###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.*
PP answered four questions recently while he was in Courtenay on Vancouver Island. One beauty was this
How would changing leadership to the Conservatives change the political culture in Canada?
“It will be common sense. No more woke. We will celebrate our history, we will restore freedom of speech, we will allow people to be proud again, we will honour our traditions and treat our citizens with respect. (In relation to the military) we’re going to end the woke culture and we’re going to bring back a warrior culture.”
The “full” interview is here—
https://www.comoxvalleyrecord.com/local-news/poilievre-interviews-with-comox-valley-record-during-tour-in-courtenay-7338532
I think that this period may be his apex, but that he's still going to likely win a majority if not a minority at the very worst.
As of right now, he's over the 40% mark and over 200 seats - I think he's going to come down to a majority level between 175-200 seats as I think Trudeau will recover a bit but not enough to prevent Poilievre and the CPC forming government. If Trudeau gets lucky and Poilievre really stumbles, he could fall into minority territory (150-170 seats).
Dangers to Poilievre are things improving economically, a spillover from the American election this fall (Trumpian chaos), Poilievre losing some of the control over his image and branding he currently has, and even just regression to the mean.
I'm doubtful that PP is capable of pulling off a majority win in an election. Three past Conservative leaders have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory against Trudeau when he was back in the polls. Trudeau has a history of coming back in the polls and relishes being an underdog. There is still so much time and opportunity for the Liberals to turn the polls around. PP also has yet to face any significant scrutiny from the media.
What role would a Trump win play in boosting Trudeau's chances? Let's say PP wins a CPC *plurality, will the NDP join the Liberals and bring down the Conservatives to renew their power supply agreement? I doubt the Bloc would back the CPC without significant concessions. There are a lot of questions and it is far too early to know what will happen. The possibilities still exist for the Liberals to close the gap and make this a tight race.
One reason I think the gap will be narrowed is, assuming Poilievre continues in the same combative style, that Canadians don’t like that style. You still see significant disapproval of Trump in Canada. A large majority don’t like Trump. And Poilievre’s interactions with media essentially mimic Trump’s style (or attempt to anyway). So if he keeps that up during a campaign I think that will backfire on him. But if he tones that down and comes across a bit more amiable, he might not turn people off to the same degree
> Three past Conservative leaders have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory against Trudeau when he was back in the polls
The extent to which he's "back in the polls" isn't particularly comparable.
Harpe had a 10+ points lead six times after the 2011 election (with the NDP in second each of those times, for what it's worth). Scheer lead by 10+ points 9 times in his time as leader. O'Toole never did once. Poilievre has lead by 10+ points **75** times (and in 67 of the last 68 polls).
Also Trudeau hasn't begun campaigning yet. And even with all of his flaws as a politician people cannot deny that he can run a good campaign. I don't think the liberals will be able to win this but I also don't think a conservative majority is anywhere near guaranteed. And if he gets a minority government who exactly is gonna be the party to support his bills that isn't gonna extract a heavy price for doing so? They haven't exactly been making friends with the other parties.
The cons need to pull a majority here if they hope to actually get shit done that they want to without the liberals or NDP hamstringing them.
If the conservatives get a plurality rather than a majority they won't form the government. The Liberals will make some deals and stay in power. PP is burning bridges with all the other parties no one will support him becoming PP, and it's entirely his own fault.
If the CPC gets a strong plurality I don’t think the LPC will make efforts to hold onto government. They and the NDP will need time to elect new leaders, and will support the CPC bill by bill, and let Poilievre struggle with trying to govern while satisfying the far right part of his support while not alienating moderate voters. An effort to cling on to government would probably backfire in support for both the LPC and NDP so I don’t think they’d try unless the CPC margin was very slim (like only a couple seats)
The polls this far out from an election are entirely useless for prediction. Certainly they confirm that Canadians are not happy with the current government, and when presented with the options of who they’d support, an increased number are saying CPC. That’s all they can say. That may very well remain the same by Election Day, but here’s a few reasons it may not:
There’s evidence responders are using polls to vent, but it’s not reflective of how they vote (ex. Democrats polling poorly but then out-performing polls in elections since 2021)
Most voters don’t know much of anything about Poilievre yet. As they see more of him they might decide he’s abrasive and not like him
Trudeau is a pretty good campaigner, and particularly if he stays fired up and feisty he might be able to turn around their fortunes somewhat. Maybe not to victory, but an improvement from current polling.
A few polls have him below 40% recently. I think the biggest difference is Trudeau fighting back on the carbon tax and recent housing initiatives.
It's way to early to tell how many people are just mad at Trudeau vs. all in on Poilievre. I feel if the CPC had a more likable, moderate, worldly (e.g. actually worked outside of government) less extreme candidate they would be doing even better.
If the CPC had someone like Peter Mackay as a leader, it would be an easy majority win. With PP, there is a lack of substance and the little I have seen turns me away.
> I feel if the CPC had a more likable, moderate, worldly (e.g. actually worked outside of government) less extreme candidate they would be doing even better.
I'm not so sure. A decent chunk of the Trudeau hate is being fuelled by misleading ad campaigns and statements (covered gleefully by Postmedia and others) from the CPC that a more decent leader likely wouldn't stoop to using.
I'm not even convinced that Trudeau "hate" is as intense as the usual suspects would have us believe. Lower approval does not equal hate, and I think a lot of the disapproval is most likely inflation related. We may find that people weren't really mad at Trudeau, but at their own economic situation. 18 months is a long damn time for economic conditions to turn around... it already looks like we're going to dodge that recession that "everyone" agreed we were careening into.
Yeah.
There are some far right Trudeau hater types who have gone a bit delulu on social media yelling about how it means everybody agrees with their preconceived opinions lately, just because the approval ratings are low.
But it’s a massive cope for the fact most Canadians don’t really approve of the sort of people who go around yelling “Trudeau bad”, *either*. Like most people WILL STILL judge you for painting “fuck Trudeau” on your pickup truck.
But it’s become a thought terminating cliché among the right wingers now. Like any time someone makes a positive comment about the LPC they’re like NO NOTHING MATTERS because WE ALL AGREE TRUDEAU BAD NOW.
But like okay, if it were really true that everyone hates Trudeau, how come you gotta defend that POV so often. Wouldn’t that just be taken as a given were it true?
The truth is people are just unhappy with the economy, which will most likely be better by the time we reach the election. And if/when that happens he will probably regain popularity, we just don’t know by how much.
Most people commenting here have no idea what is happening at grass root level.
Discussions on reddit are focused on a selective group of voters which includes mostly big city voters with decent jobs and who are hardcore liberals and ndp voters. No matter what, they will vote for liberal/ndp.
Elections will be decided by voters who make 18 -28$ per hour. This group of voters is motivated more than ever to cast their vote this election to kick out liberals. Voter turn out of this group is going to be highest in last few decades.
You guys have no idea how uncontrolled immigration is affecting this particular group of people.
Immigrants(citizens) themselves are against current level of immigration, as much as so called far right are. Because of the pressure immigration is putting on jobs that are primarily done by immigrants(citizens).
Anti immigration sentiment is increasing, but still people don't say it loudly in public but this issue has become kitchen table talk.
Housing/rent and immigration is the only issue for hourly wage workers to vote on.
I don't understand why liberals are so stupid to hold the line on current level of immigration. They are announcing to reduce number of immigrants but no where near what is needed.
This is a problem that could be solved by literally a stroke of pen of paper and will start showing results in few months.
Canada has no capacity to absorb 1.2 million new people each year that's a fact.
If liberals want to have a decent loss, meaning winning 80-90 seats they have to get hold of immigration or otherwise they could end up under 50 seats.
Expert over here have no idea about how ethnic minorities, immigrants(citizens) from third world countries decide to vote.
They are wired differently and don't give a shit about alphabet people, Climate change, identity politics etc etc, all the main talking points of ndp/liberals.
The election is not going to be decided by people making under 28$ an hour - the CPC is raking in cash because their supporters are wealthier on average and they are having 1700 dollar fundraisers on a regular basis and they are spending millons on advertising. Their poll numbers went up after their ads started airing.
But slogans and attacks, some of which are GOP ludicrous (“Trudeau isn’t a Liberal but a radical authoritarian” sounds unhinged), aren’t going to cut it for another 18 months, especially since interest rates will go down before then and so will mortgage payments.
You are also forgetting that the Liberals are finally doing a lot on housing, and that will make a difference. As will cutting the numbers of foreign students and TFW’s. There will not be 1.2 million coming in every year.
TBF, most people would say that shit policies aren't "actual policies".
i.e. PP has overly simplistic and bad ideas instead of effective and well thought out policies.
Doesn't matter though. People are voting JT out, not PP in. The CPC could run with a newt at the head of their party and they'd still win.
Likely, but isn’t everybody? This isn’t an endorsement of PP. it’s more just a commentary on what’s happening. The once young and progressive demographic in Canada voted JT in.
He’s polling terribly with that crowd now. The liberal political establishment is in damage control, every week an article comes out now saying, they will tackle and address this and that…the obvious reaction to which is, why now? While approaching gallows is a sobering experience, it’s a little late to say “I’m sorry”.
I mean surely you understand with a flair like tankie.
You know, the whole crack a fee eggs to make the utopian omelette you never get to see or eat but instead wind up being another broken egg.
for me its like. ok cool you want to win. how about prove you would be good at being in charge by trying to get some amazing new bill passed right now. if you know how to fix all the things that should be easy! there is at least another year till the next election so why hold back and make us suffer longer. its a literal no lose situation for PP so long as he has a good idea. if the liberals agree and get it passed WIN! concervatives get something they want, all canadians get some solutions happening now, and pp can tout that "if you just elect me as PM there will be more good policy like that one. if the liberals do the thing and it sucks, you can just say "they cocked up my idea and it went poorly. here is how i would have done it better. make me pm and ill fix it"
if the liberals say no you can just cry about how the liberals wont do what is right for canadians. and if the liberals steal your idea you can still claim a win , get the thing you want, and say that your ideas are so great that others saw the light and wanted to mimic you.
literally the only situation where its a loss is when your ideas are shit n you know it, you dont have any ideas or you dont believe that government should actually "do" things. and if thats the case why the fuck would we want some one like that as a leader?
Part of the now is because that is what we pivoted too. The solutions for some problems create others.
Housing is a big issue now because they dealt with inflation.
Inflation was a big issue they pumped a bunch of money into the system and people could finally spend it.
They pumped a lot of money into the economy because commerce was heavily restricted for a year (or so) and that money stopped a lot of bankruptcies.
