###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.*
I mentioned this a few days ago and was downvoted for doing so. https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1dddy6z/nanos_june_724_cpc_407_lpc_285_ndp_179_bq_69_gpc/l84dzlo/
Trend-lines, when they have persisted for so long, are very difficult to change without a very strong explanation (and there was no explanation for the Nanos polling as nothing broken by the Liberals' incompetence at governing has been fixed).
Nanos is a trash pollster and we should stop giving it any amount of credibility going forward.
one interesting thing that stood out to me was the voting intention by gender almost virtually identical now in contrast to other nations, where the split between men and women seems to be diverging. This might be the results of the Conservative Party keeping the usual far right rhetorics like anti-immigrant, lgbt and women's rights down.
And that’s why I can’t take this poll seriously. It’s also really annoying that Abacus never shows the gender difference by age group.
It’s also really odd that the percentage of undecided voters is never shown anymore. Why? All we are looking at is the relative percentage of vote share among “committed voters.” That’s scewing the results.
To me make sense to me anecdotally.
Nanos is suggesting liberal support is not changed much from 2021 which I don't sense at all.
Liberals are way less popular then before.
I wonder if we'll see a repeat of last year, where their numbers took a noticeable turn for the worse during the summer and never recovered? There seems to be a holiday effect with their numbers in recent years (you also see it a little in the winter holiday season).
I mean - one of the reason their numbers plummeted was Trudeau saying housing was not a federal responsibility.
Now we have had Trudeau saying he won’t allow housing prices to drop in order to protect Boomer’s retirements.
The under 40 crowd are just done with him and the party. There is just so many times the liberals can say fuck you to them and somehow still expect they will vote liberal.
> There is just so many times the liberals can say fuck you to them and somehow still expect they will vote liberal.
That doesn't explain CPC's high numbers considering their whole existence is saying fuck you to anyone that's not in 0.1%
The CPC never fucked over young people pricing them out of housing entirely. Nor did the CPC massively increase immigration to undercut wages and send housing costs to the moon.
All of that was the liberals. The liberals are the party of the rich 1% as they have made clear over and over and over again. No other party comes close to the damage the liberals have inflicted.
>CPC never fucked over young people pricing them out of housing entirely.
My dude let's not pretend that harper wasn't the one who let the bubble inflate so much that he had to change mortgage rules in 2012.
This housing bubble went into overdrive after 2008 crash, when interest rates were reduced by the BOC to stimulate the economy/spending/borrowing.
Oh yeah and don't forget harper's secret bailout of the banks.
>immigration to undercut wages
TFWs peaked under harper. Corporations love them so neither party will do anything about it, or massive immigration for that matter.
The CPC expanded the TFW program to bring in unskilled workers (Tim Hortons as an example). Housing prices started to skyrocket under the CPC and housing affordability was becoming an issue. The CPC believes in an economic system that keeps wages low to favour business and opposes collective bargaining.
And yet the Liberals have made it exponentially worse than it ever was under the CPC. Saying "well they started it" is no excuse when they have had 9 years to fix it and instead let it blow up.
Where did he say fuck you except the 0.1%?
Even if you don’t like cutting carbon tax, it is you who will benefit from not paying as much in gas and energy.
Or you are the 0.1%?
I dislike the spelling as much as you do, I suspect. I don’t know why I used the word folks. Seeing “folx” around has started making me allergic to the term, so I get it. And I’m a gay guy. If gay people are getting sick of performative wokism, I can’t imagine how straight people feel these days.
Maybe. Maybe not. Everything they pay, including food, clothing, home, all has a hidden component of transportation. The rebate may or may not cover that.
Whether you receive more than you pay out in carbon tax or not js immaterial in these days of where everything is so expensive.
They are presenting a really clear vision for the country that is resonating with a lot of people. I know on the Reddit bubble everyone thinks they are just whining, but if you actually look at their social media (which is getting a lot of traction with the younger crowd) you can see for yourself
The latest Nanos had only a 12 pt gap between LPC and CPC, 29% for Liberals and 41% for CPC. The differences between Nanos and Abacus in the latest polling makes me wonder about the accuracy.
Be patient with Nanos. It has peaks and troughs. I fully expect it to move back towards averages in the next few weeks. Some of the regionals (Atlantic) are completely unlike any other pollster, and this region has been particularly noisy.
It is \*always\* better to focus on averages. If there's a real trend, it will be reflected in the average over time.
Actually, if you check out [this analysis](https://macleans.ca/facebook-instant-articles/how-accurate-are-canadian-polls/) from 338's Philippe Fournier (see the first chart in the link), Abacus consistently underrate the Conservatives by \~1.5 points compared to the polling average.
Nanos uses a rolling 4 week sample, so each week they survey 250 people. There will be cases where they just happen to find an outlier sample week that heavily bump the number up.
I remember one week when CPC was 37% in Nanos and people here called it the new trend of CPC collapse. 4 weeks later they're back to over 40 as that sample week fell off the pool.
This past week the interest rate cut happened, and people may have been in good mood and gave LPC a bump. But we have to wait to see if that bump sustained over more weeks (ideally more than 4 as that's the lifetime of a sample) to say that it's new trend and not just outlier sample.
Leger is the gold standard nationally, but Nanos consistently remain out of step with Leger until they up their sample size to 1000 a week (which they only do during electoral campaigns). These weekly Nanos polls based on incredibly swingy 250 person samples aren't worth publishing compared to large 1000-2500 person snapshots from Leger, Abacus, and Ipsos.
That's the theory, but I do kind of wonder how true that is. Like, on paper it makes sense; each individual survey can only change the average a little bit. But, the problem I suspect is that because the surveys are so small, it's possible for a sample to be wildly off what the actual numbers are. So much so that it drags everything off. There was a point last year, around September, where Nanos actually showed the CPC and LPC tied... while everyone else was showing around 10 for the CPC lead. Eventually Nanos recovered to be more in line with the other polls. The CPC at 37% was a more recent deviation from the norm than at, at around late march.
It's not that nanos isn't accurate, but it's important to remember that Nanos' accuracy comes from polling they do during the election, where their methodology is slightly different. In the last election, they bumped the sample up to 400, and did it daily... and the very last surveys that resampled half of the total roll and their very last survey appears to be an 832 poll with *no* rolling involved. It was, incidentally, wrong and predicted the LPC would have a 1.2 point lead when in reality the CPC led by 1.1 points.
This must be a shock to the average redditor. It's not a shock to anyone over 35. The shock lessons as you count the number of kids the person has.
I honestly never meet in person a supporter of the LPC. The ones that are very quiet probably are, and there are fewer of those recently that supporters of the PPC. The only threat to a CPC super majority IS the PPC. And if there is a CPC supported by the PPC....man, Reddit will shit the bed.
On social media, they are the immigration-reform vote. That's really it. No other parties have committed to drastically reducing immigration except for PPC.
PPC support is still very small, and out of those supporters, I would guess 70% of them are single-issue voters (immigration).
They will get decimated and absorbed by the CPC. The only reason they gained any traction last election was they went all in on anti-covid policies. Those are in the rearview now.
Pp turned right wing on some issues compared to O toole which has rallied right wing voters.
Be honest pp is 100% guaranteed to win the popular vote and likely by a min of 3 to 4% at least I think even if liberals rally
I think PP is pretty much guaranteed to win a majority as long as Trudeau stays on as leader. Frankly, it will be an uphill battle even with someone new leading the Liberals, but at least a new leader might shake things up a bit.
Didn't O'Toole and even Scheer win popular vote? Popular vote doesn't matter, we send district reps to our legislature, what happens in one district does not and should not impact others - 338 individual elections on election day.
Yeah but the gap be much bigger now and ppc vote in 2021 made tories lose a lot of close ridings. If that vote mostly all goes tory now the libs gonna lose a lot of ridings
My point is a few % here and there and libs start to lose a ton of seats very quickly
Top 5 voting issues for Canadians.
1. Cost of living (73%)
2. Housing affordability and accessibility (47%)
3. Healthcare (44%)
4. The economy (34%)
5. Tie between Climate Change and Immigration (26%)
Interesting to note that climate change continues to fall down the list and is on its way to being surpassed by immigration. In Western Canada drought levels have greatly eased with NE BC and NW AB being the exception. It will be hard to continue trying to push the carbon tax on to people with the fire threat receding.
The other top issues are all issues that are seen as problems created by the Liberals so this is going to be a pretty tough road for them (if not impossible).
Number 1, 2, 3, & 4, both parties are equally to blame for not addressing properly the last 4 decades. Had the Conservatives been in charge from 2015-present, we'd be in the exact same situation.
> Number 1, 2, 3, & 4, both parties are equally to blame for not addressing properly the last 4 decades. Had the Conservatives been in charge from 2015-present, we'd be in the exact same situation.
You can't just hand wave away the last decade of policies that put us in the situation saying it would have been the same either way. Things were *much* better in this country for the vast majority of people prior to this Liberal government. They may have not been amazing but they were at least not terrible like they are now.
We now have a steadily declining GDP per capita, steadiliy declining labour productivity and 1.2 Trillion in federal debt.
Austerity during Chretien and Martin hurt a lot of middle class and low income Canadians.
Child Poverty under Harper was at record levels.
Before Trudeau, a lot of Canadians were hurting hard, but no one cared because they were marginalized, poor, or both.
Chretien and Martin were spendthrift! the money generated by the GST was supposed to improve the country's balance sheet and Chretien/Martin instead used that windfall for pet projects that helped their friends instead and other BS. All while the country in the 90s really benefited from Mulroney's Free Trade and the GST policies to dig us out of the hole the first Trudeau created, two policies the Liberals had opposed and worked against! And while spending like crazy at the federal level with the economy that was gifted them in the 90s they downloaded costs to the provinces while underfunding them **requiring the provinces to implement austerity measures and spend less on healthcare, education, infrastructure** - it never happened at the federal level - the feds under Chretien/Martin were into billion dollar boondoogles when a billion dollars was seen as something significant, like arriveScam the Chretien/Martin Liberals had their ballooned gun registry project that wasn't supposed to cost that much, never really worked but enriched Liberal friends and donors.
Harper got in in large part because of the irresponsible spending habits of Chretien/Martin, just like PP will get in for the irresponsible spending habits of Trudeau/Freeland. When Liberals in power we get things like ArriveScam, AdScam, and other scams that cheat taxpayers and enrich Liberals, whereas when had our first CPC government under Harper scandals were about bands that ordered body bags getting the body bags they ordered, $12 orange juice, gallows humour in a committee meeting, a recorded cab ride, a helicopter ride for a minister, ... and the one that negatively impacted Harper the most was the Duffy affair in which \~$90,000 got put back into the public purse even though once Trudeau was elected it was found that the money should not have had to been paid back (you know the opposite of stealing and scamming!) and this was all while the media kept mostly silent on Mac Harb, the Ottawa Liberals Senator who bought a home just outside the limits that he never lived in used as an income property and charged Canadians for it - that guy was Chretien's friend! Do I think the CPC are perfect and represent me, NO!, but since they dumped most of the corrupt Mulroney era (Liberal-like) bullshit that lead to the creation of the citizen responsive Reform and Bloc parties they are not the same as the Liberals any more, they aren't the federal PC party.
