I might be getting this wrong, but my takeaway from your article is that large numbers of Canadians will vote Liberal and this will not be because of objective flaws in the Conservative campaign, but because they’re idiots.
I can see why this might be a comforting conclusion for Conservatives partisans, because it absolves them of having to fashion a campaign that persuades anyone outside of the Conservative bubble. It just doesn’t seem like a helpful analysis if your aim is to win an election.
1. You are not wrong, I am accusing a large number of Canadians of voting for the Liberal party because they're idiots. Anyone who votes for the same party regardless of the results meets that definition. 20% was a made up number, which should have been obvious given that I also accused them of supporting Nigerian princes. Are you accusing me of thinking 20% of Canadians send money to scammers? That said, the lowest vote share the Liberals achieved in the last 25 years was 18.9% in the 2011 federal election, so I wasn't far off. Some of these people no doubt hold political beliefs that make them ideologically aligned with the party. I may disagree with them but they're not necessarily idiots.
By my estimates about 60% of the Canadian population falls in this category. "I always vote X" is not a thinking persons response. The article was about why voting for the Liberals was wrong not why voting for the Conservatives would be. Feel free to write that article yourself.
Aside from the economic nightmare that the progressive version of the Liberals have inflicted on the Canadian public over the last decade, there's another reason not to vote for them and I will admit that this may be a peculiar viewpoint of mine: no party should be permitted to rule this long. They always become arrogant and dismissive of the needs of citizens.
2. I am anything but a conservative partisan. If you take the time to read any other of my articles you'll see that. If I appear conservative it's because the left has been in power in both Canada and the US since I started writing this Substack and it's more important to address the abuses and mistakes of those in power than it is of those waiting in the wings.
One thing I've noticed about partisans is that they are quick to defend anything and everything their party does. They don't think because there's no need to; the party has told them what to think. You can recognize them fairly easily as a partisan, conservative or liberal, will accuse anyone who disagrees with them of belonging to the party they hate.
For example, I wrote an article the other day assessing three of Trump's policies. I saw one as good, one as bad, and I was on the fence about another. I was accused of being MAGA and of being a "libtard" because I was not wholly on one side or the other.
I appreciate your comments, and I appreciate that you're "anything but a conservative partisan." There's nothing wrong with being a Conservative partisan, but there can be a reflexive partisan mentality - "our team good, their team bad" - that seems to preclude useful analysis of the world as it is. I'm glad that that's not you.
However, I am trying to point out what may be a blind spot. Let me illustrate below:
"The article was about why voting for the Liberals was wrong not why voting for the Conservatives would be."
Granted. However, I don't see how these two propositions are not interconnected. Doesn't the rationality or non-rationality of voting Liberal depend on what the alternatives are? I'm guessing you're not suggesting smart Canadians just stay home, or vote NDP, Bloc Quebecois or Canadian Future Party. Or, maybe you are? However, it seems like you are inferring that there is some behaviour you'd prefer Canadians to engage in, above and beyond not voting Liberal.
My contention would be that most Canadians who vote for the Liberals are non-idiots, and vote for this party for rational reasons. I might not agree with these reasons, but an advantage of my hypothesis is that it could lead me to investigate what those reasons are. Then - I apologize if this is coming across as flippant, I don't mean it to - if I could address these it would possibly persuade more Canadians to not vote Liberal.
I agree with your idea that the Liberals have done a poor job of governing over the last nine years. I also agree that in healthy democracies, regularly alternating power between political parties is important. However, it doesn't necessarily follow from this that voting Liberal isn't the least bad thing to do out of the possible alternatives. And if there is a better alternative, suggesting that the people you're ostensibly trying to persuade are idiots seems counterproductive.
This might be only my bias, but I think there is an inherent obligation in advocating for someone not to do something to indicate what alternative is better.
You're correct, I'm not suggesting Canadians stay home. Staying home is just a vote for whoever wins.
I'm struggling with how to respond here. You are not the first person to point out that calling someone an idiot will not persuade them to change their vote. I know and I agree. This article was not written to persuade people to reject the Liberals, it was written because:
1. I am frustrated. See the first paragraph of the article.
2. I have reached the conclusion that even if I presented my case more politely it would not matter for simple reason that if your position is "sure the Liberals lied, mismanaged the economy, housing, and immigration, and are clearly corrupt, but what's a good argument to vote for someone else" logic will not reach you.
If Liberal supporters have "rational reasons" for voting Liberal I have yet to hear any. More often than not I run into arguments similar to this one:
"Poilievre has taken what was already an unappealing party and turned it into a steaming pile of spite, hatred and dumb slogans. His performative rage and inability to come across as an even marginally-serious leader are bad enough; but his open embrace of the Maple MAGA crowd is the death knell for any chance of him ever becoming PM."
Aside from the slogans, this is nonsense (and we can debate whether or not they're "dumb").
Carney has stated his case to Canadians as "I'm not Trudeau but Poilievre is Trump." His supporters throw around "Maple Maga" and "fascist" on a regular basis and falsely accuse the Conservatives of wanting to outlaw abortion. You'll have to forgive me if I come across as angry and accuse Liberal supporters of being idiots. It's not without reason.
"Aside from the slogans, this is nonsense (and we can debate whether or not they're "dumb")."
I think this is an area where we differ, on perhaps on at least two grounds. I think 'how' policies are conveyed is a valid basis for accepting or rejecting a political party, and I think this is one of the primary criticisms of Poillievre from within the Conservative Party is that his way of conveying Conservative policies is inherently self-limiting. Lots of people like the way he communicates but, if the polling is accurate, more people are turned off by it than are attracted. As a conservative I think this is an 'us' problem rather than a 'they' problem. I think we need to own that we selected a leader that has always been polarizing and that, while he has significant upsides, he has significant down sides as well. If we lose this election I think it will largely be on account of the leader we chose.
