2025 Federal Election

[DougB]

Tariffs the USA brought in in the 1890s caused Canada's industrial and trade policy to orient away from the USA for 50 years.


The USA is juicing their economy with huge deficits. Eventually that will need to end.


It is clearly not. not when MAGA has declared that Canada is the out group, and not only that, but that Canada should not exist.


Sounds like the Carney platform.

The tariffs will be short term as the American public will reject the ensuing price increases, and Trump will inevitably be distracted by some other problem of his own creation. No Canadian action is going to influence the trajectory on tariffs. The British Empire was still strong in the 1890s, so an alternative to the American market existed. That is not longer true. "We're so European" might play well to United Empire Loyalist sympathies, but pivoting to the most demographically and economically stagnant region of the world is unlikely to replace lost opportunities within North America.

The US has the luxury of getting away with large deficits. The USD being the only reserve currency means that the US must run current account deficits to supply the rest of the world with dollars. I agree that far less of that should and will come from government borrowing. Remember, if debt markets turn on US government borrowing, interest rates across the world will ratchet up, meaning that Canada has a choice of austerity or austerity. I also question how much the deficits are juicing the American economy. If for example, the US government reduced its deficit through headcount reductions, how much would the economy benefit from those people contributing to more productive areas?

Canada has declared that MAGA as the out group. Unfortunately politics resembles high school so being peripheral to the unpopular is the kiss of death.

Carney's platform is too recent. Perhaps if he had been leader for a year he could distance himself from stated positions on climate change and wealth redistribution. He has said many of the right things, but at the same time maintains disasters like Telford and Butts as advisors and can't walk away from an O&G emissions cap.

 

[DougB]

Ok, so why would PP be better? Im yet to read any real reasons why PP would be a good leader, I only hear smear about Carney from the Conservatives

Fewer loyalties to the Laurentian Oligarchs and to the public sector. PP prioritization of issues, mainly cost of living, was right on. Unfortunately, the short termism of the electorate is focused on the red herring of tariffs.

 

[DougB]

I don't understand the frustration between PP being compared to Trump? PP is a populist that has follows that believe what Trump's followers do. PP isn't Trump and I don't think they're the same but they sing the same rhymes.

Both being populists is a comparison targeted at the week minded. It reminds of the parodies from the 2006 Liberal campaign:

• "Stephen Harper has a dog. You know who else had a dog? Hitler. Adolf Hitler. That's who. Did Stephen Harper train his dog to attack racial minorities on command? We don't know. He's not saying."
• "Stephen Harper likes to wear black. You know who else wears black? Darth Vader. Do you really want Darth Vader running your country?"
• "In 1963, In Dallas, Democratic president John F. Kennedy was shot and killed. Where was four year old Stephen Harper? We don't know. He's not saying. We didn't make this up."
• "Stephen Harper wants to put a giant laser on the moon. He will use it to burn his initials into Greenland. We're not making this up, We're not allowed to make stuff up."

 

[potatopizzafan]

Fewer loyalties to the Laurentian Oligarchs and to the public sector. PP prioritization of issues, mainly cost of living, was right on. Unfortunately, the short termism of the electorate is focused on the red herring of tariffs.

So basically "he said he will be good"

 

[gsunnyg]

It is not a short term thing though. The Trump world's view and action on trade will cause a secular change to the economy. The deterioration of relations, likewise.

The tools politicians (especially opposition ones) have are words. So it shouldn't surprise that mirroring the conduct and words of right wing proto-authoritarism, of which Trump is the most visible, ties him to Trump. The previous leader has worn a MAGA hat, his campaign manager too. A lot of conservatives were quite happy at Trump winning again, so fixated they were on Keystone XL being resurrected somehow (even if it isn't needed), and so convinced they were that his talk on trade was just a lie. Then, they swallowed hook, line and sinker, arguments about border security and fentanyl, acting like if Canada was somehow just better, the tariffs threats would go away. People obviously noticed.

There is also, the CPC and Poilievre suffer from a disqualification problem which caps their accessible voter universe. Only when Trudeau was viewed as so negative, especially when interest rates spiked and squeezed household budgets, and the international student surge destroyed the entry level job market especially in Ontario, did Trudeau's negatives go so high, that they pushed beyond the disqualification of the CPC. Once Trudeau was gone, the symbolic carbon tax was soon to be gone, and interest rates had been declining for months, and the labour force maxed out and started shrinking, those voters moved back. Surprisingly, NDP voters who didn't like trudeau, associated Singh very much with Trudeau, and also abandoned the NDP for the Liberals.

