The level of division we see in Canada has been building over many years and to an extent is part of a global phenomenon. The last PM and Leader of the opposition seemed perfectly built to exacerbate the problem - and they did. I don’t believe it’s insurmountable by any stretch but it will take time and sustained effort. A common enemy helps - so thank you Mr. Trump. But it’s unlikely a single election could do much. That said, the leaders response, especially in the coming days and weeks, could help to set a direction. Carney said the right things about unity (although clearly not an inspirational speaker) but others have said those things as well and not followed through. Mr. Poilievre maintained a very strongly combative tone, I didn’t see any humility. 8 seconds he spent on the notion of working with the government against external threats. That does not bode well. I think the best thing that could happen is we move beyond the Trudeau/Poilievre era and into something new. Again, that’s not going to solve the problem but at least we can stop pouring gas on the fire and building discontent and disdain.
I’m hopeful Carney will turn out to be the guy millions of Canadians hope he is. I haven’t seen any real evidence of it yet. But I’m open minded and looking for signs.
Given that most voters don't really pay attention, other than to the impact on their wallet (taxes and affordability) Poilievre might be recyclable.
However, his complete lack of achievements and agenda of 'get into power at any price' has throroughly branded him him as 'naked ambition in an empty suit, the political edition'.
All politicians want power. Why do you suppose a guy like Carney came out of retirement when guaranteed a leadership and a credible shot at power? It wasn’t for the sandwiches.
Power = influence = ability to shape the environment and make things better (or worse). That’s the most noble of motivations. And the most evil. Power is a tool. How you use it is up to you.
You can use a hammer to build a house for orphans or to kill someone in a dark alley.
That you don’t value the hard work and effort that goes into building a political career — earning the trust of hundreds, then thousands, then millions of people, learning the machinery of government, patiently building consensus for change, inspiring others to follow you — doesn’t mean success in those labours are a not an achievement.
No. Building a platform based on the ridiculous accusation that Justin was entirely responsible for all that Canadians experienced in the last 10 years in almost entirely attributable to Poilievre, and it would have been thrown out in any court if such a court had existed.
As to Poilievre's accomplishments, the key to a politicians contribution is public benefit accomplishments once they are elected, not that they built their potential voter base. The vote on Apr 29th showed a profound lack of trust in Poilievre, the most significant indication of which was the willingness of many Conservative, NDP, and other party supporters to abandon their party vote to vote Liberal for Carney and against Poilievre.
A clear-eyed and nonpartisan view of the election results does not support your charge of a "profound lack of trust" in Canadian voters. In fact, the data show the opposite.
Conservatives won 42% of the national vote, down 3 percentage points from their peak of 45% in January when Trudeau resigned. That's not a huge drop in national support. That's a significant amount of "trust" from Canadian voters. In any other election, it would have been enough to result in a massive majority government for the CPC.
I don't think there's any data supporting your claim that significant numbers of Conservative voters abandoned ship and voted for Carney. I know, anecdotally from my own conversations, there were some. But there's no data to suggest the numbers were significant. In fact, there is data to suggest the opposite. First, the drop was 3 points. Not massive. Not significant.
The Liberals won 49.3% of the vote in the election. Even at 45%, the CPC would not have beaten them.
Ample evidence shows what actually happened: Following the selection of Mark Carney as Liberal leader, the CPC voter support subsided – dropping as low as 38% at the end of March, before rebounding to 41% in the last pre-election polls and to 42% in the election results.
Meanwhile Liberal support, which had been as low as 20% in early January, began to climb steeply until peaking at 44% in early April, then easing to 42% in the last pre-election polls.
The evidence suggests the CPC did not lose the support of many voters who had previously indicated they would vote for them. Rather, the NDP vote rapidly collapsed from 19% to 6% (last poll) immediately after Trudeau resigned. Canadians also abandoned the Greens at the same time. Both camps, NDP and Green supporters, moved to the Liberals, perhaps to support Carney as a brighter hope or perhaps to block the Conservatives from victory.
In either case, the Conservatives grew their electoral support significantly under Polilievre. They added 24 seats to their caucus. But, the Liberals also added 17seats. The CPC didn't lose much of its peak support. But Liberals expanded theirs with a massive transfer of support from disavowed BQ, NDP and Green supporters who collectively lost 29 seats. (Note the numbers don't add up because 5 seats were added to an expanded House of Commons)
Justin Trudeau was the Prime Minister for the last 10 years and, therefore, by definition responsible for the way people's lives changed in that time.