You could argue that, well, that's superficial. That's judging a book by it's cover, and we all know from childhood that's not the right thing to do.
My response? I can understand that, but disagree. To me, how we communicate isn't just a matter of personal preference (though it is that as well). It's also an indicator of character. Is signifies things like whether I am intellectually flexible rather than rigid. It gives information about whether I am good at building alliances, or perhaps I am ineffective at working with people who are different than I am. Or can I unify large numbers of people around a common vision or do I tend to attract mostly the true believers?
As Conservatives I think we selected the wrong leader. Though Poillievre is wildly popular with the base, he turns off women and swing voters. I think if the Conservatives had selected a leader like Jean Charest or even Stephen Harper - I don't mean in terms of policies but simply in terms of their skills and demeanor as politicians - we would still be waltzing toward an easy Conservative majority in a largely drama-free election. I think the Conservatives could still pull this off, but if we do it will be in spite of our leader rather than because of him.*
I don't mean to dismiss your frustration. I think I get a lot of it. A system where a party that has run the country as poorly as the Liberals have are still in contention for government 10 years later - that's a problem. While I am still unsure who I will vote for but, at a critical time for our country, I sure wish we had better choices.
I disagree that how one communicates is an indicator of character. Temperament perhaps but not character. Trudeau was arguably an effective communicator. He was also dishonest and involved in numerous corruptions scandals - which the public largely ignored which gets me back to my original "dumb" comment.
Yes, it can be an indication of character. I think how Trump communicates definitely reveals (aligns?) with his character. WRT Poilievre I have seen no indication that slogans are anything but a tool. If you want to argue that the effectiveness of a slogan on an individual is an indicator of that individual's character I might agree. However, I largely maintain that they're primarily just a way to simplify a message for a public that largely doesn't pay attention to politics.
I don't particularly like slogans, nor to I think Poilievre is Canada's Churchill but then again, our political "leaders" as a group are largely uninspiring. Your criticism is not without merit however if Trudeau had not resigned we would likely be talking about Poilievre's brilliance in connecting with the public. If it's any consolation to you I imagine Poilievre will be gone if the Cons lose tomorrow. I'm not sure his successor will do any better as the lessons of this election seem to be 40% of the population can be counted on voting Liberal provided you put a new person in charge of the party every 10 years or so.
I like to think I am not swayed by slogans but focus on policies. I stopped watching debates years ago because they're more moronic than slogans. I hate the "Canada is broken" cries I read on social media. Canada isn't broken but Canadian politics is. There are plenty of things that can be done to fix it - eliminating first past the post being #1 - but it would take the winning party being willing to modify a system that just brought them into power and I have very little faith that any of our politicians prioritize the welfare of the country over their own fortunes.
Trusting 'polls' is something I never do especially EKOS. WHY? Because Frank Graves owns EKOS and he's an admitted die hard HATER of both Poilievre and the Conservative Party. The FACT that Canada has, according to an RCMP Officer when questioned in a 'committee meeting' at least 4,000 drug cartels operating in Canada, several known terrorist cells, money launderers AND Chinese foreign interference ALL heightened under Trudeau's 'watch' should be NOTICED by the voters. YET, the mainstream propagandist media has REFUSED to do their job of intense investigation, hence the substack writers many of whom are not read by the masses, as in masses of 'newbie' 'Canadians' waltzed in here under the Liberals watch. The NEW LIBERAL voters who are enjoying every taxpayer funded handout whilst DISRESPECTING the country that accepted them by chanting death to citizens and burning the flag, descending upon city streets - main thoroughfares to pray, taking over McGill University to disrupt classes and frighten students with their decrees of anger at institutions for NOT embracing their political views, the LIST of 10 years of internal destruction to this country by Trudeau's WEF GLOBALIST HANDLERS instructions to decimate us is blatantly OBVIOUS to those of us who've researched the begesus of the WEF's history and ideologies of their NAZI leader, Schwab. It's mind boggling how no one in the in the halls of academia who are historians of war haven't raised a peep about the similarities of the divide and conquer strategies of Hitler's playbook have been used since the start of COVID to now. From the incessant media fearmongering to Trudeau's hateful rhetoric towards those who chose not to take an unproperly tested product (it takes 7 to 10 years to vet vaccines before deemed SAFE for public use), thus began the US vs THEM divide and it's continuing on with this election. Carney's A PROBLEM, he's been SENT IN ti finish what Trudeau's started. He's publicly admitted to being a 'globalist elitist' he's publicly admitted he 'considers himself to be European vs Canadian'. His wife's in thick with Gerald Butts environmental organization and BUTTS himself remained behind the scenes advising Trudeau as well as Carney and SOROS! Someone needs to confront Carney about his September luncheon with Tony Blair as commented on another site. Apparently, he and the much despised by the Brits, BLAIR, another WEF acolyte, discussed Carney's takeover of Canada's PM role due to Blair's immense dislike of Trudeau. Whether this is true based upon a commenter's writing of it or not it is a valid question to pose to Carney among others like, WHAT IS YOUR TRUE INTENTION for being in Canada considering you haven't lived here for over 10 years and WHAT WILL YOU DO TO FIX our broken healthcare system among a LIST of other broken items? Guaranteed NO viable answers would be forthcoming.
I think part of the reason for the recent Liberal surge in the polls is that boomers (the demographic far most likely to support the Liberals) still enjoy relatively good material conditions and are completely oblivious to how material conditions (and quality of life more broadly) have cataclysmically declined for other generations, particularly millennials and zoomers.
Part of the reason for this boomer myopia is that they are completely dependent on legacy media (particularly the CBC) for all of their information. They are also the most anti-American of the generations right now, which only exacerbates the TDS that many of them have.
