On reflection I probably should have labeled it as “Federal Election Commences” which was the point in time I meant to mark.
Two things I saw around that point. And to clarify I was more focused on the Liberals’ significant recovery (which I saw as the action) vice the CPC modest decline (which I interpreted as the consequence).
First was that the election allowed all the other parties to get some attention. With Parliament prorogued since December the CPC etc didn’t have a platform. Also the media was fully engaged in watching the Liberal leadership race. The Liberals were still governing and getting some attention talking about Trump, but the other parties were squeezed out. The election call changed the playing field.
Second is that before an election people can say anything in a poll. But around when the election is called things get real and poll support is presumably more reflective of who they really will vote for.
My interpretation of this was that NDP and BQ support declined pre-election while Trump was being scary and they were out of the spotlight. Then dropped further when it became time to make an election decision. CPC support declined pre-election for the same reasons but started to recover during the election period.
It takes time for public sentiment to shift. What I see in the Liberal line is that the momentum they gathered starting when Trudeau announced his plan to resign carried them a couple of weeks into the election period. Someone commented in the late days that the CPC was on track to win a majority government if the election was held on 30 May. But unfortunately for them it was scheduled for 28 April.
So I agree on the Trudeau and Trump effects. My own post-election analysis (shameless plug!) has focused on Trump and people rallying behind the Liberals to protect them. I disagree with Mulcair on a lot of issues no doubt, but I find him a good commentator. However I’m not convinced he has that sort of influence.
Great article. I’m glad you found my graph informative and useful for your piece.
We'll let people look at our two interpretations of point F and decide for themselves. Some will agree with me, some with you, and some will have entirely different theories.
Love to get your perspective on Canadian politics, especially for a hockey loving south of border friend of Canada who doesn't live it day to day.
Still, I felt a need to chime in on the fact that many still don't quite get Trump. He most definitely is not a conservative, which is why it is dangerous for other country's conservative minded politicians to try and hook themselves to his chariot. He is most definitely not an ideologue. Fact is, he didn't care who won in Canada, and his foreign policy vision almost makes it easier to have Carney in office, which has so far proved to be the case. He loves a foil. And I think he counts on his opponent's reaction to him as part of his own negotiation strategy. Your assessment that he didn't care who won in Canada I think is correct.
His mannerisms give you reason to think of him as having an authoritarian streak. But that assumption is misplaced. He has fought all the battles with the court strictly via court rules. He has aggressively fought for his position - and he is almost universally winning his cases at the end, but unlike Obama and Biden, he is working within the strictures of law in the US. He does this even as a number of his supporters suggest the entire history of judicial review is unconstitutional as practiced and he should just nuke the whole thing. His supporters are generally correct in their analysis, but perhaps a bit too emotional in their desired future tactics.
In reality he is an FDR type democrat/Eisenhower type republican who cherishes US institutions and was blinded by this respect when he was first elected. He didn't realize how deep the rot was in the US government structure. And by extension, the world. He learned a fair amount in his four years of political persecution by his democrat and global political elite opponents, and it is clear they made a huge mistake in making him a target, because he has no doubt about who his enemies are - and of course he knows Carney falls into that camp.
Ergo, Canada while a historical "friend" is an enemy at the moment. Your auto industry survives at the moment now because the US car manufacturers are warning Trump of the damage to their supply chains if he goes full out on nationalized car manufacturing. Tariffs are a tax on consumers, but what we are discovering is that it is also a tax on foreign country producers. His tariff scheme is not an authoritarian impulse, it is an acknowledgement that access to the US market, which has been essentially free since the end of WWII no longer served any reason in a post-Soviet world. Tariffs are in fact an exceedingly conservative position, and the US was unique in having such open access. Every other country has a very robust tariff scheme. For those of us watching in the states, the crying from foreign countries about tariffs rings pretty hollow. Get rid of your own.
