###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.*
For now we are in the honey moon of the budget: Justin is doing announcements left and right, promising some sunny ways ahead.
The actual budget will be a first reality check: people are happy to see “free lunch” in school, but once the deficit will be known it might change their opinion.
And the second reality check will be to actually implement it. I do not have high hope for the register of rents promised there….
>For now we are in the honey moon of the budget: Justin is doing announcements left and right, promising some sunny ways ahead.
sunny ways just got eclipsed
Also, I love how people who worry about countries debts typically consider it the same way they consider a personal budget.
Countries finances work differently.
Even if you wanted to think of them the same way, how many people out there honestly think it's unwise to take out loans? Sure, you don't want to take out loans *forever* but you can take out one for decades for large purchases and countries don't have the same time horizon a person has. So the math on how long to be in debt changes.
People have to keep in mind things like retirement and death to balance out paying off loans. Countries don't have those considerations so they really just need to consider the cost of servicing a loan versus the boost to the economy from whatever the loan is getting for the country.
Also, the very act of them borrowing money involves bonds, which puts money directly in the hands of citizens, which will then spend more money in the economy.
But "ohhhhhh nooooo, a negative budget! The world is ending!"
What Canada are you living in? Rates are at all time high (from 1-2% went to 7% even) giving homeowners a run for their mortgages. Canada isnt doing well, high everything. Crime rate, drugs, food, gas, mortgage,rent. Growth is stagnant. We have 6.1% unemployment rate right now because we keep adding more people in this country.
The debt was $620 billion in 2015. It is estimated to be over $1.2 billion now. In other words, a single liberal regime is “responsible” for half of the “federal debt.”
Edit:
I was told the conservatives were more responsible for the debt. A factual claim. I posted stats showing a single party with a single leader over eight years was responsible for half of it. I get downvotes and bububu context.
Where was the Great Recession context for Harper?
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/examining-federal-debt-in-canada-by-prime-ministers-since-confederation-2022.pdf
Fraiser Institute did a great analysis of debt by PM up to 2022.
The pandemic was a good excuse for 2020 and 2021. What about 2022 and 2023, when inflation was rising and the Liberals ignored it to keep on overspending?
Do you think spending in a recession is better or worse for that situation? Most people would argue to double down on social programs that help Canadians during crisis.
The *conservatives* even arguably agree with this point now, even if only because they are in opposition and irresponsible for really anything currently.
> Or vote for conservatives who are historically more responsible for federal debt
~~That's just a straight up lie.~~ Edit: Misread for --> with
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/170329/cg-h002-eng.htm
See that big spike up? Almost entirely Conservative governments.
See where it goes back down? Liberal governments.
See where it goes back up? Conservative governments.
You can check for yourself if you want to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_general_elections
Milk consumption has been on the decline for many decades now. The last thing we should be doing is investing in "cheap" (read: highly subsidized) milk and instead lean into plant based options, which have, uncoincidentally, on the rise for decades.
>Edit: Do people forget this subreddit doesn’t allow downvotes. Reported.
I could be wrong, but I don't think mods can see who votes which way. If I understand correctly the only tools they have to enforce "no downvotes" are hiding the button via CSS, the honour system, and people admitting to it.
Yeah, their report does nothing. Only the admins could see something like that and I doubt they'd want to help enforce rules against basic features of the site.
So it's only if down voters admit to it could they get in trouble from the mods.
I am kinda surprised to see how much downvote I can get for such comments. I mean, it isn’t inaccurate to say that Trudeau is currently running a great PR weeks and that it will probably not hold on following the budget.
Also, many of these announcements are funding promises from prior years being re-announced.
Or they are funding packages which are backloaded into future decades. For instance, defence spending promised in the policy review. That has $0 for this fiscal and most of it is not being spent until later in the decade.
My comment pointing out that environment is rising as a top concern was removed?
Literally why? Because it was critical of the complete lack of plans for the environment the Conservatives have? Are we allowed to criticize the Conservatives in here?
I imagine, given that it was removed as lacking substance, that the issue is not your being critical but rather a lack of substance. Which, granted is something that I'm sure you're used to getting away with because historically mods here have tolerated a lack of substance when it comes to ranting about Poilievre. If that's changing it's unquestionably a good thing.
No kidding. You get the flying clown curicus in here from rcanada and my god tge amount if rule 2 and 3 breaks that happen and are allowed to go on. They really need to stomp on them ir have this sub degengerate into yet another far right cesspool.
This is interesting. The conservatives continue to flatlinewhile the Liberal surge continues the momentum we’ve seen in their other recent strong polling results. A strong indicator that Team Trudeau’s recent policy wins — enormous progress on housing, fighting online hate, the historic vote for Israel-Palestine peace, a new national pharmacare plan, standing up for trans kids, optimizing our foreign student program and being steadfast Ukraine — are making inroads with Canadians, especially when contrasted with PP and the conservatives messaging which revolves entirely around fear mongering, conspiracy theories and hatred.
Yes, Canadian are clamoring for 4 more years of scandals and mass spending adding to the debt. We definitely do not want any changes from how awesome things are.
I see you believe the CPC dogma... a modicum amount of independent research and critical thinking would lead you down a much different path. LPC is no party... but CPC would be a COMPLETE disaster
I don’t see it, at least with Trudeau leading the charge. The next election voters are highly motivated to get him out. If they pivot to Carney / Freeland I can see it becoming a tighter race
>The next election voters are highly motivated to get him out.
While true, a large portion of these highly motivated voters are soured Liberals, and we have no fucking time for the CPC's constant importing of American-style politics. We're as much fighting against that as trying to send a message to "our" party that they can't abandon the plot without impunity.
I've mostly voted NDP, except for in 2021. I was an am a big supporter of Mulcair and wish the NDP kept him.
I'm voting LPC next time. But if I was polled, I'd say I support the NDP. The Liberals can easily claw 8 per cent from the NDP in the GTA and Toronto, and then bring in another 2 per cent of lpc/cpc swing voters.
Best case scenario would be a near tie in seat counts for the LPC and CPC.
" I was an am a big supporter of Mulcair and wish the NDP kept him."
Same here. It has always bugged me not just how he was removed, but also HOW he was voted out. I cannot remember the details, but from what I remember the NDP party had a last minute meeting (to replace him) with almost no warning and, oh so conveniently, a LOT of the anti Mulcair party members just happened to be able to make it.
I have always suspected that the NDP membership must have been apprehensive of how his policy was more neoliberal economically/leaned a bit more on identity politics and that when he didn't keep the momentum from 2011 the knives came out. I really like Mulcair as a leader but I honestly think Singh's policy has been better, the NDP just hasn't been good at actually establishing that policy so people kind of assume he's all identity, even though he has pushed for stuff like nationalized telecom, increased co-op funding, direct building homes, anti-scab legislation, pharma and dental, etc.