I'm not a fan of intergenerational conflict. I don't like grouping people and saying "they all voted this way because..."
People vote for what they believe helps them and if they're not indifferent to the problems of others, put those problems well below their own. This is only natural. This is part of the reason why so many of the very wealthy are progressives. Their financial situations is secure and are happy to pay a little more taxes for more "free" services. They're happy to be soft on crime because they live in gated communities and don't have to see the downside of "being kind."
Most of us care about ourselves, our families, and our friends, before we care about strangers. I don't expect people to vote the way I want because I personally want lower capital gains tax or more funding for the military. I need to convince people that those policies are in their best interest.
I wish more boomers would vote Conservative but there are plenty of non-boomers voting for the Liberals as well.
I do agree that a lot of this is likely due to legacy media. However there's one other problem; Canadians do not pay as much attention to politics as Americans. Every election they half wake up, look at which leader gives them the best vibe, vote, and then ignore everything until the next election (unless they're in the 55%-60% of Canadian who vote for the same party regardless of what is happening in the world). This is why corruption "scandals" in Canada rarely amount to anything. Nobody is paying attention.
I’m in the same spot as you: angry at my fellow countrymen, but resigned because it technically isn’t their fault. They were indoctrinated long and hard in Canadian schools. They’ve succumbed to Stockholm syndrome with regard to the Liberal Party being in power.
Greedflation. Sorry, that’s not a term recognized by any reputable school of economics. But I get that as a communist, you think any profit is greed. Clearly you know nothing about economics, and what it costs to run a business in a country that taxes the ever living crap out you, and to have roving bands of hooligans who are unemployed, or under employed think that it’s acceptable to rob corporate retail chains blind. Since robbery is in the wheelhouse of communists, I’m sure you’re fine, probably participating every week, by stealing stuff from Loblaws or Safeway. Yeah, you’ve exposed yourself bubb.
lol. To mirror your response, I’ve had an IQ of 160 for 48 years, and I will take no council from you. 🥸😒
2025 Support of LPoC ≠ critical thought. It signifies the complete opposite. There are 10 years of evidence that isn’t just on Trudeau. His entire caucus including Carney helped him destroy Canada. They deserve a time out in the penalty box. ☝🏻That is what critical thought looks like: evidence followed by rational decision.
Sorry dude, but greedflation is a bogus term, and Phil and Jason both have the right of it. Inflation is, always was and always will be a monetary phenomenon. And the single biggest source of inflation is government. Always has been and always will be.
IDK, the Conservatives were cruising for a victory until Trudeau stepped down. Did Poilievre do too good of a job tying all of Canada's problems to Trudeau?
I find it interesting that "greedflation" only seems to arise during periods of high inflation. Could it be that companies take advantage of periods of high inflation to raise prices higher than they need to be.
It's always possible that the government caused inflation and corporations took advantage of it to increase profits.
Inflation of the magnitude experienced was driven by increases in oil prices brought on by the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, shortages due to the pandemic. From Jim Stanfords research the greatest inflation occurred in energy, food processing, food retail and autos. None of which any government domestic or foreign controls.
Profit margins continued to rise even after inflation peaked in 2022
I’m totally rooting for Canada to dive headfirst into full-on communism—think Venezuela-level chaos, comrades calling the shots, the whole nine yards. Why? Because it’d be the perfect wake-up call for America. Nothing would scream “watch out” louder than seeing how fast things can unravel when you elect politicians obsessed with one thing: power. Canada could be the ultimate cautionary tale, showing just how quickly a society can go from maple syrup and hockey to standing in line for a stale loaf of bread.
And let’s talk about those Canadians for a sec. Everyone’s always like, “Oh, Canadians are so nice!”—but nah, it’s just an act. They’ve mastered the art of acting polite, tossing out a “sorry” or a smile like it’s second nature. Don’t get it twisted, though—that’s not genuine kindness. Picture them queuing up for rations, still saying “after you” with a tight little grin. It’d be hilarious and terrifying all at once, watching those overly polite Canucks prove that their niceness is just a mask. Honestly, it’d be the most entertaining—and instructive—lesson in how things can go to hell in a handbasket. America, take notes!
Considering the majority of Canada's ancestors are from most European countries; some settled here pre WW1 and post WW2, some are actually AMERICAN who settled there then moved north and we're United Empire Loyalists; the immigrants then we're more than HAPPY to be in a new country and therefore chose to be respectful of their new home and fellow citizens. It stands to reason our ancestors, who were proud to be here, taught their offspring to be respectful of the country and its citizens by teaching them manners and politeness. Once taught and ingrained this passed through generations. MANY Canadians can name all 50 states, are aware of American history and respect our 'neighbour'. However, respect works both ways as does ignorance and your insulting ignorant attitude is precisely why many Canadians respect is at times mistaken for 'kindness'. Our country hasn't been a gun toting war mongering nation full of uneducated backwoods buffoons by comparison. Granted, I'll give you the 'commie' stance, as our educational institutions have been brainwashed by Marxist - Maoist ideologies since Trudeau Sr. was on the scene. This is where the well educated have fallen and many of their parents along with them in embracing Liberalism.
You’re dead right on most of it, especially how your country’s diving into socialism. It’s a slow-motion disaster—more government overreach, less liberty, and a heftier bill for all. But if America falls to this, the West as we know it collapses. I’d rather see Canada go down as a cautionary tale than watch the U.S. crumble—the stakes are that high.
