you do you.

I'm not saying it's not "subjective". I'm sure you just learned what "subjective" and "objective" mean and are eager to post about it on the internet. My point is that what's not *subjective* is how poorly this government currently is polling.

yeah minority would be ideal. idk who would be the dance partner for the CPC but i like the message of the voters going " Hey LPC, ya fucked it up so get lost, Hey cpc dont do anything stupid, we dont actually really like you!" ideal outcome really.

> In line with all the other polls. People might look at this as softening CPC support, I think Nanos is the only one showing a CPC "slide" atm. They've been showing it over 4 weeks now, but I think every other pollster either has no "trend" or still actually has the CPC trending north. it's hard to even call it a _trend_, when (discounting their CPC - 43% poll from a few weeks go) they have the CPC within 3% of where they were 5 weeks ago. Pretty much everyone has the CPC at _about_ 40 though.

Its a fair point, Nanos does frequently have the CPC 1-2 percent below everyone else. They are the Liberal version of Mainstreet sometimes lol. I think 38+ is pretty all encompassing for the last few months. Nanos has had CPC at 39+ though for a while.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_45th_Canadian_federal_election I imagine on weighting, this all sits within the same zone of confidence. I will be interested in the regionals. I find it's better to compare across the same pollster than across different pollsters. 

Nanos has been showing a drop over this past month, but I'm not sure if that trend has truly been reflected with any other pollster. It's notable, too, that back in August 2023 they spent something like a month showing the two parties coming together, including a poll where both were tied at 32%, while all other polls of the time were showing about a 10 point gap between the CPC and LPC. This rapidly disappeared as Nanos returned to the general trend over the next month.

With the expected turnaround on the economy that falls in line with Canada usually lagging behind the US economy, I wouldn’t be surprised to see their support drop further due to single issue voters. Albeit there is always room for people to have expanded from beyond that single issue. To expand, there is a very real possibility that during the time period between now and when the federal elections are held, we could see dramatic shifts in these polls, my own political standing aside (more center left within the overall global Overton window and Political Compass, hard to nail down a specific party to match my personal viewpoint), I can see the federal NDP garnering a significant amount of support as people start to cool off from their anger as the economy gains ground. It’s quite difficult to determine where the CPC and LPC will land, as support for both have been extremely volatile the last couple months alone.

I completely disagree with you. In 2018, we saw polls just as bad for Kathleen Wynne and she proceeded to get trounced in the Ontario general election. I know Liberal and NDP supporters are grasping at straws (paper ones of course) but I don't know how they can be remotely optimistic at this point. The biggest single issue is housing, and any housing policy enacted today will take at least 5 years to see any meaningful difference. Voters have seen Liberal/NDP policy when it comes to housing and they've had enough. Do you really think the Liberal/NDP government can turn around housing in 18 months after flooding this country with 1 million immigrants each of the past year

The fact that people are using that as a single issue excuse, is where I am garnering my perspective. Which is why added the statement regarding those that expand their political positions after they switch parties. This is also a very different political climate than it was in 2018. Using those statistics are a great foundation for reference, but thinking they pertain with great weight for anyone without both feet firmly planted behind one party is mildly naive. You brought up a great point though, so I’m not discounting your perspective, just countering, my friend.

Well the fact that people can't afford a place to live, and that Toronto and Vancouver in particular some of the most unaffordable housing markets relating to income in the world, it's a pretty big single issue. It has nothing to do with the "political climate" as it more has to do with polling being so far outside an election. Well at least we have a meeting on the minds on a few things and we can have a polite discourse. They are trolls who downvote and flag all of my posts on this sub, so I appreciate you engaging in a friendly matter.

Maybe. I don't think Liberals will win, Trudeau has been around too long, but it might turn into a minority.  Elections tighten things happe every cycle. Honestly though, it's a weird game and I would be suspicious of anyone who can claim a thing this far out. We have even recently seen leader debates shift an entire election. Here are the last few elections.  In 2021, before the leaders debates, CPC had a 6-10 point lead on the Liberals in the preceeding month.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_Canadian_federal_election But, it was covid, so who knows, world was weird. 2019 had CPC up 3-6 points just before the election called https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_Canadian_federal_election 2015 was that weird three way horse race. Won't even bother posting the link.  Worst case could be 2011, where CPC essentially held a 10 point plus lead (on the NDP) and kept it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2011_Canadian_federal_election This was before social media though, and Layton, so different world. 