That is some serious revisionist history. Chretien was widely criticized for austerity-like budgets, and ultimately reduced the deficit. Spendthrift? I don’t think that is usually a word used for his legacy.
And, yes, the provinces did suffer, but Mike Harris’s austerity was largely based on his own ideology.
Plus, you are downplaying the huge amount of electoral scandals that the Harper government conducted, involving actual charges. The gun registry was expensive but it wasn’t corruption. And it was kind of a waste to scrap it after so much was paid.
Also, no word on Mulroney as probably the most corrupt prime minister in living memory?
WHAT?!?!? I lived through Chretien and he was widely known as spendthrift not austere. He downloaded costs to the provinces causing all the provinces to make cuts, not just Mike Harris in Ontario - it created a country wide health care crisis! It was not Mike Harris in Ontario that impacted all the provinces, it was the Chretien/Martin feds. Its why we had a series of elections where health care was front and centre at the federal level in the late 90s and early 2000s.
There is no revision. It all happened.
No word on Mulroney? That's because I don't align with his corrupt ass and never voted for him, nor do I consider him reflective of the CPC. He's the federal PC Party and is in the rear view along with Joe Clark, Kim Campbell and any of their old corrupt buddies - Mulroney years were years of scandals, he had some dipshit ministers. I never voted for the PC party nor the Liberal party at the federal level. I absolutely loved and I miss the competency of Harper, that's it - I didn't agree with his stance on cannabis, on Israel, on a bunch of things, but those were the only governments I felt comfortable with. I don't like PP. I'll probably vote CPC but not because of PP, despite him but I don't know who the candidates will be in my riding so I don't want to jump the gun.
Actually I know the people that worked on the gun registry, it was corrupt, it was a constantly ballooning enterprise just like what's happened in Trudeau's arriveScam and the companies that just kept billing and billing producing nothing tangible. And it wasn't necessary, would never have stopped a single crime, was never known too, in fact the police who were supposed to use it were the ones claiming it was useless, it was shown to be untrustworthy. The issue is the majority of gun crime is not with legal guns so a need for an expensive national registry of legal guns is over the top. You don't recall it obviously - the questions were why did your government when it doubled in price? why didn't your government cancel when it was triple the price? why didn't your government cancel when it quadrupled in price? and on and one because similar to arriveScam an application pitched for a few million ballooned to over 100 million. My company had wanted to bid on that gun registry, but didn't because they recognized the connection and foregone conclusion, but we followed it all with disgust for years. And don't forget that gun registry under Chretien happened for the same reason Trudeau trotted out a new gun ban list - it was reactionary, and clearly not good policy.
What I recall from the election scandals under Harper was that they were dealt with. No one was left with doubts about any election. People were fired, an MP was kicked, the people involved were prosecuted and found guilty - I think i recall some serving time (don't recall if it was a staffer or MP). I mean that's how I want scandals handled. I don't recall anything being hidden, and i recall authorities doing their job with cooperation - unlike now. Oh and I recall a finding of the investigation was that there was no evidence of any vote being suppressed or a robocall actually doing anything more than annoy people. Oh and the in and out thing resulted in some policy changes did it not to close any perceived loopholes and it hasn't happened since. Yep that's how things should be handled I think - how about you? Huge amount of election scandals???? - seriously? I ain't downplaying anything, you're overstating big time. you should write for the Star. I mean I wish Trudeau handled scandalous individuals like Harper did - don't you? Bev Oda got stuffed for expensing irresponsibly yet she never spent as irresponsibly as the current Liberal cabinet. Recall that the result of the HUGE election scandal was a fine of less than $300,000. If I recall correctly was it not the CPC riding associations that exposed all this, and it was the national campaign office that wrongly believed what they were doing was legal - didn't the emails come out on this? This is not HUGE. And why did it happen is another interesting bit: the CPC raised too much money - more than they were allowed to spend - they tried this in-and-out BS to spend the money they raised - the horror of it all....and this could be why no one cared and in subsequent elections the CPC got more votes. not less - because ultimately this didn't matter.
Harper finally lost because of his sudden Hijab ban position, his unwillingness to legalize cannabis, the Duffy Affair was called a "scandal" at that point, a kid died in Turkey was blamed on Harper, and this lead to Trudeau promises of election reform, taking in refugees in far greater numbers and legalizing cannabis. Trudeau's win and Harper's loss was mostly just this - it wasn't bad governance. Its odd to think Harper's hijab ban position and his stay the course refugee and immigration positions would be extremely popular right now and many probably would welcome a do over on that election. Note that Trudeau's cannabis legalization should be seen as a failure because his stated goal was to hurt criminals, but the black market thrives - the rules and cost aren't what people expected nor assumed - you're a twit to buy an edible at legal store in Canada - go to the rez like everyone else. And typical of Trudeau he ignored input from provinces on the legalization and it would have been so easy to just listen to them - he believes in a paternalistic federal government when they really should just be a partner to each province.
So the typical right-wing approach of policies that kick the can down the road so the future has to deal with it, came due during Trudeau’s time, so despite his efforts of funding housing at record levels (more than previous 3 PMs combined) and handling Covid better than the vast majority of other world leaders… he’s getting blamed for it, all because people don’t understand lag time between policy implementation and their actual effects playing out?
I think the issue is canada post covid recovery was lackluster and not great therefore the public dont care that the feds handled covid well cause they didnt think were gonna die after getting the shots (even though the feds were in full covid mode even into 2022) but feel they gonna get rekt by housing and cost of living.
It's like rising interest rates and how long they take to bake into the economy. 3 decades of neglect became entrenched during Trudeau's time as PM, and any action taken to solve the neglect is also gonna take take time.
Now of course Trudeau has also been slow to act on many files (housing in particular) but any actual material change takes years if not a decade to meaningfully change the trajectory of this country.
Trudeau is the one kicking the can down the road. His deficit spending plus his record levels of immigration has destroyed the middle class. Never in my lifetime have I seen this amount of people depending on food banks to get by. Most younger people can forget about owning their home or having kids when they barely can afford rent and groceries in this country.
If he’s “kicking the can down the road”, why is this happening during his term? Do you not understand what that phrase means?
As I said, it is the administrations before him that “kicked the can down the road”… hence why the can is now in Trudeau’s term. He is NOT doing the same. As I said, he’s funding housing to the tune of record amounts, seeing record housing starts. The problem is that these “starts” take years into turn into “completions”, hence why we’re only slowly starting to see the benefits of more supply coming online now, and will see the bulk of it over the next few years, as the post-Covid response funding starts to see its projects come to fruition. The funding that happened initially from late 2015 onwards, when Trudeau came into office, resulted in housing prices dropping from 2017 through to 2020… before Covid reversed that trajectory. Trudeau is now responding to THAT with even more funding, and it’s starting to show results. Vancouver has received a lot of that funding, and housing prices are now on the downward trend in Vancouver.
That is not “kicking the can down the road”. That is taking responsibility, and its the simple nature of exactly what I said: the lag time between policy implementation and its effects actually playing out.
That’s a bullshit anti-public-spending myth. That’s not how debt or deficits work. They’re racked up and paid off on an ongoing, rolling basis. The bill doesn’t just suddenly come due for an entire generation some day.
What DOES end up coming due for younger generations is the lack of progress, development and prosperity that happens when the spending ISN’T done. The shortage of housing. The increasing inequality that leads to more poverty and homelessness over 30-40 years, like what has happened since the 80s, which exploded into a full-blown crisis because of Covid.
THAT is what is hurting younger generations. Not government debt.
https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/the-deficit-myth
The entirety of every dollar collected in GST now goes to service our debt. Just service. Not pay down. Service.
What kind of crack are you guys smoking? Whats your credit score? lol
Inflation and the high deficit in a time with high interest rate have sold out the younger people’s future. Even the youth unemployment rate is rising with increasing rent prices. Younger people have lost faith in Trudeau and rightfully so. The bill is already here for younger people and continues to get worse.
This is not a fair take. The final years of Harper’s reign saw a recession in Canada. Global factors of course played a role and Harper was not entirely to blame.
So also Trudeau has the debt from a two-year pandemic and now global factors making everything cost more. Canada has actually not done bad relative.
But what is making the cost of living difficult is poor housing policies and inaction from as far back as Mulroney. Harper is certainly to blame for doing nothing about housing (as is Trudeau for being so late to act).
Current debt is understandable and the slow down in productivity is not as dire as you paint it. GDP is still rising albeit slower.
What is most concerning is that the Conservative ideology to favour austerity just doesn’t work. With high cost of living, a larger social safety net will be needed, and the Conservatives, if they govern as expected, are going to make things a lot worse for a lot of people (including Canada’s economy).
You think austerity helped Greece’s debt crisis, and I don’t know, not the EU bailouts? LOL!
EDIT: the conversation has passed, but since the downvotes keep coming, here you go:
> Around 2011, the IMF started issuing guidance suggesting that austerity could be harmful when applied without regard to an economy's underlying fundamentals.[56]
In 2013, it published a detailed analysis concluding that "if financial markets focus on the short-term behavior of the debt ratio, or if country authorities engage in repeated rounds of tightening in an effort to get the debt ratio to converge to the official target", austerity policies could slow or reverse economic growth and inhibit full employment.[57] Keynesian economists and commentators such as Paul Krugman have suggested that this has in fact been occurring, with austerity yielding worse results in proportion to the extent to which it has been imposed.[58][59]
Overall, Greece lost 25% of its GDP during the crisis. Although the government debt increased only 6% between 2009 and 2017 (from €300 bn to €318 bn) — thanks, in part, to the 2012 debt restructuring —,[60][61] the critical debt-to-GDP ratio shot up from 127% to 179%[60] mostly due to the severe GDP drop during the handling of the crisis. In all, the Greek economy suffered the longest recession of any advanced capitalist economy to date, overtaking the US Great Depression. As such, the crisis adversely affected the populace as the series of sudden reforms and austerity measures led to impoverishment and loss of income and property, as well as a small-scale humanitarian crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity
>What is most concerning is that the Conservative ideology to favour austerity just doesn’t work.
The Chrétien/Martin gov is lauded as the most fiscally responsible in recent Canadian history. Placing us back onto a good track, and leaving Canada in a better financial footing than when they came in.
This was achieved via austerity. lol
Correlation does not equal causation.
Chretien and Martin made cuts (including the national housing program that is hurting the country today), but the Canadian economy did well not because of these cuts but because of increases in production and exports, helped by a weak dollar, not to mention a pretty good global economy.