Yes, I agree the stakes are high and I for one am NOT happy about it as are many who see through the CCP groundwork that's been laid. I've tried to share that with the Liberal voters who have been brainwashed by our taxpayer funded mainstream media because that's who the Liberals watch and REFUSE to even look at platforms like this and countless others where this truth in journalism resides. I believe Trump knows for certain we're falling into the hands of communism which is WHY he made his 51st State comment, which ignited further divide. Now he's publicly backing the very guy here who could END this country as we've known it and STILL the Liberal supporters remain steadfast, though many of us hoped with the Trump hating Liberals they'd convert to Conservatism. NODDA! As I've been saying, it may come down to two choices here; 'better red than dead' or become the 51st State. The WEF are the puppet masters up here, yet many REFUSE to even research them and their agendas. EVERYTHING many of us with researching minds have uncovered to PROVE we're under the WEF GLOBALISTS control, again, REFUSE to enter into any conversation. We're immediately branded as 'conspiracy theorists' and Trump followers. These same people will be vilified IF we end up with a Liberal win, you can count on that! Whilst many Trump haters are trying to move here, it will be an equal migration moving south. It's going to take something SPECTACULAR to occur to shift mindsets, I hazard to guess what that will be.
You don't think US politicians are obsessed with power?
I'm Canadian. Maybe do a little research before responding with insults. We're people just like everyone else. I lived in the US for 21 years, there's as many jackasses down there as up here.
"Not genuine kindness." Perhaps not, saying sorry is more about politeness. It's like saying "excuse me." That said, is wishing that your neighbors collapse into communism kindness? Try looking in a mirror before you start criticizing others.
Yes. It's more like 55% but only 20% would vote for a Liberal potato. Another 20% would vote for a Conservative potato and 15% would vote for an NDP potato.
Political strategy is a bit of an art form, mixed with a dash of common-sense & poured over a glass of ice in the form realism! While the Poilievre led Conservative Party of Canada appeared to have mastered the last two, they clearly lack the artistic ability needed to unseat Trudeau during the general election. Instead they have been totally outflanked by the more adept Liberal Party of Canada who, if it were a figure skating competition, managed to pull off a triple lutz followed by a back-flip, and apparently on course to beat their opponent with style points. As much as I hate the LPC, you have to give them credit, they’ve managed to pull off a regime change, replacing a truly hated leader with a candidate who by any measure is likely to be even more hated when he’s done remaking Canada into the country he desires it to be!
You may be giving the Liberals more credit than they deserve. Replacing Trudeau was a no brainer. Poilievre may be a victim of his own success. He was so successful tying all of Canada's problems to Trudeau that with him out of the way what's the strategy? "Oh, I mean the Liberals were bad, not just Trudeau?" Too late.
There's also the Trump factor. How much of Carney's success is tied to Trump's threat's and Poilievre's image as "Trump-like?"
I have a piece coming out on Wrong Speak on Tuesday where I try to explain what happened to our American friends. I'll restack it here later next week. Take a look and see what you think of my take on the situation.
The dejavu feeling of when Biden stepped down to steal the 'Trump got shot and got up with his fist raised' thunder, and unlike Kamala this Canadian fella is not a DEI hire. Trump beeing stupid and stubborn on foreign policy has weakened the Canadian right , but at least a win will now be more satisfactory
Sadly, Carney is an absolute train wreck as a candidate. I'm certain Hitler himself had more camera charisma. He can't smoothly speak twenty syllables. His face is a wide open book, titled "Boundless Contempt."
I say sadly because I'm fully black-pilled on Canada. Our never-ending problem is the terrible Westminster Parliamentary System. It was designed for a time when a whiff of scandal would trigger a resignation, or even the toppling of a government. Surely, even the dimmest of us must know that's never going to happen again?
There are absolutely zero checks and balances, and we find ourselves at the mercy of the "honour" of our elected "leaders", at all levels of government. That notion should make anyone laugh. Then cry. There's no national political will among the population for foundational change. Most folks are oblivious, thanks largely to the useless MSM. And of course, there are deeply entrenched powers, mostly in ON & PQ, who's mission is to ensure the status quo.
Institutional rot is ubiquitous. From classrooms to courtrooms, in every corner of the country, we are riddled with rot and corruption. Hundreds of millions of dollars of union dues nation wide ensure we will never root it out. Canada has become a haven for organized international drug production and smuggling, human trafficking, pornography, and a breathtaking amount of money laundering.
There's only one way to fix it. We have to break it. We have to dismantle it, and start from scratch. And it's going to be Alberta that does it. Separatist sentiment is at an all time high. More people are coming to the conclusions herein by the day. If the delegation to Washington can secure some kind of support - and why wouldn't it? - this movement will explode.
Back to the election.
Washington notwithstanding, nothing will galvanize the 30% of undecideds in AB like another Liberal win. Even a Conservative minority would do it. Truly, I doubt either will happen, but if it does, there's a silver lining.
If you have the time, give a listen to yesterday's episode of Shaun Newman Podcast, wherein two brilliant lawyers lay it all out. 🙂
Yes, both the parliamentary system and the US system were designed when politicians could not survive scandal, nor would they even try to. Of course the press did cover for them at times. Much harder today with social media and ubiquitous cameras.
I share much of your concerns but I'm not sure Alberta separating would solve the problem.
I might be getting this wrong, but my takeaway from your article is that large numbers of Canadians will vote Liberal and this will not be because of objective flaws in the Conservative campaign, but because they’re idiots.
I can see why this might be a comforting conclusion for Conservatives partisans, because it absolves them of having to fashion a campaign that persuades anyone outside of the Conservative bubble. It just doesn’t seem like a helpful analysis if your aim is to win an election.
Let me respond to each of your paragraphs:
1. You are not wrong, I am accusing a large number of Canadians of voting for the Liberal party because they're idiots. Anyone who votes for the same party regardless of the results meets that definition. 20% was a made up number, which should have been obvious given that I also accused them of supporting Nigerian princes. Are you accusing me of thinking 20% of Canadians send money to scammers? That said, the lowest vote share the Liberals achieved in the last 25 years was 18.9% in the 2011 federal election, so I wasn't far off. Some of these people no doubt hold political beliefs that make them ideologically aligned with the party. I may disagree with them but they're not necessarily idiots.