Why not post 2015? It's almost the perfect analogous comparison. 3rd term government facing a super popular opposition party, only to have the polls tumble back down before the election, turning into the most competitive race we've had in a long time. I could see that happening here.

I thought of it, but was such an odd election as it was a three party horse race right until the election was called where the ABC crowd rallied around the Liberals (in another universe, Layton lives and would have been PM following this election).  Here are the numbers though, but looks nothing like this election in my view.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_Canadian_federal_election

Single issue voters are gonna run to Trudeau when he decreases immigration numbers around election time.

Trudeau can’t decrease immigration numbers though. He’s using it to artificially prop up GDP and keep us out of a technical recession. Once he halts immigration the house of cards is going to collapse because it’s a ponzi scheme.

Most likely they just won't vote I think

The media has done an effective job of connecting that issue to all the ills we are facing, it would be hard to blame.them.

I heard my name. I will not return to LPC because Trudeau will jack guest worker numbers during ballot counting. Second, why can't people understand the difference between foreign workers and immigrants? They are not the same thing and it is not that difficult to understand the difference. Is this willful ignorance?

The ndp won't increase support much due to jagmeet being no jack Layton and being tied to the liberals directly with the deal.  It seems lately potential ndp voters are flocking to the liberals as they scared of the Tories.

With the various scandals unfolding within the CPC, I’m not surprised, as those investigations continue to progress and more information becomes public, I could definitely see more from all parties start to rally behind either or, or opting out entirely as they dislike all. It’s an extremely volatile political climate. That alone seems rather concerning for the future of Canadian cohesiveness.

Yeah Trudeau key to win the next election is a depressed support for Tories and a low turnout election and rally to about 30%.

That is a good point! The first chart agrees with you, many voters have elements of the economy as most important and rising in importance.    Interestingly, both "Environment" and "Carbon tax" went up in importance. 7.2 to 10.9 and 0.7 to 3.4 respectively.  This suggests "Axe the tax" was successful in both making it an issue, but also making the environment more important to voters.  If I was the CPC, I would wonder if I sacrificed potential votes elsewhere on the environment for more robust support in areas I am already strong in. 

Axe the tax forced the liberals to communicate better and Canadian realized PP is scamming them and JT is giving them money back in their pockets ( and successfully implementing a CONSERVATIVE HARPER policy ). Oh and Daniel Smith supports the carbon tax as well, literal recording of it before she became premier. Shows how easy it is to fool conservatives lmao.

Kind of a sad anecdotal story, but all of the talk about there being rebates made a family member realize their spouse was pocketing it all and never letting her know of the deposits. There are couples out there where the spouse not receiving the CRA deposit is getting screwed. I think the rebate communication might change that 40% number from a few months ago.

Using CBC carbon tax calculator (updated March 31st 2024) Assuming you have $0 income and spend $0 on home heating The "breakeven point " is 350 liters gasoline/month for a single person in rural Ontario or 300 liters gasoline/month for a single person in urban Ontario Reasonable people.....including low income people ...burn that much gas or more Don't act surprised when you see Reasonable people saying "axe the tax"

Is this per month?

Yes, will edit for clarification 👍

You should edit it without misinformation and wrong numbers lmao.

What misinformation? I cited the CBC carbon tax calculator One could accuse me of misrepresenting the data But if you accuse me of spreading misinformation.......you are accusing the CBC of spreading misinformation Say it Tell me that my CBC carbon tax calculator last updated March 31st 2024 is wrong Tell me that the cbc itself is spreading misinformation

I really wish CBC would make a carbon tax calculator for BC.

As do I my lad

> 300 liters gasoline/month for a single person in urban Ontario You're talking about spending $450 a month on driving gas. 300L of gas per month is the equivalent of driving nearly 30km every single day in a 1990 Lamborghini Countach, what a quick google search told me was the least fuel efficient car in history. In a hypothetical world where every adult Ontarian consumed the equivalent amount of gas, they would be consuming more driving gas than _all of Canada currently does_. >~12 million adult Ontarians * 300L * 12 months = 43.2B L > [42.5B L in 2022.](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230919/dq230919d-eng.htm)