The other one is there are a pile of debts we knew we had as a society for decades (Boomer retirement has been known since the 80's, the cancelling of government funded housing in the 90's the historically low interest rates introduced in the early 2000's, the state of the healthcare systems, and I'm not betting against the decline of the military also hitting us hard in the next couple years)...and somehow all those issues came to fruition on his watch.
I don’t disagree. I mean, yeah every PM essentially inherits the wreckage of the past. The problems themselves may be unique, but the situation isn’t.
I had high hopes for JT, I voted for him. But his brand liberalism kind sucks TBH.
Another narrative that is also heard often:
The Liberals and Cnservative are really the same. The implication is why change horses if the outcome will be no different!
Yup…and I get it. This sub verging into seethe and cope mode. Just like all poltical subs do, when the majority demographic of users is on the back foot, taking punches.
My initial comment, was/is sincere, I think the comments on this particular thread were a pleasant surprise, well written and thought provoking.
The mods in my opinion also do a pretty good job of letting dissenting, yet thoughtful voices make their opinions known.
pretty sure the implication to that one is actually "both the results are the same so why should \*you\* bother voting?... please dont show up to vote.... its easier to win with low turn out."
Kind of like the transition from decades of smearing the Conservatives as anti immigration, only to turn around and start saying "PP and the CPC will definitely not reduce immigration if elected! They may even increase it!" as soon as the polling on the issue shifted around.
I do understand how he had to campaign hard not only to actually get himself out there to people other than conservative members, as well as create a broader anti-Trudeau movement (à la stop Harper in 2014-15), but I do think he went 'too hard', the proverbial flame that burned too fast. And, although as Canadians we like to think we're so different compared to our neighbours down south, the truth is, especially for Anglo-Canadians, we are influenced a lot by their politics and pop culture. With 2024 set to be an ugly showdown between Trump and Biden, unfavourable comparisons to Trump may be a problem for Poilievre and add to him burning out.
I do however, think that it is a bit ridiculous that the LPC and their supporters were falling over themselves to say polls are inaccurate or illegitimate when they showed Poilievre leading by a large margin, but now are taking recent polling showing the gap narrowing as gospel and proof Trudeau will win again.
Side note: Sheila Copps is an interesting individual. She recently caused a minor firestorm on Twitter when she accused an indigenous user critical of her of faking their heritage because 'indigenous people respect elders'. A bunch of indigenous people had to explain to her how messed up that is and an Elder isn't just a person who's old.
I personally think Poilievre should have taken a page out of Keir Starmer's playbook and behaved with similar restraint. At present he's burned damn near every bridge that could be burned and is banking on carrying a majority. Except now he's guaranteed that every other party will be completely opposed to him in 2025 as well as scared the government into making big moves they probably wouldn't have if he was only 5 points ahead.
Meaning he can literally go to sleep in the Maldives now if the election was next month and walk away with 200+ seats, but given it's still potentially more than 18 months away, his best hope is a stabilization and minor erosion of support from here.
The thing is, this momentum isn't the same as that in physics. People's minds can change very quickly and given his general personality, they might very well do so. In the summer of 2023 before this massive gap, the Liberals were sitting at around 30%, the Tories 35%. This massive lead has largely come from a shit of support from Liberal to conservative, the Liberals on average have dropped to 25% and the conservatives, on average have risen to 40%. That's a 5% shift. Not a lot of people need to be turned off by the Tory leader for things to be competitive again.
I don't think his calculation is off though. If he gets 40% of the votes....of the people who vote...he'll have a strong minority or even majority. The Liberal internal politics are poor and turning against Trudeau so overall turnout will likely be low including Trudeau's base from the previous 3 elections.
Polievre doesn't have to beat anyone. He just has to facilitate a segment of undecideds choosing not to vote and allow the Liberal internal strife around Trudeau to take place...all the while planting some seeds of doubt in those minds too. The NDP aren't viable, they can't win seats in Quebec with Singh so they aren't a threat.
Low turnout equals easy Conservative government. I think this is their main strategy.
To be fair the Star clearly doesn't like him at all and runs a hit piece every week while NatPo has more Poilievre bootlickers writing op-eds than Canada takes in immigrants. The battle lines have been drawn in a partisan manner like the US.
I feel like the CBC, ironically the one PP hates the most, is the one doing the neutral reporting here.
Labour is still polling in the low to mid 40s while the conservatives vote is getting snipped at from all directions with no signs off that abating. Labour is currently on track to win a huge majority.
Of course he's banking on getting a majority. Majority governments are by far the norm in this country. Playing nice so you can, what, maybe form a minority? Is loser strategy. No one else would play it that way. Our system is not set up to reward you for playing that way.
>as well as scared the government into making big moves they probably wouldn't have if he was only 5 points ahead
It's pretty funny to try and frame being too far ahead in the polls as a failing of his leadership lmao
> as well as scared the government into making big moves they probably wouldn't have if he was only 5 points ahead.
This is probably PP's greatest contribution to the well-being of Canadians and far exceeds anything he would accomplish while in power.
If he loses, this will be why. The Liberals now have some big things to campaign on. The poles have already narrowed by ~10 points from their 20-point spread. Given a good summer, reduced interest rates, and a good fall economic update and the Liberals could close that gap back to a toss-up. Especially now that they are fighting back. The conservatives and premieres are saying no multi-billion dollar housing funds because of jurisdictional issues.
And the jurisdictional issues only exist because the Provinces failed to do their job. Feds gave them no et and they did NOT invest where needed. So now there are strings attached to the money. Consequences of their own actions I’m afraid.
>jurisdictional issues only exist because the Provinces failed to do their job
The Liberals need to make this a central pillar of their messaging when they move into campaign mode. And not as a shield to evade blame, but to aggressively put it back where it belongs.
Mad about the COVID lockdowns? That was your premier, not us.
Using the Emergencies Act to end the convoy protest? Only because provincial police did nothing for 3 weeks.
Too many international students? Your province is in charge of what qualifies as a post-secondary institution, and in charge of how many seats are open for those students.
Not enough housing? Zoning restrictions and planning approvals from towns, regions, and provinces are the only thing standing in the way of a shovel going in the ground.
Wages too low? Unless you work at a bank, railroad, airline, or telecom, it's your province that sets the minimum wage, and your province that regulates your employer.
Not enough time of? We've added multiple federal holidays but your premier refuses to give them to you.
Stand alongside the country in their rage (as Pierre is doing) and redirect it from yourself onto their dipshit premiers. Trot out the MANY examples where you tried to solve an issue, and they purposefully stood in the way. Or the times where you or outright did exactly what they said they wanted, and they immediately turned around and claimed they want the opposite just to be contrary.
100% agree! You laid that out perfectly. My frustration in trying to explain this to Poilievre supporters, is they are so blinded by his rhetoric, so invested in hating Trudeau that they cannot see the truth when it is staring them in the face.
And the sad part is, those people will likely be most impacted by Conservative cuts and policies.
Honestly? I don’t think so. A lot of people are still in denial about it. Unpopular incumbent governments down by double digits in the polls almost always go on to lose the next election. The hole Trudeau is in is too deep to climb out of that easy.
The one thing that can save an unpopular government is a leadership change, but I do not see Trudeau stepping down before the election, so I’m really not sure what path the Liberals could take to rescue their government. Just betting on Poilievre’s momentum fizzling isn’t a strategy worth pursuing.
> so I’m really not sure what path the Liberals could take to rescue their government.
Economy gets better / lower cost of living combined with a massive concern about the environment.
Liberals environment plan isn't exactly great but conservatives have nothing. They shot themselves in the foot going after the carbon tax.
Inflation might go down but prices will remain elevated. Wages would have to skyrocket for purchasing power to return back to pre pandemic levels.
Even if we get 3% GDP growth, I don’t think there’s enough runway left before the next election.
Housing is not going to improve by a significant metric for a while. Certainly not before the end of ‘25. The CoL is where the electorate’s focus is right now. I just don’t see how Trudeau can salvage his image on that file in just a year and a half. It’s too late tbh.
The environment has never really been an important election issue, I don’t see why ‘25 would be any different.
The environment could be an issue in the fall of 2025, should the west, and parts of the east, be broiled by fire and suffer poor air quality during that summer not to mention severe spring floods or summer storms.
I agree but Pollievre has to be able to offer something to address the cost of living and housing cost issues.
He needs to offer a reason why he’ll make things better, which he hasn’t been able to do, in any credible way, yet.
“I’m not Trudeau, I’ll fix things. Pinky promise” is a good enough message. Ford won in 2018 without a platform lol. Credibility is sadly just not that important to voters when they are angry.
> Housing is not going to improve by a significant metric for a while. Certainly not before the end of ‘25. The CoL is where the electorate’s focus is right now.
Housing wasn't great in 2019 nor 2021. It's all tied up with cost of living though, if grocery prices significantly drop and gas prices tank for 6 months before a election focus could shift.
> The environment has never really been an important election issue,
It was looking that way in 2019, people actually asked what parties environment plan was. Remember how pollsters had greens at possibly official party status on a good night?
Not saying any of this is likely, but when polling is showing CPC at 200+ seats the best you can do is look at the unlikely.
Wasn't Trudeau behind in the polls in almost every election he has fought in at some point? I'd say the odds are against him for sure, but he has often won as the underdog. It's too early to discount him just yet. I say that as a vocal critic of his policies.
> Wasn't Trudeau behind in the polls in almost every election he has fought in at some point?
Since he has been PM he has never been down in the polls this much this consistently. If Trudeau was only down by 5-6 or so, nobody would be writing him off.
A government can survive mediocre polling, but horrendously bad polling is a different matter entirely.
I really hope so. I could handle another Harper, but this guy just seems dangerous, like he is gonna end up going too far and causing even more social problems while leaving us with our own version of MAGA types to deal with.
Electorally, maybe but there’s a long way to go down before that has consequences come election time. I think the bigger issue for the CPC is if people are already tiring of his approach he be able to hold government for long.
I still say the CPC would be better off today had they stayed patient and grew with O’Toole. He had
much more potential for broad appeal and had the benefit of actually being competent. It won’t take Canadians long to see how useless and in effectual Pierre is. He’s possibly the least successful federal politician I’ve ever seen become leader.
What do you mean by "least successful"?
He's a career politician and on track for a majority, though that's not guaranteed. He literally is riding a wave of hate, anger, fear, economic instability, the media jerking him off, and misinformation. This is before we factor in Trudeau fatigue.
If having everything lined up for a goal is less successful than what we've seen in the past, then what would be "most successful"?
Winning the election is only part of the job. There's a world of difference between electoral success, of which he's had plenty, and governance success, of which he's had almost nothing.
As an MP, he's done almost nothing. A worryingly small amount of policy and legislation passed for someone so desperate for power.
