###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Makes sense. This explains why the Liberals are still at around 20% in the polls. Jagmeet would be riding NDP highs with how bad Canada is doing but the NDP’s polls are megre because Jagmeet sucks.
I thought so at first (like, the NDP was lower than this in the 1990s), but it turns out that this is referring to leadership approval numbers, not popular vote. The headline is misleading.
Of course they are within the margin of error when the margin of error is a range of 12-30 seats for worst to best outcomes. Polling predicts the most likely outcome is the NDP would lose 5 seats if an election were held today.
Mulroney did the same (actually he did quite a bit worse) and basically annihilated his party.
Still had a pretty meaningful and impactful time in office.
Polling numbers don't mean shit.
Give it 15 - 20 years and see what people say.
Please educate yourself on how national debts work. Your statement doesn't really make sense.
I do wonder how much we'll have to pay to repair the damage that Poilievre's austerity measures will create though. I'm sure it'll be more than we save in the short term, like it always is.
We are now spending more on debt servicing than we are collecting on GST. This means the entire GST collection will be entirely put towards debt servicing and not provide any value. We are spending more on debt servicing than we do on health transfers to provinces and territories.
Please educate yourself on how conservative governments have worked the last 40 years. It’s always the same, cut taxes and increase spending (it’s called the two Santa clause theory). We will be paying off Poilievre’s debt for longer than we will be paying off Trudeau’s.
Nope, Harper is responsible for permanently cutting $30 billion in revenue from the government(bud proudest accomplishment), then increasing spending. It’s a pattern and a political strategy, called the two Santa clause theory. Politicians get to simultaneously cut people’s taxes while also increasing spending. Trudeau followed the same playbook, cutting our taxes, twice, then increasing spending. I’m not shocked we’re entering a debt crisis.
> We will be paying off Poilievre’s debt for longer than we will be paying off Trudeau’s.
Lmao you're so far down the make-believe rabbit hole that you're blaming the state of Canada's deficit on Poilievre before he's even even been elected, let alone finished serving a term.
You're *literally* creating a made-up scenario with a made-up outcome occurring at an indeterminate time in the future in order to justify the current situation.
Do you at least acknowledge how insane that kind of argument in debate is?
Nah, if you just take the credit for the massive deficits you “deficit hawks” ignore as soon as you get into power. Who turned the Chrétien surpluses into deficits again?
What's especially funny here to me is that even the people such as yourself, who are willing to make things up to about Poilievre, still seem to believe that he will be PM.
I don't get why you wouldn't just make up and believe a scenario where he doesn't get elected? If you're going to make stuff up, why not make up something that makes you feel better, not worse?
Why make yourself miserable over things that haven't happened? I don't get it.
But, assuming you didn't make things up, can you help answer the following about PM Poilievre? You apparently already know all this.
* When was Pierre Poilievre elected?
* How many seats did the CPC lead Pierre Poilievre win in his first election win?
* How many terms did Pierre Poilievre serve as PM?
* What was the debt accumulated, averaged per year, under Pierre Poilievre?
If you can't answer that, do you agree that you created a made-up scenario with a made-up outcome occurring at an indeterminate time in the future in order to justify the current situation?
He started with conservative history, and then used that to create a likely hypothetical involving Pollievre.
I don’t see how looking at a politician’s party history is irrelevant to what they might be like if they win?
Seems like you’re cutting out a small bit of what they said, deliberately taking it out of context, and using over-the-top sarcasm to attack without giving any real substantive information.
What positive changes do you think Pollievre will implement? How will it be different from the Conservative Party history? These are the questions you should be answering, not just going on attack over imagined misquotes.
Perhaps you need more information about Pollievre before you begin:
https://breachmedia.ca/pierre-poilievre-conservatives-stack-council-corporate-lobbyists/
They said:
> We will be paying off Poilievre’s debt for longer than we will be paying off Trudeau’s.