By my estimates about 60% of the Canadian population falls in this category. "I always vote X" is not a thinking persons response. The article was about why voting for the Liberals was wrong not why voting for the Conservatives would be. Feel free to write that article yourself.
Aside from the economic nightmare that the progressive version of the Liberals have inflicted on the Canadian public over the last decade, there's another reason not to vote for them and I will admit that this may be a peculiar viewpoint of mine: no party should be permitted to rule this long. They always become arrogant and dismissive of the needs of citizens.
2. I am anything but a conservative partisan. If you take the time to read any other of my articles you'll see that. If I appear conservative it's because the left has been in power in both Canada and the US since I started writing this Substack and it's more important to address the abuses and mistakes of those in power than it is of those waiting in the wings.
One thing I've noticed about partisans is that they are quick to defend anything and everything their party does. They don't think because there's no need to; the party has told them what to think. You can recognize them fairly easily as a partisan, conservative or liberal, will accuse anyone who disagrees with them of belonging to the party they hate.
For example, I wrote an article the other day assessing three of Trump's policies. I saw one as good, one as bad, and I was on the fence about another. I was accused of being MAGA and of being a "libtard" because I was not wholly on one side or the other.
https://hoisttheblackflag.substack.com/p/trump-is-like-a-box-of-chocolates
My opposition to the current iteration of the Liberal Party is founded on it's failures, some of which are highlighted here:
https://hoisttheblackflag.substack.com/p/lie-steal-and-smear
I appreciate your comments, and I appreciate that you're "anything but a conservative partisan." There's nothing wrong with being a Conservative partisan, but there can be a reflexive partisan mentality - "our team good, their team bad" - that seems to preclude useful analysis of the world as it is. I'm glad that that's not you.
However, I am trying to point out what may be a blind spot. Let me illustrate below:
"The article was about why voting for the Liberals was wrong not why voting for the Conservatives would be."
Granted. However, I don't see how these two propositions are not interconnected. Doesn't the rationality or non-rationality of voting Liberal depend on what the alternatives are? I'm guessing you're not suggesting smart Canadians just stay home, or vote NDP, Bloc Quebecois or Canadian Future Party. Or, maybe you are? However, it seems like you are inferring that there is some behaviour you'd prefer Canadians to engage in, above and beyond not voting Liberal.
My contention would be that most Canadians who vote for the Liberals are non-idiots, and vote for this party for rational reasons. I might not agree with these reasons, but an advantage of my hypothesis is that it could lead me to investigate what those reasons are. Then - I apologize if this is coming across as flippant, I don't mean it to - if I could address these it would possibly persuade more Canadians to not vote Liberal.
I agree with your idea that the Liberals have done a poor job of governing over the last nine years. I also agree that in healthy democracies, regularly alternating power between political parties is important. However, it doesn't necessarily follow from this that voting Liberal isn't the least bad thing to do out of the possible alternatives. And if there is a better alternative, suggesting that the people you're ostensibly trying to persuade are idiots seems counterproductive.
This might be only my bias, but I think there is an inherent obligation in advocating for someone not to do something to indicate what alternative is better.
You're correct, I'm not suggesting Canadians stay home. Staying home is just a vote for whoever wins.
I'm struggling with how to respond here. You are not the first person to point out that calling someone an idiot will not persuade them to change their vote. I know and I agree. This article was not written to persuade people to reject the Liberals, it was written because:
1. I am frustrated. See the first paragraph of the article.
2. I have reached the conclusion that even if I presented my case more politely it would not matter for simple reason that if your position is "sure the Liberals lied, mismanaged the economy, housing, and immigration, and are clearly corrupt, but what's a good argument to vote for someone else" logic will not reach you.
If Liberal supporters have "rational reasons" for voting Liberal I have yet to hear any. More often than not I run into arguments similar to this one:
"Poilievre has taken what was already an unappealing party and turned it into a steaming pile of spite, hatred and dumb slogans. His performative rage and inability to come across as an even marginally-serious leader are bad enough; but his open embrace of the Maple MAGA crowd is the death knell for any chance of him ever becoming PM."
Aside from the slogans, this is nonsense (and we can debate whether or not they're "dumb").
Carney has stated his case to Canadians as "I'm not Trudeau but Poilievre is Trump." His supporters throw around "Maple Maga" and "fascist" on a regular basis and falsely accuse the Conservatives of wanting to outlaw abortion. You'll have to forgive me if I come across as angry and accuse Liberal supporters of being idiots. It's not without reason.
"Aside from the slogans, this is nonsense (and we can debate whether or not they're "dumb")."
I think this is an area where we differ, on perhaps on at least two grounds. I think 'how' policies are conveyed is a valid basis for accepting or rejecting a political party, and I think this is one of the primary criticisms of Poillievre from within the Conservative Party is that his way of conveying Conservative policies is inherently self-limiting. Lots of people like the way he communicates but, if the polling is accurate, more people are turned off by it than are attracted. As a conservative I think this is an 'us' problem rather than a 'they' problem. I think we need to own that we selected a leader that has always been polarizing and that, while he has significant upsides, he has significant down sides as well. If we lose this election I think it will largely be on account of the leader we chose.
You could argue that, well, that's superficial. That's judging a book by it's cover, and we all know from childhood that's not the right thing to do.
My response? I can understand that, but disagree. To me, how we communicate isn't just a matter of personal preference (though it is that as well). It's also an indicator of character. Is signifies things like whether I am intellectually flexible rather than rigid. It gives information about whether I am good at building alliances, or perhaps I am ineffective at working with people who are different than I am. Or can I unify large numbers of people around a common vision or do I tend to attract mostly the true believers?