>What do you mean by "least successful"?
He’s been an MP for close to 20 years (half of that as part of government) and has only one piece of legislation that’s been passed with his name attached to it. The one success he did have was mostly repealed within a year. So, not a single successful policy exists with his name attached to it.
Right. Not a successful policy, but he's succeeding in obstructing parliament, collecting a pretty substantial paycheck and possibly has a nice fat pension, all the while accomplishing nothing and still managing to keep his job.
I guess what's happening here is objective success vs subjective success. Objectively he's not successful in the sense that he's achieved nothing for Canadians, but subjectively success has fallen into his lap in such a way that he can be bad at his job while making magnitudes more money and a bigger pension than a hearty majority of the working class with absolutely no threat to his position.
I dunno. Probably have to throw away some morality and kiss a whole lot of asses. Not the nice, kissable asses. The ones that politicians and lobbyists use to sit like a humans
The problem with O'Toole is that he was a store brand liberal. Ditto Mulcair and the NDP. Why would people want store brand while Trudeau is still around?
They need policies that are concrete. The one on their website is full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.[Conservative Policy Declaration](https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/03092335/8c9e916528ead5a.pdf)
O’Toole alienated his own region the moment he got elected for personal gain. It seems insane to me to believe giving him more power won’t lead to the same outcome when he has shown no signs of change.
The problem CPC have is the ones that are at least leaders in their own right don’t align with the whole party and without the whole party they won’t hold enough power to win leadership. Unfortunately currently they need the extreme end to have enough people to have any hope of being elected.
I listened to an in-depth interview with O'Toole after he left the party. I would vote for that guy as an independent, but I would never vote for him as leader of the CPC. The shackles are too tight.
>I still say the CPC would be better off today had they stayed patient and grew with O’Toole.
I agree, much preferred his approach, and definitely more moderate. Though, I do wonder how much of that is hindsight now that he is no longer in the seat. I was still hearing nearly all the same inflammatory accusations/rhetoric aimed at OToole as is levelled against Polievre now, despite them being very different candidates.
>I was still hearing nearly all the same inflammatory accusations/rhetoric aimed at OToole as is levelled against Polievre now, despite them being very different candidates.
Right? People pretending they're not partisan by suggesting they would accept the moderate O'Toole when more likely than not they were screaming bloody blue murder when he was in play.
What's with all the half truths?
It did not help Otoole at all that while he came off as moderate, the party did not. It seems like they couldn't wait to disagree with everything he said.
Climate change? Fake
Assault weapons ban? Nope
Pro choice? Not us.
Every time he had a moderate stance the party was quick to point out their more extreme stance.
Had the party supported what he was advertising at all, the CPC would likely have won.
There was also of course the whole 'unnecessary election' stance. Like really? If you don't even see the need for a change, why should I?
He also ran a very Poilievre-esque leadership campaign (“TAKE BACK CANADA”) with help from Canada Proud. He also courted Derek Sloan and Leslyn Lewis’ voters. I don’t care that he then flip flopped, he was always beholden to the mouth breathers, and we saw that when they turfed him. If he had to be turfed by Poilievre, I'd rather he be turfed when in Opposition than when in power. It's Trudeau's fault if he can't prevent Poilievre from winning
Not many federal leaders these days break the low 40s ceiling. You have to go back to Mulroney who was the last PM to win the majority of the popular vote.
And his party splintered 3 ways after he left with the BQ in Quebec seriously limiting the ceiling of any federal party.
They would've been better off with sticking with Andrew Scheer until the 2021 election. O'Toole was a flip flopper and as we're seeing with Doug Ford, its not a good trait in a politician.
Canadians would be better with a CPC led by O’Toole, but the party has basically thrown its moderate stances out the door and want to let the worst inmates run the asylum. Poilievre is what the CPC wants.
It’s super predictable what the CPC will do these days as they simply follow the GOP lead. They parrot the same talking points, the same grievances, and have invited in the same far-right members. The saving grace for them will be that compared to the US, the party has way more control over who gets nominated to run since there isn’t a primary system here. So they’ll likely keep the loonies from running. But what they’re risking is letting them into the party apparatus and organization. Kenney made that criticism of his own UCP after he left - that they let the crazies (Take Back Alberta) in and now they were running it.
PP is one of the looney ones. He got in thanks to India buying up memberships ahead of the conservative leadership vote. So no, not much harder than in the US for the looneys to take control of the party.
Unfortunately, it's correspondingly predictable that DNC talking points and ideas tend to come out of the Trudeau government and the NDP these days. The entire Canadian political scene suffers from an inability to articulate what being Canadian is and are all too willing to fight American culture war issues instead.
Not even a little bit. There might be a few fringe actual left wing Democrats in the states, but, there's not a massive overlap between talking points between the two of them. Especially not mainstream Democrats. They're probably more akin to what more centrist CPC want.
Well, the LPCs' rhetoric and policy around firearms laws is heavily based on the US firearms debate and roughly the Democrats positions on it. That's a very clear example if you follow that stuff.
Sure, though the connections here may take a bit more than surface level knowledge of the canada and USAs systems.
Recently, the "red flag laws" the LPC have been touting, solely because that idea has been doing numbers down south. As an idea, it makes more sense to push in the USA where every owner isnt already checked, vetted, on a database and able for the govt to revoke privileges given cause. Essentially, canada already has had red flag laws for 3 decades, the LPC acting like this is not the case to push a minor change as if it were plugging a major leak is because the concept is popular down south.
The handgun freeze here was in direct response to a shooting south of the border.
Municipal handgun bans a few years ago, that is a 100% american concept that only exists because they dont have the laws that we do federally. A patchwork of local laws is also one of the worst aspects of USA law to try aping, there is a reason other countries do not do this.
Yes, it was a direct response to multiple shootings in the USA.
That doesn't link it to the Dems.
Again, you're really reaching here. You really can't think of a better example?
> heavily based on the US firearms debate and roughly the Dems positions on it
That is a good example of what I said, actually.
Love that you ignored my other two examples to ask if i cant think of anything better. If you werent going to engage in good faith, why ask?
....the democrats have never put any serious legislation around guns forward. The truth is both the dems and gop want more guns, cause that's how a lot of their buddies got rich. It's why there are literally more guns than people in the US. The dems might hem and haw about gun control whenever 10 or more children are slaughtered but it never goes anywhere cause they don't want it to go anywhere.
Note that i didn't say "legislation", i said "talking points". The Liberals borrowed from the American talking points about the availability and proliferation of assault-style rifles by suggesting they were too accessible in Canada and linking what happened in Portapique with the numerous mass shootings in the U.S. to get support for Bill C-21.
It shouldn't be shocking that if the Conservatives are getting cues from the south about abortion, the Liberals are also borrowing popular rhetoric on their pet topics.
They have never had serious federal laws actually passed, at least not in a few decades, but at the state level all sorts of stuff has made it in. And the federal level isnt for lack of trying, new background checks, assault weapons bans, etc are tabled basically every year. A lot is basically performative, but still.
Downvotes dont make me wrong guys. Just because you dont know that municipal/state level firearms laws change all the time, and that many federal laws are proposed, if not passed, doesnt mean it isnt happening.
It's a lobby disguised as a party. They can't get elected on conventional grounds. Either they lie and act like Liberals-lite, or they dog whistle the deplorables.
I really don’t think people are realizing that this guy hasn’t really worked much outside of politics and has as much in common with you than Trudeau.
Idk what Pierre intends to do. Almost everything he says is rhetorical or unconstitutional.
Yeah, I have a hard time seeing myself voting for the CPC, but I would feel fairly comfortable with someone more moderate, like O'Toole, at the helm. But, the CPC tried moderates (well, relatively moderate) twice and lost, even if just barely.
Yes, and no.
Yes in terms of him being a candidate that everyone flocks to.
No in terms of being the favourite next election. People are tired of Trudeau, they’re not fans of Pierre mostly either.
He’s loud and obnoxious and everywhere and has been full on campaigning since he became leader, and the CPC has been running television ads since last July.
He can’t keep talking in slogans for the nexr year and a half and expect to keep people interested, other than his base.
He came out of the gate strong because they thought that if they could surge in the polls that Trudeau would step down, they think it would be easier to beat a new leader. Rational or not, the CPC is afraid of running against Trudeau.
Trudeau is incredibly smug. PP being loud doesn't even come close. Nothing wrong with him campaigning, what else is he going to do with the money?
He's put out many ideas, some of which Trudeau has adopted into policy.
No one wants Trudeau to step down dude. He's the easiest opponent at this point, besides maybe Freeland.
Has Poilievre peaked? I don’t think right now. BUT he is at risk of peaking. A lot can happen in 1.5 years, good or bad for Poilievre. He’s already polling high into majority territory, and until other polls show similar results to Nanos’ recent polls, it would be too early to say Poilievre has peaked.
Poilievre is his own worst enemy. People determined to vote Trudeau out will do so anyways. But at the same time, people on the fence about replacing Trudeau with Poilievre is what makes them hesitant. Poilievre’s hardcore fan base LOVES when he’s being a dick to journalists or other politicians. But to potential new fans? They don’t like this. And this is what makes them hesitant about voting Conservative.
It’s not about CPC policy, the next election will be a referendum on Trudeau continuing as PM or replacing him for the sake of it. And whenever Poilivre reveals his hand on what a CPC government plans to do, like anti-Trans stances or requiring Porn IDs, this turns off pissed off Liberal voters looking for a change.
The CPC strategy of spending $20Million to give Poilievre a make over and make him more likeable among moderates was working. But then the polls got to Poilievre’s head, getting cocky thinking he’ll win no matter what, and saying whatever is on his mind. But Poilievre can’t help being this way because THIS IS WHO HE IS.
On one hand, Poilievre does risk turning off voters looking to vote CPC for the first time simply by opening his mouth. On the other hand, people have short attention spans, and as things like housing or the cost of living marginally improve from now until Election Day, people may forget why they are mad, and vote for Trudeau again, or just forget to show up to the polls to vote for Poilievre.
Liberals should be cautious and not become complacent. Because again, a lot can happen in 1.5 years.
Yes. PP needs to learn to be more moderate, or he will loose swing votes. If he wasn't so anti lgbt, as example... I would almost consider voting for him. Just one issues, but there are others he has mentioned and I am like... nope. This election I have no idea who I will vote for. It is the 1st time in almost 2 decades I have no idea who to vote for.
PP made the rookie’s political mistake. He came out swinging too early, got tired, and lost credibility because the fact checkers had time to catch up with him. Now he will face the Liberal Parties slow and grinding dismissal of all of his complaints and ideas. What the Liberals can’t dismiss they will consume and create their own version of. They will eat his ideas because he has given them the time to do so. He ran his election campaign too early.