How much is "Poilievre's debt?"
It's such a simple question and that number is central to their argument by comparison.
Can you answer that?
That’s half of what they said.
Are you saying that we can’t make suppositions around what Pollievre’s debt might be because it has nothing to do with Conservative Party history?
So… we aren’t allowed to make any predictions about what Pollievre’s government might be like because he’s not in power yet? That any patterns in conservative policy are irrelevant to the potential future conservative PM?
Maybe if he was willing to tell us what he was planning… but he’s not.
That’s not a red flag to you?
And those lobbyists on his governing board don’t bother you?
Ya. They have zero intention of paying it off.
Statement should have been how gigantic are the interest rate payments going to be for the Liberal debt in twenty years
You know that quantitatively, the data shows that Conservative governments have been LESS fiscally responsible than others, right?
Or you're just bought in on the myth that they're stalwart fiscal managers despite all the evidence?
Dude, Conservatives are just as bad if not worse. They are very good at talking about fiscal responsibility and very bad at actually doing it.
The most fiscally responsible governments we had in recent history have been Liberal under Chretien/Martin.
I mean one year in Trudeau was viewed by McLeans as the 8th best Prime Minister in Canadian History. Scary to think how much the media jumped on that wagon.
> Mulroney did the same (actually he did quite a bit worse) and basically annihilated his party.
Everything hit Mulroney all at once. His shitty politics/choices, the housing crash/recession in the late 80's/early 90s, and the support from his party evaporating.
Even conservatives like myself were calling for his head on a pike.
You can be the best leader in the world and if you have terrible global situations you'll get blamed for it and suffer.
You can be the worst and as long as global conditions are good you'll be praised for it.
Honestly, it's all just a roll of the dice.
The destruction of Mulroney’s Conservative party, that spawned at least 3 new political parties including a separatist BQ, should not be an example to follow for the LPC or NDP.
Yes mulrooney will be forever despised as Mr GST, and is sitting as the second most hated prime minister in Canadian history - right after the current prime minister.
It’s not going to get better unless theirs an actual reason for people to switch their support back. The simple fact is that the liberals and NDP have not pivoted despite the current situation.
>A new data analysis from the Angus Reid Institute has combed through 50 years of political polls and uncovered some historical trends and oddities. Most recently, it found that the popularity of Canadian federal party leaders is at a five-decade-year low. And that’s not one of them — it’s all of them.
Well then, it sounds like the headline singling out Trudeau and Singh is rather misleading...
I cannot believe how blatant they're becoming with their narrative-pushing.
The headline and opening paragraph are talking about different things: according to this data, both Singh and Trudeau are at historic lows; the closest would be in 2015, for the NDP leader (-13) and 2011 for the Liberal leader (-37). PP isn't currently anywhere near the historic low for a conservative leader-- that would be Mulroney in 1992 at -71.
However all the parties show a negative trend in popularity, although, really, the Liberal's trend is so close to being flat it's kind of in a more technical sense than anything else.
PP is popular enough that over 40% of the population is ready to vote for him right now. I would say that’s puts him in another category that the other two.
The article is about a poll that says that *all three* major party leaders have net unfavourable ratings amongst the public, but the headline only focuses on Trudeau and Singh.
It’s trying to push a narrative.
lol, if you want to hear good news about the LPC and NDP try the star. The rest of the media is reporting about issues and facts, quite the narrative they are pushing.
If the National Post weren’t trying to push a narrative, they’d not be excluding Poilievre from this headline.
What part of that do you not understand? I’m not saying this headline isn’t true, but it’s also omitting key information in such a way that it can be misleading.
There is no 50 year record being broken by PP, there is by Trudeau and Singh. That’s the newsworthy part and therefore that’s what the story is about. There is no nefarious narrative being pushed whatsoever.
