Canadian Federal Election

[casper]

Originally Posted by Build.It

I’m an entrepreneur. To start my business, I sold my house, my car, and most of my possessions. I took a massive risk and could have failed, but I had a solid plan. Even so, I struggled early on, nearly lost everything, and only succeeded through relentless effort and adapting until I found a model that worked.

I’m not sharing this for compliments. I’m sharing it because this is what our economy is built on—and depends on. Entrepreneurs like me risk everything for the chance to succeed. Many fail and lose everything, but those who succeed create jobs, products, and services that didn’t exist before. That’s how economies grow: through personal risk and innovation.

But here’s the issue: for strong, successful businesses to emerge, we need a free-market economy. One that weeds out bad ideas while allowing good ones to thrive. Did you know the average successful founder fails multiple times before succeeding? It took me five tries. That’s the reality of entrepreneurship.

Carney, however, represents the opposite of this mindset. He wants more regulations, more subsidies, and even hints at universal basic income (UBI). Policies like these make starting a business harder and make us more risk-averse as a country. Canada already has fewer entrepreneurs today than it did in 2000, despite adding 13 million people. We’re heading in the wrong direction.

Carney represents the oligopolies, corporatists, and too-big-to-fail institutions. He doesn’t represent entrepreneurs like me who risk everything to build businesses, create jobs, and provide for our families and employees. I understand why big businesses or academics support him—they come from the same world. But they forget that those big businesses once started as small ones, founded by people willing to take risks.

We need to make risk-taking attractive again. That means reducing red tape, cutting taxes, and eliminating excessive regulations. It also means stopping the endless cycle of social programs that discourage risk-taking. If we don’t, we’ll keep losing the very people who create growth and innovation in this country.

I was relieved when Trudeau was finally gone, but Carney feels like more of the same—another leader focused on big business and “too big to fail” policies. He might make borrowing easier, but will he tackle the root issues like housing regulations or barriers to starting a business? Based on his career, it’s unlikely.

Canada needs more entrepreneurs, not fewer. If we don’t fix this, we’ll continue down a path where risk-takers like me become even rarer—and that’s a loss for everyone.

I get where your coming from. I also agree with the idea that we need more small business (and risk takers) that have the potential to turn into medium size and potentially enterprise. Around half of the private sector workforce is with small business.

That is not the choice we have when it comes to the party leaders.

One one hand we have someone who has hanged around academic think-tanks and politics his entire work life.

On the other hand we have someone who knows how business works (on the enterprise/multi-national level).

As for social programs. The feds creating new ones is coming to an end. The Liberals will move back to the center, the NDP will be upset, the conservatives will be even more upset.

As for borrowing. Carney will come in with a much better understanding of how the big banks manage risk both domestically and internationality. Will that translate into more SMB loans? Who knows?

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by theman23

Angus Reid polling showing that the Libs support up +13 points with Carney at the helm (+8 with Freeland) when compared to JT's numbers in December, with most of the support coming from NDP voters. The CPC is -2 (or -1) whereas the NDP are -9 (or -4) compared to late December numbers.

This presents quite a strong case for going with Carney over Freeland.



Seems like Carney is especially the one to go with, if the goal is getting possible NDP and CPC voters. (which it should be) If Trump keeps it up, I think we will see even more "red tories" and proud Canadian conservatives who can't stand Trump switch over to the LPC from the CPC, or just sit out the election, if PP gives them any sort of inclination he will be soft on Trump and sell out Canada.

Also, just read Mark Carney is the godfather of Chrystia Freeland's son... Makes my theory that she may just be in the race to give Carney someone to nail to the cross for the sins of JT, and avoid it looking like a coronation seem a little less tin-foil-hat.

Regardless, I'm excited to be able to directly vote for who becomes the next PM of Canada... it may be the only chance to do so in my lifetime, as sitting PM's typically don't resign in Canadian politics. It's a unique opportunity to say the least.

I'm still a little confused at the hesitancy of the media and many individuals to call it a vote for who becomes the next PM. Most are focussing on it simply being a leadership race for the next Liberal leader, and either glossing over or outright avoiding mentioning that the winner will become the next Prime Minister of Canada. Is this a tactic to avoid conservative outrage, or just a reflection on many Canadians not fully understanding how the office of PM works? Perhaps it's a bit of both. Or it's something else strategic?