I think the concern over energy policy is overwrought. Oil production and exports are at a record, with massive pipeline expansions being completed both to the coast and into the mid-west. There is excess capacity. A 10% tariff is maybe 5x a barrel what carbon pricing is, and the feds with the province are all in to subsidize the majority of the cost of carbon capture and storage, which industry has told us for 20 years would green the oil sands (at one point the Harper policy was no oil sands facilities after 2012 without either carbon capture or nuclear, and net zero by 2080, 80% reduction by 2050 iirc).

The PM is talking about new pipelines for export and to at least Ontario and Quebec (so they can't be cut off from USA transhipment). Talking about waving federal assessments for most projects. Things are moving incredibly fast.

The past is truly another country in this case. Canada is under existential threat, and since you don't see that, you miss the opportunities that that creates to do things differently and switch from our mode of operating for the past 70 years, focused on the USA market. In a fight like this, an economic fight, Canada's ability to earn money from selling our natural resources is goal #1. I think in 10 years we will be amazed at what Canada has accomplished over from 2025-2035, and how it sets us up for the next century. I think there are hints at that from Poilievre, but the temptation right now for his is to revert to slogans and blame, and the belief that complicated problems have simple solutions.

See, just like me, your bias is very much showing. I can offer just as many counterpoints from the other side of the political spectrum. When you bring up the long-term consequences of trade policies, I don’t trust the Liberals or their current proposals to make Canada a self-reliant trading partner. Many seem to forget that Trump and right-wing movements globally are a direct response to governments veering too far left for over a decade. Take Mark Carney, for example—he says one thing in Edmonton and another in Ottawa. His stance on the emissions cap alone proves how inconsistent he is. The carbon tax was not entirely eliminated; it'll just be redesigned to charge industrial polluters with no rebates, and the cost will be passed down to the consumer, ensuring a decade-long policy of capital flight from Canada back to America

The reality is that Trump’s tariffs will never be as devastating as the generational damage inflicted on Canada’s immigration system, housing affordability, and economic stability by Trudeau’s Liberals. I mean, a shoebox home in Canada is now worth 2 mil in Vancouver, a lifetime mortgage, under the Liberals, and we're more sketched about tariffs for the next 4 years? Irrationality IMO. I don’t see things improving under Mark Carney, who, to me, is just Trudeau 2.0.

You have your views, but let’s not pretend this isn’t an emotional reaction to Trump’s actions against Canada and other nations. The real issue is how broken Canada has felt over the past nine years under Liberal leadership. Let’s not forget this is the same party that had us canceling Canada Day.

 

[gsunnyg]

Ok, so why would PP be better? Im yet to read any real reasons why PP would be a good leader, I only hear smear about Carney from the Conservatives

I personally love these sorts of policies. Mark Carney sounds more or much the same to me as JT, but with personal changes on extremely unpopular policies in recent weeks, so he can attain power.

 

[darwink]

The tariffs will be short term

 

[Mountain Man]

It sounds like Trump is planning to use the tariff revenue to pay down federal debt, so I imagine he will keep it in place as long as possible to generate as much revenue as possible. At some point, the bleeding in the stock market and inflation on the general public will become too much and they will have to end them.

Anyway, I'm leaning towards Carney, want to vote Conservative, but PP rubs me the wrong way. I want a centre party, JT had the Libs too far left and PP seems to have the Cons too far right, and I really don't like his attack dog style of politics.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

Any word if the feds are putting extra measures in place to prevent Elon/Donald/Vladimir cronies from rigging our election results, as they so proudly do elsewhere?

 

[Mountain Man]

Trump is already interfering to the maximum extent.

 

[gsunnyg]

It sounds like Trump is planning to use the tariff revenue to pay down federal debt, so I imagine he will keep it in place as long as possible to generate as much revenue as possible. At some point, the bleeding in the stock market and inflation on the general public will become too much and they will have to end them.

Anyway, I'm leaning towards Carney, want to vote Conservative, but PP rubs me the wrong way. I want a centre party, JT had the Libs too far left and PP seems to have the Cons too far right, and I really don't like his attack dog style of politics.

Respectfully, when u say u don’t like PP’s attack dog style politics, I’m curious, have u seen mark carneys rally’s and interviews? He’s no different. I’d be happy to link countless numbers vids from just this week. PP has a bit of a RBF and is more cut throat so he comes off a bit nasty but I really don’t see any difference in their attack styles.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I'm not sure it is necessary or even useful to go shot for shot on who's more rude. I don't think we're going to change each others views so I don't really want to read people's "your guy X and my guy Y". That is pointless. I'm hoping for some policy discussion.