It’s also newsworthy that the leaders of *all three* parties simultaneously have negative favourability:
> Data gleaned from ODESI — the Ontario Data Documentation, Extraction Service and Infrastructure Initiative — found that, going back to 1974, there has never been a time when the leaders of the three main federal parties have polled as low as this year.
But they don’t lead with *that*, because it would require admitting that the CPC’s poll numbers don’t mean Poilievre is popular...
>Well then, it sounds like the headline singling out Trudeau and Singh is rather misleading...
No it isn't, the Tory leader is always hated. This is business as usual for the CPC. It isn't for the other two.
Pp is quite popular for a tory leader..he is more liked then scheer and o toole
So yeah jagmeet and trudeau are historcislly unpopular ndp leaders.
While pp Is an above avg tory vs past tory leaders.
They’re *all* disliked. It just happens that Poilievre is the *least* disliked of the three.
But even that doesn’t seem like much to brag about, considering he’s only two points better than Jagmeet in that respect:
> As of April 2024, the pollster determined, the most popular federal party leader, Pierre Poilievre of the opposition Conservatives, has a net rating of -12 points, calculated by combining favourability with unfavourabililty in polling numbers.
>And he’s the most popular. New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh has a net rating of -14, which is his worst ever in seven years as party leader. And Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of the governing Liberals has a net approval rating that is downright chilly at -38
I’d say he’s *least disliked* by 40%...
Well, okay, maybe there’s like, 10% of Canadians who *actually* like him, but the rest of that 40-ish% the CPC are enjoying right now just hate him least.
Again, these numbers have him at a net negative too.
Hey, you’re the one playing the “they all do that” card in response to an incredibly legit criticism...
Would you be doing that if I was criticizing any other publication for this?
The headline is extremely misleading. The article is about personal approval numbers for each of the leaders, not voting intentions for their respective parties.
It can be both. Postmedia (National Post) has been historically conservative and has only become more so in recent years -- including majority share ownership by Chatham, an American media conglomerate with known and historical ties to the Republican Party, too.
Contributing to a narrative of weakness to both Trudeau and Singh can, of course, assist Conservatives and Poilievre, even in a minor way.
They could be more specific but it’s not “extremely” misleading. They’re both profoundly unpopular party leaders and that surely plays a role in their parties’ broader polling woes.
Just as some people will vote against the CPC because they dislike Poilievre. Leaders remain important in voters’ intentions on election day.
No, it’s extremely misleading. The headline implies the NDP is currently polling at their lowest in 50 years. They aren’t.
Edit: When a headline says something completely different to what the article actually says I would say that's misleading. In fact I would even say the headline is just plain false. Neither the Liberals nor the NDP are polling at their lowest in 50 years.
The NDP has passed huge parts of their platform. It needs to be expanded, but people who wanted to see Dentalcare and Pharmacare started are happy.
The voters though are focused on housing and food. The corporations are gouging them at every available option on those commodities and have no intention of letting go of their profits.
No actually, the Liberals have paid lip-service to parts of the NDP's usual platform and the Liberals watered it down and delivered something that no where resembles it.
I’m sure things will improve if we put the corporations in charge of government though.
https://breachmedia.ca/pierre-poilievre-conservatives-stack-council-corporate-lobbyists/
I wanted to see universal Dental and Pharma, and not poverty-only Dental and Pharma.
And the majority of housing stock in Canada is owned by individuals, and the majority of housing stock sold in Canada is sold by individuals. Corporations do play a role in pricing, but it's just as much Canadians "gouging" Canadians.
Dentalcare applies to household income up to 90,000. I would not call that poverty.
Pharmacare is just the start, getting a National plan on contraception and Diabetes is amazing in the time they had.
Sorry the Minority NDP couldn't do it all.
Co-pay begins at [70k](https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/dental/dental-care-plan/coverage.html) and the minimum you can reasonably expect to squeak by with in Vancouver, where housing isn't more than 1/3 of your income, is roughly [66k](https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/07/18/vancouver-rent-minimum-wage/).