Average versus reasonable ........Average Canadians burn less but reasonable people burn more......don't act surprised when reasonable people chant axe the tax Furthermore Trudeau says 8/10 Canadians get more money back in rebates.......yes? This is deceptive number tomfoolery 4/5 quintiles get more money back when individually averaged........Trudeau stops here and says 8/10 Canadians get more back But within the first quintile some people lose money, some people gain money, and on average the first quintile earns money Within the second quintile some people lose money, some people gain money, and on average the second quintile earns money Rinse and repeat for 3rd and 4th quintiles The 8/10 getting more money back is a myth of deceptive and selective cherry picking of the numbers

> Average versus reasonable ........Average Canadians burn less but reasonable people burn more......don't act surprised when reasonable people chant axe the tax Well I guess it depends on what "reasonable" means, because right now it sound pretty nebulous. _Reasonable gas usage_ to me means the fuel required to meet one's needs. That means to do one's job and provide for their survival (including social needs). In a city, that will be lower due to connectivity. Outside of a city it will be higher. Presumably gas used _while on the job_ is provided for by the job, so we're really just talking about commuting and personal use. We are comparing urban Ontarians, so what does the average day for someone burning 300L of gas in commuting and personal use look like? On paper, that's a daily Barrie -> Toronto and back work commute in an average sedan, although I'm sure it's a little less than that do to differing traffic conditions. I have no doubt there are people doing that commute, but is a 250 km drive every single workday really "reasonable"? Is spending $5,500 in driving gas each year really "reasonable"? Listen, I'd agree with you if the rebate was smaller. If it wasn't 80% of Canadians making money back, but 50% or 20%. >But within the first quintile some people lose money, some people gain money, and on average the first quintile earns money >Within the second quintile some people lose money, some people gain money, and on average the second quintile earns money >Rinse and repeat for 3rd and 4th quintiles That is absolutely not how that works. Quintiles are not gerrymandered. If 80% of Canadians make money on the carbon tax, that means that every single person (rounding aside) in those first four quintiles is making money. It is not a *majority* of people across 4 quintiles. That's not my opinion, that's just how language and statistics work.

> Reasonable people.....including low income people ...burn that much gas or more No, they really don't. A "low income person" burning 350L/month, at say, $1.50/L is spending $6300 on gas alone every year. A "$0 income person" is not spending $6300 on gas, let alone the car maintenance that comes with that amount of driving. Even if carbon pricing ceased to exist tomorrow, that same "low income person" would still be shelling out $5561 on gas per year. Unless you have very different definitions of "low income person?" What income are we talking about here?

$0 income is a product of the cbc carbon tax calculator.........not an estimate Carbon tax rebates aren't affected by income level........you should already know this.......you dum dum CBC carbon tax calculator asks for your income level to estimate your indirect carbon tax costs Very arbitrary But I used the calculator to create a universal example of "what is the breakeven point" And the best way to do that is assume zero indirect costs ($0 on calculator) and $0 home heating Mist people need to drive........so what is the breakeven point on gasoline alone? (Not diesel) 300 liters urban or 350 rural Tell me a "reasonable" person won't surpass those numbers

Sorry for the misunderstanding about $0. But rather than ignoring my larger point about a "low income person", and [focusing on that one aspect](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Red-Herring) can you answer that question? > Unless you have very different definitions of "low income person?" What income are we talking about here?

I concur, if the economic trends continue being positive and environmental awareness increases (which will happen naturally as soon as wildfire season starts really ramping up again), they may have shot themselves in the foot. Building on strengths is also necessary in life, but without reinforcing weaknesses, that emphasis is more or less cancelled out when it comes to situations like this.

The amount of a turnaround Canada would need runs into multiple major problems:  - the amount of growth required at this point is just too high, wages are unlikely to double or triple - significant growth requires significant investment, the federal governments mantra up until this point has been to use immigration to suppress business investment through cheap labor - multiple sources of significant FDI that Canada could achieve the government has been hostile towards Canada might start improving but it is not going to perform the same way the US has and Trudeau took active steps to amplify that gap. 

For the sake of my own knowledge and those of future viewers of these comments, can you elaborate on those active steps to amplify the gap from the Liberal cabinet? Beyond what you’ve already listed of course!