As Conservatives I think we selected the wrong leader. Though Poillievre is wildly popular with the base, he turns off women and swing voters. I think if the Conservatives had selected a leader like Jean Charest or even Stephen Harper - I don't mean in terms of policies but simply in terms of their skills and demeanor as politicians - we would still be waltzing toward an easy Conservative majority in a largely drama-free election. I think the Conservatives could still pull this off, but if we do it will be in spite of our leader rather than because of him.*
I don't mean to dismiss your frustration. I think I get a lot of it. A system where a party that has run the country as poorly as the Liberals have are still in contention for government 10 years later - that's a problem. While I am still unsure who I will vote for but, at a critical time for our country, I sure wish we had better choices.
I disagree that how one communicates is an indicator of character. Temperament perhaps but not character. Trudeau was arguably an effective communicator. He was also dishonest and involved in numerous corruptions scandals - which the public largely ignored which gets me back to my original "dumb" comment.
Yes, it can be an indication of character. I think how Trump communicates definitely reveals (aligns?) with his character. WRT Poilievre I have seen no indication that slogans are anything but a tool. If you want to argue that the effectiveness of a slogan on an individual is an indicator of that individual's character I might agree. However, I largely maintain that they're primarily just a way to simplify a message for a public that largely doesn't pay attention to politics.
I don't particularly like slogans, nor to I think Poilievre is Canada's Churchill but then again, our political "leaders" as a group are largely uninspiring. Your criticism is not without merit however if Trudeau had not resigned we would likely be talking about Poilievre's brilliance in connecting with the public. If it's any consolation to you I imagine Poilievre will be gone if the Cons lose tomorrow. I'm not sure his successor will do any better as the lessons of this election seem to be 40% of the population can be counted on voting Liberal provided you put a new person in charge of the party every 10 years or so.
I like to think I am not swayed by slogans but focus on policies. I stopped watching debates years ago because they're more moronic than slogans. I hate the "Canada is broken" cries I read on social media. Canada isn't broken but Canadian politics is. There are plenty of things that can be done to fix it - eliminating first past the post being #1 - but it would take the winning party being willing to modify a system that just brought them into power and I have very little faith that any of our politicians prioritize the welfare of the country over their own fortunes.
Trusting 'polls' is something I never do especially EKOS. WHY? Because Frank Graves owns EKOS and he's an admitted die hard HATER of both Poilievre and the Conservative Party. The FACT that Canada has, according to an RCMP Officer when questioned in a 'committee meeting' at least 4,000 drug cartels operating in Canada, several known terrorist cells, money launderers AND Chinese foreign interference ALL heightened under Trudeau's 'watch' should be NOTICED by the voters. YET, the mainstream propagandist media has REFUSED to do their job of intense investigation, hence the substack writers many of whom are not read by the masses, as in masses of 'newbie' 'Canadians' waltzed in here under the Liberals watch. The NEW LIBERAL voters who are enjoying every taxpayer funded handout whilst DISRESPECTING the country that accepted them by chanting death to citizens and burning the flag, descending upon city streets - main thoroughfares to pray, taking over McGill University to disrupt classes and frighten students with their decrees of anger at institutions for NOT embracing their political views, the LIST of 10 years of internal destruction to this country by Trudeau's WEF GLOBALIST HANDLERS instructions to decimate us is blatantly OBVIOUS to those of us who've researched the begesus of the WEF's history and ideologies of their NAZI leader, Schwab. It's mind boggling how no one in the in the halls of academia who are historians of war haven't raised a peep about the similarities of the divide and conquer strategies of Hitler's playbook have been used since the start of COVID to now. From the incessant media fearmongering to Trudeau's hateful rhetoric towards those who chose not to take an unproperly tested product (it takes 7 to 10 years to vet vaccines before deemed SAFE for public use), thus began the US vs THEM divide and it's continuing on with this election. Carney's A PROBLEM, he's been SENT IN ti finish what Trudeau's started. He's publicly admitted to being a 'globalist elitist' he's publicly admitted he 'considers himself to be European vs Canadian'. His wife's in thick with Gerald Butts environmental organization and BUTTS himself remained behind the scenes advising Trudeau as well as Carney and SOROS! Someone needs to confront Carney about his September luncheon with Tony Blair as commented on another site. Apparently, he and the much despised by the Brits, BLAIR, another WEF acolyte, discussed Carney's takeover of Canada's PM role due to Blair's immense dislike of Trudeau. Whether this is true based upon a commenter's writing of it or not it is a valid question to pose to Carney among others like, WHAT IS YOUR TRUE INTENTION for being in Canada considering you haven't lived here for over 10 years and WHAT WILL YOU DO TO FIX our broken healthcare system among a LIST of other broken items? Guaranteed NO viable answers would be forthcoming.
I think part of the reason for the recent Liberal surge in the polls is that boomers (the demographic far most likely to support the Liberals) still enjoy relatively good material conditions and are completely oblivious to how material conditions (and quality of life more broadly) have cataclysmically declined for other generations, particularly millennials and zoomers.
Part of the reason for this boomer myopia is that they are completely dependent on legacy media (particularly the CBC) for all of their information. They are also the most anti-American of the generations right now, which only exacerbates the TDS that many of them have.
I'm not a fan of intergenerational conflict. I don't like grouping people and saying "they all voted this way because..."
People vote for what they believe helps them and if they're not indifferent to the problems of others, put those problems well below their own. This is only natural. This is part of the reason why so many of the very wealthy are progressives. Their financial situations is secure and are happy to pay a little more taxes for more "free" services. They're happy to be soft on crime because they live in gated communities and don't have to see the downside of "being kind."
Most of us care about ourselves, our families, and our friends, before we care about strangers. I don't expect people to vote the way I want because I personally want lower capital gains tax or more funding for the military. I need to convince people that those policies are in their best interest.