I saw PP was promising to increase TFSA amounts by $5k if that goes into Canadian investments. Interesting in theory but could be tough in practice and that does only really benefit those that have the extra $5k to put in there. Personally I'm not even close to making up for the years I was barely able to save.

On the tariffs, this is an opportunity for both of the front running party leaders. Carney is in control of the response but that has huge risk to it. PP has no risk at all and if he looks like he's proposing a competent response then he can be affective.

YFB and Bloc in Quebec are going hard on Carney's lack of Quebec knowledge, could really change things for the LPC in Quebec. Carney's Quebec people need to be putting in extra effort against the Bloc as I don't see the CPC as much of a threat in Quebec.

Curious everyone's thoughts.

 

[darwink]

Quebec can swing hard, but if opinion crystallizes that someone is the best option, people in general are very forgiving. Apologize and move on, people are generally fine with that. Carney's appeal is that he isn't a politician, so that he isn't smooth or perfect to a point like you would expect of a long time politician can reinforce his brand rather than detract from it. To a point.

Tariffs giveth and tariffs taketh away.

 

[CBBarnett]

Anyway, I'm leaning towards Carney, want to vote Conservative, but PP rubs me the wrong way. I want a centre party, JT had the Libs too far left and PP seems to have the Cons too far right, and I really don't like his attack dog style of politics.

For me, PP really dug his own hole here with a bit of bad timing due to Trump's attacks on our sovereignty and an inability to pivot from opposition to leader. Seems to be another case where a party really gets confident buying their own propaganda, instead of listening more to what people are saying (i.e. many more people were tired of Trudeau, rather than be in love with PP's style or policies).

For example, the failure to get his security clearance stuff is really resonating with my conservative friends who are really frustrated by that - it was an high-school debate move in normal times, but in times of external threats to our sovereignty it's entered a baffling stage that's hard to look past. On the provincial level Smith's moves are similarly perplexing to many people I know who support her - just seems like an inconsistent approach to try to cozy up to the Americans while they are actively threatening us. There's an inability or unwillingness to pivot here that doesn't make sense given how unpopular these moves are now.

PP comes across as just an unserious person - ironically, I see a lot of the critiques that were applied to Trudeau fit just as well against PP (comes across as unserious, lacks economic/fiscal expertise, peddles constantly in grievance politics etc.) . Perhaps his years of saying Trudeau in every sentence he uttered in public formed a connection in my mind between the two. It's like those two were built for each other.

Now with Trudeau gone, the carbon tax gone, and all the far more important issues now front in mind, PP really comes across as an outdated politician from another era. It's like PP's part of the Trudeau era everyone got tired of, not the next thing past it.

Carney is ultra-boring, but to me comes across more genuine. Perhaps it's his corporate atheistic (which can cut the wrong way for anti-elite types), but he comes across as the type of guy you'd hire for exactly this situation - sort out the economy, build mega-projects, make deals. When he says he's going to help build infrastructure and unite the Canadian economy it's believable - partly because he's an outsider and not a politician, so doesn't seem too fussed by the regional horse-trading that derailed previous politician-led attempts at similar reforms.

 

[trtcttc]

I enjoy seeing how people outside my bubble see things. I do get people's frustration with the Liberals under Justin Trudeau who people do point out bought a pipeline but otherwise did not prioritize economic growth beyond what was the fallout of programs like childcare (more people able to work) and increased TFW and students during the last few years.

I was ready to vote CPC but with the Liberals pull to the right/centre, I was pulled back. I trust that Carney does not have all the answers but will surround himself with people who are smart and can reorient our country in a direction it needs to go. I wanted change, I think I'm going to get the change I'm looking for.

I don't understand the frustration between PP being compared to Trump? PP is a populist that has follows that believe what Trump's followers do. PP isn't Trump and I don't think they're the same but they sing the same rhymes.

The challenge with "surrounding himself with people who are smart" is that Carney is bringing back people like Sean Fraser, Gerald Butts, the same ministers, the same cabinet, the same staffers. He is one guy, the majority of policy implementation are driven by staff and agencies. When they announce programs, the people actually providing the service is the public servants/political appointees.

The reason comparing PP to Trump is inaccurate is most people associate Trump with his temperament, which PP does not share. For one, PP is clearly not as good at building personal relationship/rapport than Trump. But PP is far more establishment than Trump. He'd make changes that a Nikki Haley would do, but he's not about to put on tariffs for no reason and talk of invading foreign allies.