2025 Federal Election

[trtcttc]

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.

They need to pivot. I don't disagree these policies were long sought after for particular groups, but for the general public, they all blend in together. I don't think people are questioning their tax-cutting credentials, and 90% of the public would probably answer Conservatives when asked who would lower taxes. They need to campaign on things people doubt about them. Pierre's ability to address the US issue and connect with people on a more personal level. They are trying it, with his wife and kids being more present, but he's clearly uncomfortable with that, but they need to adapt quickly.

 

[darwink]

Do they genuinely prioritize a 3% economic shock over the extensive number of pressing domestic issues?

Addressing the former is table stakes to be listened to on the later in this election it seems.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

PP is a thatcher guy, I really think he is "not for turning". He has talked about establishing his conservative beliefs in his teens and sticking to them. In the mean time, I've voted Conservative, Green (when I lived on Vancouver Island), NDP, and Liberal. As my life has evolved so have my beliefs. I find it interesting that people stick with one party.

It isn't even a big turn to pivot and be an attack dog on Trump and being a champion for Canada. rather than him being the dog who caught the car (Trudeau) he should be the dog that barks at trump and protects the Canadian house.

So little about campaigns is based on policy and even though PPs policy is being pointed out a part of his base has been conditioned to not believe what politicians tell you. So even if you're pitching affordability, I'm not sure they believe him. I could also argue his TFSA and capital gains stuff mostly serves well-off people so that could make it tough to resonate with people too.

 

[darwink]

I do think the split comes down to: do you believe the threats of annexation are real or not?

If you're in the parrallel universe that doesn't think it is real, it is really hard to appeal to or uinderstand the motivations of people who think it is real.

A good portion of the electorate, for whatever reason, do not believe it is real. Even after tariffs were imposed making real the threat of economic warfare to push annexation. This includes a good chunk of Conservative elected officials, and the commentariat, including the nominal non-owner spiritual leader of the conservative media ecosystem, Conrad Black.

Doug Ford pivoted in a huge way. Explained both his past support for Trump, and the betrayal he felt. He took Ontarians on the emotional journey of being betrayed by a friend.

It is really hard for Pierre to address the same group, when he hasn't gone on the same journey. Those voters Ford brought with him just don't believe that Pierre has had a similar conversion.

 

[CBBarnett]

They need to pivot. I don't disagree these policies were long sought after for particular groups, but for the general public, they all blend in together. I don't think people are questioning their tax-cutting credentials, and 90% of the public would probably answer Conservatives when asked who would lower taxes. They need to campaign on things people doubt about them. Pierre's ability to address the US issue and connect with people on a more personal level. They are trying it, with his wife and kids being more present, but he's clearly uncomfortable with that, but they need to adapt quickly.

Poll after poll were and are telling the Conservatives to pivot but they are taking too long and failed to recognize (or unwilling to recognize) when most Canadians think of the economy - now see Trump, tariffs and annexation as the #1 economic issue by a mile now as of about January. All the other more "normal" economic policies often discussed (e.g. tax cuts, TFSA tweaks, random tax policy nuances) have become totally subservient to the larger threat in most people's minds.

Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals triggered the abrupt change in public perception, but only the Liberals recognized the opportunity and captured the narrative while the Conservatives waffled. It's a combo of both skill and luck.

• Carney came in from Day 1 with an easy-to-understand, confident message and a boring professional approach. This helped people see him as competent and trustworthy on trade, international negotiations and infrastructure.
• Poilievre ignored the Trump issue too long, downplaying it and being seen as tone-deaf fighting the old wars not the current ones (e.g. Canada is the problem because we are weak, Trudeau and carbon tax are the real enemies not Trump).
• Poilievre's pivot is struggling several reasons - partly because it seems unnatural for him after years of the same message., he doesn't have the same benefit a newcomer like Carney does who can just start from scratch. PP's not getting help from continued headlines caused by friends like Danielle Smith, that are undermining trust that he and the Conservatives can be trusted with Trump.

You don't get abrupt graphs like this in federal politics often unless you really missed the mark as the Conservatives, or really found the right message as the Liberals:

 

[Unknown User]

I voted Green Party since there isn't an undecided option. Every ounce of my moral/ethic fibre tell me a vote for PP is a vote for more of the same UCP "anti-woke" agenda that their grass roots crave, and is disgusting and completely stupid and shortsighted, but my logical side finds it hard to accept Carney can be the centre-right PM he claims he will be since as others have noted he has kept the likes of Butts and Guilbeault (especially) who, to me at least, fail to understand the importance/balance of extracting the full value of resource development (responsibly) to fund our future.

On the tariff/economy side I also don't certainly subscribe to the belief that the PP conservatives can be anything close to a panacea especially when it seems, at least if you believe the Premier of Alberta, that PP would tie us even closer to the United States. I struggle how to see how the Conservatives reconcile the need to build more pipelines to tide water and diversify away from the United States in general, espcially at the enormous cost that would come to taxpayers at, when their belief is that tariffs are short term and it is in Canada's best interest to remain (in our previous) status quo with the US in trade.

How does any party "fix" a "broken"/"unproductive" Canada by reducing regulations to draw investment without consideration that removal of those regulations will likely lead to even further extended timelines due to a drawn out court cases. In a race to the bottom with the United States in regards to taxes and regulations how do we not lose?

I guess I am saying I am undecided because I think Steven Guilbeault, and other's of his ilk within that party, are idiots even though I do believe in the goal of 2050 net-zero.

