2025 Federal Election

[trtcttc]

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

A de-regulation and pro-growth agenda. We've spent so much of our fiscal room on welfare and consumption, rather than investing in assets and infrastructure that will generate private investment and growth. PP would repeal laws that overburden private investment, with policies that seem good on paper, but when in practice stifles investment. (On this point, progressives should read Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's book on abundance, and how progressives have forgotten how to build). I trust PP much more to pass laws that will lower tax burden on our companies and spur investment. Repeal laws that reformed bail and consecutive sentences. A man that murdered a women out of anger is now on release in Calgary, and on dating apps, after being released serving only 7 years of his "life sentence". And incentivize building of housing. There is no argument that the most small c, conservative governed province, Alberta, is by far the most effective at building housing. We have the lowest rent among major cities, companies from BC are building here because it's easier to get approval.

We've seen Carney for 5 minutes, where he essentially disavowed all the policy decisions of his predecessor. A predecessor that he had advised, and was ready to be his finance minister. Is that really someone he doesn't share a world view with? That he would immediately pivot the government from the last 9 years down a completely new direction, or is this just saying what he needs to say to get elected? Does he disagree with the previous government that see population growth as "an accordion", to be expanded when labour needs increase, and contracted when labour needs decrease, essentially stifling wage growth in this country.

 

[gsunnyg]

A de-regulation and pro-growth agenda. We've spent so much of our fiscal room on welfare and consumption, rather than investing in assets and infrastructure that will generate private investment and growth. PP would repeal laws that overburden private investment, with policies that seem good on paper, but when in practice stifles investment. (On this point, progressives should read Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's book on abundance, and how progressives have forgotten how to build). I trust PP much more to pass laws that will lower tax burden on our companies and spur investment. Repeal laws that reformed bail and consecutive sentences. A man that murdered a women out of anger is now on release in Calgary, and on dating apps, after being released serving only 7 years of his "life sentence". And incentivize building of housing. There is no argument that the most small c, conservative governed province, Alberta, is by far the most effective at building housing. We have the lowest rent among major cities, companies from BC are building here because it's easier to get approval.

We've seen Carney for 5 minutes, where he essentially disavowed all the policy decisions of his predecessor. A predecessor that he had advised, and was ready to be his finance minister. Is that really someone he doesn't share a world view with? That he would immediately pivot the government from the last 9 years down a completely new direction, or is this just saying what he needs to say to get elected? Does he disagree with the previous government that see population growth as "an accordion", to be expanded when labour needs increase, and contracted when labour needs decrease, essentially stifling wage growth in this country.

Exactly this! To me, Trump’s tariffs are far less concerning than what life in our country has become over the past nine years. Mark Carney represents more of the same status quo. If people argue that PP’s rise in the polls was due to JT’s unpopularity, the same logic can apply to the Liberals benefiting from anti-Trump sentiment. It’s all about perception. In the end, I worry that Canadians will overlook policies and leadership track records, voting instead based on their feelings about the orange faced turd down south. Trump won’t be here in four years, but Canada’s decline across nearly every metric will continue if voters keep electing the same Liberal MPs. IMO, in the early days of this campaign, PP’s policies and plans around the economy, border, and crime seem far stronger than what Carney’s platform is offering. I just worry that Canadians won’t take the time to look into them.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

We've seen Carney for 5 minutes, where he essentially disavowed all the policy decisions of his predecessor. A predecessor that he had advised, and was ready to be his finance minister.

This is both a benefit to Carney and a negative. The benefit being that he undefined, with the exception of the little he has shown us. Association with the previous leader and being an advisor has to be looked at from both perspectives. Liberal MPs will tell you Carney presented to them and to the PM but his suggestions were never implemented. My opinion is that I trust Carney, even blindly. I think he's actually someone Conservatives would like to run for them if he wasn't running for the Liberals. As someone who has voted Conservative, what I like about Conservatism I see in him. I understand others will just see he's behind a red lectern and be turned off but when I look at his policies and proposals I see conservatism (lower taxes, focus on economic growth, etc.)