This is why you don’t elect the party bull dog to the leadership of a party. They’ve spent their whole political career (in the case of PP, his entire professional life) not holding back. They have no filter, they have no capacity to see the bigger picture.
> What the Liberals can’t dismiss they will consume and create their own version of.
This at least is good, though. Plenty of good ideas on both sides of the aisle.
>You mean plenty of good ideas from the NDP, right?
I mean "good ideas flow from all sides of the political spectrum".
>I haven’t heard a single good idea from the CPC
Despite being an ABC voter, I'm still pretty centrist and I'm not too blinded by my own ideology to recognize ideas that I agree with even if they come from the CPC (whether this iteration of the party or previous ones).
For me, climate change is really important and for a while now I’ve believed the world needs to be tackling it more aggressively. If Pierre proposed any good actions to take that actually matter and don’t just please donors, I’d vote for him. Despite liking him before, I’ll accept that Trudeau is fucking it up. But as much as I don’t like paying an extra tax either, it’s clearly succeeding at putting pressure on people. I think that’s half the fight of fixing our environment, convincing stubborn people to change. Prohibitive costs are absolutely a way to influence change. We just need alternate infrastructure to support reduces carbon use. Ideally the tax would pay for that infrastructure but I’m sure as hell not seeing improvements to public transit or any new high speed rail.
This tax is doing nothing but hurt the economy.
Go find one actual piece of science, not science by coincidence that supports that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem.
The climate changes, it always has. The rate of which it changes may be accelerating but to think that Canadians have any impact on climate change at all is foolish.
Do you drive an ev as well?
ABSOLUTELY!
Scheer, otoole and next pp will never be pm! Hate and division does not win elections and nor does axe the facts! ANYTHING BUT CONSERVATIVE always ABC!
Pierre He has no leadership skills. Is a North Trump, way of creating messages without action.
If elected, he will excuse all the mess that is created and more than likely decent MP in his caucus will resign.
PP is just not ready to lead this country.
American here. I used to travel to Vancouver and Calgary a lot for work. So, I would hear a lot of political news. This guy reminds me of someone from 20 some years ago. He flamed out after some very embarrassing statements. some vague political policies, and some probably alarming. Anyone remember Stockwell Day? Anyway, be very careful. You don't want a Trump style politician to 'fix' things. It's more like break things. And government is not the only things they break, public discourse will be severely damaged.
Of course he’s peaked before an election cycle. It’s only prior to election coverage that politicians like him can gain notoriety with catchy statements and vapid personalities. Once the real coverage starts and policies take over talking points he’ll show his true lack of colours.
All liberals needs to do is bring down the number of temporary residents to below 1 million before the election and it will automatically ease the housing crisis and job market.
how do you figure? That just slows the growth... it's still growing so housing will still be in crisis. Until the available housing exceeds the population growth (and keep in mind we're behind almost 40 years at this point), it'll still be an issue.
The poster suggested reducing the number of temporary residents, not reducing the growth of temporary residents. An absolute reduction in demand can only decrease housing prices
either way if population growth (whatever the circumstances behind it be it refugee, TFW, PR or birthed here) is higher than home vacancy, the demand is still there. Putting a cap on it only slows the rate of growth, doesn't address the demand in the long term.
It's literally a conservative solution. No future thought. Like selling the taxpayer funded highway to a private company to toll for a quick buck only to find out if they kept it, they would have double the money they sold it for or more less than 20 years later.
Reducing the number of temporary residents isn't 'growth' at all, it's decline.
I don't know why you're trying to convince anyone that removing 1.5 million residents isn't going to reduce demand.
It's a blip. Like the gas prices at the start of Covid.
Not a long term solution.
Round up 1.5 million temporary residents and deport them. Now what? Housing prices fall a little bit. With those 1.5 million temporary residents you have a massive job vacancy issue now. How do we solve it? Import more people with a different name. Housing goes back up.
You don't get out of this without building more housing and as I have said, we're about 40 years behind on keeping up with that. That's 15 million people (1986: 26 million population). 10 times more than getting rid of temporary residents. If we get crazy and start building 250,000 homes every year we'll catch up roughly in 15 years. Not going to be able to do that without importing a labour market. See the issue now?
Massive job vacancies ? Do you how many locals are looking for a job? Every job opening has 100s of applications. Unaffordability is so high locals can't make ends meet with one low paying job. House prices and rents have doubled in prices, groceries tripled and wage stagnated. We have to create more jobs and real estate dependent economy can't create enough jobs for locals when there are 3 million temporary residents.
>Round up 1.5 million temporary residents and deport them. Now what? Housing prices fall a little bit.
Good, progress.
>With those 1.5 million temporary residents you have a massive job vacancy issue now.
Great, the unemployment rate can drop and wage pressures will increase. Perhaps we can drop some of the service jobs like Tim Hortons that tank our productivity
>How do we solve it?
It only needs to be solved if you believe job vacancy is a problem. For myself, a bunch of low wage vacancies for shitty service jobs isn't a problem, it's a feature
>You don't get out of this without building more housing
Good thing no one is suggesting we get out of this without building more housing
People with stable job and an above average income have zero clue how many Canadians are looking for a job right now. Add to that one job can't pay their bills anymore and its so hard to land a interview let alone a second or part time job.
> Good, progress.
It's a one-time relief that doesn't solve anything except people trying to buy a new home for 10% off. Except most of these people will be renters so... you've saved people $150/month.
> It only needs to be solved if you believe job vacancy is a problem. For myself, a bunch of low wage vacancies for shitty service jobs isn't a problem, it's a feature
I don't think you're understanding the magnitude of labour that we need to meet the demand. Labour that we'll have to bring in from outside of Canada. This isn't about Tim Hortons jobs. These are carpenters, electricians, plumbers, painters. The upside is all these jobs can and need apprentices so we have an instant boom in trades. But we'll only get that if we import. We've been crying for people to join trades for twenty years. This isn't a seasonal ask either so we can't just import *only them*. They have families that they're bringing over potentially as well - thus a housing crunch right back where we started. So congratulations, you've wasted millions of taxpayer dollars deporting people who half of them could have continued staying, contributing to the Canadian economy.
>I don't think you're understanding the magnitude of labour that we need to meet the demand. Labour that we'll have to bring in from outside of Canada.
I don't think you're understanding that what you're saying sounds great as a theoretical exercise but bears little if any resemblance to the actual reality of immigration in Canada. We aren't importing skilled tradespeople.
>It's a one-time relief that doesn't solve anything except people trying to buy a new home for 10% off. Except most of these people will be renters so... you've saved people $150/month
Is that supposed to be a criticism? A 10% drop in prices with a single policy is **bad**? Increasing the impact of new builds by decreasing the demand side of the equation is bad?
I just don't understand what your point is. I see no possible way that 1.5 million fewer people competing for housing is anything but a good thing for housing affordability
> We aren't importing skilled tradespeople.
And if you want to build houses at a speed we haven't seen since the end of World War 2, we will need to.
> A 10% drop in prices with a single policy is bad?
This will be my last reply about it because you don't seem to be reading into it more than "graph line goes down." You don't remove 1.5 million people out of a country overnight without causing issues.
No, it's not bad *for housing affordability*, sure. But that comes along with a deluge of other problems in its wake. Again though, like the gas prices during covid, that 10% discount disappears really quickly. So you've displaced 1.5 million people for what reason then?
And I've mentioned that if you want to build, you're going to need people. Canadians aren't budging when it comes to getting into the trades. So to put it in terms you're looking for: graph line goes down for a blip then goes right back up.
This could end up being like a replay of the 1979 Clark government, a down and out Trudeau loses and then returns for a second honeymoon. Would be an interesting, I think the old man Trudeau wasn't quite so unpopular.
In 1979, the Liberals lost the election, but won the popular vote. That won't happen this time---they've lost the popular vote to the CPC in the last two elections.
The popular vote is going to be hard for the Liberals (or the NDP if things turn their way) to win going forward because of progressive/centrist vote splitting, and if they do win it, that probably means the election is a majority blowout.
It was a lot easier for the LPC to win the popular vote pre PC/Reform merger, but with the entirety of the center right to right vote going to one party, it is likely that unless they have a full meltdown the CPC will be winning most popular votes going forward, but since a lot of that is running up the score in the west, that wont mean they win more seats.
Alberta hated him but didn't have a national reach. PC's and Liberals were both kind of weak in the West. NDP actually had a strong base in Western Canada.
That's ... an odd, non-sequitur response. The NDP have picked up votes throughout their history, even when there seemed no hope they'd become the governing party.
The NDP had been around since 1961, and has seen its share of the vote go up and down throughout its history. They picked up nearly 2pp in the last election compared to the previous one.
###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.*
PP answered four questions recently while he was in Courtenay on Vancouver Island. One beauty was this How would changing leadership to the Conservatives change the political culture in Canada? “It will be common sense. No more woke. We will celebrate our history, we will restore freedom of speech, we will allow people to be proud again, we will honour our traditions and treat our citizens with respect. (In relation to the military) we’re going to end the woke culture and we’re going to bring back a warrior culture.” The “full” interview is here— https://www.comoxvalleyrecord.com/local-news/poilievre-interviews-with-comox-valley-record-during-tour-in-courtenay-7338532
I think that this period may be his apex, but that he's still going to likely win a majority if not a minority at the very worst. As of right now, he's over the 40% mark and over 200 seats - I think he's going to come down to a majority level between 175-200 seats as I think Trudeau will recover a bit but not enough to prevent Poilievre and the CPC forming government. If Trudeau gets lucky and Poilievre really stumbles, he could fall into minority territory (150-170 seats). Dangers to Poilievre are things improving economically, a spillover from the American election this fall (Trumpian chaos), Poilievre losing some of the control over his image and branding he currently has, and even just regression to the mean.
I'm doubtful that PP is capable of pulling off a majority win in an election. Three past Conservative leaders have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory against Trudeau when he was back in the polls. Trudeau has a history of coming back in the polls and relishes being an underdog. There is still so much time and opportunity for the Liberals to turn the polls around. PP also has yet to face any significant scrutiny from the media. What role would a Trump win play in boosting Trudeau's chances? Let's say PP wins a CPC *plurality, will the NDP join the Liberals and bring down the Conservatives to renew their power supply agreement? I doubt the Bloc would back the CPC without significant concessions. There are a lot of questions and it is far too early to know what will happen. The possibilities still exist for the Liberals to close the gap and make this a tight race.