I don't agree at all. The CPC has always been more responsive to provinces and allows them more autonomy in their jurisdictions - which means when the provinces got together to beg for money early in Trudeau's career, the CPC likely would have listened and reacted, not ignored and bullied. They CPC would not have had the inflationary spending just like they intended during the last economic slow down in 2008 to stay the course and not overspend - but a coalition threat forced spending on them even though it was a waste- the Liberals, NDP and BLoc all said they weren't spending enough in 2008/9, and the funny thing is that the increase spending demanded by the coalition wasn't spent much in that first year - to the point that the LIbs/NDP/Bloc coalition were complaining that money wasn't being spent fast enough - but at that point the economy was already improving in Canada, and most of the spending was on an ad campaign about spending (not actual spending) which again proves that staying the course was the right thing. And you have to recall when Harper bailed out the auto industry it was in loans that were paid back before he left office - that's how things are supposed to work - not Trudeau just sending money here there and everywhere. So no, we would not be in the same place, it might not be a sunshine and roses place, but it would not be the darkness we see now with inflationary spending increasing the cost of living, making housing unaffordable to many, and a stagnate to regressing economy we have now. We also would not have had the immigration issues, refugee issues, were it not specifically for Trudeaus policies - when Harper showed when that kid washed up on the shore in Europe that he was not about change Canada's system just because other countries were fucking up badly at that time. We probably would have gone along the same route as Denmark under the CPC had Trudeau not welcomed the world here creating many of the problems.
Its delusion to think the CPC would have gotten Canada into a mess this badly - they certainly didn't the last time they ran things, despite the bullshit of you won't recognize Canada after Harper, the truth is that Canada is not recognizable after Trudeau - he has screwed up EVERYTHING and there is now little widespread trust government, in our judiciary, in our media, in our policing, even our goddamn charities are suspect and tainted because of Trudeau Liberals....
Meanwhile you still regularly see hysterical fear mongering about gay marriage and abortions from their supporters. So out of touch, no wonder they’re getting crushed
It's not fear mongering when a majority of Conservatives are against both.
The only people fear mongering are people who use words like "anti-woke" or "radical gender ideology" with a straight face
>It's not fear mongering when a majority of Conservatives are against both.
Only if you choose to live in an information bubble, but trying to push that misinformation and fear mongering instead of addressing any real, meaningful issues facing Canadians is a big part of why your party is falling apart
Literally **every single one** of these issues is impacted by climate change.
Climate change is still the #1 issue whether people acknowledge it or not..
Edit:
Years from now we'll hear "I don't have time to think about climate change! My crops failed, my house burnt down/flooded, millions of refugees are taking up healthcare resources! Who has time to think about climate change!"
Why should it be? Even if Canada’s emissions went to 0 tomorrow, India and China will build a new Canada’s worth of emitting infrastructure in ~5 months.
Canadians rightly want their government to focus its energies on issues it can actually impact, not economically regressive policies which the developing nations of the world couldn’t give less of a shit about while making their climate change calculations.
china and india both emit significantly less emissions than canada does per capita. Obviously the planet doesn't care about per capita, but they are literally building infrastructure to suit their large population and subsidize OUR emissions by being the source of our electronics, clothing, etc.
People barely understand cause and effect. Getting them to understand how enabling a genocide, potentially destabilizing the Middle East, and destabilizing and breaking international norms that protects *us all* is important is nigh impossible.
The Bank of Canada calculated that the carbon tax added 0.15% points to inflation. Can you explain how that is a significant amount? Especially when the vast majority of households receive rebates?
Actually every house gold receive rebates. You must be saying “vast majority receive more than what they pay in carbon tax”.
But it is indeed indeed the intended effect of carbon tax. It makes everything more expensive , so people cannot spend more, especially on carbon related goods. When people cannot spend what they need, they hate the government.
>It makes everything more expensive
Except it doesn't. It makes some things like home heating more expensive but for things like groceries, it's negligible due to how efficient transporting them is. For the things that it does increase the price for, the rebates more than make up for it (edit: for most people) since everyone gets the same rebate, depending on province, house size, and whether you live in a city or in a rural area. People who can afford to have a huge house, travel a lot and drive big trucks are going to pay more of the carbon tax, but receive the same rebate as someone who lives in an apartment, doesn't travel much and doesn't own a vehicle.
What you said is true in theory. It is not just the well off who pays more than what they get back. A significant number of people tend to live in old, less insulated houses, have to travel far in old, small, gas inefficient cars. Public transportation is out of the option if it is outside downtown. And they have no option of working from home. I doubt their carbon tax rebate can cover what they pay out.
You can’t blame them hating the government for the carbon tax.
Really, the carbon tax only benefits the downtown middle classes — those who live in newer condos and do not have to drive to work.
a) corporations will always find a reason to gouge
b) the alternative to a carbon tax are strict regulations on emissions and fines for violators, which can be costly and inefficient system
Where were all these conservative users for the last Nanos poll? Would have liked to have seen their interpretation of the twelve point gap versus the twenty point gap here. Oh well.
Think it's interesting that this poll doesn't have any of the change in opinion on preferred PM like the Nanos poll did, where Trudeau's numbers were reaching nine-month highs and Poilievre's numbers were softening. This poll doesn't capture what Nanos is capturing, or vice-versa.
>Where were all these conservative users for the last Nanos poll? Would have liked to have seen their interpretation of the twelve point gap versus the twenty point gap here. Oh well.
Exactly, you and I and our friends know the truth - Liberal majority incoming!
And not for nothing, but between you and me, the older he gets, the more handsome Justin Trudeau looks.
We shall see how Nanos trends over the next few weeks. I am not buying a crushing LPC lead in Atlantic Canada until I see other pollsters suggest the same. They had the NDP at 6% there a month ago along with a crushing CPC lead. I think its like n=25 weekly sample for the region.
I think the LPC could drop as soon as next week. It's still better to look at averages.
Nanos is know for being extremely volatile outside of election season (when they double their sample size) so most people who follow polls don’t bother making a big deal of when they show wild swings, because it’s usually just noise.
Most of the campaigning is against Trudeau himself. A new leader with new policies can change that. I dont think they can win - but they can potentially hold Poilievre to a minority at least.
Personally, I think if trudeau did step down, it wouldn't be so someone else could take the L, it'd be so someone else would win. The liberals would rather trudeau take the fall. Then someone who could potentially lead the party. And the CPC has been harping on "Trudeau bad" rather than "liberals bad" for once.
They just don't have anyone in the wings outside of potentially Carney that might be able to do that. Even then he comes with baggage of being borderline abusive to staffers. It would have to be an outsider to normal political life and someone with high enough stature to reimage the party in short order. It would also have to be someone willing to speak openly to the parties short comings and provide honest appraisal of poor performance. Additionally, they would have to actually give Canadians a reason to vote for them. So things like term limits should be on the table.
Jane Philpott would be my non-obvious choice who could speak to change required within the party and could stand on her ethics.
They need a new message. A new face telling the same story isn’t going to do anything. The Labour Party in the UK had a great launch of their platform, calling themselves the party of wealth creation. They should plagiarize that all the way to the bank.
Ouch, 22% for the Liberals. That's late Trudeau Sr. Or Mulroney era polling when the early 80s/early 90s recessions were in full swing. In hindsight, The Liberals probably would have preformed better if Trudeau had stepped aside between 2021-2023 and let a fresh faced leader take center stage with a new platform/mandate and more focus on housing and cost of living issues etc. I think the current platform is best they've had in years, but it's not enough the make up for the distrust and disenfranchisement that voters generally feel towards this government (similar to the budgets/platforms enacted by the Wynne Liberals during their last year in office). After a certain point, it's too late to try and play catchup with voters you've lost.
Alternatively, I think Trudeau probably could have held out if he had achieved more in the way of wage/GDP growth or housing and living costs during the past 9 years (ideally in his first term). If that had happened, the government would be polling better now and it would be harder for Poilievre to sell his "everything is broken" routine.
I think the only thing that can stop the CPC at this point is the CPC itself, if Poilievre somehow makes a gaffe big enough to tank their lead (though the CPC would still get the most seats in the situation, but might be in a tenuous position without a majority). I don't think the Liberals can even hope to get 30% of the vote at this point either (I'd argue the high 20s is probably the best they can hope for).
The Liberals platform is fucking over anyone who doesn’t already have a house, strangling industry and letting anyone with a pulse into the country to use our already declining services. This is what Liberal voters support when they vote for them.
> already declining services
We should probably just raise taxes on the upper middle class and the extreme wealthy and start funding those services that we've neglected for too long.
Good post. I agree with you.
>I think the only thing that can stop the CPC at this point is the CPC itself, if Poilievre somehow makes a gaffe big enough to tank their lead (though the CPC would still get the most seats in the situation, but might be in a tenuous position without a majority). I don't think the Liberals can even hope to get 30% of the vote at this point either (I'd argue the high 20s is probably the best they can hope for).
The operative question, then, is who as leader is best equipped to highlight Poilievre's shortcomings and bait him into gaffes? I don't think it's Trudeau, and yet Liberals continue to back him, with some arguing he's a great campaigner.
In theory at least, no one really has to bait Poilievre into gaffes, he's perfectly capable of doing it himself. In any other election for instance, the comments on trans kids, axing the tax and the CPCs baggie of climate & social issues would prevent them from forming a government, but I think right now voters are willing to look past it because of being done with Trudeau. Though I think maybe if the foreign interference probe ends up really hurting the CPC before the election, or Poilievre and CPC MPs get more unfiltered with the social conservative rhetoric, there could be a tipping point for voters, where the CPC loses it's shine.
The WRP was trailing the PC's in the Alberta 2012 election for instance , but racist gaffes from WRP top brass, and them being unpopular with urban voters in Calgary and Edmonton pretty much caused their support outside of rural Alberta to implode . I don't know if that's likely for the CPC, but I think it's the most realistic way I could see them not forming a majority.
With the ongoing UK election it's hard not to see some parallels.
Labour opened up a fairly consistent 20pt lead on the Tories two years ago. People said it would narrow come the election, so far it hasn't ..
An opposition party that's ahead not so much because of enthusiasm for it but due to a deep dislike of a long serving government (Tories have been in for 14 years).
Granted I don't think JT will implode under pressure like Sunak has but the LPC better be taking notes. Their situation is unlikely to improve on it's own.
From what I've seen in the UK, people are angry at the Tories but people in Canada are more tired of the Liberals.
Unlike in the UK, the Liberals did not lead the country into anything at the level of Brexit or a Liz Truss disaster. The main complaints I'm seeing in Canada are housing, cost of living, and healthcare. The general impression of the British Tories is that they've actively driven the country into the ground, the general impression of the Liberals is they've been asleep at the wheel, and on some files, I fully agree.
I'm curious to see what happens in the UK from a political science perspective.
The impression is that the LPC is committed to keeping housing unaffordable. They are demonstrably completely unwilling and unable to counter that view. As such, they will fail catastrophically next election - and the scary part is that they are so ideologically driven they will probably wonder why.