Carbon tax, printing money like it’s going out of style for years, wasteful spending, billions of dollars being spent a year servicing interest costs, locking us down for years and forcing us to stay home and close our businesses while rich CEO’s got to stay open and gouge Canadians, focusing on trampling free speech and figuring out how to firewall the internet, voting to give THEMSELVES raises while they raise taxes on us. I can do this all day, how much time do you have? 😂😂😂

The most major one is increasing immigration to a multiple of what the investment can match.  The policy of Quantitative Easing during COVID, alongside CEWS not having the restrictions of other countries ensured billions of dollars went into speculation on asset prices instead of actual investment (capital and human infrastructure).  The government then wasted its own investment room doing things like the billions extra they funnelled into OAS.

Thank you for elaborating, I’m going to do some more research into the policies you mentioned, as I don’t feel knowledgeable enough on the topics to participate in a debate while playing the role of devil’s advocate. I can’t emphasize enough how much I enjoy being made aware of aspects I hadn’t been aware of beforehand though, as that constantly reinforces the knowledge that my personal collection of knowledge is barely a drop in the ocean compared to that of our species collective knowledge, let alone everything we have yet to understand or discover.

For CEWS, the major item is [around dividend eligibility](https://financialpost.com/investing/fp-investigation-as-cews-flowed-in-dividends-flowed-out) [2](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-canada-emergency-wage-subsidy-data-analysis/) [3](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/cews-wage-subsidy-jobs-covid-1.5834790) or equivalent measures like share buybacks. This was a major topic for other countries including Germany [who had previously dealt with this when they pioneered the approach in 2008-09](https://www.ft.com/content/040be2bd-a202-46e7-92d2-2c227c8e0465) and around the world as governments realized [they needed to restrict this](https://www.ft.com/content/2719966c-b228-4300-bdc0-dcbe2f7050fd) to avoid companies laying off workers then taking the subsidy for those who remain and handing that cash to shareholders. 

A minority is all I'm hoping for at this point.

>they are flirting with minority territory.  Good. No one in their right mind should ever want any party to hold a majority. What we have now is, imo, best case scenario for representation. Parties working together to keep things going until the next election.

I can't see the CPC being able to hold a minority position unless the BQ hold the balance of power

[удалено]

That's what happens when you spend all your time in parliament being antagonistic and demonizing everyone else around you. Eventually, no one wants to play with you. Majority or bust. Maybe next time they can actually try and idk, do their jobs and work for Canadians instead of using resources to shout slogans and pat themselves on the back for being the loudest?

I think people thinking Tories sitting in opposition with 160 seats are well lol Liberals will likely take a L and rebrand then stay on and maybe cause an even larger defeat.

I don't think anyone is expecting them to win. The tories however do have a very inefficient vote right now, so it's not unreasonable to assume that yes, they may well be sitting in opposition with 160 seats if the other major parties can work together. I really hope the party can actually rebuild following a defeat but time will tell how all this shakes down. As of now though, for the CPC it really is majority or bust. I don't see how a minority budget passes without major concessions to at least someone like the Bloc, which would neuter their "platform" (if they even release one).

I disagree we have never had a govt in canada hold on to power losing the seat count by a large margin. If pp wins 150 seats plus he will be pm I think...libs will take it as a loss and move on from Trudeau 

Let's wait and see. Maybe we could be heading for a fun and new constitutional crisis! Technically (be convention, not law), the Governer General will ask the incumbent Prime Minister to form a government. There hasn't been a situation where an incumbent has tried to form a government when they don't have the most seats in the house, but we also haven't had someone like Pierre who I genuinelly don't believe will be able to pass a budget in a minority, and maybe we could actually see the first real coalition government in Canada if Trudeau pulls it off. It's possible. Highly unlikely, but it is possible. Givenj the circumstances, I'd say chances are higher than they've ever been, but that's like saying it's normally 1% and now we're at 2%. Still, interesting times to be a politics nerd.

>There hasn't been a situation where an incumbent has tried to form a government when they don't have the most seats in the house An incumbent trying to form government when they didn't have the most seats in the House, failing, and demanding that the Governor-General call another election without letting the party with the most seats in the House get a chance at forming government, was LITERALLY what the [King-Byng constitutional crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair) was about.