 

[darwink]

Butts and Guilbeault

There is that Butts and Guilbeault helped buy and complete a pipeline, approved Keystone XL, Line 3 replacement, and other Enbridge Main Line debottlenecking, help create the tax and tariff incentives needed for LNG Canada, and that Guilbeault was around the cabinet table when the Coastal Gas Link protests were cleared.

I get that not being a cheer leader can feel like opposition, but one of the Harper approvals got tossed because the cabinet was being cheerleader-y.

How does any party "fix" a "broken"/"unproductive" Canada by reducing regulations to draw investment without consideration that removal of those regulations will likely lead to even further extended timelines due to a drawn out court cases.

Hopefully, by learning the right lessons from TMX and Coastal Gas link processes. There is a path forward.

We also have to be more strict about what we count as part of processes. Some media pieces and speeches seem to count from the first media mention, not the application date.

There is something to the CPC 'preapproval' process, but it can't work like they say. How it could work is the regulator gets a very high level application, and based on the description, and a high level risk analysis for show stoppers, cabinet can decide to designate the project concept as a matter of importance, where the government pays for high level science, and convenes early Indigenous consultation including the appointment of a government tradeoff decider (this was a position that helped get the TMX over the line, consultation wasn't just to put objections into a report, it was to weigh pros and cons and decide) early.

 

[GoVertical]

The turnout for Carney last night. Around more than one side of the stadium to the Red and White Club. There wasn't enough room for all who attended!

 

[Surrealplaces]

Here's a question for those more political savvy than myself. Daniel Smith keeps pushing to remove the cap on emissions, and my question is if this something that actually matters? It comes up a lot, especially from Smith, but doing some googling searches doesn't give a lot of good solid info...at least from a quick read. I get that companies would ultimately have to pay less into carbon capture with the cap removed, and I'm wondering if that is all this issue comes down to?

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Here's a question for those more political savvy than myself. Daniel Smith keeps pushing to remove the cap on emissions, and my question is if this something that actually matters? It comes up a lot, especially from Smith, but doing some googling searches doesn't give a lot of good solid info...at least from a quick read. I get that companies would ultimately have to pay less into carbon capture with the cap removed, and I'm wondering if that is all this issue comes down to?

A cap on emissions is seen as a cap on production which for oil and gas and the province is a cap on revenue. For me, it is that simple.

Now, in this oil price downward trend time, I wonder how close to the cap it will even get.

 

[DougB]

Here's a question for those more political savvy than myself. Daniel Smith keeps pushing to remove the cap on emissions, and my question is if this something that actually matters? It comes up a lot, especially from Smith, but doing some googling searches doesn't give a lot of good solid info...at least from a quick read. I get that companies would ultimately have to pay less into carbon capture with the cap removed, and I'm wondering if that is all this issue comes down to?

It is also grossly unfair. A cap on national emissions might sense. Caps on specific industries or regions are nothing but partisan. I'd favor an emissions cap on the 400 series highways or maybe the Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal airports. How about an emissions cap on the Federal government and its employees?

 

[darwink]

Here's a question for those more political savvy than myself. Daniel Smith keeps pushing to remove the cap on emissions, and my question is if this something that actually matters? It comes up a lot, especially from Smith, but doing some googling searches doesn't give a lot of good solid info...at least from a quick read. I get that companies would ultimately have to pay less into carbon capture with the cap removed, and I'm wondering if that is all this issue comes down to?

If you think that oil sands 6 or 8 million [barrels per day] is something that could exist, yes.

It is also economically inefficient, to both have a national cap and trade, and then an arbitrary submarket within that cap and trade for oil and gas. Basically it ensures that oil and gas doesn't crowd out all other emissions from the emissions market, as they are more efficient, and would lower emissions costs for others, and raise emission costs for oil and gas.

That all being said: Pathways, the largest oil sands companies, have promised that an investment decision on the core infrastructure to enable carbon capture and storage for all of the oil sands is close, for years now. At some point they have to choose: either they don't operate past 2050, or they start capturing some of their CO2. Time to choose.

Neither the liberals or conservatives have abandoned net-zero. It is just a matter of what year. For the Conservatives, it is still 80% reduction by 2050, net-zero by 2080. Liberals it is an ambition for net-zero by 2050.

 

[darwink]

It is also grossly unfair. A cap on national emissions might sense. Caps on specific industries or regions are nothing but partisan. I'd favor an emissions cap on the 400 series highways or maybe the Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal airports. How about an emissions cap on the Federal government and its employees?

Yeah. The economists hate it too! It is a communications tool. A question is whether we are anywhere close to the cap, whether the cap is real or just a comms exercise. I don't know what ended up being concluded on that.

 

[darwink]

A cap on emissions is seen as a cap on production which for oil and gas and the province is a cap on revenue. For me, it is that simple.

Now, in this oil price downward trend time, I wonder how close to the cap it will even get.

My conception is that when it was an oil sands emissions cap (this was way back in the Notley years, as part of the grand deal that led to the TMX approval), there was no way that enough new projects would emerge that the industry would ever get close. Unless shale oil went away.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

My conception is that when it was an oil sands emissions cap (this was way back in the Notley years, as part of the grand deal that led to the TMX approval), there was no way that enough new projects would emerge that the industry would ever get close. Unless shale oil went away.

It is something to put in the window for the carbon conscience person.