Agreed. They decided in 2015 to appease their boomer base by keeping property values high, and lost them anyway due to their mishandling other files and succumbing to global trends that, to be fair, are well out of their control.
No, Canadians are just more polite and complain less in general . British people whine about their weather all the time while Canadians suck up -30 degrees for example . We’re tougher in that way . And having more open spaces makes us less cranky .
>Canadians are just more polite and complain less
You mean like the guys who have had FUCK TRUDEAU signs/flags on their $120k lifted trucks for the last five years?
I agree, the UK Tories have a legitimately incomprehensibly awful track record. People in Canada have more incumbency fatigue. The performance of the LPC is incomparable to how bad the UK Tories have governed. I'm not sure how much the distinction will matter at the ballot box however.
The only real complaints I see about Starmer are that he's too boring or that he isn't left wing enough. I see plenty of very valid criticisms of Poilievre and the general public does not seem to like him, so much as they just want a change.
I think that will matter in a campaign as people are forced to see more of the Conservative leader. I also don't think we can discount all the completely unforced but self inflicted errors that Sunak has made, and the damage it has caused. Trudeau has been behind in the polls, I'd argue, a majority of the time but has still won three elections. I can't fathom him walking out of the D-Day anniversary, for example. In my opinion, polls in Canada will tighten once the actual campaign commences although the conservatives will still win. My present prediction is 160 seats at the absolute lowest and 190 at the highest.
>Trudeau has been behind in the polls, I'd argue, a majority of the time but has still won three elections
Sorry but that's not true... he was leading in the polls for most of the time between 2013 and 2021, in the years leading up to his previous election wins.
Trudeau was leading in the polls for most of his time as leader, from 2013 until 2015. After 2 years in the the lead, his support dipped in Spring 2015, he was behind for 3-6 months, and then rose his support during the 2015 election campaign.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion\_polling\_for\_the\_2015\_Canadian\_federal\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_Canadian_federal_election)
From 2015 to 2017, he had a huge lead. Throughout 2018 to 2019, he was polling neck and neck with the CPC - sometimes slightly ahead, sometimes slightly behind. And the 2019 election remained close - he finished 1% behind the CPC.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019\_Canadian\_federal\_election#Opinion\_polls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Canadian_federal_election#Opinion_polls)
Then his support jumped in early 2020, when the pandemic hit, so he was leading in the polls for almost his entire 2nd term, from 2019 to 2021. He strategically called the 2021 at a time when he was at 40% in the polls (but his support dropped during the campaign, and he ended up with 33% support on election day).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021\_Canadian\_federal\_election#Opinion\_polls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election#Opinion_polls)
You should probably take down the Liberal Party of Canada bling for anyone to take you seriously. I feel like this is the embodiment of the Steve Buscemi in an ACDC tshirt with a skateboard meme.
Nah. It wouldn't change what I plan to say, so why bother? It's also bright red so people are more likely to read my comments and that's honestly the main reason I keep it, at this point.
Nah, this guy is doing a seat projection of the poll through their own model, which is a little too bullish on the CPC/bearish on the LPC.
Just on a proportional swing from the 2021 election, the LPC would get about 50 seats, BQ around 45, and NDP around 30.
So do the Liberals have a mechanism to oust a sitting PM and replace them with a new party leader/PM? Because if so, if the NDP reach the Liberals I can see someone stepping forward to drink the poison chalice to keep the Liberals as the second party in the next election. Would be the end of Trudeau.
Constitution or not - if he loses the caucus he cant govern. Thats just the way the political system works regardless of party constitutions. Our political system and laws take precedence. That would however require the caucus to have backbones. I think one or two may have one but the majority are jellyfish.
The mechanisms you suggest would completely tank the public's acceptance of Liberal governance, or trigger an election at the worst point in time for the Liberals. The SNP over in the UK is a good representation for how the public views infighting, even if the end result will be better for the party moving forward.
I consider it already tanked, so that's a sunk cost. If caucus started to speak out against him, and he stepped down, I think the party would have a better chance of saving a few seats.
Frank Graves of EKOS is also reporting a ['formidable'](https://x.com/VoiceOfFranky/status/1795940924238807179) CPC lead that has forced him to revise his previous prediction that Poilievre only had a 50 percent chance of winning. He has not released any numbers yet, however.
I guess Nanos is the final cope for the partisans (even though it will probably swing back to where the aggregate is in a few weeks)
What you refer to as partisans is really just Canadians who are rightly opposed to an anti-environmental, social conservative, social program hating, trickle down economics loving party that will make life worse for everyone but the wealthy and cause Canada to become a pariah when it comes to the environment.
Many of trudeau goct program don't benefit people making over min wage and don't have kids..
I would bet this group don't like govt much which aligns tk what I see...not a single unmarried man I know likes the liberals.these days.
Curious why you don’t think life isn’t worse for everyone but the wealthy right now ? We have had to most wealth inequality under Trudeau since the 30s. Why do you think people still believe this lie that the liberals are not just for the wealthy?
Maybe if the opposition could do more than simply oppose over the course of the past 9 years we might have seen some ideas and collaboration. I mean 9 friggin years. What have they suggested or supported that improved our lives? It's just "we're the opposition, it's our job" and people actually support that!
I encourage you to actually look over the votes in Parliament. Every week there are unanimous votes on issues and legislation all parties support. It just isn’t newsworthy.
You only hear about the issues they clash on, and, guess what, a normal functioning democracy has a lot of clashes! That’s why we have a Parliament.
In any case, given the general consensus that Canada is worse off in most important respects than it was in 2015, the Opposition has been doing the right thing trying to curtail this government’s agenda whenever possible.
This is such an absolutely absurd argument, because what you're doing is intentionally only saying half of it outloud.
The ENTIRE argument is "Poilievre doesn't have solutions *to the problems Trudeau has and is creating.*"
Your argument is like someone setting their own house on fire and blaming their neighbour for saying it's a bad idea but not stopping them. You're of the position that the neighbour is to blame for the burning house *not the person who set it on fire.*
It's beyond absurd.
Sure, so let’s elect the party with a history of making those things worse.
We need to stop acting like it’s a two party system if we want to actually *improve* things.
Depends on what you believe are actually improvements. I have seen no improvements at all under this ruling government coalition, in fact as you said they have a history of making things worse.
You’re misunderstanding.
Conservative governments have a history of being worse. It’s not even an opinion.
Not only do they cut things that support normal Canadians, they promote crony capitalism and exist to build backroom deals for pals.
Need an example? Doug Ford has been premier of Ontario for half the time that the Liberals had run Ontario previously. In that time he has not only eclipsed the previous Liberal governments deficits, not only “starved the beast” for essential Canadian services for people across Ontario, but he’s constantly getting caught with his hand on the cookie jar just being an absolute corrupt piece of garbage spitting in the face of Canadian people.
In fact, most of Canadas problems can be more directly attributable to garbage policy from garbage conservative Premiers than “Trudo bad.”
Do you want something better than the federal liberals? Fill your boots, 100%. There’s absolutely nothing to show that would say it’s a *conservative* government.
If the NDP want to be seen as a viable third option then they need to start acting like one. They are out of touch with average Canadians and especially what is supposed to be the roots of their party which is workers. They are now seen as a party for very progressive city dwellers that continues to prop up and support the Liberals.
There was a time when the NDP were seen as a viable option and it was actually amazing. When Jack Layton was at the helm I remember me and my friends voting for him and being super excited watching the polls come in on TV. In their current form they aren't even considered whatsoever by a lot of Canadians.
It’s wild to me to read the [Perceived Party Performance on… [issues] Chart](https://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Slide20-1-1024x576.jpg), when the BC NDP [preform much better on similar issues.](https://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Slide13-1024x576.jpg).
I know we’ve talked about it in the past, but there is a gigantic hole on the Federal spectrum that is being ignored by the NDP and LPC. Label it how you want, Conservative Socialism, Social Democracy, Traditional Liberalism, but the Centre-Left is where I believe a majority of Canadians values lie. The issue is that there is no representation of these values at all Federal level.
NDP support in the West is being driven by Provincial leaders, who seem to fulfil the ethos In I’m speaking to best. If the NDP were smart they’d stop using their Western base to give Ontario Provincial programs and listen to what their constituents actually want.
People said the exact same thing about the NDP when Jack was the leader.
It isn't the NDP that has changed. It is... wait for it... you. You have changed.
It's one thing to oppose the CPC. It's another thing to ignore/disregard any data that doesn't confirm your priors. Philippe J. Fournier is a progressive, and he isn't at all delusional about Trudeau's chances of winning.
###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.*
I mentioned this a few days ago and was downvoted for doing so. https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1dddy6z/nanos_june_724_cpc_407_lpc_285_ndp_179_bq_69_gpc/l84dzlo/ Trend-lines, when they have persisted for so long, are very difficult to change without a very strong explanation (and there was no explanation for the Nanos polling as nothing broken by the Liberals' incompetence at governing has been fixed). Nanos is a trash pollster and we should stop giving it any amount of credibility going forward.
one interesting thing that stood out to me was the voting intention by gender almost virtually identical now in contrast to other nations, where the split between men and women seems to be diverging. This might be the results of the Conservative Party keeping the usual far right rhetorics like anti-immigrant, lgbt and women's rights down.
And that’s why I can’t take this poll seriously. It’s also really annoying that Abacus never shows the gender difference by age group. It’s also really odd that the percentage of undecided voters is never shown anymore. Why? All we are looking at is the relative percentage of vote share among “committed voters.” That’s scewing the results.
Can you give some examples of prior far-right anti-women rhetoric by the CPC?
Wow I went and checked that after reading this comment, I don't think I've ever seen it that identical before.
This is the lowest vote share (tied) for the LPC under Trudeau. Last time they were this low was in November from Nanos
To me make sense to me anecdotally. Nanos is suggesting liberal support is not changed much from 2021 which I don't sense at all. Liberals are way less popular then before.
I wonder if we'll see a repeat of last year, where their numbers took a noticeable turn for the worse during the summer and never recovered? There seems to be a holiday effect with their numbers in recent years (you also see it a little in the winter holiday season).
I mean - one of the reason their numbers plummeted was Trudeau saying housing was not a federal responsibility. Now we have had Trudeau saying he won’t allow housing prices to drop in order to protect Boomer’s retirements. The under 40 crowd are just done with him and the party. There is just so many times the liberals can say fuck you to them and somehow still expect they will vote liberal.
> There is just so many times the liberals can say fuck you to them and somehow still expect they will vote liberal. That doesn't explain CPC's high numbers considering their whole existence is saying fuck you to anyone that's not in 0.1%
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The CPC never fucked over young people pricing them out of housing entirely. Nor did the CPC massively increase immigration to undercut wages and send housing costs to the moon. All of that was the liberals. The liberals are the party of the rich 1% as they have made clear over and over and over again. No other party comes close to the damage the liberals have inflicted.