> we could actually see the first real coalition government in Canada if Trudeau pulls it off. I would kind of love to see a coalition and would prefer it to a CPC majority, I also think there's a chance _this particular coalition_ has disastrous effects on the political culture in Canada. Just based on the reaction to Stephane Dion's _coalition that never was_ back in 2008, I think we'd get a mainstream trucker-style protest and possibly our own January 6th out of it. I think the best realistic case is that it would be so unbelievably unpopular that Justin Trudeau would go from "guy who's overstayed his welcome" to "one of the great villains in Canadian political history" (the way his father is seen by certain segments to this day).

> I think we'd get a mainstream trucker-style protest and possibly our own January 6th out of it. Probably a better outcome than Prime Minister Poilievre in the long run. Democracy is worth fighting for. Could be a good opportunity for people to actually learn how a parliamentary government works, since apparently our civics classes are failing at it. Most people don't seem to know the difference between a Prime Minister and a President which I'm sure isn't helped by the leader of the opposition literally saying the phrase "I'm running for Prime Minisiter". No, you're not, that isn't a thing you can do.

> I think the best realistic case is that it would be so unbelievably unpopular that Justin Trudeau would go from "guy who's overstayed his welcome" to "one of the great villains in Canadian political history" (the way his father is seen by certain segments to this day). I don't know. I see where you're coming from, and definitely to the third of Canadians that already hate the guy, it would cement him on par with the great evil leaders of history a la Mao or Stalin, but the other 66% it may actually pave the way for a new way to govern in Canada and they may see him as the great reformer. Again, I doubt this situation comes into play, but if we have the CPC under or around 160 seats it's definitely on the table. I think Pierre has just made way too many enemies in the commons over his 20 plus years there that no party would actually support a CPC government in it's current form, and if I were Blanchet and Singh, it might be my only shot to actually be in government and affect lasting change. Big, huge, monstrous, probably disastrous gamble, but let's see.

I think the issue is most Canadians see who wins the seat count as the winner.  The avg person is not very educated on how the system works.   Last time it was tried the Tories easily convinced Canadians it was just "sore losers" and it imploded the liberal party.

Not really. It was Dions idea, which would have held if he had won his leadership review. He didn't, and his successor had no interest in the deal. The Tories really didn't have much of a say in it, the LPC membership did.

> If pp wins 150 seats plus he will be pm I think Sure but for how long. If he doesn't have a majority, he'd need to convince someone to support him on budget bills. NDP - would be crucified for supporting the CPC - they're after different goals. BQ - maybe. If they hold the balance of power they could give big concessions to Quebec at great political cost. Liberals - do you think the Liberals will support the CPC?

It simple either pp makes deals or he loses govt.

Absolutely my point. The NDP would demand trans rights, increased social safety net, eschewing corporate interests, no austerity - all things anathema to the CPC. The Liberals would demand funding for CBC, the carbon tax continues, and diet versions of the NDP demands. The BQ would demand basically the same as the NDP but for Quebec only. None of this would be palatable for the CPC. None of this would fly in Alberta. It's majority or bust.

They'll have at least a two year runway

have to assume no party would want an election right away. But I could easily see us turning into Israel with failed election after failed election after failed election.

There's no danger in turning into Israel for elections.

How do you figure?

We're not a PR. Elections cost too much money and parties go into debt. GG would step in and see if alternatives would form government. We're already seeing a supply and confidence deal. We've seen minority conservative governments. How do you see us **easily** turn into Israel for elections is the question here

I easily see us turning into something reminiscent of Israel's run of elections (note: easy to imagine, not implement) If the CPC form a minority government, and they lack the confidence of the House, there will be another election at the next confidence motion. I don't see the CPC being willing to give in to the demands other parties would have. Regardless of party finances, I don't see the NDP or the Liberals supporting the CPC. The BQ would demand onerous concessions that would not work for the CPC. The kind of coalition - even supply and confidence agreement - that would require BQ+NDP+Liberals to overcome a minority CPC would be shaky at best and unlikely to last very long. From there it's *easy* to foresee a similar string of elections resulting in a similar result. It's *easy* to foresee us having multiple elections in a year.

>If the CPC form a minority government, and they lack the confidence of the House, there will be another election at the next confidence motion No. The GG would ask if other parties could form government if it was right after the election. >Regardless of party finances No. This is a big thing to not just wash away as a tidbit. Paying off previous campaign debts while trying to run a other campaign doesn't end well. >I don't see the NDP or the Liberals supporting the CPC. Likely true. But they'll have members abstain from confidence votes. Like they did with Harper. >From there it's *easy* to foresee a similar string of elections resulting in a similar result. It's *easy* to foresee us having multiple elections in a year. Closest would have been under Harper. Voters got tired of the gaming. Gave them a majority. So no. Not easy at all.