Personally, I think they should just own it and try and create more excitement over the historic nature of this leadership race for who will become Canada's next Prime Minister. The conservative outrage is inevitable.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

One would think that the Conservative Party would have some self-awareness to realise that an endorsement from Elon Musk, Donald Trump, or any of the MAGA inner circle, would be the equivalent of political suicide.

However, they have done nothing to distance themselves from them, which essentially tells you all you need to know, in regards to how out of touch they are from the average Canadian citizen.

I predicted months ago that if Trump won PP could be in trouble because he would be too afraid to stand up to Trump and then people would question him about being too close. So far that has been true. It might work for PP in Alberta and Saskatchewan but it won't work very well elsewhere. Is PP becoming the federal version of Tim Hudak?

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by theman23

Angus Reid polling showing that the Libs support up +13 points with Carney at the helm (+8 with Freeland) when compared to JT's numbers in December, with most of the support coming from NDP voters. The CPC is -2 (or -1) whereas the NDP are -9 (or -4) compared to late December numbers.

Polling at this point is interesting but is pretty useless for getting an idea of how the next election will actually be. I still remember in 1993 the media saying that polls were showing a huge comeback for the PCs with Kim Campbell as leader yet the PCs ended up winning only two seats. I don't think it will be that bad for the LPC in a worst case scenario but the election campaign is when to really watch the polling numbers.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Polling at this point is interesting but is pretty useless for getting an idea of how the next election will actually be. I still remember in 1993 the media saying that polls were showing a huge comeback for the PCs with Kim Campbell as leader yet the PCs ended up winning only two seats. I don't think it will be that bad for the LPC in a worst case scenario but the election campaign is when to really watch the polling numbers.

But there aren't 2 new parties that are going to siphon off enough Liberal votes to bring them down to 2 seats like happened to Campbell. With 35% of the vote the combined Reform and PC would have had a lot more than the 54 seats the 2 parties combined for. Also, have a dozen or so original Bloc MP's were former PC MP's, and I'm not sure if any others from the PC ran for the Bloc in 1993. But I also assume that had the Bloc not existed, the PC's would have got a decent percentage of their 13% of the vote too. The Liberals would have likely had a landslide victory that year in the old 3 party system but it wouldn't have been the joke result for the right that it became with such a split of the vote witth 5 parties.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Polling at this point is interesting but is pretty useless for getting an idea of how the next election will actually be. I still remember in 1993 the media saying that polls were showing a huge comeback for the PCs with Kim Campbell as leader yet the PCs ended up winning only two seats. I don't think it will be that bad for the LPC in a worst case scenario but the election campaign is when to really watch the polling numbers.

Polls 3-4 months before an election are fairly accurate. Even in the 1993 election, the Liberal numbers barely budged between Mulroney's resignation (when they were at 42) and the general election in February and the election in November (when they finished with 41). As Djeffery notes there was a shift within the right wing vote, but the Reform/Tory total was almost unchanged between March and November. 2015 was another example when there was a signficant vote shift from the NDP to Liberals when the federal court ruled on religious symbols in the middle of the campaign.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

This presents quite a strong case for going with Carney over Freeland.

Tory vote is identical, Carney appears to steal more NDP voters than Freeland, but that strikes me as being a fairly vulnerable vote (the Tories and NDP will pound away and Carney's corporate/banking credentials during the campaign).

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I firmly believe Poillievre was never popular. He was just not Trudeau when that was enough. That has all changed now.

You may be right, but I'd give it a bit more time before reaching conclusions. I think the fall of "Axe the Tax" is going to result in an even more negative election campaign.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Tory vote is identical, Carney appears to steal more NDP voters than Freeland, but that strikes me as being a fairly vulnerable vote (the Tories and NDP will pound away and Carney's corporate/banking credentials during the campaign).

Well according to the poll Carney had the edge with Tories… and I think he’s got room to widen that gap, especially if Trump keeps it up.

[MonctonianSentinel01]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's hard to think of a positive vision when you consider PP because everything he says is horribly negative. I would think in his head he has some positive ideas but we have yet to hear them.

He can start by just about undoing everything that Trudeau ever did.