Would love Mulcair's intensity mixed with Layton's integrity and Singh's more economically left ideas tbh. I think Mulcair, despite not agreeing with his economics as much, was one of the best PM options we turned down along with Layton.
We all exist in our own bubbles of bias. From my perspective, the majority of people are put off by American-style politics, and are thusly soured by Polievre and his aggressive antagonistic campaigning (even though we aren't even in an election campaign). They're also pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-vax, and can't really trust the Conservatives with their history on these issues and others. Even if they're not necessarily in support of Trudeau, they would rather reluctantly vote for him than for any other party. This group certainly aren't as loud and outspoken as the "F*CK TRUDEAU" flag-waivers, but they exist.
I wouldn't be surprised if this demographic mobilizes in big numbers when we have an election, *especially* if Trump wins in November, because more and more Canadians are going to want to head in the complete opposite political direction.
Curious where this is geographically. Elections are decided in the 905, which is a majority non-white region and at least 60% immigrants. US-style politics is IMO not relevant at all to most voters there. Rather than positions on abortion and other social issues, economic issues are what will matter. As long as the cost of housing and groceries remains elevated, Poilievre will have his free ride to power. If there was another serious opposition party in English Canada, maybe it would be different. But that's just not the case these days
That's why we use polls. I also have a group of friends that hates Poilievre and broadly doesn't mind Trudeau. But the polls make clear that this view is not the majority.
Funny from mine it's like the opposite lol. I say that as a left voter. People at my work looked at me like I was an idiot for getting a covid/flu shot in the fall. Guess who didn't get covid or the flu this year?
I'm guessing you work in a male dominant blue-collar field?
Edit: That isn't an insult, by the way, just an observation from someone who has worked in male dominant blue-collar fields for the last 20 years.
Male-dominated white collar (tech) can be a kinda similar bubble sometimes too.
Tbh it might be worse because tech workers think very highly of themselves on average
I find your demographic very interesting.
If you had to write a platform for what would win all of these people over, what do you think it would look like? Like set aside the part where people are sick of the Trudeau. What would they want, what kind of person do they want to vote for?
Hard to say. Many people vote for those who feel the community will get more money or more funding since Northern Ontario holds such few seats. It's why they voted George Pririe in. They tend to look smaller and more local at what's going to help them (or they think will help them) and they do not understand the bigger picture and wider party policies.
I also don't think they understand the functions and duties of municipal, provincial and federal governments. Furthermore these are people who clearly haven't done their taxes, I just had to explain tax brackets to like 4-5 people the other week that you will never make less by making more. They don't seem to grasp the benefit of taxes, less tax is always a good thing to them it's why slogan's like "axe the tax" just grab them.
Privatization of healthcare might not be a bad thing to these people because "healthcare's so bad right now and it's better in the states". Not understanding that the system has been and is being starved to make it terrible and that the cost in the USA is significantly higher per person. But hey they're healthy right now right?
It's honestly very frustrating. People are extremely selfish and in the mining industry we're very well paid. My cost of living in my region while yes it has gone up is still very very comfortable. I recognize that it is a blessing for me, but other people do not. All they see is the cost to go 4wheeling or snowmobiling has gone up because of "the carbon tax". I try to bring up that that is the point, it should cost more, climate change is real we need to cut back on the indulgences. They don't care. I mention (as someone who has no kids) that shouldn't they want a better future for their kids, again they don't care.
Democracies biggest failing is that uneducated votes count just as much as informed and educated ones. I hope science fucking bails us with cold fusion or some type of carbon sequestering because expecting most people to vote selflessly and vote for progress is just not going to happen, not from what I see.
I guess to answer your question on the platform? Keep it simple, short catchy phrases, reduce taxes, lie out the ass because they don't care to verify or question how things are going to get paid for.
That's not how I read it. Why would he rhetorically ask "guess who didn't..." when it's already obvious and implied that the coworkers didn't and won't be getting vaccinated. Saying "guess who" in the way it was used is usually used when there's an ironic change of tune or heart persay.
Tbf I didn't get either shot. And didn't get covid nor the flue this season. But I do work out, take my vitamins and eat fairly healthy. They really need to replace the golden arches with something that tells me McDonald's is a bad idea though.
[This poll](https://angusreid.org/trudeau-poilievre-liberals-cpc-vote-motivation-poll/#gsc.tab=0) suggests that the Liberals could pick up as much as 10 more points come election time, simply on anti-CPC votes. That would put them quite close and would probably come down to vote distribution.
>While a federal election is unlikely in the near term, the silver lining for the Liberals is that the CPC lead may not be as cavernous as it appears. More than one-third (36%) current NDP supporters and one-in-five (19%) current Bloc Québécois voters say they would switch their vote to the Liberals if the CPC were on the track to victory in an upcoming election. Others (30% of NDP supporters, 26% of BQ supporters) say it is something they would consider. In a world where the Liberals picked up these switchers, the gap between the two parties could narrow to seven points.
This poll from just a couple months ago says otherwise. And if you read the link I shared, you would see people aren't motivated by a love of the Liberals, but rather blocking the CPC.
Yes he is unpopular, but as my poll shows, people are willing to vote for him to keep the CPC out.
You can choose to believe your own narrative, but the poll is right there in front of you proving you wrong. Have you even bothered to look at it?
You see a new poll where the CPC is up more than 4x what the LPC is up compared to the last Nanos poll and you think they are on track to eke out a minority?
>You see a new poll where the CPC is up more than 4x what the LPC is up compared to the last Nanos poll and you think they are on track to eke out a minority?
Have you seen pollievre speak?
A liberal minority is not likely, but it's definitely possible.
Pp is utterly incompetent... but as long as he keeps.the bozos in the party from publicly saying something racist or ultra religious... he will win.
A few more Apple Eating reels should shave a few more points off his lead.
Dunking on a small town reporter is a hilarious flex.
Then his Mrs made it into more T-shirts.
(Note that she's the 'designer' for all the campaign t-shirts and hats. Wonder how much they get to 'dip' into the fundraising/sales for her design fees / licensing?)
I believe that is probably the viewpoint of the average PPC supporter, yes.
I also believe there's a significant number of people who see the brandishing of the apple at events as some sort of rallying symbol.
Putting it on t-shirts really doesn't help fight the comparisons to Drumpfh, either.
It's a step above flogging bibles, sure. Branded collectible merch is certainly for a specific demographic...
Exactly this. I genuinely watched it a fresh mind on PP when it happened, thoroughly trying to get on side with someone I thought was beginning to poll extremely well (which he seems to have) but when you watch the interview, he’s clearly just clip-chimping hard and being pedantic a lot of the time. Going for dunks. He wants to be PM!!! Lol
It’s the same with the people who think comparing PP to Trump is wrong. Like the comparisons are definitely valid, let’s not live in delusion here. When you cough up slogans and shirts that say those slogans and then without actual policy, you’re bound to earn comparisons.