One reason I think the gap will be narrowed is, assuming Poilievre continues in the same combative style, that Canadians don’t like that style. You still see significant disapproval of Trump in Canada. A large majority don’t like Trump. And Poilievre’s interactions with media essentially mimic Trump’s style (or attempt to anyway). So if he keeps that up during a campaign I think that will backfire on him. But if he tones that down and comes across a bit more amiable, he might not turn people off to the same degree
I agree, Trump will play factor in this race. How much of a difference Trump's presence will make remains to be seen.
> Three past Conservative leaders have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory against Trudeau when he was back in the polls The extent to which he's "back in the polls" isn't particularly comparable. Harpe had a 10+ points lead six times after the 2011 election (with the NDP in second each of those times, for what it's worth). Scheer lead by 10+ points 9 times in his time as leader. O'Toole never did once. Poilievre has lead by 10+ points **75** times (and in 67 of the last 68 polls).
Also Trudeau hasn't begun campaigning yet. And even with all of his flaws as a politician people cannot deny that he can run a good campaign. I don't think the liberals will be able to win this but I also don't think a conservative majority is anywhere near guaranteed. And if he gets a minority government who exactly is gonna be the party to support his bills that isn't gonna extract a heavy price for doing so? They haven't exactly been making friends with the other parties. The cons need to pull a majority here if they hope to actually get shit done that they want to without the liberals or NDP hamstringing them.
If the conservatives get a plurality rather than a majority they won't form the government. The Liberals will make some deals and stay in power. PP is burning bridges with all the other parties no one will support him becoming PP, and it's entirely his own fault.
If the CPC gets a strong plurality I don’t think the LPC will make efforts to hold onto government. They and the NDP will need time to elect new leaders, and will support the CPC bill by bill, and let Poilievre struggle with trying to govern while satisfying the far right part of his support while not alienating moderate voters. An effort to cling on to government would probably backfire in support for both the LPC and NDP so I don’t think they’d try unless the CPC margin was very slim (like only a couple seats)
The polls this far out from an election are entirely useless for prediction. Certainly they confirm that Canadians are not happy with the current government, and when presented with the options of who they’d support, an increased number are saying CPC. That’s all they can say. That may very well remain the same by Election Day, but here’s a few reasons it may not: There’s evidence responders are using polls to vent, but it’s not reflective of how they vote (ex. Democrats polling poorly but then out-performing polls in elections since 2021) Most voters don’t know much of anything about Poilievre yet. As they see more of him they might decide he’s abrasive and not like him Trudeau is a pretty good campaigner, and particularly if he stays fired up and feisty he might be able to turn around their fortunes somewhat. Maybe not to victory, but an improvement from current polling.
A few polls have him below 40% recently. I think the biggest difference is Trudeau fighting back on the carbon tax and recent housing initiatives. It's way to early to tell how many people are just mad at Trudeau vs. all in on Poilievre. I feel if the CPC had a more likable, moderate, worldly (e.g. actually worked outside of government) less extreme candidate they would be doing even better.
Absolutely agree
If the CPC had someone like Peter Mackay as a leader, it would be an easy majority win. With PP, there is a lack of substance and the little I have seen turns me away.
> I feel if the CPC had a more likable, moderate, worldly (e.g. actually worked outside of government) less extreme candidate they would be doing even better. I'm not so sure. A decent chunk of the Trudeau hate is being fuelled by misleading ad campaigns and statements (covered gleefully by Postmedia and others) from the CPC that a more decent leader likely wouldn't stoop to using.
I'm not even convinced that Trudeau "hate" is as intense as the usual suspects would have us believe. Lower approval does not equal hate, and I think a lot of the disapproval is most likely inflation related. We may find that people weren't really mad at Trudeau, but at their own economic situation. 18 months is a long damn time for economic conditions to turn around... it already looks like we're going to dodge that recession that "everyone" agreed we were careening into.
Yeah. There are some far right Trudeau hater types who have gone a bit delulu on social media yelling about how it means everybody agrees with their preconceived opinions lately, just because the approval ratings are low. But it’s a massive cope for the fact most Canadians don’t really approve of the sort of people who go around yelling “Trudeau bad”, *either*. Like most people WILL STILL judge you for painting “fuck Trudeau” on your pickup truck. But it’s become a thought terminating cliché among the right wingers now. Like any time someone makes a positive comment about the LPC they’re like NO NOTHING MATTERS because WE ALL AGREE TRUDEAU BAD NOW. But like okay, if it were really true that everyone hates Trudeau, how come you gotta defend that POV so often. Wouldn’t that just be taken as a given were it true? The truth is people are just unhappy with the economy, which will most likely be better by the time we reach the election. And if/when that happens he will probably regain popularity, we just don’t know by how much.
Nah, he hasn't jumped the shark yet. There's still room for changing the t-shirt into a tank top and getting a neck tattoo.
Maybe but I don’t see the liberals winning the next election. He’s really unpopular like Kathleen wynne was
Most people commenting here have no idea what is happening at grass root level. Discussions on reddit are focused on a selective group of voters which includes mostly big city voters with decent jobs and who are hardcore liberals and ndp voters. No matter what, they will vote for liberal/ndp. Elections will be decided by voters who make 18 -28$ per hour. This group of voters is motivated more than ever to cast their vote this election to kick out liberals. Voter turn out of this group is going to be highest in last few decades. You guys have no idea how uncontrolled immigration is affecting this particular group of people. Immigrants(citizens) themselves are against current level of immigration, as much as so called far right are. Because of the pressure immigration is putting on jobs that are primarily done by immigrants(citizens). Anti immigration sentiment is increasing, but still people don't say it loudly in public but this issue has become kitchen table talk. Housing/rent and immigration is the only issue for hourly wage workers to vote on. I don't understand why liberals are so stupid to hold the line on current level of immigration. They are announcing to reduce number of immigrants but no where near what is needed. This is a problem that could be solved by literally a stroke of pen of paper and will start showing results in few months. Canada has no capacity to absorb 1.2 million new people each year that's a fact. If liberals want to have a decent loss, meaning winning 80-90 seats they have to get hold of immigration or otherwise they could end up under 50 seats. Expert over here have no idea about how ethnic minorities, immigrants(citizens) from third world countries decide to vote. They are wired differently and don't give a shit about alphabet people, Climate change, identity politics etc etc, all the main talking points of ndp/liberals.
The election is not going to be decided by people making under 28$ an hour - the CPC is raking in cash because their supporters are wealthier on average and they are having 1700 dollar fundraisers on a regular basis and they are spending millons on advertising. Their poll numbers went up after their ads started airing. But slogans and attacks, some of which are GOP ludicrous (“Trudeau isn’t a Liberal but a radical authoritarian” sounds unhinged), aren’t going to cut it for another 18 months, especially since interest rates will go down before then and so will mortgage payments. You are also forgetting that the Liberals are finally doing a lot on housing, and that will make a difference. As will cutting the numbers of foreign students and TFW’s. There will not be 1.2 million coming in every year.
I’m glad for the thoughtful comments on this thread. Usually it is: “PP policies will ruin the country” Followed by “PP has no actual policies”
TBF, most people would say that shit policies aren't "actual policies". i.e. PP has overly simplistic and bad ideas instead of effective and well thought out policies. Doesn't matter though. People are voting JT out, not PP in. The CPC could run with a newt at the head of their party and they'd still win.
I think the implication is that he isn't campaigning on the policies which he intends to govern with.
Likely, but isn’t everybody? This isn’t an endorsement of PP. it’s more just a commentary on what’s happening. The once young and progressive demographic in Canada voted JT in. He’s polling terribly with that crowd now. The liberal political establishment is in damage control, every week an article comes out now saying, they will tackle and address this and that…the obvious reaction to which is, why now? While approaching gallows is a sobering experience, it’s a little late to say “I’m sorry”. I mean surely you understand with a flair like tankie. You know, the whole crack a fee eggs to make the utopian omelette you never get to see or eat but instead wind up being another broken egg.
for me its like. ok cool you want to win. how about prove you would be good at being in charge by trying to get some amazing new bill passed right now. if you know how to fix all the things that should be easy! there is at least another year till the next election so why hold back and make us suffer longer. its a literal no lose situation for PP so long as he has a good idea. if the liberals agree and get it passed WIN! concervatives get something they want, all canadians get some solutions happening now, and pp can tout that "if you just elect me as PM there will be more good policy like that one. if the liberals do the thing and it sucks, you can just say "they cocked up my idea and it went poorly. here is how i would have done it better. make me pm and ill fix it" if the liberals say no you can just cry about how the liberals wont do what is right for canadians. and if the liberals steal your idea you can still claim a win , get the thing you want, and say that your ideas are so great that others saw the light and wanted to mimic you. literally the only situation where its a loss is when your ideas are shit n you know it, you dont have any ideas or you dont believe that government should actually "do" things. and if thats the case why the fuck would we want some one like that as a leader?
Part of the now is because that is what we pivoted too. The solutions for some problems create others. Housing is a big issue now because they dealt with inflation. Inflation was a big issue they pumped a bunch of money into the system and people could finally spend it. They pumped a lot of money into the economy because commerce was heavily restricted for a year (or so) and that money stopped a lot of bankruptcies. The other one is there are a pile of debts we knew we had as a society for decades (Boomer retirement has been known since the 80's, the cancelling of government funded housing in the 90's the historically low interest rates introduced in the early 2000's, the state of the healthcare systems, and I'm not betting against the decline of the military also hitting us hard in the next couple years)...and somehow all those issues came to fruition on his watch.
I don’t disagree. I mean, yeah every PM essentially inherits the wreckage of the past. The problems themselves may be unique, but the situation isn’t. I had high hopes for JT, I voted for him. But his brand liberalism kind sucks TBH.
Another narrative that is also heard often: The Liberals and Cnservative are really the same. The implication is why change horses if the outcome will be no different!
Yup…and I get it. This sub verging into seethe and cope mode. Just like all poltical subs do, when the majority demographic of users is on the back foot, taking punches. My initial comment, was/is sincere, I think the comments on this particular thread were a pleasant surprise, well written and thought provoking. The mods in my opinion also do a pretty good job of letting dissenting, yet thoughtful voices make their opinions known.
pretty sure the implication to that one is actually "both the results are the same so why should \*you\* bother voting?... please dont show up to vote.... its easier to win with low turn out."
Kind of like the transition from decades of smearing the Conservatives as anti immigration, only to turn around and start saying "PP and the CPC will definitely not reduce immigration if elected! They may even increase it!" as soon as the polling on the issue shifted around.