"Responsible" does not always mean "at fault." But, the buck always stops with the leader. My teams have often made mistakes, occasionally even failed in their missions. It was not always my fault. But it was always, and will remain forever, my responsibility.
I could, perhaps have anticipated problems I did not foresee. I could have pursed a different path. I could have motivated people better. Or, maybe I did everything right, made the right choices, executed the plan flawlessly, and still failed. Regardless, it's my responsibility.
For Trudeau (and every leader) the same holds true.
I have criticized Pierre Poilievre for not reshaping his message as leader vs. pitbull, when Trump won again, when Trudeau resigned, when the polls shifted. The election was his to win. He lost.
Good summary- thanks Mark. The Charter was successfully introduced in Canada via the efforts of 3 disparate individuals coming together in the interests of the country- Jean Chretien (Lib), Roy McMurtry (Con) and Roy Romanow (NDP). It can happen but it will require some soul-searching, with PP if he stays as leader, having to make some serious adjustments
Boomers have the lived experience of several less than successful Conservative governments that may have influenced their voting choices. It's hard to forget the Harper years if you lived through them. Seeing Harper endorse PP was a red flag to many older voters like me.
Until the CPC kicks out the Boomer Reformers, the Incels, the Clownvoyers, the misogynists, the far-right bullies, and the other nasties it is harbouring, I, a Boomer who has seen effective and responsible PC governments and leaders, will not consider the CPC a viable party—even with a decent leader like O’Toole, never mind a hate-farming liar like Poilievre.
As to Boomers dying off—when I look at the growing cancer rates in the young and the amount of obesity, I suspect that Boomer deaths will sadly be offset by young deaths in the voting world. Attrition is a bitch!
I sympathize with your desire for change; just make sure it is change for the better not change for change’ sake.
An argument loses effect when it resorts to Trump-like pejorative nicknames for people the author clearly despises. It sounds like diehard tribalism from someone who would never consider the viewpoint, candidate or party they're deriding.
This immediately makes the argument irrelevant. It does not change minds. Only people who already agree with it will nod along. Everyone else just tunes it out.
I don’t see him that way at all but I do appreciate that many people do. I wonder if it is media spin and selective videos that pushed caused it. Remember what the media did to Bob Stanfield and his cowboy boots. In any case, I hope that Poilievre is able to stick around as I like to see the way he handles himself in House of Commons debates. I find him to be quick on his feet in the House and with reporters, in contrast to Carney. Maybe we will see a different Mark Carney now that the election is over and the Liberals no longer have to distance themselves from Justin Trudeau’s Liberal governments.
“Many Canadian boomers who have grown fat and rich under the Liberals will be dead the next time around.”
MEDIA SUPPORTING THEIR NARRATIVE. (MARCH 2, 2017 BY SHAWN WHATLEY
Fundamentalism in Medical Politics) -Shawn Whatley
-Media often write about events that support their narrative. All these ‘news’ sources need is a tweet, a quip or even a rumour. They use the tiniest tidbit to layer on pages of opinion. They craft their journalism-as-sermons by filtering:
Interesting take with much I'd like to comment on, but for now, I really wish we could stop with the idea that you can only be successful when the Boomers die off. Not only is it offensive, but if you think that is what it takes to win, it is pretty pathetic. Unfortunately this type of thinking is becoming commonplace, but that doesn't mean it is right.
I’ve never suggested waiting for the old and rich Liberals to die off was the only way to win an election. In fact, I’ve proposed a number of things that can be done here and now.
But they are old. And getting older. Eventually they will be gone.
Facts are facts. And logic is logic. Old boomers who’ve achieved every success under the status quo will never have much reason to vote for change. Why would they?
Success comes in aligning with the interests of more Canadians than the other guys. And not giving voters a reason to fear you.
Of course, not all "old boomers" achieved every success. This is just generational stereotyping, akin to saying "all millenials are lazy." Have you considered that perhaps the "change" they were being offered wasn't very appealing?
If Boomers have succeeded in the last 10 years, they did so under the Trudeau government. The status quo works for them.
Democracy only works if every voter votes in their own best interest – not "strategically" to block this or that. Of course. their own interest includes not just money in their pockets today and grub on their table tonight, but a world and a future that appeals to them.
The change on offer was not appealing to them. That's the whole point of my every comment. On that we agree.