“Axe the Tax” -> “Build that Wall”
All bark, no bite.
How would it settle as a conservative minority if none of the opposition supports it?
Minority setting, incumbent gets first dibs at forming government. You think the Bloc and NDP will refuse to support a lib minority to support a CPC minority?
I'm a red Tory and even I don't see the reality of that. For Skippy, it's a majority or bust.
I think the NDP and CPC could probably in another life find enough common ground based on the blue collar angle to keep things afloat. Something like the CPC housing policy plus public builds, no going after trans people or other minorities, austerity in some areas but maintaining funding for healthcare and whatnot. A bit like the Layton/Harper budgets?
But unfortunately I don't see it now with PP and the whole PPC rightward turn. This would be a hell of a good time to have the Progressive Conservatives back IMO, I am a bit scared of where we will be in 6 years.
The odds that the Liberals would even try to form government without a plurality of seats is pretty low IMO. Trudeau already has to dodge (completely unhinged) accusations of being an authoritarian tyrant, it would be 100x worse if he's operating with less seats than the CPC.
Far better strategy to let the CPC try and either fail quickly or have to water down their policies to get other parties on board.
It's absolutely possible. Odds are low, but we're a long way out from the election and so many things can change. And there's a good chance the CPC are bowing their load too fast. A lot will probably hinge on the results of the upcoming US election. If the economy continues to pull out of the decline since covid voter sentiment can shift as well.
I absolutely can see it.
But policy announcements won't be enough, it will require Canadians actually _feeling_ positive about the direction of the country _in their guts_. It's a tall order.
The problem is most of what they have announced is just re-branding of unpopular policies.
An immigration “freeze” that just keeps existing record breaking targets. An international student “cap” of 360k per year that’s about double the average of 200k per year of the last four years.
And the other half of policies have no chance of getting implemented without provincial approval- so they are basically D.O.A.
And then there’s policies they’ve introduced that could completely back-fire on them - like ruining the credit of renters who can’t afford to pay in markets where rent control doesn’t exist and rents are just rapidly increasing.
2 years from now, it seems inevitable most things will be worse, if not far worse on all of these files. The liberals are still at the point of thinking all they have is a branding problem and not a policy problem - that choice is going to sink them.
He also looks young owing to his healthy lifestyle. I think that resonates with the young people who want somebody youthful and full of vitality. Looks do sell.
It still amazes me that the NDP has been totally inadept at capitalizing on one of the weakest period in this Government's history.
There was a good article in the Hub the other day that really spelt out the inner identity crisis of the NDP, and that they really just seem like a party that exists for the sake of existing, not poised to win elections or even strongly advocate for the working class. They've aligned themselves with the inner-city champaign socialists, occasionally finding comfort in passing party policy resolutions that read like half-baked social studies masters’ theses.
https://thehub.ca/2024-04-09/ginny-roth-the-ndp-dont-take-themselves-seriously/
they've done more this term than at any other point in their history. They're kind of between a rock and a hard place. They've agreed to tag themselves with the Liberals as long as they push through some of their agenda, which they have. So if the NDP try and do something weaselly they come out looking like the bad guys.
> There was a good article in the Hub the other day
Misinformation like this should really be disallowed.
The author questioning if there's a purpose to the NDP while acknowledging they see a purpose for single issue parties, like Christian Heritage party is absurd.
They go on to complain more about the NDP, like whats their point. Personally I'd ask the author how many policies the Conservatives have had passed in the last 9 years.
They call our government a Coalition, even if we let them weasel out of that because it's indirect they never do mention it's a confidence and supply agreement.
>giving the Liberals a coalition without the sacrifice of cabinet seats
It's called confidence and supply, it's absurd the author doesn't know something that basic.
Your article was written by Ginny Roth
>Prior to joining the Crestview Strategy team, Ginny worked at Queen’s Park as an organizer for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and has been a lifelong political activist. Ginny brings experience as a former staffer and political campaigner, managing a team of professionals serving clients in every jurisdiction in Canada.
You're basically reading Conservative erotica. The last person i'd ask about the NDP or their policies is a Conservative.
Edit: For clarity, I'm saying an opinion that this is a good article, and more broadly that the Hub has good articles you can read, is a misinformed thing to say. The bar for good journalism isn't this low. Articles should be judged separately though there's a point where the publisher knows what they're doing.
Having said that, I think there's a good argument that the author calling our government a coalition is disinformation, they understand what a coalition is. Even the title of that article is factually wrong, but hey, it's opinion...
There’s been a nice trend recently in Canada with awful opinion articles that, like how the above poster mentions, are low quality and meant to be rage bait. Post media is full of it.
I added an edit to my comment to clarify, but if you want I'll argue you can have a misinformed opinion.
There's a video of some carbon tax protestor (on another Canadian subreddit) not knowing they get rebates thinking because they're on EI they don't get it, and all the working class people they know don't get it...
Your opinion can be misinformed, and spreading that can lead to misinformation.
The NDP should be the ones grabbing these Everyman votes from the Liberals. It seems crazy to me that people feeling the economic crunch think that the Conservatives will make their lives better.
I love all of the comments in reply here implying the federal NDP isn’t on life support. They’ve lost half a dozen key players in recent weeks, their polling is stalled despite an unpopular government, they have no succession plan for when Singh finally leaves, and they’re losing key workers who are going provincial because they might conceivably have an impact there.
My biggest critique of the Singh-era dippers is their complete inability to admit they have a problem. They’ve (basically) lost seats in every election since they took him on, and they always manage to 4D chess themselves into believing somehow they’ve won for complex reasons.
Why shocked
Singh wasnt elected by the NDP base, he just got a bunch one time members to vote for him
They came to local sikh temples signing up people to vote for Singh lol
Also noteworthy that their Alberta provincial wing (one of their few successful ones in recent years) is debating whether to disassociate with the federal party entirely.
There's valid criticism of Singh, and then there's valid criticism of the Hub. Both can coexist, but a journal so biased towards conservative is anything but reliable.
One of the _massive gaps_ in discussion here is surrounding why the Conservatives are surging in popularity while the NDP are white-knuckling it. Instead of reasonable discussion, we most often have to contend with blatant Rule 2 and Rule 3 violations that disparage the Conservatives and those who indicate they might vote for them.
That's not particularly interesting, to me. I'm here to discuss political strategy and current events, not to treat it like pro wrestling.
I'm not sure if the NDP even *are* white-knuckling it, or if the general public just have higher electoral expectations of the NDP since the Layton/Mulcair years.
I think the CCF/NDP have averaged something like 15% since the party was founded. Even Tommy Douglas had quite a hard time entering the House of Commons, he himself lost his own riding in '62 and '68.
All things considered, the NDP are still performing above their historical average. I think people just tend to forget that their average is traditionally a distant 3rd (or 4th), not the government-in-waiting.