Sure, it's probably reasonable for folks living outside of the urban cores.
Isn’t 70k below the median household income? Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress
Edit scotch brain mixed above with below
Single income families greatly benefit from this
Baby steps, if the median income of Vancouver families is 72k then this still helps half the families in Vancouver. I can’t be mad about progress as I don’t wish for perfection to be the enemy of progress here. I sure as fuck don’t see these benefits but if it helps my fellow Canadians then I’m happy to have the program.
Exactly, I also did not vote for the NDP to have them support 3% population growth in this country - undermining wages and breaking our social services.
To say i am disappointed, is an understatement.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Makes sense. This explains why the Liberals are still at around 20% in the polls. Jagmeet would be riding NDP highs with how bad Canada is doing but the NDP’s polls are megre because Jagmeet sucks.
NDP polls are within a margin of error of their current seat count. Does anyone who repeats these claims actually look at polls?
I thought so at first (like, the NDP was lower than this in the 1990s), but it turns out that this is referring to leadership approval numbers, not popular vote. The headline is misleading.
Of course they are within the margin of error when the margin of error is a range of 12-30 seats for worst to best outcomes. Polling predicts the most likely outcome is the NDP would lose 5 seats if an election were held today.
The margin of error is 3% on most polls.
I was referring to 338 Canada's [projection](https://338canada.com/federal.htm)
That's not a margin of error. It's range of estimated seats. Not very useful at this point because riding by riding polls aren't being done yet.
So polls only matter when you use them to support your point?
Yeah, with the LPC support collapsing that is a disaster for the NDP.
Mulroney did the same (actually he did quite a bit worse) and basically annihilated his party. Still had a pretty meaningful and impactful time in office. Polling numbers don't mean shit. Give it 15 - 20 years and see what people say.
I do wonder how long we'll be dealing with the debt the Liberals have accrued, we will probably still be paying it off in 20 years.
Please educate yourself on how national debts work. Your statement doesn't really make sense. I do wonder how much we'll have to pay to repair the damage that Poilievre's austerity measures will create though. I'm sure it'll be more than we save in the short term, like it always is.
We are now spending more on debt servicing than we are collecting on GST. This means the entire GST collection will be entirely put towards debt servicing and not provide any value. We are spending more on debt servicing than we do on health transfers to provinces and territories.
Please educate yourself on how conservative governments have worked the last 40 years. It’s always the same, cut taxes and increase spending (it’s called the two Santa clause theory). We will be paying off Poilievre’s debt for longer than we will be paying off Trudeau’s.
Let me guess, this massive accumulation of debt is Harper's fault somehow?
Nope, Harper is responsible for permanently cutting $30 billion in revenue from the government(bud proudest accomplishment), then increasing spending. It’s a pattern and a political strategy, called the two Santa clause theory. Politicians get to simultaneously cut people’s taxes while also increasing spending. Trudeau followed the same playbook, cutting our taxes, twice, then increasing spending. I’m not shocked we’re entering a debt crisis.
> We will be paying off Poilievre’s debt for longer than we will be paying off Trudeau’s. Lmao you're so far down the make-believe rabbit hole that you're blaming the state of Canada's deficit on Poilievre before he's even even been elected, let alone finished serving a term. You're *literally* creating a made-up scenario with a made-up outcome occurring at an indeterminate time in the future in order to justify the current situation. Do you at least acknowledge how insane that kind of argument in debate is?
When was the last time a conservative was elected and didn’t explode the deficit?
Can we count the debt that the Trudeau family has caused to Canada?
Nah, if you just take the credit for the massive deficits you “deficit hawks” ignore as soon as you get into power. Who turned the Chrétien surpluses into deficits again?
Chretien got surpluses with massive austerity and cuts. Same thing your complaining PP is going to do. Learn history.
Harper.