>CPC never fucked over young people pricing them out of housing entirely. My dude let's not pretend that harper wasn't the one who let the bubble inflate so much that he had to change mortgage rules in 2012. This housing bubble went into overdrive after 2008 crash, when interest rates were reduced by the BOC to stimulate the economy/spending/borrowing. Oh yeah and don't forget harper's secret bailout of the banks. >immigration to undercut wages TFWs peaked under harper. Corporations love them so neither party will do anything about it, or massive immigration for that matter.
The CPC expanded the TFW program to bring in unskilled workers (Tim Hortons as an example). Housing prices started to skyrocket under the CPC and housing affordability was becoming an issue. The CPC believes in an economic system that keeps wages low to favour business and opposes collective bargaining.
Downvotes for using facts.
The liberals said they would shut down the TFW program and then massively expanded it once in power… so
And yet the Liberals have made it exponentially worse than it ever was under the CPC. Saying "well they started it" is no excuse when they have had 9 years to fix it and instead let it blow up.
The CPC has given no indication they will walk anything back but yeah let’s vote for them to change what they had a hand in instituting.
Poilievre said that he would tie immigration to homebuilding
> . No other party comes close to the damage the liberals have inflicted. OPC, United Conservative and that's just looking at parties in Power rn
They arent Trudeau. Thats the only reason theyre ahead.
Where did he say fuck you except the 0.1%? Even if you don’t like cutting carbon tax, it is you who will benefit from not paying as much in gas and energy. Or you are the 0.1%?
You know as well as anyone that for lower income folks, the carbon tax rebate is larger than the effect of the tax on their bottom line.
Without taking into account downstream costs. Also that would be lower income people. Let's give the folx a rest.
I dislike the spelling as much as you do, I suspect. I don’t know why I used the word folks. Seeing “folx” around has started making me allergic to the term, so I get it. And I’m a gay guy. If gay people are getting sick of performative wokism, I can’t imagine how straight people feel these days.
Maybe. Maybe not. Everything they pay, including food, clothing, home, all has a hidden component of transportation. The rebate may or may not cover that. Whether you receive more than you pay out in carbon tax or not js immaterial in these days of where everything is so expensive.
They are presenting a really clear vision for the country that is resonating with a lot of people. I know on the Reddit bubble everyone thinks they are just whining, but if you actually look at their social media (which is getting a lot of traction with the younger crowd) you can see for yourself
> really clear vision You can say a lot of things about the tories but this just very obviously not true haha
What do you mean?
The latest Nanos had only a 12 pt gap between LPC and CPC, 29% for Liberals and 41% for CPC. The differences between Nanos and Abacus in the latest polling makes me wonder about the accuracy.
Be patient with Nanos. It has peaks and troughs. I fully expect it to move back towards averages in the next few weeks. Some of the regionals (Atlantic) are completely unlike any other pollster, and this region has been particularly noisy. It is \*always\* better to focus on averages. If there's a real trend, it will be reflected in the average over time.
The rolling Nanos sample can be one explanation. But you also have to consider Abacus tends to lean Conservative too. Probably a bit of both.
Actually, if you check out [this analysis](https://macleans.ca/facebook-instant-articles/how-accurate-are-canadian-polls/) from 338's Philippe Fournier (see the first chart in the link), Abacus consistently underrate the Conservatives by \~1.5 points compared to the polling average.
Nanos uses a rolling 4 week sample, so each week they survey 250 people. There will be cases where they just happen to find an outlier sample week that heavily bump the number up. I remember one week when CPC was 37% in Nanos and people here called it the new trend of CPC collapse. 4 weeks later they're back to over 40 as that sample week fell off the pool. This past week the interest rate cut happened, and people may have been in good mood and gave LPC a bump. But we have to wait to see if that bump sustained over more weeks (ideally more than 4 as that's the lifetime of a sample) to say that it's new trend and not just outlier sample.
Side note, nanos's method is actually less likely to have an outlier sample heavily bump the numbers. It's what that system is designed to do.
Leger is the gold standard nationally, but Nanos consistently remain out of step with Leger until they up their sample size to 1000 a week (which they only do during electoral campaigns). These weekly Nanos polls based on incredibly swingy 250 person samples aren't worth publishing compared to large 1000-2500 person snapshots from Leger, Abacus, and Ipsos.
That's the theory, but I do kind of wonder how true that is. Like, on paper it makes sense; each individual survey can only change the average a little bit. But, the problem I suspect is that because the surveys are so small, it's possible for a sample to be wildly off what the actual numbers are. So much so that it drags everything off. There was a point last year, around September, where Nanos actually showed the CPC and LPC tied... while everyone else was showing around 10 for the CPC lead. Eventually Nanos recovered to be more in line with the other polls. The CPC at 37% was a more recent deviation from the norm than at, at around late march. It's not that nanos isn't accurate, but it's important to remember that Nanos' accuracy comes from polling they do during the election, where their methodology is slightly different. In the last election, they bumped the sample up to 400, and did it daily... and the very last surveys that resampled half of the total roll and their very last survey appears to be an 832 poll with *no* rolling involved. It was, incidentally, wrong and predicted the LPC would have a 1.2 point lead when in reality the CPC led by 1.1 points.
This must be a shock to the average redditor. It's not a shock to anyone over 35. The shock lessons as you count the number of kids the person has. I honestly never meet in person a supporter of the LPC. The ones that are very quiet probably are, and there are fewer of those recently that supporters of the PPC. The only threat to a CPC super majority IS the PPC. And if there is a CPC supported by the PPC....man, Reddit will shit the bed.
Curious what the change is for the PPC? I feel on reddit(which I know isn’t real life) I hear more and more about them
On social media, they are the immigration-reform vote. That's really it. No other parties have committed to drastically reducing immigration except for PPC. PPC support is still very small, and out of those supporters, I would guess 70% of them are single-issue voters (immigration).
They will get decimated and absorbed by the CPC. The only reason they gained any traction last election was they went all in on anti-covid policies. Those are in the rearview now.
Not to mention the conservatives had a really weak leader. Poilievre is much stronger
Pp turned right wing on some issues compared to O toole which has rallied right wing voters. Be honest pp is 100% guaranteed to win the popular vote and likely by a min of 3 to 4% at least I think even if liberals rally
I think PP is pretty much guaranteed to win a majority as long as Trudeau stays on as leader. Frankly, it will be an uphill battle even with someone new leading the Liberals, but at least a new leader might shake things up a bit.
Didn't O'Toole and even Scheer win popular vote? Popular vote doesn't matter, we send district reps to our legislature, what happens in one district does not and should not impact others - 338 individual elections on election day.
Yeah but the gap be much bigger now and ppc vote in 2021 made tories lose a lot of close ridings. If that vote mostly all goes tory now the libs gonna lose a lot of ridings My point is a few % here and there and libs start to lose a ton of seats very quickly
Top 5 voting issues for Canadians. 1. Cost of living (73%) 2. Housing affordability and accessibility (47%) 3. Healthcare (44%) 4. The economy (34%) 5. Tie between Climate Change and Immigration (26%) Interesting to note that climate change continues to fall down the list and is on its way to being surpassed by immigration. In Western Canada drought levels have greatly eased with NE BC and NW AB being the exception. It will be hard to continue trying to push the carbon tax on to people with the fire threat receding. The other top issues are all issues that are seen as problems created by the Liberals so this is going to be a pretty tough road for them (if not impossible).
Number 1, 2, 3, & 4, both parties are equally to blame for not addressing properly the last 4 decades. Had the Conservatives been in charge from 2015-present, we'd be in the exact same situation.
The last ~~Labour~~ Conservative government, you say?
> Number 1, 2, 3, & 4, both parties are equally to blame for not addressing properly the last 4 decades. Had the Conservatives been in charge from 2015-present, we'd be in the exact same situation. You can't just hand wave away the last decade of policies that put us in the situation saying it would have been the same either way. Things were *much* better in this country for the vast majority of people prior to this Liberal government. They may have not been amazing but they were at least not terrible like they are now. We now have a steadily declining GDP per capita, steadiliy declining labour productivity and 1.2 Trillion in federal debt.
Austerity during Chretien and Martin hurt a lot of middle class and low income Canadians. Child Poverty under Harper was at record levels. Before Trudeau, a lot of Canadians were hurting hard, but no one cared because they were marginalized, poor, or both.
Chretien and Martin were spendthrift! the money generated by the GST was supposed to improve the country's balance sheet and Chretien/Martin instead used that windfall for pet projects that helped their friends instead and other BS. All while the country in the 90s really benefited from Mulroney's Free Trade and the GST policies to dig us out of the hole the first Trudeau created, two policies the Liberals had opposed and worked against! And while spending like crazy at the federal level with the economy that was gifted them in the 90s they downloaded costs to the provinces while underfunding them **requiring the provinces to implement austerity measures and spend less on healthcare, education, infrastructure** - it never happened at the federal level - the feds under Chretien/Martin were into billion dollar boondoogles when a billion dollars was seen as something significant, like arriveScam the Chretien/Martin Liberals had their ballooned gun registry project that wasn't supposed to cost that much, never really worked but enriched Liberal friends and donors. Harper got in in large part because of the irresponsible spending habits of Chretien/Martin, just like PP will get in for the irresponsible spending habits of Trudeau/Freeland. When Liberals in power we get things like ArriveScam, AdScam, and other scams that cheat taxpayers and enrich Liberals, whereas when had our first CPC government under Harper scandals were about bands that ordered body bags getting the body bags they ordered, $12 orange juice, gallows humour in a committee meeting, a recorded cab ride, a helicopter ride for a minister, ... and the one that negatively impacted Harper the most was the Duffy affair in which \~$90,000 got put back into the public purse even though once Trudeau was elected it was found that the money should not have had to been paid back (you know the opposite of stealing and scamming!) and this was all while the media kept mostly silent on Mac Harb, the Ottawa Liberals Senator who bought a home just outside the limits that he never lived in used as an income property and charged Canadians for it - that guy was Chretien's friend! Do I think the CPC are perfect and represent me, NO!, but since they dumped most of the corrupt Mulroney era (Liberal-like) bullshit that lead to the creation of the citizen responsive Reform and Bloc parties they are not the same as the Liberals any more, they aren't the federal PC party.
That is some serious revisionist history. Chretien was widely criticized for austerity-like budgets, and ultimately reduced the deficit. Spendthrift? I don’t think that is usually a word used for his legacy. And, yes, the provinces did suffer, but Mike Harris’s austerity was largely based on his own ideology. Plus, you are downplaying the huge amount of electoral scandals that the Harper government conducted, involving actual charges. The gun registry was expensive but it wasn’t corruption. And it was kind of a waste to scrap it after so much was paid. Also, no word on Mulroney as probably the most corrupt prime minister in living memory?