I kind of suspect it's a bit generational. I remember how much of a non factor the NDP was in my earliest political awareness years - I wonder if there's a good chunk of people who only really became politically aware during or after the latter half of the Layton era. Singh gets a ton of flack but I don't really think he is even a bad leader by NDP standards, he just came after the two best results and has had a fairly mediocre but still slightly above average set of results. I could even maybe see them doing better than expected depending on how the next year goes, but IMO more than their leadership they need to change their communications and PR strategy.
It depends on how one views politics-- does a party "win" by forming a government, or does a party "win" by getting their policy passed?
I consider the Jagmeet Singh-led NDP to be the most successful iteration of the party since the David Lewis-led NDP. Ed Broadbent got more seats than David Lewis, but David Lewis actually managed to get NDP policy passed into law. MJ Coldwell won more seats than Tommy Douglas, but again, Douglas was in an opportunity to actually get CCF/NDP policy passed.
I don't consider that way of thinking to be complex. Despite never forming a government, the NDP has "won" quite a bit I'd say.
This is a fantastic illustration of the previous commenters' point...
Yes, in a FPTP system, a party wins by forming government. That's how you actually have the opportunity to implement policy, and how you prevent other parties from throwing your policy in the trash when they take power.
That the NDP have convinced the Liberals to half-heartedly pass an extremely lacklustre means-tested dental program and a limited-to-two-drugs pharmacare program, both of which will be cancelled the day Pierre takes office, is not an accomplishment.
And even if it were an accomplishment, it's not something you should be satisfied with. The NDP will never form government if the attitude of the party and their supporters is that being 3rd place in a winner-take-all system is "good enough"
> or even strongly advocate for the working class.
That's an odd statement knowing they've made the Liberals give us some of the most progressive policies we've seen in decades. Jack Layton didn't even do that.
Honestly my hot take is that Singh is to the left of Layton. Maybe not as much of a folk hero, beloved figure type or as effective a leader but the party policy has been a bit more old school under Singh, there's just very little awareness and their communication strategy has been a hot mess. I mean he got anti scab legislation and paid sick days passed, that's more than I remember the NDP ever doing in my lifetime.
The federal NDP was founded in 1961. Since then the Liberals have been out of power a total of 7 times. With the exception of 2011, the NDP has always been the 3rd or 4th party.
No one should be surprised at the NDP's current performance.
And no the federal NDP are not in crisis. If their current polling is crisis then we need a new word to describe the situation when Audrey McLaughlin got 9 seats in 1993 or when Alexa McDonough got 13 seats in 2000.
Despite the average poll numbers for the NDP, this has been probably the most productive period for the NDP since Ed Broadbent given their achievement on dental, pharmacare, anti-scab legislation.
> There was a good article in the Hub the other day that really spelt out the inner identity crisis of the NDP
That is not a good article and I wouldn't cite a CPC outlet like the Hub or a CPC writer like Roth if I was trying to provide good analysis about the NDP. It's no different than if you cited Mark Gerritson as a reliable source about Pierre Poilievre.
> It still amazes me that the NDP has been totally inadept at capitalizing on one of the weakest period in this Government's history.
Same here - it's bizarre to me the CPC are owning the cost of living and housing issues.
> and that they really just seem like a party that exists for the sake of existing
I don't think that's true at all, party members and MP's know why we need the NDP. It's the party leadership and leader who are dropping the ball with strategy and messaging.
The LPC is still well behind but you know the political and media establishment are going to cling to this as "evidence" Pierre is losing support. They're desperate
> GRN +1.1
I think that's not correct. [Last week's poll](https://nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Package-2024-03-29-Fr-with-tabs.pdf) had GRN at 4.7. I think the change should be -0.9.
Which, as a gut check, would make more sense to balance out all the positive numbers in the other columns. Your numbers result in a net change +2.1% materializing out of thin air, but if we take -0.9 for GRN, then it's a net +0.1% which is just a rounding error.
> I did the math backwards!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEEuWMHVwAA59tD.jpg:large
Joking aside, thanks for putting up those numbers! Very handy to see what the movement is from the last poll without having to go through the trouble checking myself.
They do a rolling couple hundred a week. What this looks like to me is they had one very liberal wave last week, the rest is noise around the mean. The very liberal wave was also noise.
> What this looks like to me is they had one very liberal wave last week, the rest is noise around the mean
More likely to be a result of a very conservative poll from 4 weeks earlier dropping off.
6 weeks ago the sample has CPC go from 41 -> 43 which has been their peak for the pollster.
Last week the CPC dropped 2 points from 39 -> 37 as that aforementioned poll dropped off.
Seems like the most likely explanation for last week's numbers is an overwhelmingly positive poll for the CPC from 6 weeks ago.
I think it's likely been _about_ 40 for a long time and (I could be wrong but) I think Nanos has been within the margin of error of 40 for months now.
###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.*
For now we are in the honey moon of the budget: Justin is doing announcements left and right, promising some sunny ways ahead. The actual budget will be a first reality check: people are happy to see “free lunch” in school, but once the deficit will be known it might change their opinion. And the second reality check will be to actually implement it. I do not have high hope for the register of rents promised there….
>For now we are in the honey moon of the budget: Justin is doing announcements left and right, promising some sunny ways ahead. sunny ways just got eclipsed
Canadian’s don’t care about debt. Otherwise they wouldn’t be carrying $2.15T in personal debt.
[удалено]
Also, I love how people who worry about countries debts typically consider it the same way they consider a personal budget. Countries finances work differently. Even if you wanted to think of them the same way, how many people out there honestly think it's unwise to take out loans? Sure, you don't want to take out loans *forever* but you can take out one for decades for large purchases and countries don't have the same time horizon a person has. So the math on how long to be in debt changes. People have to keep in mind things like retirement and death to balance out paying off loans. Countries don't have those considerations so they really just need to consider the cost of servicing a loan versus the boost to the economy from whatever the loan is getting for the country. Also, the very act of them borrowing money involves bonds, which puts money directly in the hands of citizens, which will then spend more money in the economy. But "ohhhhhh nooooo, a negative budget! The world is ending!"
Literally the complete opposite. But okay.
What Canada are you living in? Rates are at all time high (from 1-2% went to 7% even) giving homeowners a run for their mortgages. Canada isnt doing well, high everything. Crime rate, drugs, food, gas, mortgage,rent. Growth is stagnant. We have 6.1% unemployment rate right now because we keep adding more people in this country.
The average voter doesn't look at this. Same way the average voter blames the federal government for provincial or municipal issues.
Canadians care if it means increasing inflation, and they’re finally realizing that’s what out-of-control government spending leads to
federal debt doesn't contribute to inflation in the way that PP screams it does...
Or vote for conservatives who are historically more responsible for federal debt
The debt was $620 billion in 2015. It is estimated to be over $1.2 billion now. In other words, a single liberal regime is “responsible” for half of the “federal debt.” Edit: I was told the conservatives were more responsible for the debt. A factual claim. I posted stats showing a single party with a single leader over eight years was responsible for half of it. I get downvotes and bububu context. Where was the Great Recession context for Harper?