I wish more boomers would vote Conservative but there are plenty of non-boomers voting for the Liberals as well.
I do agree that a lot of this is likely due to legacy media. However there's one other problem; Canadians do not pay as much attention to politics as Americans. Every election they half wake up, look at which leader gives them the best vibe, vote, and then ignore everything until the next election (unless they're in the 55%-60% of Canadian who vote for the same party regardless of what is happening in the world). This is why corruption "scandals" in Canada rarely amount to anything. Nobody is paying attention.
I’m in the same spot as you: angry at my fellow countrymen, but resigned because it technically isn’t their fault. They were indoctrinated long and hard in Canadian schools. They’ve succumbed to Stockholm syndrome with regard to the Liberal Party being in power.
Greedflation contributed more than QE..feel free to differ!
Greedflation. Sorry, that’s not a term recognized by any reputable school of economics. But I get that as a communist, you think any profit is greed. Clearly you know nothing about economics, and what it costs to run a business in a country that taxes the ever living crap out you, and to have roving bands of hooligans who are unemployed, or under employed think that it’s acceptable to rob corporate retail chains blind. Since robbery is in the wheelhouse of communists, I’m sure you’re fine, probably participating every week, by stealing stuff from Loblaws or Safeway. Yeah, you’ve exposed yourself bubb.
Where has your critical thinking gone?
lol. To mirror your response, I’ve had an IQ of 160 for 48 years, and I will take no council from you. 🥸😒
2025 Support of LPoC ≠ critical thought. It signifies the complete opposite. There are 10 years of evidence that isn’t just on Trudeau. His entire caucus including Carney helped him destroy Canada. They deserve a time out in the penalty box. ☝🏻That is what critical thought looks like: evidence followed by rational decision.
Thankyou for your opinion!
Sorry dude, but greedflation is a bogus term, and Phil and Jason both have the right of it. Inflation is, always was and always will be a monetary phenomenon. And the single biggest source of inflation is government. Always has been and always will be.
A bogus term that costs billions globally annually
I managed a successful business for close to 40 years.
I will take no counsel from you!
IDK, the Conservatives were cruising for a victory until Trudeau stepped down. Did Poilievre do too good of a job tying all of Canada's problems to Trudeau?
Canadians.. those who think clearly and search for facts know that Poilievre lied about Justinflation and ignored greedflation
The research of those like Jim Stanford are kryptonite .. sooner or later Poilievre will be shown for what he is.. a compulsive liar and disinformer.
I find it interesting that "greedflation" only seems to arise during periods of high inflation. Could it be that companies take advantage of periods of high inflation to raise prices higher than they need to be.
It's always possible that the government caused inflation and corporations took advantage of it to increase profits.
Inflation of the magnitude experienced was driven by increases in oil prices brought on by the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, shortages due to the pandemic. From Jim Stanfords research the greatest inflation occurred in energy, food processing, food retail and autos. None of which any government domestic or foreign controls.
Profit margins continued to rise even after inflation peaked in 2022
Ukraine yes.
The rest was not caused by the pandemic but by government(s) reaction to the pandemic.
Printing money also contributed to it.
I’m totally rooting for Canada to dive headfirst into full-on communism—think Venezuela-level chaos, comrades calling the shots, the whole nine yards. Why? Because it’d be the perfect wake-up call for America. Nothing would scream “watch out” louder than seeing how fast things can unravel when you elect politicians obsessed with one thing: power. Canada could be the ultimate cautionary tale, showing just how quickly a society can go from maple syrup and hockey to standing in line for a stale loaf of bread.
And let’s talk about those Canadians for a sec. Everyone’s always like, “Oh, Canadians are so nice!”—but nah, it’s just an act. They’ve mastered the art of acting polite, tossing out a “sorry” or a smile like it’s second nature. Don’t get it twisted, though—that’s not genuine kindness. Picture them queuing up for rations, still saying “after you” with a tight little grin. It’d be hilarious and terrifying all at once, watching those overly polite Canucks prove that their niceness is just a mask. Honestly, it’d be the most entertaining—and instructive—lesson in how things can go to hell in a handbasket. America, take notes!
Sorry Canada, not sorry Breyer you than us.
Considering the majority of Canada's ancestors are from most European countries; some settled here pre WW1 and post WW2, some are actually AMERICAN who settled there then moved north and we're United Empire Loyalists; the immigrants then we're more than HAPPY to be in a new country and therefore chose to be respectful of their new home and fellow citizens. It stands to reason our ancestors, who were proud to be here, taught their offspring to be respectful of the country and its citizens by teaching them manners and politeness. Once taught and ingrained this passed through generations. MANY Canadians can name all 50 states, are aware of American history and respect our 'neighbour'. However, respect works both ways as does ignorance and your insulting ignorant attitude is precisely why many Canadians respect is at times mistaken for 'kindness'. Our country hasn't been a gun toting war mongering nation full of uneducated backwoods buffoons by comparison. Granted, I'll give you the 'commie' stance, as our educational institutions have been brainwashed by Marxist - Maoist ideologies since Trudeau Sr. was on the scene. This is where the well educated have fallen and many of their parents along with them in embracing Liberalism.
You’re dead right on most of it, especially how your country’s diving into socialism. It’s a slow-motion disaster—more government overreach, less liberty, and a heftier bill for all. But if America falls to this, the West as we know it collapses. I’d rather see Canada go down as a cautionary tale than watch the U.S. crumble—the stakes are that high.