IMO, in the early days of this campaign, PP’s policies and plans around the economy, border, and crime seem far stronger than what Carney’s platform is offering. I just worry that Canadians won’t take the time to look into them.

Herein lies the issue with PP, because of what is known about him people will not look. Even if they could in theory like his policies. The person matters, Canadians were done with Trudeau and I guess they never really were into PP.

It is like a romcom where the girl entertains and flirts with a guy that's different than her type, for a bit it is refreshing but in the end she just ends up going back to a guy that's her type.

 

[CBBarnett]

A de-regulation and pro-growth agenda. We've spent so much of our fiscal room on welfare and consumption, rather than investing in assets and infrastructure that will generate private investment and growth. PP would repeal laws that overburden private investment, with policies that seem good on paper, but when in practice stifles investment. (On this point, progressives should read Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's book on abundance, and how progressives have forgotten how to build). I trust PP much more to pass laws that will lower tax burden on our companies and spur investment.

IMO, in the early days of this campaign, PP’s policies and plans around the economy, border, and crime seem far stronger than what Carney’s platform is offering. I just worry that Canadians won’t take the time to look into them.

I was wondering about this perspective that PP's economic policy (and ability to deliver it) are better. Is there a single place where the 2025 current conservative's economic policy proposals are listed? Elections move pretty fast, but I actually can't find anything that summarizes all these pro-growth, de-regulation policy proposals for the conservatives in a single place. Would be interesting in reviewing if you have a link.

Carney's page(s) on the same topic is much easier to find. I think it gives a reasonably good level of detail on what his approach would be to the economy and growth. Spends a lot of time criticizing poorly allocated government spending through the Trudeau years. Seems to be almost exactly what you are advocating for "build infrastructure fast, be pro-growth, spend less, invest more etc.": https://markcarney.ca/time-to-build

We've seen Carney for 5 minutes, where he essentially disavowed all the policy decisions of his predecessor. A predecessor that he had advised, and was ready to be his finance minister. Is that really someone he doesn't share a world view with? That he would immediately pivot the government from the last 9 years down a completely new direction, or is this just saying what he needs to say to get elected?

Always a challenging list of questions like this:

• Is the guy just saying what he needs to win? (e.g. Is Canada broken or the best country ever? Depends on which is a more popular thing to say at the time!)
• Can I trust a guy to do what he says? (e.g. Trudeau was suppose to be Mr. climate action plan, and here he goes building the TMX pipeline, going back on his word!)
• Is the new guy the same is the old guy? Is that good or bad? (e.g. Is Carney Trudeau? Is PP O-Toole?)
• What if the guy I hate changes his policies to ones I like? Do I vote for the guy I hate now? (e.g. Carney repeals the carbon tax)
• What if my guys says the right things but sucks at executing them? Should I vote for him still? (e.g. Trudeau promised electoral reform, it never happened!)
• If I want the change candidate:
  • Do I vote for the non-politician whose is an educated global, big business, private sector, economist type ?
  • Do I vote for the 20+ year politician with only political career experience, but is a scrappy anti-establishment type?
• What if my country is annexed by a foreign country in the next decade and I can't even pick a guy anymore?

It obviously comes down to trust and perspectives on what issues matter for these questions

For me, Carney's boring economically-literate competence is working to get my vote. I don't disagree with many of the Conservative ideas and have voted for them before, but many of the best ones Carney has already or is planning to execute, and he seems like he actually has the skills and temperament to go all the way on some generational-long reforms that Canada needs.

I haven't heard any of this from the Conservatives, but the Liberal's internal free-trade strategy is a huge opportunity and it's a really smart approach to use the current crisis to keep these myopic and silly provinces focused on solving a collective problem.

 

[trtcttc]

This is both a benefit to Carney and a negative. The benefit being that he undefined, with the exception of the little he has shown us. Association with the previous leader and being an advisor has to be looked at from both perspectives. Liberal MPs will tell you Carney presented to them and to the PM but his suggestions were never implemented. My opinion is that I trust Carney, even blindly. I think he's actually someone Conservatives would like to run for them if he wasn't running for the Liberals. As someone who has voted Conservative, what I like about Conservatism I see in him. I understand others will just see he's behind a red lectern and be turned off but when I look at his policies and proposals I see conservatism (lower taxes, focus on economic growth, etc.)