I think what Canada is currently dealing with is an awakening to how poorly the liberal faction of your country has managed the country. This will take some time to percolate itself through the electorate, and it will no doubt look uniquely Canadian. But as you noted, conservative support was strong; the left just circled the wagons a bit to try and reinforce their lines. Found a foil in Trump to help them in the election. But in doing so, they have probably focused the target for future battles. Carney won't be able to play the "us against Trump" card because Carney will get rolled on anything that truly matters because to put it bluntly, Canada is reliant on the US for many things - including access to US northern hospitals to support your very fragile public health system - and the US just wants to have a friend up north.
Will be interesting to watch it all unfold. I would expect to see further strengthening of your conservative position as the liberals continue to try and fortify their lines until the country realizes their coalition is no longer big enough to win. Not being very knowledgeable of how your political process really works, it wouldn't surprise me at some point to see the liberals washed away some time this decade, as the pressure continues to build until the liberal dam breaks.
This is quite long so I’m going to try to make my reply easier to follow by pointing to the paragraph I’m responding to:
Paragraph 1 – thanks. Glad you’re open to a perspective from outside your borders.
Paragraph 2 – I agree, he’s not a conservative. I’m not sure who the leading conservative in the US is right now. Or if there even is one. Until Trumpism has a better definition (if that’s even possible) I also agree he isn’t an ideologue.
Paragraph 3 – I’ll give you a weak maybe on this one. If we frame what he’s doing as more aggressively pushing the boundaries that all presidents do, then… I’ll upgrade it to a strong maybe. He hasn’t overtly broken the law (as president. At least as far as I can recall), but he’s making me uncomfortable at times… and I wanted him to win. I will say that the left exaggerates. I remain on the fence here.
Paragraph 4 – I’ve always thought of him as a modern-day Jackson. The only way he’s like FDR is that he’s a statist. As is Carney. All three think the government should play a bigger role in our lives and I do not like that.
Paragraph 5 – I agree that tariffs aren’t authoritarian. I just think they’re stupid. The US sought free trade because it recognized that it was a “free market empire” rather than a traditional land-based empire and that free trade would open global markets to US companies. I’m sure we’ll never agree on this so, having said my piece, I’ll move along.
Paragraph 6 and 7 – I wish. While I didn’t vote for Carney, he is my Prime Minister (to paraphrase John Wayne) and I hope he does a good job. I am cautiously optimistic as I wrote here: https://hoisttheblackflag.substack.com/cp/168507215. The Liberal Party (not the Trudeau) Liberals sits between the conservative(ish) Conservative party and the leftist NDP and so have the luxury of shifting left and right to adjust to the country’s “mood.” I’m hoping Carney is an old school politician and cares more about power than ideology. If so, then he will move the country back to the center. If not…
Thanks for the reply - yes we won't agree on Paragraph 5, lol! Historically your description is inaccurate. The US had a robust tariff scheme like every other country. Then WWII happened and as we were aware we were going to be victorious, Bretton Woods happened where the US told the rest of the western world we would open our market without tariffs to all, police the sea lanes, and let people ship anything anywhere; in exchange we got to set your security policy as we worked to avoid a tank battle with the Soviets in central Europe. Free trade was never a policy for its own purpose. Free trade became the moniker under which this policy was identified. It made more sense than "trade to help defeat the Soviets and not let them overrun Europe".
Once the Soviets fell, the rationale for "free trade" evaporated. We attempted to use this structure to bring the Chinese into the free world. That ended up being unsuccessful, and instead hollowed out western nations manufacturing infrastructure, which had the unforeseen impact of breaking blue collar voters away from the democrats. Trump is actually re-introducing a tax structure that just about every other nation uses. The tariff.
But this time, Trump realizing he holds the single most important asset on the planet - the US economy - you will have to pay to get access to it. This still has some side benefit, such as the US military still being around to do things like blow up underground nuclear weapon development sites.
Most Canadians don’t have the time to research what is going on. They trust the government and the media. The Lieberals have conned us and in such an eloquent way.
I think that this was planned far in advance. Carney was advising Trudeau. He wanted to be PM.
The American election of Trump was the time to act for liberals.
Butts et al were now able to call in Carney just at the right time
The staged resignation of carneys ‘comare’ christia was suspect.
The ‘ousting’ of Chandra Arya from his Nepean seat and whose son works for Brookfield was suspect.