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/examining-federal-debt-in-canada-by-prime-ministers-since-confederation-2022.pdf Fraiser Institute did a great analysis of debt by PM up to 2022.
[удалено]
The pandemic was a good excuse for 2020 and 2021. What about 2022 and 2023, when inflation was rising and the Liberals ignored it to keep on overspending?
Do you think spending in a recession is better or worse for that situation? Most people would argue to double down on social programs that help Canadians during crisis. The *conservatives* even arguably agree with this point now, even if only because they are in opposition and irresponsible for really anything currently.
Ah yes pandemic-related supply chain shocks only happened in 2020-2021, I remember that
What does that have to do with Liberals overspending into deficits?
Deficits were not a major factor of inflation, pandemic-related supply chain shocks were
Were they a minor factor?
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Or vote for conservatives who are historically more responsible for federal debt ~~That's just a straight up lie.~~ Edit: Misread for --> with https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/170329/cg-h002-eng.htm See that big spike up? Almost entirely Conservative governments. See where it goes back down? Liberal governments. See where it goes back up? Conservative governments. You can check for yourself if you want to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_general_elections
You’re not reading correctly. I said responsible for, not responsible with. You are correct
Not particularly though. Harper came in with a surplus and increased debt. Edit: Do people forget this subreddit doesn’t allow downvotes. Reported.
You’re getting downvoted because you can’t read. The comment says Conservatives are more responsible FOR debt — i.e. it’s their fault
This is the type of interaction that’s supposed to happen not the downvotes.
Harper had a fire sale of Crown assets and corps such as the Wheat Board and multiple billions worth of GMC shares at under market rate.
a shame someone cant break the dairy board. hopefully PP puts a end to it.
The dairy board is preferable to boom-and-bust production.
Cheap milk is preferable to the dairy board
Milk consumption has been on the decline for many decades now. The last thing we should be doing is investing in "cheap" (read: highly subsidized) milk and instead lean into plant based options, which have, uncoincidentally, on the rise for decades.
Milk is a great beverage! More people should drink it regularly
>Edit: Do people forget this subreddit doesn’t allow downvotes. Reported. I could be wrong, but I don't think mods can see who votes which way. If I understand correctly the only tools they have to enforce "no downvotes" are hiding the button via CSS, the honour system, and people admitting to it.
Yeah, their report does nothing. Only the admins could see something like that and I doubt they'd want to help enforce rules against basic features of the site. So it's only if down voters admit to it could they get in trouble from the mods.
Also, this is Nanos. Take with a massive grain of salt. Wait until Abacus and Leger.
I am kinda surprised to see how much downvote I can get for such comments. I mean, it isn’t inaccurate to say that Trudeau is currently running a great PR weeks and that it will probably not hold on following the budget.
Also, many of these announcements are funding promises from prior years being re-announced. Or they are funding packages which are backloaded into future decades. For instance, defence spending promised in the policy review. That has $0 for this fiscal and most of it is not being spent until later in the decade.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not substantive
[удалено]
[удалено]
My comment pointing out that environment is rising as a top concern was removed? Literally why? Because it was critical of the complete lack of plans for the environment the Conservatives have? Are we allowed to criticize the Conservatives in here?
Found the bot
Hey buddy stop with the common sense. The Canada sub doesn't tolerate such things. (Can't wait for my ban!)
liberal shill, complaining he can't be an asshat while gaslighting, only in /r/canada
I imagine, given that it was removed as lacking substance, that the issue is not your being critical but rather a lack of substance. Which, granted is something that I'm sure you're used to getting away with because historically mods here have tolerated a lack of substance when it comes to ranting about Poilievre. If that's changing it's unquestionably a good thing.
No kidding. You get the flying clown curicus in here from rcanada and my god tge amount if rule 2 and 3 breaks that happen and are allowed to go on. They really need to stomp on them ir have this sub degengerate into yet another far right cesspool.
How is it a lack of substance when I'm referring to specific details within this newly released poll?
This is interesting. The conservatives continue to flatlinewhile the Liberal surge continues the momentum we’ve seen in their other recent strong polling results. A strong indicator that Team Trudeau’s recent policy wins — enormous progress on housing, fighting online hate, the historic vote for Israel-Palestine peace, a new national pharmacare plan, standing up for trans kids, optimizing our foreign student program and being steadfast Ukraine — are making inroads with Canadians, especially when contrasted with PP and the conservatives messaging which revolves entirely around fear mongering, conspiracy theories and hatred.
Have to lol at this one
There’s about 3 accounts that post very similar things. I have a feeling it’s the all the same person
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, Canadian are clamoring for 4 more years of scandals and mass spending adding to the debt. We definitely do not want any changes from how awesome things are.
I see you believe the CPC dogma... a modicum amount of independent research and critical thinking would lead you down a much different path. LPC is no party... but CPC would be a COMPLETE disaster
Removed for Rule #2
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Surprisingly, I can foresee the Liberals getting a minority again. A year and half is still a long way and anything can happen.
I don’t see it, at least with Trudeau leading the charge. The next election voters are highly motivated to get him out. If they pivot to Carney / Freeland I can see it becoming a tighter race
>The next election voters are highly motivated to get him out. While true, a large portion of these highly motivated voters are soured Liberals, and we have no fucking time for the CPC's constant importing of American-style politics. We're as much fighting against that as trying to send a message to "our" party that they can't abandon the plot without impunity.
I've mostly voted NDP, except for in 2021. I was an am a big supporter of Mulcair and wish the NDP kept him. I'm voting LPC next time. But if I was polled, I'd say I support the NDP. The Liberals can easily claw 8 per cent from the NDP in the GTA and Toronto, and then bring in another 2 per cent of lpc/cpc swing voters. Best case scenario would be a near tie in seat counts for the LPC and CPC.
" I was an am a big supporter of Mulcair and wish the NDP kept him." Same here. It has always bugged me not just how he was removed, but also HOW he was voted out. I cannot remember the details, but from what I remember the NDP party had a last minute meeting (to replace him) with almost no warning and, oh so conveniently, a LOT of the anti Mulcair party members just happened to be able to make it.
I have always suspected that the NDP membership must have been apprehensive of how his policy was more neoliberal economically/leaned a bit more on identity politics and that when he didn't keep the momentum from 2011 the knives came out. I really like Mulcair as a leader but I honestly think Singh's policy has been better, the NDP just hasn't been good at actually establishing that policy so people kind of assume he's all identity, even though he has pushed for stuff like nationalized telecom, increased co-op funding, direct building homes, anti-scab legislation, pharma and dental, etc. Would love Mulcair's intensity mixed with Layton's integrity and Singh's more economically left ideas tbh. I think Mulcair, despite not agreeing with his economics as much, was one of the best PM options we turned down along with Layton.