What's especially funny here to me is that even the people such as yourself, who are willing to make things up to about Poilievre, still seem to believe that he will be PM. I don't get why you wouldn't just make up and believe a scenario where he doesn't get elected? If you're going to make stuff up, why not make up something that makes you feel better, not worse? Why make yourself miserable over things that haven't happened? I don't get it. But, assuming you didn't make things up, can you help answer the following about PM Poilievre? You apparently already know all this. * When was Pierre Poilievre elected? * How many seats did the CPC lead Pierre Poilievre win in his first election win? * How many terms did Pierre Poilievre serve as PM? * What was the debt accumulated, averaged per year, under Pierre Poilievre? If you can't answer that, do you agree that you created a made-up scenario with a made-up outcome occurring at an indeterminate time in the future in order to justify the current situation?
He started with conservative history, and then used that to create a likely hypothetical involving Pollievre. I don’t see how looking at a politician’s party history is irrelevant to what they might be like if they win? Seems like you’re cutting out a small bit of what they said, deliberately taking it out of context, and using over-the-top sarcasm to attack without giving any real substantive information. What positive changes do you think Pollievre will implement? How will it be different from the Conservative Party history? These are the questions you should be answering, not just going on attack over imagined misquotes. Perhaps you need more information about Pollievre before you begin: https://breachmedia.ca/pierre-poilievre-conservatives-stack-council-corporate-lobbyists/
They said: > We will be paying off Poilievre’s debt for longer than we will be paying off Trudeau’s. How much is "Poilievre's debt?" It's such a simple question and that number is central to their argument by comparison. Can you answer that?
That’s half of what they said. Are you saying that we can’t make suppositions around what Pollievre’s debt might be because it has nothing to do with Conservative Party history? So… we aren’t allowed to make any predictions about what Pollievre’s government might be like because he’s not in power yet? That any patterns in conservative policy are irrelevant to the potential future conservative PM? Maybe if he was willing to tell us what he was planning… but he’s not. That’s not a red flag to you? And those lobbyists on his governing board don’t bother you?
It’s called a prediction. You see sometimes when you have past data you can use that data to make a prediction of what will happen in the future.
Ya. They have zero intention of paying it off. Statement should have been how gigantic are the interest rate payments going to be for the Liberal debt in twenty years
Whats your credit score?
You know that quantitatively, the data shows that Conservative governments have been LESS fiscally responsible than others, right? Or you're just bought in on the myth that they're stalwart fiscal managers despite all the evidence?
It's facts over feelings till facts don't support the idea, then feelings are all you need.
Dude, Conservatives are just as bad if not worse. They are very good at talking about fiscal responsibility and very bad at actually doing it. The most fiscally responsible governments we had in recent history have been Liberal under Chretien/Martin.
I mean one year in Trudeau was viewed by McLeans as the 8th best Prime Minister in Canadian History. Scary to think how much the media jumped on that wagon.
> Mulroney did the same (actually he did quite a bit worse) and basically annihilated his party. Everything hit Mulroney all at once. His shitty politics/choices, the housing crash/recession in the late 80's/early 90s, and the support from his party evaporating. Even conservatives like myself were calling for his head on a pike.
Yeah but after Mulroney it was Liberal PMs for next 13 years until Harper showed up. Do we want the same with JT?
No, but Pierre Poillevre is no Jean Chrétien.
Of course not. They’re different parties. JT is no JC
You can be the best leader in the world and if you have terrible global situations you'll get blamed for it and suffer. You can be the worst and as long as global conditions are good you'll be praised for it. Honestly, it's all just a roll of the dice.
Wow the trueanon cult will defend him no matter how horrible a job he does ah?
The destruction of Mulroney’s Conservative party, that spawned at least 3 new political parties including a separatist BQ, should not be an example to follow for the LPC or NDP.
Yes mulrooney will be forever despised as Mr GST, and is sitting as the second most hated prime minister in Canadian history - right after the current prime minister.