Herein lies the issue with PP, because of what is known about him people will not look. Even if they could in theory like his policies. The person matters, Canadians were done with Trudeau and I guess they never really were into PP.

It is like a romcom where the girl entertains and flirts with a guy that's different than her type, for a bit it is refreshing but in the end she just ends up going back to a guy that's her type.

If Trudeau and Carney's discussions were a long list of disagreements, I find it hard to believe Trudeau would've punted on Freeland to install someone that doesn't support any of his signature initiatives. It was clear at that time one of the reasons Freeland was thrown overboard was exactly her opposition to Trudeau's (or Telford) policies. If I had the confidence he'd actually deliver on this agenda he's set, I would vote Liberal. But again, he is one man, that has seemingly overnight abandoned all of his policy beliefs. He's supported by the same staff, the same ministers, the same political appointees. He's not going to go through the fine print of each bill, of each proposal, the political appointees will. And they're the same as the last 9 years.

I was wondering about this perspective that PP's economic policy (and ability to deliver it) are better. Is there a single place where the 2025 current conservative's economic policy proposals are listed? Elections move pretty fast, but I actually can't find anything that summarizes all these pro-growth, de-regulation policy proposals for the conservatives in a single place. Would be interesting in reviewing if you have a link.

Carney's page(s) on the same topic is much easier to find. I think it gives a reasonably good level of detail on what his approach would be to the economy and growth. Spends a lot of time criticizing poorly allocated government spending through the Trudeau years. Seems to be almost exactly what you are advocating for "build infrastructure fast, be pro-growth, spend less, invest more etc.": https://markcarney.ca/time-to-build


Always a challenging list of questions like this:

• Is the guy just saying what he needs to win? (e.g. Is Canada broken or the best country ever? Depends on which is a more popular thing to say at the time!)
• Can I trust a guy to do what he says? (e.g. Trudeau was suppose to be Mr. climate action plan, and here he goes building the TMX pipeline, going back on his word!)
• Is the new guy the same is the old guy? Is that good or bad? (e.g. Is Carney Trudeau? Is PP O-Toole?)
• What if the guy I hate changes his policies to ones I like? Do I vote for the guy I hate now? (e.g. Carney repeals the carbon tax)
• What if my guys says the right things but sucks at executing them? Should I vote for him still? (e.g. Trudeau promised electoral reform, it never happened!)
• If I want the change candidate:
  • Do I vote for the non-politician whose is an educated global, big business, private sector, economist type ?
  • Do I vote for the 20+ year politician with only political career experience, but is a scrappy anti-establishment type?
• What if my country is annexed by a foreign country in the next decade and I can't even pick a guy anymore?

It obviously comes down to trust and perspectives on what issues matter for these questions

For me, Carney's boring economically-literate competence is working to get my vote. I don't disagree with many of the Conservative ideas and have voted for them before, but many of the best ones Carney has already or is planning to execute, and he seems like he actually has the skills and temperament to go all the way on some generational-long reforms that Canada needs.

I haven't heard any of this from the Conservatives, but the Liberal's internal free-trade strategy is a huge opportunity and it's a really smart approach to use the current crisis to keep these myopic and silly provinces focused on solving a collective problem.

Agreed that the listed Carney agenda is something I'd vote for. But a government is a village, not 1 person, and the last 9 years has shown this village to be pretty terrible. I also agree that the Conservatives should have a platform, and my belief is after Carney used his unelected powers to remove the campaign issues, the Conservatives had to re-do their platform and re-cost it. Carney did not repeal the carbon tax, he simply made it 0, he can also as easily make it whatever he wants.