The changing of PP’s electoral district was suspect.
Trumps 51st statement and tariffs used to scare Canadians was suspect. Canada would have laughed it off if the past 10 years of liberal ineptitude had not put us in such a dire economic situation.
Lets nit forget Singh whos relationship with the liberals was suspect for years.
This whole election was suspect and a disappointment.
I think luck played a bigger role than what you describe. I'm just not onboard with considering the Liberals a group of strategic masterminds. They did a good job adapting to the situation, but they're not smart enough to be evil geniuses.
I just can't get past the 20 point lead evaporating, right around the time he started the 2015 Trudeau election campaign of "Dress up, pander for votes, tell Canadians that they don't exist" with that, Canadians pay taxes and don't worry about centuries old blood feuds schtick.
That Jenny either supported it or suggested it and that she's still their strategist boggles my mind.
I'm not saying they are playing controlled opposition, but if they were, would it look any different?
How much of it was incompetence on the part of the Cons, how much was brilliant strategy by the Liberals, and how much was just dumb luck we may never know.
You don’t have to interview any voters to know “with certainty” that most voted the way they did because of systematic errors in their understanding of the economy and other relevant issues.
Why?—Because it’s not worth their time to do the work necessary to actually understand their country and its issues.
I believe that the blue collar private sector labor, particularly in BC have come to the realization that net zero and "reconciliation" have become synonymous with deindustrialization and the evidence of such was the result of the BC provincial election last fall as well as on Vancouver Island federally. The Conservatives typically equivocate on such policies to maintain their pandering to the "middle" but are seen optimistically as weak at best. The demise of the NDP has resulted in essentially a two party race likely precluding a return to the Harper government situation where Conservative power was wholly dependent on the leftist vote split. This reinforces the notion that western concentration of Conservative support is hopelessly wasted within confederation but possibilities abound for a potential independent nation.
Thanks for the shout out.
I’ll take a moment to explain/”defend” point F.
On reflection I probably should have labeled it as “Federal Election Commences” which was the point in time I meant to mark.
Two things I saw around that point. And to clarify I was more focused on the Liberals’ significant recovery (which I saw as the action) vice the CPC modest decline (which I interpreted as the consequence).
First was that the election allowed all the other parties to get some attention. With Parliament prorogued since December the CPC etc didn’t have a platform. Also the media was fully engaged in watching the Liberal leadership race. The Liberals were still governing and getting some attention talking about Trump, but the other parties were squeezed out. The election call changed the playing field.
Second is that before an election people can say anything in a poll. But around when the election is called things get real and poll support is presumably more reflective of who they really will vote for.
My interpretation of this was that NDP and BQ support declined pre-election while Trump was being scary and they were out of the spotlight. Then dropped further when it became time to make an election decision. CPC support declined pre-election for the same reasons but started to recover during the election period.
It takes time for public sentiment to shift. What I see in the Liberal line is that the momentum they gathered starting when Trudeau announced his plan to resign carried them a couple of weeks into the election period. Someone commented in the late days that the CPC was on track to win a majority government if the election was held on 30 May. But unfortunately for them it was scheduled for 28 April.
So I agree on the Trudeau and Trump effects. My own post-election analysis (shameless plug!) has focused on Trump and people rallying behind the Liberals to protect them. I disagree with Mulcair on a lot of issues no doubt, but I find him a good commentator. However I’m not convinced he has that sort of influence.
Great article. I’m glad you found my graph informative and useful for your piece.
You welcome! Nice graph.
We'll let people look at our two interpretations of point F and decide for themselves. Some will agree with me, some with you, and some will have entirely different theories.
Love to get your perspective on Canadian politics, especially for a hockey loving south of border friend of Canada who doesn't live it day to day.
Still, I felt a need to chime in on the fact that many still don't quite get Trump. He most definitely is not a conservative, which is why it is dangerous for other country's conservative minded politicians to try and hook themselves to his chariot. He is most definitely not an ideologue. Fact is, he didn't care who won in Canada, and his foreign policy vision almost makes it easier to have Carney in office, which has so far proved to be the case. He loves a foil. And I think he counts on his opponent's reaction to him as part of his own negotiation strategy. Your assessment that he didn't care who won in Canada I think is correct.