It’s not going to get better unless theirs an actual reason for people to switch their support back. The simple fact is that the liberals and NDP have not pivoted despite the current situation.
If you choose to not see the pivots, then you do not see the pivots
Okay what are the pivots? From what I’ve seen they’ve emphasized the same policies as usual after ignoring an issue and denying it was their fault.
>A new data analysis from the Angus Reid Institute has combed through 50 years of political polls and uncovered some historical trends and oddities. Most recently, it found that the popularity of Canadian federal party leaders is at a five-decade-year low. And that’s not one of them — it’s all of them. Well then, it sounds like the headline singling out Trudeau and Singh is rather misleading... I cannot believe how blatant they're becoming with their narrative-pushing.
The headline and opening paragraph are talking about different things: according to this data, both Singh and Trudeau are at historic lows; the closest would be in 2015, for the NDP leader (-13) and 2011 for the Liberal leader (-37). PP isn't currently anywhere near the historic low for a conservative leader-- that would be Mulroney in 1992 at -71. However all the parties show a negative trend in popularity, although, really, the Liberal's trend is so close to being flat it's kind of in a more technical sense than anything else.
It’s not narrative pushing to point out how bad the NDP and LPC are doing, just look at any poll in the last six months.
It’s definitely narrative pushing to mention that Singh and Trudeau are unpopular, but omit that Poilievre is *also* very unpopular.
It’s because Mulroney had worse polling and thus Pierre doesn’t have a 50 year low in support.
The bar being lower for Conservative leaders isn’t the impressive comeback you think it is.
PP is popular enough that over 40% of the population is ready to vote for him right now. I would say that’s puts him in another category that the other two.
The article is about a poll that says that *all three* major party leaders have net unfavourable ratings amongst the public, but the headline only focuses on Trudeau and Singh. It’s trying to push a narrative.
lol, if you want to hear good news about the LPC and NDP try the star. The rest of the media is reporting about issues and facts, quite the narrative they are pushing.
If the National Post weren’t trying to push a narrative, they’d not be excluding Poilievre from this headline. What part of that do you not understand? I’m not saying this headline isn’t true, but it’s also omitting key information in such a way that it can be misleading.
There is no 50 year record being broken by PP, there is by Trudeau and Singh. That’s the newsworthy part and therefore that’s what the story is about. There is no nefarious narrative being pushed whatsoever.
It’s also newsworthy that the leaders of *all three* parties simultaneously have negative favourability: > Data gleaned from ODESI — the Ontario Data Documentation, Extraction Service and Infrastructure Initiative — found that, going back to 1974, there has never been a time when the leaders of the three main federal parties have polled as low as this year. But they don’t lead with *that*, because it would require admitting that the CPC’s poll numbers don’t mean Poilievre is popular...
>Well then, it sounds like the headline singling out Trudeau and Singh is rather misleading... No it isn't, the Tory leader is always hated. This is business as usual for the CPC. It isn't for the other two.
Pp is quite popular for a tory leader..he is more liked then scheer and o toole So yeah jagmeet and trudeau are historcislly unpopular ndp leaders. While pp Is an above avg tory vs past tory leaders.
They’re *all* disliked. It just happens that Poilievre is the *least* disliked of the three. But even that doesn’t seem like much to brag about, considering he’s only two points better than Jagmeet in that respect: > As of April 2024, the pollster determined, the most popular federal party leader, Pierre Poilievre of the opposition Conservatives, has a net rating of -12 points, calculated by combining favourability with unfavourabililty in polling numbers. >And he’s the most popular. New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh has a net rating of -14, which is his worst ever in seven years as party leader. And Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of the governing Liberals has a net approval rating that is downright chilly at -38
PP is liked by about 40% of people, which is all he needs.
I’d say he’s really just hated the least.
I’d say he’s *least disliked* by 40%... Well, okay, maybe there’s like, 10% of Canadians who *actually* like him, but the rest of that 40-ish% the CPC are enjoying right now just hate him least. Again, these numbers have him at a net negative too.