I'd be cautious with this pot of gold of internal free trade. It isn't the bill of goods that's being sold. Just like how Doug Ford is pretending electricity exports are some massive leverage, when there's almost no way he'd go through with it.

https://economics.cibccm.com/cds?id=834a2f4b-eb15-498b-a8a9-d7e0fb1bedda&flag=E

 

[gsunnyg]

I was wondering about this perspective that PP's economic policy (and ability to deliver it) are better. Is there a single place where the 2025 current conservative's economic policy proposals are listed? Elections move pretty fast, but I actually can't find anything that summarizes all these pro-growth, de-regulation policy proposals for the conservatives in a single place. Would be interesting in reviewing if you have a link.

Carney's page(s) on the same topic is much easier to find. I think it gives a reasonably good level of detail on what his approach would be to the economy and growth. Spends a lot of time criticizing poorly allocated government spending through the Trudeau years. Seems to be almost exactly what you are advocating for "build infrastructure fast, be pro-growth, spend less, invest more etc.": https://markcarney.ca/time-to-build


Always a challenging list of questions like this:

• Is the guy just saying what he needs to win? (e.g. Is Canada broken or the best country ever? Depends on which is a more popular thing to say at the time!)
• Can I trust a guy to do what he says? (e.g. Trudeau was suppose to be Mr. climate action plan, and here he goes building the TMX pipeline, going back on his word!)
• Is the new guy the same is the old guy? Is that good or bad? (e.g. Is Carney Trudeau? Is PP O-Toole?)
• What if the guy I hate changes his policies to ones I like? Do I vote for the guy I hate now? (e.g. Carney repeals the carbon tax)
• What if my guys says the right things but sucks at executing them? Should I vote for him still? (e.g. Trudeau promised electoral reform, it never happened!)
• If I want the change candidate:
  • Do I vote for the non-politician whose is an educated global, big business, private sector, economist type ?
  • Do I vote for the 20+ year politician with only political career experience, but is a scrappy anti-establishment type?
• What if my country is annexed by a foreign country in the next decade and I can't even pick a guy anymore?

It obviously comes down to trust and perspectives on what issues matter for these questions

For me, Carney's boring economically-literate competence is working to get my vote. I don't disagree with many of the Conservative ideas and have voted for them before, but many of the best ones Carney has already or is planning to execute, and he seems like he actually has the skills and temperament to go all the way on some generational-long reforms that Canada needs.

I haven't heard any of this from the Conservatives, but the Liberal's internal free-trade strategy is a huge opportunity and it's a really smart approach to use the current crisis to keep these myopic and silly provinces focused on solving a collective problem.

https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/23175001/990863517f7a575.pdf
Although many of PP's policies still lack specific numbers and step-by-step plans, he continues to release more details daily. For instance, just yesterday, he announced an additional $5,000 in TFSA contribution room specifically for investing in Canadian companies. Let’s break that down—historically, the TSX index has averaged around 7% annual growth. If I invest $5,000 each year into the TSX, that could grow to nearly $500,000 tax-free over 30 years. As a young adult aiming for financial stability by 65, this is a huge deal, especially as opportunities like multiple property ownership become increasingly out of reach. On top of that, I get to invest in Canada! The journalists and social media pages aren’t talking enough about these impactful policies. Also, when people claim that Mark Carney will develop resource and energy infrastructure, where’s his detailed plan? I’ve heard him shift his stance depending on which province he’s in. Meanwhile, PP actually has a clear plan on this, "pre-permitting", which I posted a video on the previous page.

 

[AllanS]

https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/23175001/990863517f7a575.pdf
Although many of PP's policies still lack specific numbers and step-by-step plans, he continues to release more details daily. For instance, just yesterday, he announced an additional $5,000 in TFSA contribution room specifically for investing in Canadian companies. Let’s break that down—historically, the TSX index has averaged around 7% annual growth. If I invest $5,000 each year into the TSX, that could grow to nearly $500,000 tax-free over 30 years. As a young adult aiming for financial stability by 65, this is a huge deal, especially as opportunities like multiple property ownership become increasingly out of reach. On top of that, I get to invest in Canada! The journalists and social media pages aren’t talking enough about these impactful policies. Also, when people claim that Mark Carney will develop resource and energy infrastructure, where’s his detailed plan? I’ve heard him shift his stance depending on which province he’s in. Meanwhile, PP actually has a clear plan on this, "pre-permitting", which I posted a video on the previous page.