C'mon Mark. ''If Boomers have succeeded in the last 10 years, they did so under the Trudeau government. The status quo works for them.''
If Boomers succeeded they did it well before the Trudeau era. Most Boomers were retired or approaching retirement age during that time. At that point in their life, despite what you seem to imply with all this 'success' many were never successful and struggle on fixed incomes. Those that aren't struggling don't worry so much about change as about seeing their children succeed. They have no problem with change. They just don't want things to get worse.
I do think Pierre needs to go, he lost a "throw the bums out" election in Canada which is kind of a feat in itself, I think the credit for the popular vote surge of the CPC still has to go to Mr Trudeau. I agree that the CPC needs to give their leaders some time to incubate, but lets be frank O'Toole probably could have had a majority today Carney or not, Pierre's tent is too small.
I was really torn this election. I really, really, REALLY don't like the Liberals and have never voted for them until now. They are the party of central Canadian hegemony and corruption (SNC Lavalin affair) and govern for those provinces. But I had sufficient concerns about the current iteration of conservatism that i just could'nt do it.
It wasn't just Polievre, though as a woman I also found him unlikeable, unoriginal, simplistic and combative. It was also some of the CP candidates (Aaron Gunn et al). But mostly it was the culture war dog whistling that put me off.
Agreed on almost all counts, but as for the "party of corruption" I don't think the Liberals have the monopoly on that. Mulroney's "Airbus/Hans Schreiber/bags of cash" scandal was no small potatoes, and there have been plenty of others, even all the way back to John A MacDonald (the Pacific Scandal). Using the various scandals as a cudgel on any one party seems a touch ingenuous.
Good information in this post, thank you. I'm feeling somewhat depressed about the division in our Canada still and unsure of the future.
I think you have lots of company this morning!
The level of division we see in Canada has been building over many years and to an extent is part of a global phenomenon. The last PM and Leader of the opposition seemed perfectly built to exacerbate the problem - and they did. I don’t believe it’s insurmountable by any stretch but it will take time and sustained effort. A common enemy helps - so thank you Mr. Trump. But it’s unlikely a single election could do much. That said, the leaders response, especially in the coming days and weeks, could help to set a direction. Carney said the right things about unity (although clearly not an inspirational speaker) but others have said those things as well and not followed through. Mr. Poilievre maintained a very strongly combative tone, I didn’t see any humility. 8 seconds he spent on the notion of working with the government against external threats. That does not bode well. I think the best thing that could happen is we move beyond the Trudeau/Poilievre era and into something new. Again, that’s not going to solve the problem but at least we can stop pouring gas on the fire and building discontent and disdain.
I’m hopeful Carney will turn out to be the guy millions of Canadians hope he is. I haven’t seen any real evidence of it yet. But I’m open minded and looking for signs.
Ouch. Fair
That's what some people want. Here and down south.
Excellent and wide view of Canadian Fed politics.
Given that most voters don't really pay attention, other than to the impact on their wallet (taxes and affordability) Poilievre might be recyclable.
However, his complete lack of achievements and agenda of 'get into power at any price' has throroughly branded him him as 'naked ambition in an empty suit, the political edition'.
All politicians want power. Why do you suppose a guy like Carney came out of retirement when guaranteed a leadership and a credible shot at power? It wasn’t for the sandwiches.
Power = influence = ability to shape the environment and make things better (or worse). That’s the most noble of motivations. And the most evil. Power is a tool. How you use it is up to you.
You can use a hammer to build a house for orphans or to kill someone in a dark alley.
That you don’t value the hard work and effort that goes into building a political career — earning the trust of hundreds, then thousands, then millions of people, learning the machinery of government, patiently building consensus for change, inspiring others to follow you — doesn’t mean success in those labours are a not an achievement.
No. Building a platform based on the ridiculous accusation that Justin was entirely responsible for all that Canadians experienced in the last 10 years in almost entirely attributable to Poilievre, and it would have been thrown out in any court if such a court had existed.
As to Poilievre's accomplishments, the key to a politicians contribution is public benefit accomplishments once they are elected, not that they built their potential voter base. The vote on Apr 29th showed a profound lack of trust in Poilievre, the most significant indication of which was the willingness of many Conservative, NDP, and other party supporters to abandon their party vote to vote Liberal for Carney and against Poilievre.
A clear-eyed and nonpartisan view of the election results does not support your charge of a "profound lack of trust" in Canadian voters. In fact, the data show the opposite.