His mannerisms give you reason to think of him as having an authoritarian streak. But that assumption is misplaced. He has fought all the battles with the court strictly via court rules. He has aggressively fought for his position - and he is almost universally winning his cases at the end, but unlike Obama and Biden, he is working within the strictures of law in the US. He does this even as a number of his supporters suggest the entire history of judicial review is unconstitutional as practiced and he should just nuke the whole thing. His supporters are generally correct in their analysis, but perhaps a bit too emotional in their desired future tactics.
In reality he is an FDR type democrat/Eisenhower type republican who cherishes US institutions and was blinded by this respect when he was first elected. He didn't realize how deep the rot was in the US government structure. And by extension, the world. He learned a fair amount in his four years of political persecution by his democrat and global political elite opponents, and it is clear they made a huge mistake in making him a target, because he has no doubt about who his enemies are - and of course he knows Carney falls into that camp.
Ergo, Canada while a historical "friend" is an enemy at the moment. Your auto industry survives at the moment now because the US car manufacturers are warning Trump of the damage to their supply chains if he goes full out on nationalized car manufacturing. Tariffs are a tax on consumers, but what we are discovering is that it is also a tax on foreign country producers. His tariff scheme is not an authoritarian impulse, it is an acknowledgement that access to the US market, which has been essentially free since the end of WWII no longer served any reason in a post-Soviet world. Tariffs are in fact an exceedingly conservative position, and the US was unique in having such open access. Every other country has a very robust tariff scheme. For those of us watching in the states, the crying from foreign countries about tariffs rings pretty hollow. Get rid of your own.
I think what Canada is currently dealing with is an awakening to how poorly the liberal faction of your country has managed the country. This will take some time to percolate itself through the electorate, and it will no doubt look uniquely Canadian. But as you noted, conservative support was strong; the left just circled the wagons a bit to try and reinforce their lines. Found a foil in Trump to help them in the election. But in doing so, they have probably focused the target for future battles. Carney won't be able to play the "us against Trump" card because Carney will get rolled on anything that truly matters because to put it bluntly, Canada is reliant on the US for many things - including access to US northern hospitals to support your very fragile public health system - and the US just wants to have a friend up north.
Will be interesting to watch it all unfold. I would expect to see further strengthening of your conservative position as the liberals continue to try and fortify their lines until the country realizes their coalition is no longer big enough to win. Not being very knowledgeable of how your political process really works, it wouldn't surprise me at some point to see the liberals washed away some time this decade, as the pressure continues to build until the liberal dam breaks.
Appreciate your posts - continued success.
This is quite long so I’m going to try to make my reply easier to follow by pointing to the paragraph I’m responding to:
Paragraph 1 – thanks. Glad you’re open to a perspective from outside your borders.
Paragraph 2 – I agree, he’s not a conservative. I’m not sure who the leading conservative in the US is right now. Or if there even is one. Until Trumpism has a better definition (if that’s even possible) I also agree he isn’t an ideologue.
Paragraph 3 – I’ll give you a weak maybe on this one. If we frame what he’s doing as more aggressively pushing the boundaries that all presidents do, then… I’ll upgrade it to a strong maybe. He hasn’t overtly broken the law (as president. At least as far as I can recall), but he’s making me uncomfortable at times… and I wanted him to win. I will say that the left exaggerates. I remain on the fence here.
Paragraph 4 – I’ve always thought of him as a modern-day Jackson. The only way he’s like FDR is that he’s a statist. As is Carney. All three think the government should play a bigger role in our lives and I do not like that.
Paragraph 5 – I agree that tariffs aren’t authoritarian. I just think they’re stupid. The US sought free trade because it recognized that it was a “free market empire” rather than a traditional land-based empire and that free trade would open global markets to US companies. I’m sure we’ll never agree on this so, having said my piece, I’ll move along.