Yes, I agree the stakes are high and I for one am NOT happy about it as are many who see through the CCP groundwork that's been laid. I've tried to share that with the Liberal voters who have been brainwashed by our taxpayer funded mainstream media because that's who the Liberals watch and REFUSE to even look at platforms like this and countless others where this truth in journalism resides. I believe Trump knows for certain we're falling into the hands of communism which is WHY he made his 51st State comment, which ignited further divide. Now he's publicly backing the very guy here who could END this country as we've known it and STILL the Liberal supporters remain steadfast, though many of us hoped with the Trump hating Liberals they'd convert to Conservatism. NODDA! As I've been saying, it may come down to two choices here; 'better red than dead' or become the 51st State. The WEF are the puppet masters up here, yet many REFUSE to even research them and their agendas. EVERYTHING many of us with researching minds have uncovered to PROVE we're under the WEF GLOBALISTS control, again, REFUSE to enter into any conversation. We're immediately branded as 'conspiracy theorists' and Trump followers. These same people will be vilified IF we end up with a Liberal win, you can count on that! Whilst many Trump haters are trying to move here, it will be an equal migration moving south. It's going to take something SPECTACULAR to occur to shift mindsets, I hazard to guess what that will be.
Well I live here so I'd prefer it not happen.
You don't think US politicians are obsessed with power?
I'm Canadian. Maybe do a little research before responding with insults. We're people just like everyone else. I lived in the US for 21 years, there's as many jackasses down there as up here.
"Not genuine kindness." Perhaps not, saying sorry is more about politeness. It's like saying "excuse me." That said, is wishing that your neighbors collapse into communism kindness? Try looking in a mirror before you start criticizing others.
That’s what people in your country want so be careful what you wish for
Canada has way more than 20% of the population that would vote for a potato.
Many more will vote for a paperboy!
Yes. It's more like 55% but only 20% would vote for a Liberal potato. Another 20% would vote for a Conservative potato and 15% would vote for an NDP potato.
Not addressed is that it wouldn’t make any difference to vote Conservative. They are functionally the same as the Liberals
Er, we actually did have “Little Potato” as PM for a decade, that being his sobriquet in China.
Lol. I just Googled it. I had no idea. Wish I'd known that when I was writing this piece.
Political strategy is a bit of an art form, mixed with a dash of common-sense & poured over a glass of ice in the form realism! While the Poilievre led Conservative Party of Canada appeared to have mastered the last two, they clearly lack the artistic ability needed to unseat Trudeau during the general election. Instead they have been totally outflanked by the more adept Liberal Party of Canada who, if it were a figure skating competition, managed to pull off a triple lutz followed by a back-flip, and apparently on course to beat their opponent with style points. As much as I hate the LPC, you have to give them credit, they’ve managed to pull off a regime change, replacing a truly hated leader with a candidate who by any measure is likely to be even more hated when he’s done remaking Canada into the country he desires it to be!
You may be giving the Liberals more credit than they deserve. Replacing Trudeau was a no brainer. Poilievre may be a victim of his own success. He was so successful tying all of Canada's problems to Trudeau that with him out of the way what's the strategy? "Oh, I mean the Liberals were bad, not just Trudeau?" Too late.
There's also the Trump factor. How much of Carney's success is tied to Trump's threat's and Poilievre's image as "Trump-like?"
I have a piece coming out on Wrong Speak on Tuesday where I try to explain what happened to our American friends. I'll restack it here later next week. Take a look and see what you think of my take on the situation.
Thanks for reading and the reply Graham!
The dejavu feeling of when Biden stepped down to steal the 'Trump got shot and got up with his fist raised' thunder, and unlike Kamala this Canadian fella is not a DEI hire. Trump beeing stupid and stubborn on foreign policy has weakened the Canadian right , but at least a win will now be more satisfactory
We'll see I guess.
Sadly, Carney is an absolute train wreck as a candidate. I'm certain Hitler himself had more camera charisma. He can't smoothly speak twenty syllables. His face is a wide open book, titled "Boundless Contempt."
I say sadly because I'm fully black-pilled on Canada. Our never-ending problem is the terrible Westminster Parliamentary System. It was designed for a time when a whiff of scandal would trigger a resignation, or even the toppling of a government. Surely, even the dimmest of us must know that's never going to happen again?
There are absolutely zero checks and balances, and we find ourselves at the mercy of the "honour" of our elected "leaders", at all levels of government. That notion should make anyone laugh. Then cry. There's no national political will among the population for foundational change. Most folks are oblivious, thanks largely to the useless MSM. And of course, there are deeply entrenched powers, mostly in ON & PQ, who's mission is to ensure the status quo.
Institutional rot is ubiquitous. From classrooms to courtrooms, in every corner of the country, we are riddled with rot and corruption. Hundreds of millions of dollars of union dues nation wide ensure we will never root it out. Canada has become a haven for organized international drug production and smuggling, human trafficking, pornography, and a breathtaking amount of money laundering.
There's only one way to fix it. We have to break it. We have to dismantle it, and start from scratch. And it's going to be Alberta that does it. Separatist sentiment is at an all time high. More people are coming to the conclusions herein by the day. If the delegation to Washington can secure some kind of support - and why wouldn't it? - this movement will explode.
Back to the election.
Washington notwithstanding, nothing will galvanize the 30% of undecideds in AB like another Liberal win. Even a Conservative minority would do it. Truly, I doubt either will happen, but if it does, there's a silver lining.
If you have the time, give a listen to yesterday's episode of Shaun Newman Podcast, wherein two brilliant lawyers lay it all out. 🙂
This post from Mar 18?
Has gathered no support?
Yes, both the parliamentary system and the US system were designed when politicians could not survive scandal, nor would they even try to. Of course the press did cover for them at times. Much harder today with social media and ubiquitous cameras.
I share much of your concerns but I'm not sure Alberta separating would solve the problem.
You are my only window into Canadian politics.
I've considered everything short of he's an alien/lizard person.
I honestly don't think it matters much who's in charge when it comes to Trump and I don't think he cares much either way.
I also think half (made up number) of what Trump says is just trolling.