Conservatives won 42% of the national vote, down 3 percentage points from their peak of 45% in January when Trudeau resigned. That's not a huge drop in national support. That's a significant amount of "trust" from Canadian voters. In any other election, it would have been enough to result in a massive majority government for the CPC.
I don't think there's any data supporting your claim that significant numbers of Conservative voters abandoned ship and voted for Carney. I know, anecdotally from my own conversations, there were some. But there's no data to suggest the numbers were significant. In fact, there is data to suggest the opposite. First, the drop was 3 points. Not massive. Not significant.
The Liberals won 49.3% of the vote in the election. Even at 45%, the CPC would not have beaten them.
Ample evidence shows what actually happened: Following the selection of Mark Carney as Liberal leader, the CPC voter support subsided – dropping as low as 38% at the end of March, before rebounding to 41% in the last pre-election polls and to 42% in the election results.
Meanwhile Liberal support, which had been as low as 20% in early January, began to climb steeply until peaking at 44% in early April, then easing to 42% in the last pre-election polls.
The evidence suggests the CPC did not lose the support of many voters who had previously indicated they would vote for them. Rather, the NDP vote rapidly collapsed from 19% to 6% (last poll) immediately after Trudeau resigned. Canadians also abandoned the Greens at the same time. Both camps, NDP and Green supporters, moved to the Liberals, perhaps to support Carney as a brighter hope or perhaps to block the Conservatives from victory.
In either case, the Conservatives grew their electoral support significantly under Polilievre. They added 24 seats to their caucus. But, the Liberals also added 17seats. The CPC didn't lose much of its peak support. But Liberals expanded theirs with a massive transfer of support from disavowed BQ, NDP and Green supporters who collectively lost 29 seats. (Note the numbers don't add up because 5 seats were added to an expanded House of Commons)
Aggregated Polling Data: https://enr.elections.ca/National.aspx?lang=e
Election Results: https://338canada.com/federal.htm
Justin Trudeau was the Prime Minister for the last 10 years and, therefore, by definition responsible for the way people's lives changed in that time.
"Responsible" does not always mean "at fault." But, the buck always stops with the leader. My teams have often made mistakes, occasionally even failed in their missions. It was not always my fault. But it was always, and will remain forever, my responsibility.
I could, perhaps have anticipated problems I did not foresee. I could have pursed a different path. I could have motivated people better. Or, maybe I did everything right, made the right choices, executed the plan flawlessly, and still failed. Regardless, it's my responsibility.
For Trudeau (and every leader) the same holds true.
I have criticized Pierre Poilievre for not reshaping his message as leader vs. pitbull, when Trump won again, when Trudeau resigned, when the polls shifted. The election was his to win. He lost.
Good summary- thanks Mark. The Charter was successfully introduced in Canada via the efforts of 3 disparate individuals coming together in the interests of the country- Jean Chretien (Lib), Roy McMurtry (Con) and Roy Romanow (NDP). It can happen but it will require some soul-searching, with PP if he stays as leader, having to make some serious adjustments
Boomers have the lived experience of several less than successful Conservative governments that may have influenced their voting choices. It's hard to forget the Harper years if you lived through them. Seeing Harper endorse PP was a red flag to many older voters like me.
I have to think if you hated Harper, you were never ever going to vote for any Conservative candidate. Ever. Ever ever. lol
Until the CPC kicks out the Boomer Reformers, the Incels, the Clownvoyers, the misogynists, the far-right bullies, and the other nasties it is harbouring, I, a Boomer who has seen effective and responsible PC governments and leaders, will not consider the CPC a viable party—even with a decent leader like O’Toole, never mind a hate-farming liar like Poilievre.
As to Boomers dying off—when I look at the growing cancer rates in the young and the amount of obesity, I suspect that Boomer deaths will sadly be offset by young deaths in the voting world. Attrition is a bitch!
I sympathize with your desire for change; just make sure it is change for the better not change for change’ sake.
An argument loses effect when it resorts to Trump-like pejorative nicknames for people the author clearly despises. It sounds like diehard tribalism from someone who would never consider the viewpoint, candidate or party they're deriding.
This immediately makes the argument irrelevant. It does not change minds. Only people who already agree with it will nod along. Everyone else just tunes it out.
As a result, it adds no value to a conversation.
I might have voted for Charest or Michael Chong.
Me too.
Thanks for another insightful article, Mark.
“Poilievre, however, is an unlikeable guy.”