Paragraph 6 and 7 – I wish. While I didn’t vote for Carney, he is my Prime Minister (to paraphrase John Wayne) and I hope he does a good job. I am cautiously optimistic as I wrote here: https://hoisttheblackflag.substack.com/cp/168507215. The Liberal Party (not the Trudeau) Liberals sits between the conservative(ish) Conservative party and the leftist NDP and so have the luxury of shifting left and right to adjust to the country’s “mood.” I’m hoping Carney is an old school politician and cares more about power than ideology. If so, then he will move the country back to the center. If not…
Paragraph 8 – Thanks! And thanks for the reply.
Thanks for the reply - yes we won't agree on Paragraph 5, lol! Historically your description is inaccurate. The US had a robust tariff scheme like every other country. Then WWII happened and as we were aware we were going to be victorious, Bretton Woods happened where the US told the rest of the western world we would open our market without tariffs to all, police the sea lanes, and let people ship anything anywhere; in exchange we got to set your security policy as we worked to avoid a tank battle with the Soviets in central Europe. Free trade was never a policy for its own purpose. Free trade became the moniker under which this policy was identified. It made more sense than "trade to help defeat the Soviets and not let them overrun Europe".
Once the Soviets fell, the rationale for "free trade" evaporated. We attempted to use this structure to bring the Chinese into the free world. That ended up being unsuccessful, and instead hollowed out western nations manufacturing infrastructure, which had the unforeseen impact of breaking blue collar voters away from the democrats. Trump is actually re-introducing a tax structure that just about every other nation uses. The tariff.
But this time, Trump realizing he holds the single most important asset on the planet - the US economy - you will have to pay to get access to it. This still has some side benefit, such as the US military still being around to do things like blow up underground nuclear weapon development sites.
Most Canadians don’t have the time to research what is going on. They trust the government and the media. The Lieberals have conned us and in such an eloquent way.
I think that this was planned far in advance. Carney was advising Trudeau. He wanted to be PM.
The American election of Trump was the time to act for liberals.
Butts et al were now able to call in Carney just at the right time
The staged resignation of carneys ‘comare’ christia was suspect.
The ‘ousting’ of Chandra Arya from his Nepean seat and whose son works for Brookfield was suspect.
The changing of PP’s electoral district was suspect.
Trumps 51st statement and tariffs used to scare Canadians was suspect. Canada would have laughed it off if the past 10 years of liberal ineptitude had not put us in such a dire economic situation.
Lets nit forget Singh whos relationship with the liberals was suspect for years.
This whole election was suspect and a disappointment.
I think luck played a bigger role than what you describe. I'm just not onboard with considering the Liberals a group of strategic masterminds. They did a good job adapting to the situation, but they're not smart enough to be evil geniuses.
I just can't get past the 20 point lead evaporating, right around the time he started the 2015 Trudeau election campaign of "Dress up, pander for votes, tell Canadians that they don't exist" with that, Canadians pay taxes and don't worry about centuries old blood feuds schtick.
That Jenny either supported it or suggested it and that she's still their strategist boggles my mind.
I'm not saying they are playing controlled opposition, but if they were, would it look any different?
She should definitely lose her job.
How much of it was incompetence on the part of the Cons, how much was brilliant strategy by the Liberals, and how much was just dumb luck we may never know.
You don’t have to interview any voters to know “with certainty” that most voted the way they did because of systematic errors in their understanding of the economy and other relevant issues.
Why?—Because it’s not worth their time to do the work necessary to actually understand their country and its issues.
I'm sure it was a factor.
I believe that the blue collar private sector labor, particularly in BC have come to the realization that net zero and "reconciliation" have become synonymous with deindustrialization and the evidence of such was the result of the BC provincial election last fall as well as on Vancouver Island federally. The Conservatives typically equivocate on such policies to maintain their pandering to the "middle" but are seen optimistically as weak at best. The demise of the NDP has resulted in essentially a two party race likely precluding a return to the Harper government situation where Conservative power was wholly dependent on the leftist vote split. This reinforces the notion that western concentration of Conservative support is hopelessly wasted within confederation but possibilities abound for a potential independent nation.
Two thoughts:
1) I think Western separatism has less of a chance than Quebec separatism
2) The US has a two party system and conservatives down there win elections.