[MonctonianSentinel01]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

Well according to the poll Carney had the edge with Tories… and I think he’s got room to widen that gap, especially if Trump keeps it up.

Trump isn't against Canada, he's against Liberalism, if PP doesn't get in, you can expect way more things than tariffs as he pounds us into the ground. PP getting in is the only way to keep him away.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Build.It

I’m an entrepreneur. To start my business, I sold my house, my car, and most of my possessions. I took a massive risk and could have failed, but I had a solid plan. Even so, I struggled early on, nearly lost everything, and only succeeded through relentless effort and adapting until I found a model that worked.

Good for you. But a lot of people make sacrifices to advance their lot. I gave up my previous career, sold my car and all my possessions, moved across the country, took out student loans, and went into considerable debt, to put myself through graduate (MSc, PhD) school. After graduating, my wife and I struggled for many years, both of us with heavy debts, and trying to raise a young family.

Originally Posted by Build.It

Carney represents the oligopolies, corporatists, and too-big-to-fail institutions.

I don't agree with this depiction at all, but anyways, even if he did, that would not make him anti-capitalist, as you described him. And I still see absolutely nothing "ironic" about my previous post.

You may love PP, but what does PP know about the business world? He hasn't any experience outside of politics. Not that extensive business experience is the be-all and end-all of preparation for high office, as there are many other worthy avenues.

Sloganeering and attacking is very, very easy. Governing....well that is another matter. I've never been a big Trudeau fan (and whatever support I had for him has evaporated over the past 2-3 years), but PP does not appeal to me at all.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by MonctonianSentinel01

Trump isn't against Canada, he's against Liberalism, if PP doesn't get in, you can expect way more things than tariffs as he pounds us into the ground. PP getting in is the only way to keep him away.

This is a legitimate possibility, even if it sounds outrageous.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by MonctonianSentinel01

PP getting in is the only way to keep him away.

Hard disagree. Dump may hate Trudeau (because his daughter doted on him, methinks), but does he even know who PP is? What do you think will keep Dump in line with PP? The sheer force of PP's personality? Apple munching?

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Hard disagree. Dump may hate Trudeau (because his daughter doted on him, methinks), but does he even know who PP is? What do you think will keep Dump in line with PP? The sheer force of PP's personality? Apple munching?

Trump only wants Ivanka doting on one man… and it’s not Jared.


As for Canada, Trump doesn’t care if we’re governed by Liberals or Conservatives, he just wants a pushover who will give him what he wants.

I think people are increasingly worried that PP is not going to stand up to Trump and is not the right person to negotiate with Trump.

It’s abundantly clear at this point that PP and his supporters are scared of Carney. I’ve heard they’ve even gone as far as promoting people to sign up for the Liberal party to vote for Chrystia Freeland in efforts to secure a CPC majority. I admire the craftiness, but it’s not a confident look.

[le calmar]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Hard disagree. Dump may hate Trudeau (because his daughter doted on him, methinks), but does he even know who PP is? What do you think will keep Dump in line with PP? The sheer force of PP's personality? Apple munching?

When it comes to Dump, everything is personal, so who knows. He may simply decides he likes the guy because he's not overly confrontational and has a conservative mindset. And next thing you know, he's waiving the tariffs on the basis that Canada's new government has fixed the issues and are "reasonable" with the US. I mean, everything is possible at this point.

[LuluBobo]

Trump hates liberalism. Trump hates Trudeau. Trump hates Canada.

Trump hates everyone who is not Trump. You cannot win with dictators.

[Build.It]

You should really look up what the word "liberalism" means.

[LuluBobo]

Trump is against classical liberal (free markets, private property, equality, anti-mercantilism). A pro-tariff policy that seeks to minimize imports is as far away from Adam Smith as you can get.


A lot of Americans use the word liberal wrong to mean some form of left-centre social democracy. Trump is obviously very against this.


Trump doesn't fall under normal political ideology of left/right government/free market. He is pro-Trump and everything else is details.

[Innsertnamehere]

Trump is an isolationist at his core.

He defies traditional "political leanings" because he doesn't subscribe to that type of academic political alignment.

He's a populist isolationist, effectively, and one that grabs policies from the left and right which fit his screwed up kind of world view.

PP on the other hand is a text-book academic politician. Adheres strictly to the ideological type of liberal economic theories.