I don’t see him that way at all but I do appreciate that many people do. I wonder if it is media spin and selective videos that pushed caused it. Remember what the media did to Bob Stanfield and his cowboy boots. In any case, I hope that Poilievre is able to stick around as I like to see the way he handles himself in House of Commons debates. I find him to be quick on his feet in the House and with reporters, in contrast to Carney. Maybe we will see a different Mark Carney now that the election is over and the Liberals no longer have to distance themselves from Justin Trudeau’s Liberal governments.
“Many Canadian boomers who have grown fat and rich under the Liberals will be dead the next time around.”
Thanks, Mark.
I hope we see two very different men emerge from the campaign chrysalides of both Carney and Poilievre.
I love your metaphors.
Media spin ? No, people just listen to what he says and make judgments.
Beyond that, why is it that so many CPC supporters feel compelled to resort to the ´the media is mean to us’ card? It’s a loser mentality.
MEDIA SUPPORTING THEIR NARRATIVE. (MARCH 2, 2017 BY SHAWN WHATLEY
Fundamentalism in Medical Politics) -Shawn Whatley
-Media often write about events that support their narrative. All these ‘news’ sources need is a tweet, a quip or even a rumour. They use the tiniest tidbit to layer on pages of opinion. They craft their journalism-as-sermons by filtering:
What gets reported
What gets ignored
The timing of a story
How many times the story gets repeated
The tone
Bias and balance (or lack thereof)
Errors of fact
Errors of omission
Interesting take with much I'd like to comment on, but for now, I really wish we could stop with the idea that you can only be successful when the Boomers die off. Not only is it offensive, but if you think that is what it takes to win, it is pretty pathetic. Unfortunately this type of thinking is becoming commonplace, but that doesn't mean it is right.
Nor does it mean it’s wrong.
I’ve never suggested waiting for the old and rich Liberals to die off was the only way to win an election. In fact, I’ve proposed a number of things that can be done here and now.
But they are old. And getting older. Eventually they will be gone.
Facts are facts. And logic is logic. Old boomers who’ve achieved every success under the status quo will never have much reason to vote for change. Why would they?
Success comes in aligning with the interests of more Canadians than the other guys. And not giving voters a reason to fear you.
Of course, not all "old boomers" achieved every success. This is just generational stereotyping, akin to saying "all millenials are lazy." Have you considered that perhaps the "change" they were being offered wasn't very appealing?
If Boomers have succeeded in the last 10 years, they did so under the Trudeau government. The status quo works for them.
Democracy only works if every voter votes in their own best interest – not "strategically" to block this or that. Of course. their own interest includes not just money in their pockets today and grub on their table tonight, but a world and a future that appeals to them.
The change on offer was not appealing to them. That's the whole point of my every comment. On that we agree.
C'mon Mark. ''If Boomers have succeeded in the last 10 years, they did so under the Trudeau government. The status quo works for them.''
If Boomers succeeded they did it well before the Trudeau era. Most Boomers were retired or approaching retirement age during that time. At that point in their life, despite what you seem to imply with all this 'success' many were never successful and struggle on fixed incomes. Those that aren't struggling don't worry so much about change as about seeing their children succeed. They have no problem with change. They just don't want things to get worse.
I do think Pierre needs to go, he lost a "throw the bums out" election in Canada which is kind of a feat in itself, I think the credit for the popular vote surge of the CPC still has to go to Mr Trudeau. I agree that the CPC needs to give their leaders some time to incubate, but lets be frank O'Toole probably could have had a majority today Carney or not, Pierre's tent is too small.
I was really torn this election. I really, really, REALLY don't like the Liberals and have never voted for them until now. They are the party of central Canadian hegemony and corruption (SNC Lavalin affair) and govern for those provinces. But I had sufficient concerns about the current iteration of conservatism that i just could'nt do it.
It wasn't just Polievre, though as a woman I also found him unlikeable, unoriginal, simplistic and combative. It was also some of the CP candidates (Aaron Gunn et al). But mostly it was the culture war dog whistling that put me off.
Agreed on almost all counts, but as for the "party of corruption" I don't think the Liberals have the monopoly on that. Mulroney's "Airbus/Hans Schreiber/bags of cash" scandal was no small potatoes, and there have been plenty of others, even all the way back to John A MacDonald (the Pacific Scandal). Using the various scandals as a cudgel on any one party seems a touch ingenuous.
You said what? That NDP voters went liberal. Did you see southern Ontario's conservative gains?
Great summation of the election.