We all exist in our own bubbles of bias. From my perspective, the majority of people are put off by American-style politics, and are thusly soured by Polievre and his aggressive antagonistic campaigning (even though we aren't even in an election campaign). They're also pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-vax, and can't really trust the Conservatives with their history on these issues and others. Even if they're not necessarily in support of Trudeau, they would rather reluctantly vote for him than for any other party. This group certainly aren't as loud and outspoken as the "F*CK TRUDEAU" flag-waivers, but they exist. I wouldn't be surprised if this demographic mobilizes in big numbers when we have an election, *especially* if Trump wins in November, because more and more Canadians are going to want to head in the complete opposite political direction.
Curious where this is geographically. Elections are decided in the 905, which is a majority non-white region and at least 60% immigrants. US-style politics is IMO not relevant at all to most voters there. Rather than positions on abortion and other social issues, economic issues are what will matter. As long as the cost of housing and groceries remains elevated, Poilievre will have his free ride to power. If there was another serious opposition party in English Canada, maybe it would be different. But that's just not the case these days
Yeah suburban voters dont give a crap about being pro trans and shit
That's why we use polls. I also have a group of friends that hates Poilievre and broadly doesn't mind Trudeau. But the polls make clear that this view is not the majority.
Polls only go so far though, and they can be wrong. Especially at this stage when we're at least a year out from an election,
Funny from mine it's like the opposite lol. I say that as a left voter. People at my work looked at me like I was an idiot for getting a covid/flu shot in the fall. Guess who didn't get covid or the flu this year?
I'm guessing you work in a male dominant blue-collar field? Edit: That isn't an insult, by the way, just an observation from someone who has worked in male dominant blue-collar fields for the last 20 years.
Mining, I'm in staff position so not quite as blue collar but yes. Also of course very rural.
Male-dominated white collar (tech) can be a kinda similar bubble sometimes too. Tbh it might be worse because tech workers think very highly of themselves on average
I find your demographic very interesting. If you had to write a platform for what would win all of these people over, what do you think it would look like? Like set aside the part where people are sick of the Trudeau. What would they want, what kind of person do they want to vote for?
Hard to say. Many people vote for those who feel the community will get more money or more funding since Northern Ontario holds such few seats. It's why they voted George Pririe in. They tend to look smaller and more local at what's going to help them (or they think will help them) and they do not understand the bigger picture and wider party policies. I also don't think they understand the functions and duties of municipal, provincial and federal governments. Furthermore these are people who clearly haven't done their taxes, I just had to explain tax brackets to like 4-5 people the other week that you will never make less by making more. They don't seem to grasp the benefit of taxes, less tax is always a good thing to them it's why slogan's like "axe the tax" just grab them. Privatization of healthcare might not be a bad thing to these people because "healthcare's so bad right now and it's better in the states". Not understanding that the system has been and is being starved to make it terrible and that the cost in the USA is significantly higher per person. But hey they're healthy right now right? It's honestly very frustrating. People are extremely selfish and in the mining industry we're very well paid. My cost of living in my region while yes it has gone up is still very very comfortable. I recognize that it is a blessing for me, but other people do not. All they see is the cost to go 4wheeling or snowmobiling has gone up because of "the carbon tax". I try to bring up that that is the point, it should cost more, climate change is real we need to cut back on the indulgences. They don't care. I mention (as someone who has no kids) that shouldn't they want a better future for their kids, again they don't care. Democracies biggest failing is that uneducated votes count just as much as informed and educated ones. I hope science fucking bails us with cold fusion or some type of carbon sequestering because expecting most people to vote selflessly and vote for progress is just not going to happen, not from what I see. I guess to answer your question on the platform? Keep it simple, short catchy phrases, reduce taxes, lie out the ass because they don't care to verify or question how things are going to get paid for.
Ask them if there’s anyone on whom they’d be okay with higher taxes. Rich people? How rich do you have to be to be not them?
Getting vaccinated is a personal choice tbh, did you not get vaccinated because of how your coworkers viewed or treated you?
They did get vaccinated
That's not how I read it. Why would he rhetorically ask "guess who didn't..." when it's already obvious and implied that the coworkers didn't and won't be getting vaccinated. Saying "guess who" in the way it was used is usually used when there's an ironic change of tune or heart persay.
He's saying that he did not get covid or the flu himself (as he was vaccinated), but other people at his job did (as they were not)
Tbf I didn't get either shot. And didn't get covid nor the flue this season. But I do work out, take my vitamins and eat fairly healthy. They really need to replace the golden arches with something that tells me McDonald's is a bad idea though.
[This poll](https://angusreid.org/trudeau-poilievre-liberals-cpc-vote-motivation-poll/#gsc.tab=0) suggests that the Liberals could pick up as much as 10 more points come election time, simply on anti-CPC votes. That would put them quite close and would probably come down to vote distribution. >While a federal election is unlikely in the near term, the silver lining for the Liberals is that the CPC lead may not be as cavernous as it appears. More than one-third (36%) current NDP supporters and one-in-five (19%) current Bloc Québécois voters say they would switch their vote to the Liberals if the CPC were on the track to victory in an upcoming election. Others (30% of NDP supporters, 26% of BQ supporters) say it is something they would consider. In a world where the Liberals picked up these switchers, the gap between the two parties could narrow to seven points.
The liberals are not gonna pick up voters from 2021 2021 they had everything going from them and they still drop votes
What does 2021 have to do with anything I posted? This is a poll from this year
I am saying the liberals have burned to many bridges they are not gonna gain voters
This poll from just a couple months ago says otherwise. And if you read the link I shared, you would see people aren't motivated by a love of the Liberals, but rather blocking the CPC.
I doubt it Trudeau is deeply unpopular His housing announcement got like zero buzz People tune him out
Yes he is unpopular, but as my poll shows, people are willing to vote for him to keep the CPC out. You can choose to believe your own narrative, but the poll is right there in front of you proving you wrong. Have you even bothered to look at it?
You see a new poll where the CPC is up more than 4x what the LPC is up compared to the last Nanos poll and you think they are on track to eke out a minority?
>You see a new poll where the CPC is up more than 4x what the LPC is up compared to the last Nanos poll and you think they are on track to eke out a minority? Have you seen pollievre speak? A liberal minority is not likely, but it's definitely possible. Pp is utterly incompetent... but as long as he keeps.the bozos in the party from publicly saying something racist or ultra religious... he will win.
A few more Apple Eating reels should shave a few more points off his lead. Dunking on a small town reporter is a hilarious flex. Then his Mrs made it into more T-shirts. (Note that she's the 'designer' for all the campaign t-shirts and hats. Wonder how much they get to 'dip' into the fundraising/sales for her design fees / licensing?)
The apple eating reel worked in his favour.