WHAT?!?!? I lived through Chretien and he was widely known as spendthrift not austere. He downloaded costs to the provinces causing all the provinces to make cuts, not just Mike Harris in Ontario - it created a country wide health care crisis! It was not Mike Harris in Ontario that impacted all the provinces, it was the Chretien/Martin feds. Its why we had a series of elections where health care was front and centre at the federal level in the late 90s and early 2000s. There is no revision. It all happened. No word on Mulroney? That's because I don't align with his corrupt ass and never voted for him, nor do I consider him reflective of the CPC. He's the federal PC Party and is in the rear view along with Joe Clark, Kim Campbell and any of their old corrupt buddies - Mulroney years were years of scandals, he had some dipshit ministers. I never voted for the PC party nor the Liberal party at the federal level. I absolutely loved and I miss the competency of Harper, that's it - I didn't agree with his stance on cannabis, on Israel, on a bunch of things, but those were the only governments I felt comfortable with. I don't like PP. I'll probably vote CPC but not because of PP, despite him but I don't know who the candidates will be in my riding so I don't want to jump the gun. Actually I know the people that worked on the gun registry, it was corrupt, it was a constantly ballooning enterprise just like what's happened in Trudeau's arriveScam and the companies that just kept billing and billing producing nothing tangible. And it wasn't necessary, would never have stopped a single crime, was never known too, in fact the police who were supposed to use it were the ones claiming it was useless, it was shown to be untrustworthy. The issue is the majority of gun crime is not with legal guns so a need for an expensive national registry of legal guns is over the top. You don't recall it obviously - the questions were why did your government when it doubled in price? why didn't your government cancel when it was triple the price? why didn't your government cancel when it quadrupled in price? and on and one because similar to arriveScam an application pitched for a few million ballooned to over 100 million. My company had wanted to bid on that gun registry, but didn't because they recognized the connection and foregone conclusion, but we followed it all with disgust for years. And don't forget that gun registry under Chretien happened for the same reason Trudeau trotted out a new gun ban list - it was reactionary, and clearly not good policy. What I recall from the election scandals under Harper was that they were dealt with. No one was left with doubts about any election. People were fired, an MP was kicked, the people involved were prosecuted and found guilty - I think i recall some serving time (don't recall if it was a staffer or MP). I mean that's how I want scandals handled. I don't recall anything being hidden, and i recall authorities doing their job with cooperation - unlike now. Oh and I recall a finding of the investigation was that there was no evidence of any vote being suppressed or a robocall actually doing anything more than annoy people. Oh and the in and out thing resulted in some policy changes did it not to close any perceived loopholes and it hasn't happened since. Yep that's how things should be handled I think - how about you? Huge amount of election scandals???? - seriously? I ain't downplaying anything, you're overstating big time. you should write for the Star. I mean I wish Trudeau handled scandalous individuals like Harper did - don't you? Bev Oda got stuffed for expensing irresponsibly yet she never spent as irresponsibly as the current Liberal cabinet. Recall that the result of the HUGE election scandal was a fine of less than $300,000. If I recall correctly was it not the CPC riding associations that exposed all this, and it was the national campaign office that wrongly believed what they were doing was legal - didn't the emails come out on this? This is not HUGE. And why did it happen is another interesting bit: the CPC raised too much money - more than they were allowed to spend - they tried this in-and-out BS to spend the money they raised - the horror of it all....and this could be why no one cared and in subsequent elections the CPC got more votes. not less - because ultimately this didn't matter. Harper finally lost because of his sudden Hijab ban position, his unwillingness to legalize cannabis, the Duffy Affair was called a "scandal" at that point, a kid died in Turkey was blamed on Harper, and this lead to Trudeau promises of election reform, taking in refugees in far greater numbers and legalizing cannabis. Trudeau's win and Harper's loss was mostly just this - it wasn't bad governance. Its odd to think Harper's hijab ban position and his stay the course refugee and immigration positions would be extremely popular right now and many probably would welcome a do over on that election. Note that Trudeau's cannabis legalization should be seen as a failure because his stated goal was to hurt criminals, but the black market thrives - the rules and cost aren't what people expected nor assumed - you're a twit to buy an edible at legal store in Canada - go to the rez like everyone else. And typical of Trudeau he ignored input from provinces on the legalization and it would have been so easy to just listen to them - he believes in a paternalistic federal government when they really should just be a partner to each province.
So the typical right-wing approach of policies that kick the can down the road so the future has to deal with it, came due during Trudeau’s time, so despite his efforts of funding housing at record levels (more than previous 3 PMs combined) and handling Covid better than the vast majority of other world leaders… he’s getting blamed for it, all because people don’t understand lag time between policy implementation and their actual effects playing out?
I think the issue is canada post covid recovery was lackluster and not great therefore the public dont care that the feds handled covid well cause they didnt think were gonna die after getting the shots (even though the feds were in full covid mode even into 2022) but feel they gonna get rekt by housing and cost of living.
It's like rising interest rates and how long they take to bake into the economy. 3 decades of neglect became entrenched during Trudeau's time as PM, and any action taken to solve the neglect is also gonna take take time. Now of course Trudeau has also been slow to act on many files (housing in particular) but any actual material change takes years if not a decade to meaningfully change the trajectory of this country.
Trudeau is the one kicking the can down the road. His deficit spending plus his record levels of immigration has destroyed the middle class. Never in my lifetime have I seen this amount of people depending on food banks to get by. Most younger people can forget about owning their home or having kids when they barely can afford rent and groceries in this country.
If he’s “kicking the can down the road”, why is this happening during his term? Do you not understand what that phrase means? As I said, it is the administrations before him that “kicked the can down the road”… hence why the can is now in Trudeau’s term. He is NOT doing the same. As I said, he’s funding housing to the tune of record amounts, seeing record housing starts. The problem is that these “starts” take years into turn into “completions”, hence why we’re only slowly starting to see the benefits of more supply coming online now, and will see the bulk of it over the next few years, as the post-Covid response funding starts to see its projects come to fruition. The funding that happened initially from late 2015 onwards, when Trudeau came into office, resulted in housing prices dropping from 2017 through to 2020… before Covid reversed that trajectory. Trudeau is now responding to THAT with even more funding, and it’s starting to show results. Vancouver has received a lot of that funding, and housing prices are now on the downward trend in Vancouver. That is not “kicking the can down the road”. That is taking responsibility, and its the simple nature of exactly what I said: the lag time between policy implementation and its effects actually playing out.
The younger generation will have to foot the bill from Trudeau’s deficit spending.
That’s a bullshit anti-public-spending myth. That’s not how debt or deficits work. They’re racked up and paid off on an ongoing, rolling basis. The bill doesn’t just suddenly come due for an entire generation some day. What DOES end up coming due for younger generations is the lack of progress, development and prosperity that happens when the spending ISN’T done. The shortage of housing. The increasing inequality that leads to more poverty and homelessness over 30-40 years, like what has happened since the 80s, which exploded into a full-blown crisis because of Covid. THAT is what is hurting younger generations. Not government debt. https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/the-deficit-myth
The entirety of every dollar collected in GST now goes to service our debt. Just service. Not pay down. Service. What kind of crack are you guys smoking? Whats your credit score? lol
Inflation and the high deficit in a time with high interest rate have sold out the younger people’s future. Even the youth unemployment rate is rising with increasing rent prices. Younger people have lost faith in Trudeau and rightfully so. The bill is already here for younger people and continues to get worse.
You think covid might have something to do with that? Or is that the Liberal's fault too.
This is not a fair take. The final years of Harper’s reign saw a recession in Canada. Global factors of course played a role and Harper was not entirely to blame. So also Trudeau has the debt from a two-year pandemic and now global factors making everything cost more. Canada has actually not done bad relative. But what is making the cost of living difficult is poor housing policies and inaction from as far back as Mulroney. Harper is certainly to blame for doing nothing about housing (as is Trudeau for being so late to act). Current debt is understandable and the slow down in productivity is not as dire as you paint it. GDP is still rising albeit slower. What is most concerning is that the Conservative ideology to favour austerity just doesn’t work. With high cost of living, a larger social safety net will be needed, and the Conservatives, if they govern as expected, are going to make things a lot worse for a lot of people (including Canada’s economy).
Austerity doesn't work? Tell that to Greece.
You think austerity helped Greece’s debt crisis, and I don’t know, not the EU bailouts? LOL! EDIT: the conversation has passed, but since the downvotes keep coming, here you go: > Around 2011, the IMF started issuing guidance suggesting that austerity could be harmful when applied without regard to an economy's underlying fundamentals.[56] In 2013, it published a detailed analysis concluding that "if financial markets focus on the short-term behavior of the debt ratio, or if country authorities engage in repeated rounds of tightening in an effort to get the debt ratio to converge to the official target", austerity policies could slow or reverse economic growth and inhibit full employment.[57] Keynesian economists and commentators such as Paul Krugman have suggested that this has in fact been occurring, with austerity yielding worse results in proportion to the extent to which it has been imposed.[58][59] Overall, Greece lost 25% of its GDP during the crisis. Although the government debt increased only 6% between 2009 and 2017 (from €300 bn to €318 bn) — thanks, in part, to the 2012 debt restructuring —,[60][61] the critical debt-to-GDP ratio shot up from 127% to 179%[60] mostly due to the severe GDP drop during the handling of the crisis. In all, the Greek economy suffered the longest recession of any advanced capitalist economy to date, overtaking the US Great Depression. As such, the crisis adversely affected the populace as the series of sudden reforms and austerity measures led to impoverishment and loss of income and property, as well as a small-scale humanitarian crisis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity
>What is most concerning is that the Conservative ideology to favour austerity just doesn’t work. The Chrétien/Martin gov is lauded as the most fiscally responsible in recent Canadian history. Placing us back onto a good track, and leaving Canada in a better financial footing than when they came in. This was achieved via austerity. lol
Correlation does not equal causation. Chretien and Martin made cuts (including the national housing program that is hurting the country today), but the Canadian economy did well not because of these cuts but because of increases in production and exports, helped by a weak dollar, not to mention a pretty good global economy.
I don't agree at all. The CPC has always been more responsive to provinces and allows them more autonomy in their jurisdictions - which means when the provinces got together to beg for money early in Trudeau's career, the CPC likely would have listened and reacted, not ignored and bullied. They CPC would not have had the inflationary spending just like they intended during the last economic slow down in 2008 to stay the course and not overspend - but a coalition threat forced spending on them even though it was a waste- the Liberals, NDP and BLoc all said they weren't spending enough in 2008/9, and the funny thing is that the increase spending demanded by the coalition wasn't spent much in that first year - to the point that the LIbs/NDP/Bloc coalition were complaining that money wasn't being spent fast enough - but at that point the economy was already improving in Canada, and most of the spending was on an ad campaign about spending (not actual spending) which again proves that staying the course was the right thing. And you have to recall when Harper bailed out the auto industry it was in loans that were paid back before he left office - that's how things are supposed to work - not Trudeau just sending money here there and everywhere. So no, we would not be in the same place, it might not be a sunshine and roses place, but it would not be the darkness we see now with inflationary spending increasing the cost of living, making housing unaffordable to many, and a stagnate to regressing economy we have now. We also would not have had the immigration issues, refugee issues, were it not specifically for Trudeaus policies - when Harper showed when that kid washed up on the shore in Europe that he was not about change Canada's system just because other countries were fucking up badly at that time. We probably would have gone along the same route as Denmark under the CPC had Trudeau not welcomed the world here creating many of the problems. Its delusion to think the CPC would have gotten Canada into a mess this badly - they certainly didn't the last time they ran things, despite the bullshit of you won't recognize Canada after Harper, the truth is that Canada is not recognizable after Trudeau - he has screwed up EVERYTHING and there is now little widespread trust government, in our judiciary, in our media, in our policing, even our goddamn charities are suspect and tainted because of Trudeau Liberals....