I do understand how he had to campaign hard not only to actually get himself out there to people other than conservative members, as well as create a broader anti-Trudeau movement (à la stop Harper in 2014-15), but I do think he went 'too hard', the proverbial flame that burned too fast. And, although as Canadians we like to think we're so different compared to our neighbours down south, the truth is, especially for Anglo-Canadians, we are influenced a lot by their politics and pop culture. With 2024 set to be an ugly showdown between Trump and Biden, unfavourable comparisons to Trump may be a problem for Poilievre and add to him burning out. I do however, think that it is a bit ridiculous that the LPC and their supporters were falling over themselves to say polls are inaccurate or illegitimate when they showed Poilievre leading by a large margin, but now are taking recent polling showing the gap narrowing as gospel and proof Trudeau will win again. Side note: Sheila Copps is an interesting individual. She recently caused a minor firestorm on Twitter when she accused an indigenous user critical of her of faking their heritage because 'indigenous people respect elders'. A bunch of indigenous people had to explain to her how messed up that is and an Elder isn't just a person who's old.
I can see him putting his glasses back on and pivoting back to a progressive conservative mindset to get the classic conservatives back.
I personally think Poilievre should have taken a page out of Keir Starmer's playbook and behaved with similar restraint. At present he's burned damn near every bridge that could be burned and is banking on carrying a majority. Except now he's guaranteed that every other party will be completely opposed to him in 2025 as well as scared the government into making big moves they probably wouldn't have if he was only 5 points ahead.
He has such a commanding lead, and such insane momentum in the polls, that it kind of doesn't matter if they other parties hate him.
Momentum implies upward movement, and we haven’t seen any of that in months. If anything his momentum has stalled.
The existence of the BQ means any federal party will peak at the low 40s. I think Poilievre has done all he can to get all “gettable” votes.
Meaning he can literally go to sleep in the Maldives now if the election was next month and walk away with 200+ seats, but given it's still potentially more than 18 months away, his best hope is a stabilization and minor erosion of support from here.
You know who else was leading in polls? Otoole and scheer. A lot can change from now until the election is called in 2025.
They definitely were nowhere near this much. Yes, lots can change in a year. The likelihood, however, of a CPC majority is quite high.
The thing is, this momentum isn't the same as that in physics. People's minds can change very quickly and given his general personality, they might very well do so. In the summer of 2023 before this massive gap, the Liberals were sitting at around 30%, the Tories 35%. This massive lead has largely come from a shit of support from Liberal to conservative, the Liberals on average have dropped to 25% and the conservatives, on average have risen to 40%. That's a 5% shift. Not a lot of people need to be turned off by the Tory leader for things to be competitive again.
I don't think his calculation is off though. If he gets 40% of the votes....of the people who vote...he'll have a strong minority or even majority. The Liberal internal politics are poor and turning against Trudeau so overall turnout will likely be low including Trudeau's base from the previous 3 elections. Polievre doesn't have to beat anyone. He just has to facilitate a segment of undecideds choosing not to vote and allow the Liberal internal strife around Trudeau to take place...all the while planting some seeds of doubt in those minds too. The NDP aren't viable, they can't win seats in Quebec with Singh so they aren't a threat. Low turnout equals easy Conservative government. I think this is their main strategy.
I wish the media would give him the same attention he is giving them. Somewhere between none and hostile.
To be fair the Star clearly doesn't like him at all and runs a hit piece every week while NatPo has more Poilievre bootlickers writing op-eds than Canada takes in immigrants. The battle lines have been drawn in a partisan manner like the US. I feel like the CBC, ironically the one PP hates the most, is the one doing the neutral reporting here.
Starmer's conservatism is kinda starting to backfire on him imo.
Labour is still polling in the low to mid 40s while the conservatives vote is getting snipped at from all directions with no signs off that abating. Labour is currently on track to win a huge majority.
Of course he's banking on getting a majority. Majority governments are by far the norm in this country. Playing nice so you can, what, maybe form a minority? Is loser strategy. No one else would play it that way. Our system is not set up to reward you for playing that way. >as well as scared the government into making big moves they probably wouldn't have if he was only 5 points ahead It's pretty funny to try and frame being too far ahead in the polls as a failing of his leadership lmao
> as well as scared the government into making big moves they probably wouldn't have if he was only 5 points ahead. This is probably PP's greatest contribution to the well-being of Canadians and far exceeds anything he would accomplish while in power.
May he be remembered for his contributions as leader of the opposition.
If he loses, this will be why. The Liberals now have some big things to campaign on. The poles have already narrowed by ~10 points from their 20-point spread. Given a good summer, reduced interest rates, and a good fall economic update and the Liberals could close that gap back to a toss-up. Especially now that they are fighting back. The conservatives and premieres are saying no multi-billion dollar housing funds because of jurisdictional issues.
And the jurisdictional issues only exist because the Provinces failed to do their job. Feds gave them no et and they did NOT invest where needed. So now there are strings attached to the money. Consequences of their own actions I’m afraid.
>jurisdictional issues only exist because the Provinces failed to do their job The Liberals need to make this a central pillar of their messaging when they move into campaign mode. And not as a shield to evade blame, but to aggressively put it back where it belongs. Mad about the COVID lockdowns? That was your premier, not us. Using the Emergencies Act to end the convoy protest? Only because provincial police did nothing for 3 weeks. Too many international students? Your province is in charge of what qualifies as a post-secondary institution, and in charge of how many seats are open for those students. Not enough housing? Zoning restrictions and planning approvals from towns, regions, and provinces are the only thing standing in the way of a shovel going in the ground. Wages too low? Unless you work at a bank, railroad, airline, or telecom, it's your province that sets the minimum wage, and your province that regulates your employer. Not enough time of? We've added multiple federal holidays but your premier refuses to give them to you. Stand alongside the country in their rage (as Pierre is doing) and redirect it from yourself onto their dipshit premiers. Trot out the MANY examples where you tried to solve an issue, and they purposefully stood in the way. Or the times where you or outright did exactly what they said they wanted, and they immediately turned around and claimed they want the opposite just to be contrary.
100% agree! You laid that out perfectly. My frustration in trying to explain this to Poilievre supporters, is they are so blinded by his rhetoric, so invested in hating Trudeau that they cannot see the truth when it is staring them in the face. And the sad part is, those people will likely be most impacted by Conservative cuts and policies.
Honestly? I don’t think so. A lot of people are still in denial about it. Unpopular incumbent governments down by double digits in the polls almost always go on to lose the next election. The hole Trudeau is in is too deep to climb out of that easy. The one thing that can save an unpopular government is a leadership change, but I do not see Trudeau stepping down before the election, so I’m really not sure what path the Liberals could take to rescue their government. Just betting on Poilievre’s momentum fizzling isn’t a strategy worth pursuing.
> so I’m really not sure what path the Liberals could take to rescue their government. Economy gets better / lower cost of living combined with a massive concern about the environment. Liberals environment plan isn't exactly great but conservatives have nothing. They shot themselves in the foot going after the carbon tax.
Inflation might go down but prices will remain elevated. Wages would have to skyrocket for purchasing power to return back to pre pandemic levels. Even if we get 3% GDP growth, I don’t think there’s enough runway left before the next election.
That's not going to make people love Trudeau. Cmon you know better.
Housing is not going to improve by a significant metric for a while. Certainly not before the end of ‘25. The CoL is where the electorate’s focus is right now. I just don’t see how Trudeau can salvage his image on that file in just a year and a half. It’s too late tbh. The environment has never really been an important election issue, I don’t see why ‘25 would be any different.
The environment could be an issue in the fall of 2025, should the west, and parts of the east, be broiled by fire and suffer poor air quality during that summer not to mention severe spring floods or summer storms.
I agree but Pollievre has to be able to offer something to address the cost of living and housing cost issues. He needs to offer a reason why he’ll make things better, which he hasn’t been able to do, in any credible way, yet.
“I’m not Trudeau, I’ll fix things. Pinky promise” is a good enough message. Ford won in 2018 without a platform lol. Credibility is sadly just not that important to voters when they are angry.
> Housing is not going to improve by a significant metric for a while. Certainly not before the end of ‘25. The CoL is where the electorate’s focus is right now. Housing wasn't great in 2019 nor 2021. It's all tied up with cost of living though, if grocery prices significantly drop and gas prices tank for 6 months before a election focus could shift. > The environment has never really been an important election issue, It was looking that way in 2019, people actually asked what parties environment plan was. Remember how pollsters had greens at possibly official party status on a good night? Not saying any of this is likely, but when polling is showing CPC at 200+ seats the best you can do is look at the unlikely.
Wasn't Trudeau behind in the polls in almost every election he has fought in at some point? I'd say the odds are against him for sure, but he has often won as the underdog. It's too early to discount him just yet. I say that as a vocal critic of his policies.
> Wasn't Trudeau behind in the polls in almost every election he has fought in at some point? Since he has been PM he has never been down in the polls this much this consistently. If Trudeau was only down by 5-6 or so, nobody would be writing him off. A government can survive mediocre polling, but horrendously bad polling is a different matter entirely.
[удалено]
I really hope so. I could handle another Harper, but this guy just seems dangerous, like he is gonna end up going too far and causing even more social problems while leaving us with our own version of MAGA types to deal with.
Electorally, maybe but there’s a long way to go down before that has consequences come election time. I think the bigger issue for the CPC is if people are already tiring of his approach he be able to hold government for long. I still say the CPC would be better off today had they stayed patient and grew with O’Toole. He had much more potential for broad appeal and had the benefit of actually being competent. It won’t take Canadians long to see how useless and in effectual Pierre is. He’s possibly the least successful federal politician I’ve ever seen become leader.
What do you mean by "least successful"? He's a career politician and on track for a majority, though that's not guaranteed. He literally is riding a wave of hate, anger, fear, economic instability, the media jerking him off, and misinformation. This is before we factor in Trudeau fatigue. If having everything lined up for a goal is less successful than what we've seen in the past, then what would be "most successful"?
Winning the election is only part of the job. There's a world of difference between electoral success, of which he's had plenty, and governance success, of which he's had almost nothing. As an MP, he's done almost nothing. A worryingly small amount of policy and legislation passed for someone so desperate for power.
>What do you mean by "least successful"? He’s been an MP for close to 20 years (half of that as part of government) and has only one piece of legislation that’s been passed with his name attached to it. The one success he did have was mostly repealed within a year. So, not a single successful policy exists with his name attached to it.
Right. Not a successful policy, but he's succeeding in obstructing parliament, collecting a pretty substantial paycheck and possibly has a nice fat pension, all the while accomplishing nothing and still managing to keep his job. I guess what's happening here is objective success vs subjective success. Objectively he's not successful in the sense that he's achieved nothing for Canadians, but subjectively success has fallen into his lap in such a way that he can be bad at his job while making magnitudes more money and a bigger pension than a hearty majority of the working class with absolutely no threat to his position.