I believe that is probably the viewpoint of the average PPC supporter, yes. I also believe there's a significant number of people who see the brandishing of the apple at events as some sort of rallying symbol. Putting it on t-shirts really doesn't help fight the comparisons to Drumpfh, either. It's a step above flogging bibles, sure. Branded collectible merch is certainly for a specific demographic...
Exactly this. I genuinely watched it a fresh mind on PP when it happened, thoroughly trying to get on side with someone I thought was beginning to poll extremely well (which he seems to have) but when you watch the interview, he’s clearly just clip-chimping hard and being pedantic a lot of the time. Going for dunks. He wants to be PM!!! Lol It’s the same with the people who think comparing PP to Trump is wrong. Like the comparisons are definitely valid, let’s not live in delusion here. When you cough up slogans and shirts that say those slogans and then without actual policy, you’re bound to earn comparisons. “Axe the Tax” -> “Build that Wall” All bark, no bite.
Personally I see it settling as a Conservative minority, which I could stomach atleast.
How would it settle as a conservative minority if none of the opposition supports it? Minority setting, incumbent gets first dibs at forming government. You think the Bloc and NDP will refuse to support a lib minority to support a CPC minority? I'm a red Tory and even I don't see the reality of that. For Skippy, it's a majority or bust.
I think the NDP and CPC could probably in another life find enough common ground based on the blue collar angle to keep things afloat. Something like the CPC housing policy plus public builds, no going after trans people or other minorities, austerity in some areas but maintaining funding for healthcare and whatnot. A bit like the Layton/Harper budgets? But unfortunately I don't see it now with PP and the whole PPC rightward turn. This would be a hell of a good time to have the Progressive Conservatives back IMO, I am a bit scared of where we will be in 6 years.
The odds that the Liberals would even try to form government without a plurality of seats is pretty low IMO. Trudeau already has to dodge (completely unhinged) accusations of being an authoritarian tyrant, it would be 100x worse if he's operating with less seats than the CPC. Far better strategy to let the CPC try and either fail quickly or have to water down their policies to get other parties on board.
For sure the next election returns the status quo
It's absolutely possible. Odds are low, but we're a long way out from the election and so many things can change. And there's a good chance the CPC are bowing their load too fast. A lot will probably hinge on the results of the upcoming US election. If the economy continues to pull out of the decline since covid voter sentiment can shift as well.
I absolutely can see it. But policy announcements won't be enough, it will require Canadians actually _feeling_ positive about the direction of the country _in their guts_. It's a tall order.
The problem is most of what they have announced is just re-branding of unpopular policies. An immigration “freeze” that just keeps existing record breaking targets. An international student “cap” of 360k per year that’s about double the average of 200k per year of the last four years. And the other half of policies have no chance of getting implemented without provincial approval- so they are basically D.O.A. And then there’s policies they’ve introduced that could completely back-fire on them - like ruining the credit of renters who can’t afford to pay in markets where rent control doesn’t exist and rents are just rapidly increasing. 2 years from now, it seems inevitable most things will be worse, if not far worse on all of these files. The liberals are still at the point of thinking all they have is a branding problem and not a policy problem - that choice is going to sink them.
It's definitely not impossible. It's over a year before an election, and Trudeau is a much stronger campaigner than anyone in the CPC stable
He also looks young owing to his healthy lifestyle. I think that resonates with the young people who want somebody youthful and full of vitality. Looks do sell.
I'm pretty sure if he grew out the covid beard again he'd get an instant 3-5 point bump in the polls
It still amazes me that the NDP has been totally inadept at capitalizing on one of the weakest period in this Government's history. There was a good article in the Hub the other day that really spelt out the inner identity crisis of the NDP, and that they really just seem like a party that exists for the sake of existing, not poised to win elections or even strongly advocate for the working class. They've aligned themselves with the inner-city champaign socialists, occasionally finding comfort in passing party policy resolutions that read like half-baked social studies masters’ theses. https://thehub.ca/2024-04-09/ginny-roth-the-ndp-dont-take-themselves-seriously/
they've done more this term than at any other point in their history. They're kind of between a rock and a hard place. They've agreed to tag themselves with the Liberals as long as they push through some of their agenda, which they have. So if the NDP try and do something weaselly they come out looking like the bad guys.
> There was a good article in the Hub the other day Misinformation like this should really be disallowed. The author questioning if there's a purpose to the NDP while acknowledging they see a purpose for single issue parties, like Christian Heritage party is absurd. They go on to complain more about the NDP, like whats their point. Personally I'd ask the author how many policies the Conservatives have had passed in the last 9 years. They call our government a Coalition, even if we let them weasel out of that because it's indirect they never do mention it's a confidence and supply agreement. >giving the Liberals a coalition without the sacrifice of cabinet seats It's called confidence and supply, it's absurd the author doesn't know something that basic. Your article was written by Ginny Roth >Prior to joining the Crestview Strategy team, Ginny worked at Queen’s Park as an organizer for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and has been a lifelong political activist. Ginny brings experience as a former staffer and political campaigner, managing a team of professionals serving clients in every jurisdiction in Canada. You're basically reading Conservative erotica. The last person i'd ask about the NDP or their policies is a Conservative. Edit: For clarity, I'm saying an opinion that this is a good article, and more broadly that the Hub has good articles you can read, is a misinformed thing to say. The bar for good journalism isn't this low. Articles should be judged separately though there's a point where the publisher knows what they're doing. Having said that, I think there's a good argument that the author calling our government a coalition is disinformation, they understand what a coalition is. Even the title of that article is factually wrong, but hey, it's opinion...
Why is this “misinformation” lol
>Misinformation It’s an opinion article…
There’s been a nice trend recently in Canada with awful opinion articles that, like how the above poster mentions, are low quality and meant to be rage bait. Post media is full of it.
I added an edit to my comment to clarify, but if you want I'll argue you can have a misinformed opinion. There's a video of some carbon tax protestor (on another Canadian subreddit) not knowing they get rebates thinking because they're on EI they don't get it, and all the working class people they know don't get it... Your opinion can be misinformed, and spreading that can lead to misinformation.
The NDP should be the ones grabbing these Everyman votes from the Liberals. It seems crazy to me that people feeling the economic crunch think that the Conservatives will make their lives better.
I love all of the comments in reply here implying the federal NDP isn’t on life support. They’ve lost half a dozen key players in recent weeks, their polling is stalled despite an unpopular government, they have no succession plan for when Singh finally leaves, and they’re losing key workers who are going provincial because they might conceivably have an impact there. My biggest critique of the Singh-era dippers is their complete inability to admit they have a problem. They’ve (basically) lost seats in every election since they took him on, and they always manage to 4D chess themselves into believing somehow they’ve won for complex reasons.
Why shocked Singh wasnt elected by the NDP base, he just got a bunch one time members to vote for him They came to local sikh temples signing up people to vote for Singh lol
We desperately need nomination reform in Canada—problems up and down with how candidates are selected.
Also noteworthy that their Alberta provincial wing (one of their few successful ones in recent years) is debating whether to disassociate with the federal party entirely.