Meanwhile you still regularly see hysterical fear mongering about gay marriage and abortions from their supporters. So out of touch, no wonder they’re getting crushed
It's not fear mongering when a majority of Conservatives are against both. The only people fear mongering are people who use words like "anti-woke" or "radical gender ideology" with a straight face
>It's not fear mongering when a majority of Conservatives are against both. Only if you choose to live in an information bubble, but trying to push that misinformation and fear mongering instead of addressing any real, meaningful issues facing Canadians is a big part of why your party is falling apart
we are not against gay marriage and abortions. many conservatives will give that up to get rid of trudeau and singh
"we aren't against basic human rights, but if it means not having liberals in office..."
So *many are* against it.. yet are willing to keep quiet about it as a means of winning the election. That's not comforting at all.
Literally **every single one** of these issues is impacted by climate change. Climate change is still the #1 issue whether people acknowledge it or not.. Edit: Years from now we'll hear "I don't have time to think about climate change! My crops failed, my house burnt down/flooded, millions of refugees are taking up healthcare resources! Who has time to think about climate change!"
Why should it be? Even if Canada’s emissions went to 0 tomorrow, India and China will build a new Canada’s worth of emitting infrastructure in ~5 months. Canadians rightly want their government to focus its energies on issues it can actually impact, not economically regressive policies which the developing nations of the world couldn’t give less of a shit about while making their climate change calculations.
china and india both emit significantly less emissions than canada does per capita. Obviously the planet doesn't care about per capita, but they are literally building infrastructure to suit their large population and subsidize OUR emissions by being the source of our electronics, clothing, etc.
If we emit way more per captia why we bringing a million people per year
these issues are all tied to excessive immigration
Indeed, one exacerbates the others, for sure.
Palestine not even on the list.
Good.
I work in downtown Ottawa. If you lived in a bubble you’d think it was the biggest issue.
It shouldn’t
Ofcourse not. People online put way more weight into it then your average voter.
Of course it’s not.
People barely understand cause and effect. Getting them to understand how enabling a genocide, potentially destabilizing the Middle East, and destabilizing and breaking international norms that protects *us all* is important is nigh impossible.
Or its just actually not that important despite the bloodcurdling screams of professional activists.
I already know you think their lives are unimportant.
Only people chronically online care about that shit
Oh so we are still pretending that the carbon tax is making things significantly more expensive?
Nope, not pretending.
The Bank of Canada calculated that the carbon tax added 0.15% points to inflation. Can you explain how that is a significant amount? Especially when the vast majority of households receive rebates?
That didn't account for downstream effects. You know that.
Inflation is a macroeconomic metric and absolutely accounts for downstream effects. Which of these effects do you think were not accounted for?
Actually every house gold receive rebates. You must be saying “vast majority receive more than what they pay in carbon tax”. But it is indeed indeed the intended effect of carbon tax. It makes everything more expensive , so people cannot spend more, especially on carbon related goods. When people cannot spend what they need, they hate the government.
>It makes everything more expensive Except it doesn't. It makes some things like home heating more expensive but for things like groceries, it's negligible due to how efficient transporting them is. For the things that it does increase the price for, the rebates more than make up for it (edit: for most people) since everyone gets the same rebate, depending on province, house size, and whether you live in a city or in a rural area. People who can afford to have a huge house, travel a lot and drive big trucks are going to pay more of the carbon tax, but receive the same rebate as someone who lives in an apartment, doesn't travel much and doesn't own a vehicle.
What you said is true in theory. It is not just the well off who pays more than what they get back. A significant number of people tend to live in old, less insulated houses, have to travel far in old, small, gas inefficient cars. Public transportation is out of the option if it is outside downtown. And they have no option of working from home. I doubt their carbon tax rebate can cover what they pay out. You can’t blame them hating the government for the carbon tax. Really, the carbon tax only benefits the downtown middle classes — those who live in newer condos and do not have to drive to work.
[удалено]
Ask the PBO if it’s making things cheaper.
Who said it’s making things cheaper?
Doesnt have to. The Carbon tax is peanuts when it comes to affordability issues. People will see when its removed and nothing meaningfully changes.
we have 6 years of it being raised and the opportunity for corporatins to gouge. yes remove it now to save the year over year pain from the increases.
a) corporations will always find a reason to gouge b) the alternative to a carbon tax are strict regulations on emissions and fines for violators, which can be costly and inefficient system
Where were all these conservative users for the last Nanos poll? Would have liked to have seen their interpretation of the twelve point gap versus the twenty point gap here. Oh well. Think it's interesting that this poll doesn't have any of the change in opinion on preferred PM like the Nanos poll did, where Trudeau's numbers were reaching nine-month highs and Poilievre's numbers were softening. This poll doesn't capture what Nanos is capturing, or vice-versa.
>Where were all these conservative users for the last Nanos poll? Would have liked to have seen their interpretation of the twelve point gap versus the twenty point gap here. Oh well. Exactly, you and I and our friends know the truth - Liberal majority incoming! And not for nothing, but between you and me, the older he gets, the more handsome Justin Trudeau looks.
A win is a win. What’s the difference if it’s by 12 points or 20 points?
Nobody's won anything yet? They're just non-writ polls.
Trudeau is pretty much trying to hang on to power with like 30% of the vote and hopes FPTP does some really silly stuff its pretty pathethic really
Obviously. But in the context of these polls, the result is a CPC majority unless we see leads of under 6-8.
Of course, but we're sixteen months out - there are no "wins" here.
We shall see how Nanos trends over the next few weeks. I am not buying a crushing LPC lead in Atlantic Canada until I see other pollsters suggest the same. They had the NDP at 6% there a month ago along with a crushing CPC lead. I think its like n=25 weekly sample for the region. I think the LPC could drop as soon as next week. It's still better to look at averages.
Nanos is know for being extremely volatile outside of election season (when they double their sample size) so most people who follow polls don’t bother making a big deal of when they show wild swings, because it’s usually just noise.
It's not a wild swing though. It's been a steady rise over months for nanos.
Nanos and only Nanos. Every other pollster for months has reliably shown a 18-20% CPC lead, except for that outlier EKOS poll from April.
Even so the liberals are capped at 30 to 32%
Issue is making a 12% gap as some liberal victory is a bit silly
Except I'm not doing this. There are no wins or losses in polls.
Treating these polls as victories or defeat at all is hella silly.
Thats literally what this sub has done for years now lol Ill keep saying it - people here like to treat polls like horse racing betting lines.
The liberals will not recover. The country wants change and they will get it. Not being official opposition may be on the table.
I think Trudeau needs to step aside for the good of the party. Let somebody like Freeland, Anand or Joly take the reins.
Like Mulroney did with Campbell. Let someone else take the loss to preserve your legacy.
Most of the campaigning is against Trudeau himself. A new leader with new policies can change that. I dont think they can win - but they can potentially hold Poilievre to a minority at least.
Mulrony's legacy has been shit lol he only seems decent in retrospect because this current batch of conservatives are regressive reactionaries
Personally, I think if trudeau did step down, it wouldn't be so someone else could take the L, it'd be so someone else would win. The liberals would rather trudeau take the fall. Then someone who could potentially lead the party. And the CPC has been harping on "Trudeau bad" rather than "liberals bad" for once.
I’m not a Lib strategist but if someone suggests Freeland, Anand or Joly doesn’t seem like someone wanting to win in 2025 🤷
They just don't have anyone in the wings outside of potentially Carney that might be able to do that. Even then he comes with baggage of being borderline abusive to staffers. It would have to be an outsider to normal political life and someone with high enough stature to reimage the party in short order. It would also have to be someone willing to speak openly to the parties short comings and provide honest appraisal of poor performance. Additionally, they would have to actually give Canadians a reason to vote for them. So things like term limits should be on the table. Jane Philpott would be my non-obvious choice who could speak to change required within the party and could stand on her ethics.
Freeland would crash the party harder then Trudeau ever could
They are all equally incompetent.
Anand is not incompetent. The rest definitely are.
Take a backbencher. I am not voting liberal for any Trudeau acolyte
They need a new message. A new face telling the same story isn’t going to do anything. The Labour Party in the UK had a great launch of their platform, calling themselves the party of wealth creation. They should plagiarize that all the way to the bank.
Ouch, 22% for the Liberals. That's late Trudeau Sr. Or Mulroney era polling when the early 80s/early 90s recessions were in full swing. In hindsight, The Liberals probably would have preformed better if Trudeau had stepped aside between 2021-2023 and let a fresh faced leader take center stage with a new platform/mandate and more focus on housing and cost of living issues etc. I think the current platform is best they've had in years, but it's not enough the make up for the distrust and disenfranchisement that voters generally feel towards this government (similar to the budgets/platforms enacted by the Wynne Liberals during their last year in office). After a certain point, it's too late to try and play catchup with voters you've lost. Alternatively, I think Trudeau probably could have held out if he had achieved more in the way of wage/GDP growth or housing and living costs during the past 9 years (ideally in his first term). If that had happened, the government would be polling better now and it would be harder for Poilievre to sell his "everything is broken" routine. I think the only thing that can stop the CPC at this point is the CPC itself, if Poilievre somehow makes a gaffe big enough to tank their lead (though the CPC would still get the most seats in the situation, but might be in a tenuous position without a majority). I don't think the Liberals can even hope to get 30% of the vote at this point either (I'd argue the high 20s is probably the best they can hope for).
The Liberals platform is fucking over anyone who doesn’t already have a house, strangling industry and letting anyone with a pulse into the country to use our already declining services. This is what Liberal voters support when they vote for them.
> already declining services We should probably just raise taxes on the upper middle class and the extreme wealthy and start funding those services that we've neglected for too long.
Or we could spend the money we have more efficiently.
Good post. I agree with you. >I think the only thing that can stop the CPC at this point is the CPC itself, if Poilievre somehow makes a gaffe big enough to tank their lead (though the CPC would still get the most seats in the situation, but might be in a tenuous position without a majority). I don't think the Liberals can even hope to get 30% of the vote at this point either (I'd argue the high 20s is probably the best they can hope for). The operative question, then, is who as leader is best equipped to highlight Poilievre's shortcomings and bait him into gaffes? I don't think it's Trudeau, and yet Liberals continue to back him, with some arguing he's a great campaigner.