The only issue is this is only going to be an impact for a select group of Canadians. The number of people with a TFSA is growing but very few people are anywhere near maxing out their contribution room. I have seen estimates that this will benefit 4% of Canadians who are the highest earners in the country.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

If Trudeau and Carney's discussions were a long list of disagreements, I find it hard to believe

My read is a little different. And it isn't worth debating something we both don't know the details of but I guess I'll at least give my view. I think Trudeau knew he needed to make a big shift, Carney was going to be that. Trudeau was going to allow Mr. Finance some more freedom and say. Freeland was being demoted to make way for Carney, that we both agree on. I wonder if Justin knew how close Carney and Freeland were and one likely tipped the other off and Freeland released that letter taking down Trudeau.

PMOs, Harper's, Trudeau's and I assume Carney's will be very top down. So yes, he isn't writing everything but I do think he will have the final say and some keen person isn't going to slip one past him. Carney was a huge proponent of a Carbon Tax, maybe the world's biggest proponent. He's also quite pragmatic and realizes that in this climate (haha) it just is not the answer, at least on the consumer side. I think the consumer carbon tax will be gone, there is no way he is reinstating the consumer carbon tax. Industrial however, that will stay (whispers: Alberta created one before there was ever a federal one, under a conservative Alberta government too).

People got very use to the Trudeau Liberals, forgetting that there are many different types of Liberals. It is probably frustrating to see the momentum they have and I hate to make war analogies but in a campaign you can't be fighting the last war. We're almost a week in and the Conservatives are still using PPs same stump speech from the fall...

The journalists and social media pages aren’t talking enough about these impactful policies.

TFSA was a fine policy, but it got no air play because yesterday was tariff day. In a campaign you have to follow the wind. Yesterday was not the day to talk about rich people being able to contribute more to their TFSA. I'm 35, and have $100,000+ in TFSA room. Adding another $5k a year does nothing for me, and most other people. Make an affordability announcement that actually moves the needle.

The issue really isn't the CPC's message, most of their proposals are actually pretty close to the Liberals, the issue is the messenger and his inability to meet the moment.

 

[darwink]

Meeting the moment in a campaign is hard. Conservatives got very used to 80% of announcements being in the can at the start of the campaign. Having the resources in place to be able to pivot, and trusting yourself enough that you don't need to focus group, poll, AB test, etc, is really hard. Jumping without a net!

If your instincts don't align with your target group, it is even more hard. If in normal operating mode, the polls, focus groups, etc, are used to shelve the extreme versions of things you, your staff, and your caucus wants, when you get rid of those constraints, all of a sudden you start looking way worse, not better.

This week for Pierre (and his campaign leaders), was about reasserting control over their campaign and party, after open warfare broke out between the federal CPC, the Ontario PCs, and with Alberta UCPs being particularly unhelpful.

He held relatively large rallies, to show his detractors that he is still in control, he ran announcements that were bland but conservative bread and butter.

I think the CPC really think this Carney PhD thesis thing from this morning is a disqualifying blow. The CPC has Pierre leading the charge. What they don't know, is whether the entire argument just reinforces Carney's resume. And maybe in a dog fight, Canadians want someone that bends the rules to win (and at least according to academics on twitter, the reviews are mixed at best as to whether the evidence anywhere near fits the charge). War rooms are fun things, you can end up in real group think, and the group gets more extreme as previous efforts don't stick.

For evaluating campaigns, I like the good 'ol Wells' Rules.

1: For any given situation, Canadian politics will tend toward the least exciting possible outcome.​

2: If everyone in Ottawa knows something, it’s not true.​

3. The candidate in the best mood wins.​

4. The candidate who auditions for the role of opposition leader will get the job.​

 

[DougB]

View attachment 639524
View attachment 639523

You are watching The Apprentice - Executive Branch Edition and ignoring the "TV" part of "Reality TV". Trump doesn't have the authority to impose tariffs and Americans won't stand for higher prices. I suspect many business groups will be launching suits to end the madness.