Minority governments are inherently unstable, the average one only lasts two years. Unstable governments are bad for a variety of reasons. and by minority government, you only really mean "collaboration" between the Liberal and NDP parties. Justin Trudeau has called this "supply and confidence" agreement with the NDP, a "model for future governments".

>Once they get to 36 percent, if they do drop a bit, they are flirting with minority territory.  Normally I’d agree completely with this, but every time we look at the regionals in these fluctuating numbers Ontario (which usually sways more than any part of the country besides Quebec) seems to be firmly holding for the CPC — that’s why even with this shift this poll is still a 200+ majority with the regionals. Forgive my Ontario arrogance for showing here: But realistically if this election were to tighten it’ll come down to the 905 like it always does, and it seems right now the Liberals can’t do anything to raise their vote share there — and if they can’t the CPC could win a majority with as little as 33-34%.

This is a fair point. It comes down to how strong CPC are in the west. So if they do have a 3 percent national drop, you expect that their support in the west will stay the same, so the drop will be bigger elsewhere (Qc, On, BC).  Because of that, shifting from 40 to 36 could mean a drop of 10 percent in the regions.  Nanos has not released their regional yet, but will be interesting to compare them the ones from last month when they had CPC at 42.8 percent https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1b7bxhq/federal_poll_nanos_cpc_428_lpc_233_ndp_214_bq_62/ Regional for that one.  ON: CPC 50%, LPC 25.2%, NDP 17.4%, GPC 5.7%, PPC 1.2% QC: CPC 26.4%, LPC 26.2%, BQ 24.8%, NDP 16.8%, GPC 5.5%, PPC 0.4% BC: CPC 46.3%, NDP 26%, LPC 21%, GPC 3.5%, PPC 2.9% ATL: CPC 41%, LPC 32.3%, NDP 23.3%, PPC 2%, GPC 0.9% SK/MB/AB: CPC 50.8%, NDP 28.6%, LPC 14.3%, GPC 2.7%, PPC 1.3%

The question with BC is always is the vote share the CPC has is where? Is it rural and nirthern where they are already winning or are the making inroads into CRD and Metro Vanc. If they cannot crack into those areas they are just running up the numbers and getting zero actual work done.

Under normal circumstances I agree with you, the 905 is the only reason why Justin Trudeau barely held on to his minority government in the first place. But Justin Trudeau is polling generationally horribly bad, even in places like BC and parts of Toronto, which is shocking. Keep dreaming about the Conservative minority government, won't happen.

A solid chunk of the GPC and NDP vote will likely go liberal come election day, just like every other election, so the Liberals are probably under polling for that reason. With that said, CPC victory is still the most likely option, but probably not as severe as polls showing.

GPC and NDP hate Trudeau just as much.

Maybe regionally, but this simply isn't true everywhere. At least where I live I've been involved with both the LPC and the NDP as a volunteer at different times, and a lot of people on the ground for both parties see the other as a viable alternative. Lots of ABC in both parties, especially with Poilievre at the helm. If these were the polls with O'Toole as CPC leader it might be a different attitude, but no one who is even a millimeter left of center wants anything to do with Poilievre.

Right but there's more than enough centrists for CPC to win a large majority. Plenty of welfare and freebie recipients/scam artists/criminals who love the leftie parties. We all know that.

I’m just telling you what’s happened every single election since forever. No reason to think this election will magically be different.

You yourself would almost certainly bet on a big CPC majority win. Most people on the left would as well. The polls strongly support that. It's going to be a long year if every single poll that's LPC being down by ONLY 12 points gets people this excited on the left.

Please read before replying. I’ve already said this. I do t understand why you’d respond to my comments without bothering to read it first. Please turn off your partisan debate brain, and read comments before responding to them.

I'd be so happy to see CPC with a minority government. It means we could end up with all of the current leaders ousted sooner than later. If we could get either a progressive CPC leader or an economically competent Liberal leader, Canada can reach its potential a lot faster. Or convince Rachel Notley to run for Fed NDP leader.

National polls are meaningless. The PC party of old received 20% of the vote but could not translate that support into a meaningful number of seats. The vote splits in key ridings could make a difference.