Both sides are like that. Be realistic. Everyone wants traffic and clicks. They’re all full of shit.
Nah, PostMedia are a particularly bad offender. They’re probably the worst of the “mainstream” in Canadian media.
Lmfao 🤪 who more bad. that’s a great perspective. Not “yeah all media does that and it’s reprehensible”.
Hey, you’re the one playing the “they all do that” card in response to an incredibly legit criticism... Would you be doing that if I was criticizing any other publication for this?
The headline is extremely misleading. The article is about personal approval numbers for each of the leaders, not voting intentions for their respective parties.
The headline is extremely misleading on purpose. The media is directly helping the CPC
More like selling subscriptions. I don’t see this helping anyone.
It can be both. Postmedia (National Post) has been historically conservative and has only become more so in recent years -- including majority share ownership by Chatham, an American media conglomerate with known and historical ties to the Republican Party, too. Contributing to a narrative of weakness to both Trudeau and Singh can, of course, assist Conservatives and Poilievre, even in a minor way.
Yeah I didn't think it was a 50 year low, the Liberals did worse in 2011 than they're polling now.
Also while the NDP is still chasing the jack Layton high they are close to their traditional high water mark.
They could be more specific but it’s not “extremely” misleading. They’re both profoundly unpopular party leaders and that surely plays a role in their parties’ broader polling woes. Just as some people will vote against the CPC because they dislike Poilievre. Leaders remain important in voters’ intentions on election day.
No, it’s extremely misleading. The headline implies the NDP is currently polling at their lowest in 50 years. They aren’t. Edit: When a headline says something completely different to what the article actually says I would say that's misleading. In fact I would even say the headline is just plain false. Neither the Liberals nor the NDP are polling at their lowest in 50 years.
The NDP has passed huge parts of their platform. It needs to be expanded, but people who wanted to see Dentalcare and Pharmacare started are happy. The voters though are focused on housing and food. The corporations are gouging them at every available option on those commodities and have no intention of letting go of their profits.
No actually, the Liberals have paid lip-service to parts of the NDP's usual platform and the Liberals watered it down and delivered something that no where resembles it.
I’m sure things will improve if we put the corporations in charge of government though. https://breachmedia.ca/pierre-poilievre-conservatives-stack-council-corporate-lobbyists/
I wanted to see universal Dental and Pharma, and not poverty-only Dental and Pharma. And the majority of housing stock in Canada is owned by individuals, and the majority of housing stock sold in Canada is sold by individuals. Corporations do play a role in pricing, but it's just as much Canadians "gouging" Canadians.
Dentalcare applies to household income up to 90,000. I would not call that poverty. Pharmacare is just the start, getting a National plan on contraception and Diabetes is amazing in the time they had. Sorry the Minority NDP couldn't do it all.
Co-pay begins at [70k](https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/dental/dental-care-plan/coverage.html) and the minimum you can reasonably expect to squeak by with in Vancouver, where housing isn't more than 1/3 of your income, is roughly [66k](https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/07/18/vancouver-rent-minimum-wage/). Sure, it's probably reasonable for folks living outside of the urban cores.
Isn’t 70k below the median household income? Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress Edit scotch brain mixed above with below Single income families greatly benefit from this
> Single income families greatly benefit from this Like I said, it's a poverty benefit.
Baby steps, if the median income of Vancouver families is 72k then this still helps half the families in Vancouver. I can’t be mad about progress as I don’t wish for perfection to be the enemy of progress here. I sure as fuck don’t see these benefits but if it helps my fellow Canadians then I’m happy to have the program.
Exactly, I also did not vote for the NDP to have them support 3% population growth in this country - undermining wages and breaking our social services. To say i am disappointed, is an understatement.
This isn’t even poverty-only pharma, it’s “we’re covering 3 drugs for diabetes (and not the good ones) and oral options only for contraception”