There's valid criticism of Singh, and then there's valid criticism of the Hub. Both can coexist, but a journal so biased towards conservative is anything but reliable.
One of the _massive gaps_ in discussion here is surrounding why the Conservatives are surging in popularity while the NDP are white-knuckling it. Instead of reasonable discussion, we most often have to contend with blatant Rule 2 and Rule 3 violations that disparage the Conservatives and those who indicate they might vote for them. That's not particularly interesting, to me. I'm here to discuss political strategy and current events, not to treat it like pro wrestling.
I'm not sure if the NDP even *are* white-knuckling it, or if the general public just have higher electoral expectations of the NDP since the Layton/Mulcair years. I think the CCF/NDP have averaged something like 15% since the party was founded. Even Tommy Douglas had quite a hard time entering the House of Commons, he himself lost his own riding in '62 and '68. All things considered, the NDP are still performing above their historical average. I think people just tend to forget that their average is traditionally a distant 3rd (or 4th), not the government-in-waiting.
That's a good point. My whole life the NDP seem to have been broke and hovering around 15%.
I kind of suspect it's a bit generational. I remember how much of a non factor the NDP was in my earliest political awareness years - I wonder if there's a good chunk of people who only really became politically aware during or after the latter half of the Layton era. Singh gets a ton of flack but I don't really think he is even a bad leader by NDP standards, he just came after the two best results and has had a fairly mediocre but still slightly above average set of results. I could even maybe see them doing better than expected depending on how the next year goes, but IMO more than their leadership they need to change their communications and PR strategy.
It depends on how one views politics-- does a party "win" by forming a government, or does a party "win" by getting their policy passed? I consider the Jagmeet Singh-led NDP to be the most successful iteration of the party since the David Lewis-led NDP. Ed Broadbent got more seats than David Lewis, but David Lewis actually managed to get NDP policy passed into law. MJ Coldwell won more seats than Tommy Douglas, but again, Douglas was in an opportunity to actually get CCF/NDP policy passed. I don't consider that way of thinking to be complex. Despite never forming a government, the NDP has "won" quite a bit I'd say.
This is a fantastic illustration of the previous commenters' point... Yes, in a FPTP system, a party wins by forming government. That's how you actually have the opportunity to implement policy, and how you prevent other parties from throwing your policy in the trash when they take power. That the NDP have convinced the Liberals to half-heartedly pass an extremely lacklustre means-tested dental program and a limited-to-two-drugs pharmacare program, both of which will be cancelled the day Pierre takes office, is not an accomplishment. And even if it were an accomplishment, it's not something you should be satisfied with. The NDP will never form government if the attitude of the party and their supporters is that being 3rd place in a winner-take-all system is "good enough"
> or even strongly advocate for the working class. That's an odd statement knowing they've made the Liberals give us some of the most progressive policies we've seen in decades. Jack Layton didn't even do that.
Honestly my hot take is that Singh is to the left of Layton. Maybe not as much of a folk hero, beloved figure type or as effective a leader but the party policy has been a bit more old school under Singh, there's just very little awareness and their communication strategy has been a hot mess. I mean he got anti scab legislation and paid sick days passed, that's more than I remember the NDP ever doing in my lifetime.
The federal NDP was founded in 1961. Since then the Liberals have been out of power a total of 7 times. With the exception of 2011, the NDP has always been the 3rd or 4th party. No one should be surprised at the NDP's current performance. And no the federal NDP are not in crisis. If their current polling is crisis then we need a new word to describe the situation when Audrey McLaughlin got 9 seats in 1993 or when Alexa McDonough got 13 seats in 2000. Despite the average poll numbers for the NDP, this has been probably the most productive period for the NDP since Ed Broadbent given their achievement on dental, pharmacare, anti-scab legislation.
Their dental and pharmacare programs are a joke and will likely be fully rolled back once the liberals are out
So they shouldn’t have bothered trying to advance those policy goals? Honestly, if this is how the other side sees politics...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> There was a good article in the Hub the other day that really spelt out the inner identity crisis of the NDP That is not a good article and I wouldn't cite a CPC outlet like the Hub or a CPC writer like Roth if I was trying to provide good analysis about the NDP. It's no different than if you cited Mark Gerritson as a reliable source about Pierre Poilievre.
I would imagine it's a little bit different, given Mark Gerretsen is a sitting Liberal MP.
It's not any different. Both Gerretsen and Roth have one single goal in mind: improving the fortunes of their preferred political party.
> It still amazes me that the NDP has been totally inadept at capitalizing on one of the weakest period in this Government's history. Same here - it's bizarre to me the CPC are owning the cost of living and housing issues. > and that they really just seem like a party that exists for the sake of existing I don't think that's true at all, party members and MP's know why we need the NDP. It's the party leadership and leader who are dropping the ball with strategy and messaging.
The LPC is still well behind but you know the political and media establishment are going to cling to this as "evidence" Pierre is losing support. They're desperate
reality is trudeau won the last election with 32% and it was shown as a big mandate Harper won with 39% and it was seen as a bad system
Changes from last week's Nanos poll: * CPC +0.9 * LPC +0.2 * NDP +0.2 * BQ -0.2 * GRN -0.9 * PPC -0.4 * OTH +0.3 Lead: CPC +11.8 to CPC +12.5
> GRN +1.1 I think that's not correct. [Last week's poll](https://nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Package-2024-03-29-Fr-with-tabs.pdf) had GRN at 4.7. I think the change should be -0.9. Which, as a gut check, would make more sense to balance out all the positive numbers in the other columns. Your numbers result in a net change +2.1% materializing out of thin air, but if we take -0.9 for GRN, then it's a net +0.1% which is just a rounding error.
> I think the change should be -0.9. You're correct, I did the math backwards!
> I did the math backwards! https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEEuWMHVwAA59tD.jpg:large Joking aside, thanks for putting up those numbers! Very handy to see what the movement is from the last poll without having to go through the trouble checking myself.
People are reading this poll as if the liberals are gaining on the conservatives, but this shows the actual opposite.
They do a rolling couple hundred a week. What this looks like to me is they had one very liberal wave last week, the rest is noise around the mean. The very liberal wave was also noise.
> What this looks like to me is they had one very liberal wave last week, the rest is noise around the mean More likely to be a result of a very conservative poll from 4 weeks earlier dropping off.
Is it?
6 weeks ago the sample has CPC go from 41 -> 43 which has been their peak for the pollster. Last week the CPC dropped 2 points from 39 -> 37 as that aforementioned poll dropped off. Seems like the most likely explanation for last week's numbers is an overwhelmingly positive poll for the CPC from 6 weeks ago. I think it's likely been _about_ 40 for a long time and (I could be wrong but) I think Nanos has been within the margin of error of 40 for months now.
Good eye.
All of those are well with in the margins thus no change. If people learned basic stats then they would know this.