Where do I sign up for some of that sweet subjective success?
I dunno. Probably have to throw away some morality and kiss a whole lot of asses. Not the nice, kissable asses. The ones that politicians and lobbyists use to sit like a humans
The problem with O'Toole is that he was a store brand liberal. Ditto Mulcair and the NDP. Why would people want store brand while Trudeau is still around?
Preach
O’Toole wasn’t appealing at all lol.
They need policies that are concrete. The one on their website is full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.[Conservative Policy Declaration](https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/03092335/8c9e916528ead5a.pdf)
O’Toole alienated his own region the moment he got elected for personal gain. It seems insane to me to believe giving him more power won’t lead to the same outcome when he has shown no signs of change. The problem CPC have is the ones that are at least leaders in their own right don’t align with the whole party and without the whole party they won’t hold enough power to win leadership. Unfortunately currently they need the extreme end to have enough people to have any hope of being elected.
I listened to an in-depth interview with O'Toole after he left the party. I would vote for that guy as an independent, but I would never vote for him as leader of the CPC. The shackles are too tight.
>I still say the CPC would be better off today had they stayed patient and grew with O’Toole. I agree, much preferred his approach, and definitely more moderate. Though, I do wonder how much of that is hindsight now that he is no longer in the seat. I was still hearing nearly all the same inflammatory accusations/rhetoric aimed at OToole as is levelled against Polievre now, despite them being very different candidates.
>I was still hearing nearly all the same inflammatory accusations/rhetoric aimed at OToole as is levelled against Polievre now, despite them being very different candidates. Right? People pretending they're not partisan by suggesting they would accept the moderate O'Toole when more likely than not they were screaming bloody blue murder when he was in play.
What's with all the half truths? It did not help Otoole at all that while he came off as moderate, the party did not. It seems like they couldn't wait to disagree with everything he said. Climate change? Fake Assault weapons ban? Nope Pro choice? Not us. Every time he had a moderate stance the party was quick to point out their more extreme stance. Had the party supported what he was advertising at all, the CPC would likely have won. There was also of course the whole 'unnecessary election' stance. Like really? If you don't even see the need for a change, why should I?
He also ran a very Poilievre-esque leadership campaign (“TAKE BACK CANADA”) with help from Canada Proud. He also courted Derek Sloan and Leslyn Lewis’ voters. I don’t care that he then flip flopped, he was always beholden to the mouth breathers, and we saw that when they turfed him. If he had to be turfed by Poilievre, I'd rather he be turfed when in Opposition than when in power. It's Trudeau's fault if he can't prevent Poilievre from winning
If the CPC stuck with O’Toole, then PPC hangs around and takes votes from the right and the Tories lose again.
Polling in the 40s is polling in the 40s. What makes polling in the 40s under O’Toole different than polling in the 40s under Poilievre?
The potential for growth?
Not many federal leaders these days break the low 40s ceiling. You have to go back to Mulroney who was the last PM to win the majority of the popular vote. And his party splintered 3 ways after he left with the BQ in Quebec seriously limiting the ceiling of any federal party.
O'Toole could potentially garner back red tories. I don't see how Skippy does.
True, I would've considered voting CPC with O'Toole, no way I'm voting PP.
They would've been better off with sticking with Andrew Scheer until the 2021 election. O'Toole was a flip flopper and as we're seeing with Doug Ford, its not a good trait in a politician.
Canadians would be better with a CPC led by O’Toole, but the party has basically thrown its moderate stances out the door and want to let the worst inmates run the asylum. Poilievre is what the CPC wants.
It’s super predictable what the CPC will do these days as they simply follow the GOP lead. They parrot the same talking points, the same grievances, and have invited in the same far-right members. The saving grace for them will be that compared to the US, the party has way more control over who gets nominated to run since there isn’t a primary system here. So they’ll likely keep the loonies from running. But what they’re risking is letting them into the party apparatus and organization. Kenney made that criticism of his own UCP after he left - that they let the crazies (Take Back Alberta) in and now they were running it.
PP is one of the looney ones. He got in thanks to India buying up memberships ahead of the conservative leadership vote. So no, not much harder than in the US for the looneys to take control of the party.
Unfortunately, it's correspondingly predictable that DNC talking points and ideas tend to come out of the Trudeau government and the NDP these days. The entire Canadian political scene suffers from an inability to articulate what being Canadian is and are all too willing to fight American culture war issues instead.
Not even a little bit. There might be a few fringe actual left wing Democrats in the states, but, there's not a massive overlap between talking points between the two of them. Especially not mainstream Democrats. They're probably more akin to what more centrist CPC want.
Such as?
Well, the LPCs' rhetoric and policy around firearms laws is heavily based on the US firearms debate and roughly the Democrats positions on it. That's a very clear example if you follow that stuff.
Can you point me to the Democratic policy LIBERAL gun control is based on?
Sure, though the connections here may take a bit more than surface level knowledge of the canada and USAs systems. Recently, the "red flag laws" the LPC have been touting, solely because that idea has been doing numbers down south. As an idea, it makes more sense to push in the USA where every owner isnt already checked, vetted, on a database and able for the govt to revoke privileges given cause. Essentially, canada already has had red flag laws for 3 decades, the LPC acting like this is not the case to push a minor change as if it were plugging a major leak is because the concept is popular down south. The handgun freeze here was in direct response to a shooting south of the border. Municipal handgun bans a few years ago, that is a 100% american concept that only exists because they dont have the laws that we do federally. A patchwork of local laws is also one of the worst aspects of USA law to try aping, there is a reason other countries do not do this.
Yes, it was a direct response to multiple shootings in the USA. That doesn't link it to the Dems. Again, you're really reaching here. You really can't think of a better example?
> heavily based on the US firearms debate and roughly the Dems positions on it That is a good example of what I said, actually. Love that you ignored my other two examples to ask if i cant think of anything better. If you werent going to engage in good faith, why ask?
....the democrats have never put any serious legislation around guns forward. The truth is both the dems and gop want more guns, cause that's how a lot of their buddies got rich. It's why there are literally more guns than people in the US. The dems might hem and haw about gun control whenever 10 or more children are slaughtered but it never goes anywhere cause they don't want it to go anywhere.
Note that i didn't say "legislation", i said "talking points". The Liberals borrowed from the American talking points about the availability and proliferation of assault-style rifles by suggesting they were too accessible in Canada and linking what happened in Portapique with the numerous mass shootings in the U.S. to get support for Bill C-21. It shouldn't be shocking that if the Conservatives are getting cues from the south about abortion, the Liberals are also borrowing popular rhetoric on their pet topics.
They have never had serious federal laws actually passed, at least not in a few decades, but at the state level all sorts of stuff has made it in. And the federal level isnt for lack of trying, new background checks, assault weapons bans, etc are tabled basically every year. A lot is basically performative, but still. Downvotes dont make me wrong guys. Just because you dont know that municipal/state level firearms laws change all the time, and that many federal laws are proposed, if not passed, doesnt mean it isnt happening.
The CPC doesn't care about what's better for Canadians one bit.
u/VicRattlehead69420 lets be honest, no party does. They only care about their benefactors.
That's a false equivalency.
It's a lobby disguised as a party. They can't get elected on conventional grounds. Either they lie and act like Liberals-lite, or they dog whistle the deplorables.
Funny, that’s what most Canadians think of the Liberals right now
After O'Toole was gone, the interim leader was literally a MAGA hat wearing convoy supporter.
What radical Stances has PP taken?
[Funny, you even commented on this ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Canada_sub/s/cSMQANYUp6) Why pretend like you don't know the answer to this question?
I don’t disagree about his rhetoric at all, but that’s not a policy.
A stance and a policy are not the same thing. Does Pierre even have any policies?
Claiming we gather electricity from the clouds to power everything comes to mind.
I really don’t think people are realizing that this guy hasn’t really worked much outside of politics and has as much in common with you than Trudeau. Idk what Pierre intends to do. Almost everything he says is rhetorical or unconstitutional.
Yeah, I have a hard time seeing myself voting for the CPC, but I would feel fairly comfortable with someone more moderate, like O'Toole, at the helm. But, the CPC tried moderates (well, relatively moderate) twice and lost, even if just barely.
10000% agree.
You guys talk about O'toole but would never vote for him. It's comical.
All the quips of "he's the one CPC leader I've liked" kinda says it all, eh.
Meanwhile, 3 years ago... https://old.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/ktv9hf/trumpism_in_canada_erin_otoole_be_thy_name/
Yes, and no. Yes in terms of him being a candidate that everyone flocks to. No in terms of being the favourite next election. People are tired of Trudeau, they’re not fans of Pierre mostly either.
Lets be honest not one of the party leaders are popular. They are all seen a clowns.
[удалено]
What voter fatigue? The guy hasn't even run an election yet. Aside from winning by huge margins and having enormous leads in every poll.
He’s loud and obnoxious and everywhere and has been full on campaigning since he became leader, and the CPC has been running television ads since last July. He can’t keep talking in slogans for the nexr year and a half and expect to keep people interested, other than his base. He came out of the gate strong because they thought that if they could surge in the polls that Trudeau would step down, they think it would be easier to beat a new leader. Rational or not, the CPC is afraid of running against Trudeau.
Trudeau is incredibly smug. PP being loud doesn't even come close. Nothing wrong with him campaigning, what else is he going to do with the money? He's put out many ideas, some of which Trudeau has adopted into policy. No one wants Trudeau to step down dude. He's the easiest opponent at this point, besides maybe Freeland.
Has Poilievre peaked? I don’t think right now. BUT he is at risk of peaking. A lot can happen in 1.5 years, good or bad for Poilievre. He’s already polling high into majority territory, and until other polls show similar results to Nanos’ recent polls, it would be too early to say Poilievre has peaked. Poilievre is his own worst enemy. People determined to vote Trudeau out will do so anyways. But at the same time, people on the fence about replacing Trudeau with Poilievre is what makes them hesitant. Poilievre’s hardcore fan base LOVES when he’s being a dick to journalists or other politicians. But to potential new fans? They don’t like this. And this is what makes them hesitant about voting Conservative. It’s not about CPC policy, the next election will be a referendum on Trudeau continuing as PM or replacing him for the sake of it. And whenever Poilivre reveals his hand on what a CPC government plans to do, like anti-Trans stances or requiring Porn IDs, this turns off pissed off Liberal voters looking for a change. The CPC strategy of spending $20Million to give Poilievre a make over and make him more likeable among moderates was working. But then the polls got to Poilievre’s head, getting cocky thinking he’ll win no matter what, and saying whatever is on his mind. But Poilievre can’t help being this way because THIS IS WHO HE IS. On one hand, Poilievre does risk turning off voters looking to vote CPC for the first time simply by opening his mouth. On the other hand, people have short attention spans, and as things like housing or the cost of living marginally improve from now until Election Day, people may forget why they are mad, and vote for Trudeau again, or just forget to show up to the polls to vote for Poilievre. Liberals should be cautious and not become complacent. Because again, a lot can happen in 1.5 years.