 

[gsunnyg]

I just don’t get it. Day by day, Pierre rolls out policies that seem more favourable to middle class Canadians and businesses/corporations. Yesterday, it was a tax write off for travelling trade workers. Today, it’s eliminating capital gains taxes when reinvesting in Canadian assets. Every time I compare, the Conservatives seem to have stronger, more practical policies. But instead of focusing on that, the conversation both in the media and on social platforms is all about scandals, security clearances, plagiarism, and Trump. Meanwhile, we’re barely discussing how Carney’s policies actually stack up against Pierre's. It feels like a high school popularity contest rather than a serious debate about the future of the country. This is exactly how Trudeau got in and made a mess of things.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Politics are a funny thing. A couple of months ago the liberals were way behind the conservatives in the polls, whether rightly or wrongly, but some political chaos in a neighbouring country it all changed overnight., without anything really changing at our end. Carney has changed the face of the Liberals, but not a lot of actual change really. As far as I can tell nothing has changed on the PC side.

 

[darwink]

I just don’t get it. Day by day, Pierre rolls out policies that seem more favourable to middle class Canadians and businesses/corporations. Yesterday, it was a tax write off for travelling trade workers. Today, it’s eliminating capital gains taxes when reinvesting in Canadian assets. Every time I compare, the Conservatives seem to have stronger, more practical policies. But instead of focusing on that, the conversation both in the media and on social platforms is all about scandals, security clearances, plagiarism, and Trump. Meanwhile, we’re barely discussing how Carney’s policies actually stack up against Pierre's. It feels like a high school popularity contest rather than a serious debate about the future of the country. This is exactly how Trudeau got in and made a mess of things.

Many domestic policies when international events threaten a -3% economic shock and an even larger recession looms feels out of touch.

He needs to relate it back to crisis management and and something that focus groups well isn’t connecting.

I’d take it back to 2009 and Harper. The renovation tax credit was a nice little policy at the time. Related back to the economic activity issue — a huge drop in construction spending. But that wasn’t the crisis response. It was a small peripheral policy. The real policies were what we mostly didn’t hear about. The bailouts of the paper market and the banks. The Canadian led rescue of Ireland.

Do Canadians trust someone to do the former isn’t the ballot question right now, it is do we trust someone to make the right calls on the later.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Very on brand for this forum...

Building Canada Strong | Liberal Party of Canada

Here’s how our Liberal housing plan will help you afford a home Mark Carney’s Liberal government will double the pace of construction to almost 500,000 new homes a year, with a housing plan that will: Get the government back in the business of building The Liberal housing plan will create Build...

liberal.ca

The feds would be a developer again! I didn't think anyone had the courage. Out righting the CPC out lefting the NDP.

 

[gsunnyg]

Many domestic policies when international events threaten a -3% economic shock and an even larger recession looms feels out of touch.

He needs to relate it back to crisis management and and something that focus groups well isn’t connecting.

I’d take it back to 2009 and Harper. The renovation tax credit was a nice little policy at the time. Related back to the economic activity issue — a huge drop in construction spending. But that wasn’t the crisis response. It was a small peripheral policy. The real policies were what we mostly didn’t hear about. The bailouts of the paper market and the banks. The Canadian led rescue of Ireland.

Do Canadians trust someone to do the former isn’t the ballot question right now, it is do we trust someone to make the right calls on the later.

But how much "later" are Canadians really worried about? Do they genuinely prioritize a 3% economic shock over the extensive number of pressing domestic issues? Trump will be in office for four years or less, meanwhile, I’ve yet to hear Carney address areas like crime or the overdose crisis. I’ve experienced a break-in myself, and my friends have had their cars broken into multiple times here in the NE, issues we didn't see so widespread growing up. I have friends and family being affected by the fentanyl crisis, which Carney downplays as a "challenge" rather than a crisis. I lost a friend to an accidental overdose, and hearing comments like that just reinforces my belief that he’s out of touch with the daily struggles of Canadians. How this man is resonating with people right now is beyond me.

Honestly, I think it comes down to personality with Pierre. He needs to start acting less like his former opposition MP form and more like a leader.