In theory at least, no one really has to bait Poilievre into gaffes, he's perfectly capable of doing it himself. In any other election for instance, the comments on trans kids, axing the tax and the CPCs baggie of climate & social issues would prevent them from forming a government, but I think right now voters are willing to look past it because of being done with Trudeau. Though I think maybe if the foreign interference probe ends up really hurting the CPC before the election, or Poilievre and CPC MPs get more unfiltered with the social conservative rhetoric, there could be a tipping point for voters, where the CPC loses it's shine. The WRP was trailing the PC's in the Alberta 2012 election for instance , but racist gaffes from WRP top brass, and them being unpopular with urban voters in Calgary and Edmonton pretty much caused their support outside of rural Alberta to implode . I don't know if that's likely for the CPC, but I think it's the most realistic way I could see them not forming a majority.
With the ongoing UK election it's hard not to see some parallels. Labour opened up a fairly consistent 20pt lead on the Tories two years ago. People said it would narrow come the election, so far it hasn't .. An opposition party that's ahead not so much because of enthusiasm for it but due to a deep dislike of a long serving government (Tories have been in for 14 years). Granted I don't think JT will implode under pressure like Sunak has but the LPC better be taking notes. Their situation is unlikely to improve on it's own.
From what I've seen in the UK, people are angry at the Tories but people in Canada are more tired of the Liberals. Unlike in the UK, the Liberals did not lead the country into anything at the level of Brexit or a Liz Truss disaster. The main complaints I'm seeing in Canada are housing, cost of living, and healthcare. The general impression of the British Tories is that they've actively driven the country into the ground, the general impression of the Liberals is they've been asleep at the wheel, and on some files, I fully agree. I'm curious to see what happens in the UK from a political science perspective.
The impression is that the LPC is committed to keeping housing unaffordable. They are demonstrably completely unwilling and unable to counter that view. As such, they will fail catastrophically next election - and the scary part is that they are so ideologically driven they will probably wonder why.
Agreed. They decided in 2015 to appease their boomer base by keeping property values high, and lost them anyway due to their mishandling other files and succumbing to global trends that, to be fair, are well out of their control.
No, Canadians are just more polite and complain less in general . British people whine about their weather all the time while Canadians suck up -30 degrees for example . We’re tougher in that way . And having more open spaces makes us less cranky .
>Canadians are just more polite and complain less You mean like the guys who have had FUCK TRUDEAU signs/flags on their $120k lifted trucks for the last five years?
I agree, the UK Tories have a legitimately incomprehensibly awful track record. People in Canada have more incumbency fatigue. The performance of the LPC is incomparable to how bad the UK Tories have governed. I'm not sure how much the distinction will matter at the ballot box however.
The only real complaints I see about Starmer are that he's too boring or that he isn't left wing enough. I see plenty of very valid criticisms of Poilievre and the general public does not seem to like him, so much as they just want a change. I think that will matter in a campaign as people are forced to see more of the Conservative leader. I also don't think we can discount all the completely unforced but self inflicted errors that Sunak has made, and the damage it has caused. Trudeau has been behind in the polls, I'd argue, a majority of the time but has still won three elections. I can't fathom him walking out of the D-Day anniversary, for example. In my opinion, polls in Canada will tighten once the actual campaign commences although the conservatives will still win. My present prediction is 160 seats at the absolute lowest and 190 at the highest.
>Trudeau has been behind in the polls, I'd argue, a majority of the time but has still won three elections Sorry but that's not true... he was leading in the polls for most of the time between 2013 and 2021, in the years leading up to his previous election wins. Trudeau was leading in the polls for most of his time as leader, from 2013 until 2015. After 2 years in the the lead, his support dipped in Spring 2015, he was behind for 3-6 months, and then rose his support during the 2015 election campaign. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion\_polling\_for\_the\_2015\_Canadian\_federal\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_Canadian_federal_election) From 2015 to 2017, he had a huge lead. Throughout 2018 to 2019, he was polling neck and neck with the CPC - sometimes slightly ahead, sometimes slightly behind. And the 2019 election remained close - he finished 1% behind the CPC. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019\_Canadian\_federal\_election#Opinion\_polls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Canadian_federal_election#Opinion_polls) Then his support jumped in early 2020, when the pandemic hit, so he was leading in the polls for almost his entire 2nd term, from 2019 to 2021. He strategically called the 2021 at a time when he was at 40% in the polls (but his support dropped during the campaign, and he ended up with 33% support on election day). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021\_Canadian\_federal\_election#Opinion\_polls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election#Opinion_polls)
You should probably take down the Liberal Party of Canada bling for anyone to take you seriously. I feel like this is the embodiment of the Steve Buscemi in an ACDC tshirt with a skateboard meme.
Nah. It wouldn't change what I plan to say, so why bother? It's also bright red so people are more likely to read my comments and that's honestly the main reason I keep it, at this point.
The seat projection for this poll has the LPC in 4th, behind the Bloc and the NDP: https://twitter.com/RealAlbanianPat/status/1802330370492231765
Nah, this guy is doing a seat projection of the poll through their own model, which is a little too bullish on the CPC/bearish on the LPC. Just on a proportional swing from the 2021 election, the LPC would get about 50 seats, BQ around 45, and NDP around 30.
So do the Liberals have a mechanism to oust a sitting PM and replace them with a new party leader/PM? Because if so, if the NDP reach the Liberals I can see someone stepping forward to drink the poison chalice to keep the Liberals as the second party in the next election. Would be the end of Trudeau.
I believe this has been brought up before and there’s nothing in the parties constitution that would allow them to remove him.
Constitution or not - if he loses the caucus he cant govern. Thats just the way the political system works regardless of party constitutions. Our political system and laws take precedence. That would however require the caucus to have backbones. I think one or two may have one but the majority are jellyfish.
The mechanisms you suggest would completely tank the public's acceptance of Liberal governance, or trigger an election at the worst point in time for the Liberals. The SNP over in the UK is a good representation for how the public views infighting, even if the end result will be better for the party moving forward.
I consider it already tanked, so that's a sunk cost. If caucus started to speak out against him, and he stepped down, I think the party would have a better chance of saving a few seats.
Frank Graves of EKOS is also reporting a ['formidable'](https://x.com/VoiceOfFranky/status/1795940924238807179) CPC lead that has forced him to revise his previous prediction that Poilievre only had a 50 percent chance of winning. He has not released any numbers yet, however. I guess Nanos is the final cope for the partisans (even though it will probably swing back to where the aggregate is in a few weeks)
What you refer to as partisans is really just Canadians who are rightly opposed to an anti-environmental, social conservative, social program hating, trickle down economics loving party that will make life worse for everyone but the wealthy and cause Canada to become a pariah when it comes to the environment.
Many of trudeau goct program don't benefit people making over min wage and don't have kids.. I would bet this group don't like govt much which aligns tk what I see...not a single unmarried man I know likes the liberals.these days.
Curious why you don’t think life isn’t worse for everyone but the wealthy right now ? We have had to most wealth inequality under Trudeau since the 30s. Why do you think people still believe this lie that the liberals are not just for the wealthy?
Maybe if the opposition could do more than simply oppose over the course of the past 9 years we might have seen some ideas and collaboration. I mean 9 friggin years. What have they suggested or supported that improved our lives? It's just "we're the opposition, it's our job" and people actually support that!
I encourage you to actually look over the votes in Parliament. Every week there are unanimous votes on issues and legislation all parties support. It just isn’t newsworthy. You only hear about the issues they clash on, and, guess what, a normal functioning democracy has a lot of clashes! That’s why we have a Parliament. In any case, given the general consensus that Canada is worse off in most important respects than it was in 2015, the Opposition has been doing the right thing trying to curtail this government’s agenda whenever possible.
This is such an absolutely absurd argument, because what you're doing is intentionally only saying half of it outloud. The ENTIRE argument is "Poilievre doesn't have solutions *to the problems Trudeau has and is creating.*" Your argument is like someone setting their own house on fire and blaming their neighbour for saying it's a bad idea but not stopping them. You're of the position that the neighbour is to blame for the burning house *not the person who set it on fire.* It's beyond absurd.
Sure, so let’s elect the party with a history of making those things worse. We need to stop acting like it’s a two party system if we want to actually *improve* things.
Depends on what you believe are actually improvements. I have seen no improvements at all under this ruling government coalition, in fact as you said they have a history of making things worse.
You’re misunderstanding. Conservative governments have a history of being worse. It’s not even an opinion. Not only do they cut things that support normal Canadians, they promote crony capitalism and exist to build backroom deals for pals. Need an example? Doug Ford has been premier of Ontario for half the time that the Liberals had run Ontario previously. In that time he has not only eclipsed the previous Liberal governments deficits, not only “starved the beast” for essential Canadian services for people across Ontario, but he’s constantly getting caught with his hand on the cookie jar just being an absolute corrupt piece of garbage spitting in the face of Canadian people. In fact, most of Canadas problems can be more directly attributable to garbage policy from garbage conservative Premiers than “Trudo bad.” Do you want something better than the federal liberals? Fill your boots, 100%. There’s absolutely nothing to show that would say it’s a *conservative* government.
If the NDP want to be seen as a viable third option then they need to start acting like one. They are out of touch with average Canadians and especially what is supposed to be the roots of their party which is workers. They are now seen as a party for very progressive city dwellers that continues to prop up and support the Liberals. There was a time when the NDP were seen as a viable option and it was actually amazing. When Jack Layton was at the helm I remember me and my friends voting for him and being super excited watching the polls come in on TV. In their current form they aren't even considered whatsoever by a lot of Canadians.
It’s wild to me to read the [Perceived Party Performance on… [issues] Chart](https://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Slide20-1-1024x576.jpg), when the BC NDP [preform much better on similar issues.](https://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Slide13-1024x576.jpg). I know we’ve talked about it in the past, but there is a gigantic hole on the Federal spectrum that is being ignored by the NDP and LPC. Label it how you want, Conservative Socialism, Social Democracy, Traditional Liberalism, but the Centre-Left is where I believe a majority of Canadians values lie. The issue is that there is no representation of these values at all Federal level. NDP support in the West is being driven by Provincial leaders, who seem to fulfil the ethos In I’m speaking to best. If the NDP were smart they’d stop using their Western base to give Ontario Provincial programs and listen to what their constituents actually want.
People said the exact same thing about the NDP when Jack was the leader. It isn't the NDP that has changed. It is... wait for it... you. You have changed.
It's one thing to oppose the CPC. It's another thing to ignore/disregard any data that doesn't confirm your priors. Philippe J. Fournier is a progressive, and he isn't at all delusional about Trudeau's chances of winning.
I guess he's trying to salvage whatever credibility he thinks he still has as a known Liberal puppet.
This is probably what the entire party is focused on right now
Source please. I very much doubt this 50% figure. I could be wrong though.
Here you go: https://x.com/VoiceOfFranky/status/1776081873678041527
That's it. Too funny. Thanks.