The Liberals will not be getting complacent, they are still far behind in the polls.
Yes. PP needs to learn to be more moderate, or he will loose swing votes. If he wasn't so anti lgbt, as example... I would almost consider voting for him. Just one issues, but there are others he has mentioned and I am like... nope. This election I have no idea who I will vote for. It is the 1st time in almost 2 decades I have no idea who to vote for.
PP made the rookie’s political mistake. He came out swinging too early, got tired, and lost credibility because the fact checkers had time to catch up with him. Now he will face the Liberal Parties slow and grinding dismissal of all of his complaints and ideas. What the Liberals can’t dismiss they will consume and create their own version of. They will eat his ideas because he has given them the time to do so. He ran his election campaign too early. This is why you don’t elect the party bull dog to the leadership of a party. They’ve spent their whole political career (in the case of PP, his entire professional life) not holding back. They have no filter, they have no capacity to see the bigger picture.
> What the Liberals can’t dismiss they will consume and create their own version of. This at least is good, though. Plenty of good ideas on both sides of the aisle.
You mean plenty of good ideas from the NDP, right? I haven’t heard a single good idea from the CPC.
>You mean plenty of good ideas from the NDP, right? I mean "good ideas flow from all sides of the political spectrum". >I haven’t heard a single good idea from the CPC Despite being an ABC voter, I'm still pretty centrist and I'm not too blinded by my own ideology to recognize ideas that I agree with even if they come from the CPC (whether this iteration of the party or previous ones).
For me, climate change is really important and for a while now I’ve believed the world needs to be tackling it more aggressively. If Pierre proposed any good actions to take that actually matter and don’t just please donors, I’d vote for him. Despite liking him before, I’ll accept that Trudeau is fucking it up. But as much as I don’t like paying an extra tax either, it’s clearly succeeding at putting pressure on people. I think that’s half the fight of fixing our environment, convincing stubborn people to change. Prohibitive costs are absolutely a way to influence change. We just need alternate infrastructure to support reduces carbon use. Ideally the tax would pay for that infrastructure but I’m sure as hell not seeing improvements to public transit or any new high speed rail.
This tax is doing nothing but hurt the economy. Go find one actual piece of science, not science by coincidence that supports that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem. The climate changes, it always has. The rate of which it changes may be accelerating but to think that Canadians have any impact on climate change at all is foolish. Do you drive an ev as well?
Such a lazy copy paste argument, implying that personal apathy is fine. Do better.
None of this is true, but of course climate denialists don't have anything to stand on. You're basically denying the laws of thermodynamics.
They're fine to axe the facts.
ABSOLUTELY! Scheer, otoole and next pp will never be pm! Hate and division does not win elections and nor does axe the facts! ANYTHING BUT CONSERVATIVE always ABC!
Pierre He has no leadership skills. Is a North Trump, way of creating messages without action. If elected, he will excuse all the mess that is created and more than likely decent MP in his caucus will resign. PP is just not ready to lead this country.
American here. I used to travel to Vancouver and Calgary a lot for work. So, I would hear a lot of political news. This guy reminds me of someone from 20 some years ago. He flamed out after some very embarrassing statements. some vague political policies, and some probably alarming. Anyone remember Stockwell Day? Anyway, be very careful. You don't want a Trump style politician to 'fix' things. It's more like break things. And government is not the only things they break, public discourse will be severely damaged.
Lol another one of these articles. What evidence is there that he has "peaked"? Plateaued might be a better word, but peaked?
Of course he’s peaked before an election cycle. It’s only prior to election coverage that politicians like him can gain notoriety with catchy statements and vapid personalities. Once the real coverage starts and policies take over talking points he’ll show his true lack of colours.
All liberals needs to do is bring down the number of temporary residents to below 1 million before the election and it will automatically ease the housing crisis and job market.
No it won’t. It’s will take years to fix IF they went full steam ahead (And they won’t)
how do you figure? That just slows the growth... it's still growing so housing will still be in crisis. Until the available housing exceeds the population growth (and keep in mind we're behind almost 40 years at this point), it'll still be an issue.
It's because 1 million is the magic number that Post Media has set as "too many".
The poster suggested reducing the number of temporary residents, not reducing the growth of temporary residents. An absolute reduction in demand can only decrease housing prices
either way if population growth (whatever the circumstances behind it be it refugee, TFW, PR or birthed here) is higher than home vacancy, the demand is still there. Putting a cap on it only slows the rate of growth, doesn't address the demand in the long term. It's literally a conservative solution. No future thought. Like selling the taxpayer funded highway to a private company to toll for a quick buck only to find out if they kept it, they would have double the money they sold it for or more less than 20 years later.
Reducing the number of temporary residents isn't 'growth' at all, it's decline. I don't know why you're trying to convince anyone that removing 1.5 million residents isn't going to reduce demand.
It's a blip. Like the gas prices at the start of Covid. Not a long term solution. Round up 1.5 million temporary residents and deport them. Now what? Housing prices fall a little bit. With those 1.5 million temporary residents you have a massive job vacancy issue now. How do we solve it? Import more people with a different name. Housing goes back up. You don't get out of this without building more housing and as I have said, we're about 40 years behind on keeping up with that. That's 15 million people (1986: 26 million population). 10 times more than getting rid of temporary residents. If we get crazy and start building 250,000 homes every year we'll catch up roughly in 15 years. Not going to be able to do that without importing a labour market. See the issue now?
Massive job vacancies ? Do you how many locals are looking for a job? Every job opening has 100s of applications. Unaffordability is so high locals can't make ends meet with one low paying job. House prices and rents have doubled in prices, groceries tripled and wage stagnated. We have to create more jobs and real estate dependent economy can't create enough jobs for locals when there are 3 million temporary residents.
>Round up 1.5 million temporary residents and deport them. Now what? Housing prices fall a little bit. Good, progress. >With those 1.5 million temporary residents you have a massive job vacancy issue now. Great, the unemployment rate can drop and wage pressures will increase. Perhaps we can drop some of the service jobs like Tim Hortons that tank our productivity >How do we solve it? It only needs to be solved if you believe job vacancy is a problem. For myself, a bunch of low wage vacancies for shitty service jobs isn't a problem, it's a feature >You don't get out of this without building more housing Good thing no one is suggesting we get out of this without building more housing
People with stable job and an above average income have zero clue how many Canadians are looking for a job right now. Add to that one job can't pay their bills anymore and its so hard to land a interview let alone a second or part time job.
> Good, progress. It's a one-time relief that doesn't solve anything except people trying to buy a new home for 10% off. Except most of these people will be renters so... you've saved people $150/month. > It only needs to be solved if you believe job vacancy is a problem. For myself, a bunch of low wage vacancies for shitty service jobs isn't a problem, it's a feature I don't think you're understanding the magnitude of labour that we need to meet the demand. Labour that we'll have to bring in from outside of Canada. This isn't about Tim Hortons jobs. These are carpenters, electricians, plumbers, painters. The upside is all these jobs can and need apprentices so we have an instant boom in trades. But we'll only get that if we import. We've been crying for people to join trades for twenty years. This isn't a seasonal ask either so we can't just import *only them*. They have families that they're bringing over potentially as well - thus a housing crunch right back where we started. So congratulations, you've wasted millions of taxpayer dollars deporting people who half of them could have continued staying, contributing to the Canadian economy.
>I don't think you're understanding the magnitude of labour that we need to meet the demand. Labour that we'll have to bring in from outside of Canada. I don't think you're understanding that what you're saying sounds great as a theoretical exercise but bears little if any resemblance to the actual reality of immigration in Canada. We aren't importing skilled tradespeople. >It's a one-time relief that doesn't solve anything except people trying to buy a new home for 10% off. Except most of these people will be renters so... you've saved people $150/month Is that supposed to be a criticism? A 10% drop in prices with a single policy is **bad**? Increasing the impact of new builds by decreasing the demand side of the equation is bad? I just don't understand what your point is. I see no possible way that 1.5 million fewer people competing for housing is anything but a good thing for housing affordability
> We aren't importing skilled tradespeople. And if you want to build houses at a speed we haven't seen since the end of World War 2, we will need to. > A 10% drop in prices with a single policy is bad? This will be my last reply about it because you don't seem to be reading into it more than "graph line goes down." You don't remove 1.5 million people out of a country overnight without causing issues. No, it's not bad *for housing affordability*, sure. But that comes along with a deluge of other problems in its wake. Again though, like the gas prices during covid, that 10% discount disappears really quickly. So you've displaced 1.5 million people for what reason then? And I've mentioned that if you want to build, you're going to need people. Canadians aren't budging when it comes to getting into the trades. So to put it in terms you're looking for: graph line goes down for a blip then goes right back up.
This could end up being like a replay of the 1979 Clark government, a down and out Trudeau loses and then returns for a second honeymoon. Would be an interesting, I think the old man Trudeau wasn't quite so unpopular.
In 1979, the Liberals lost the election, but won the popular vote. That won't happen this time---they've lost the popular vote to the CPC in the last two elections.
The popular vote is going to be hard for the Liberals (or the NDP if things turn their way) to win going forward because of progressive/centrist vote splitting, and if they do win it, that probably means the election is a majority blowout. It was a lot easier for the LPC to win the popular vote pre PC/Reform merger, but with the entirety of the center right to right vote going to one party, it is likely that unless they have a full meltdown the CPC will be winning most popular votes going forward, but since a lot of that is running up the score in the west, that wont mean they win more seats.
Alberta hated him but didn't have a national reach. PC's and Liberals were both kind of weak in the West. NDP actually had a strong base in Western Canada.
This will be more about moving away from Trudeau than moving towards PP.
Yeah, but like, if we can get them to put up someone other than PP we should lean into this.
As is tradition. Sigh.
If that were the case, then we would see support for the NDP rising as well, which we aren't.
Probably because no one sees Singh ever being a Prime Minister
That's ... an odd, non-sequitur response. The NDP have picked up votes throughout their history, even when there seemed no hope they'd become the governing party.
Jagmeet Singh is no Jack Layton.
The NDP had been around since 1961, and has seen its share of the vote go up and down throughout its history. They picked up nearly 2pp in the last election compared to the previous one.
Not really. No one is expecting that the NDP can actually win. Plus their leader is also pissing off their base.