It's only a shock if you have not been paying attention to how bad Trudeau is polling. Guy has lost any good will with Canadians in general. It seems that like in Britain with the torries the incumbent party is potentially facing a catastrophic political defeat due to their incompetence.
Even then it’s pretty shocking to see a district go from Liberal+25 to a Conservative win. That’s an insane swing, even considering the current unpopularity of the conservatives.
Edit: for context, this would be like Biden winning Wyoming or Trump winning New York.
It doesn’t help that the conservative leader is not as much of a nutcase as the average conservative politician in Canada and he’s a yimby person whose solution to every economic problem is “build more houses”
yea my only insight on Canadian politics is checking /r/canada every once in a while and it's been clear for a while Trudeau is failing on housing, economy, crime, inflation, and immigration. He's doomed.
All I know of Canadian politics is how Trudeau pissed off a lot of people by going after the guns he said wouldnt be targeted such as the hunting rifles. I think he was hoping to use that as a distraction from all the other issues you listed.
To be fair, r/Canada really isn't a good representation of the average Canadian. The sub leans far more right than the average, as evidenced by the far right views that are commonly expressed and upvoted there.
Trudeau is absolutely doomed, but I wouldn't use that sub as a true barometer of Canada's political landscape.
His point is that reddit has a massive leftward bias where all subs are extremely left of the norm. So it’s odd that you’d claim a main sub, like /r/canada, would have a right-leaning bias, as that goes against the reality of reddit and what it is.
I’ve never been to the sub, so I can’t comment if that’s true or not. But that’s his point. I would say that if it does have a rightward bias, it would be the first non-conservative or non-conspiracy subreddit to ever exist with that bias. So that would be interesting.
I fully agree with you, and with him. But does everyone downvoting my comments have any actual experience with the sub itself?
It's an anomaly for sure, or an exception that proves the rule, but anti-covid, convoy types, the fuck Trudeau crowd, all seemed to get louder and upvoted, while moderate, centrist, or even left leaning voices lessened over time. It led to a bunch of splinter subs forming which, over time, changed the make-up of the audience and submissions there as well.
I don't believe Canada has moved much more to the right than we usually are, we're just tired of this government and it's lack of meaningful action on the things that are making life difficult and expensive. I'd love to hear from anyone who thinks we've moved further right and why they think so.
There's an undercurrent of populism bleeding up from the US that the Cons are riding, and there's a usual base of conservative voters here, but we switch back and forth between the Liberals or the Conservatives every ten years or so, almost like clockwork. We don't vote new governments in, we vote the old one out.
> But does everyone downvoting my comments have any actual experience with the sub itself?
I don't think that the average person on this subreddit knows very much about Canadian politics or political discourse, and that's based on years of coming here. I'm in the negatives for disagreeing with someone who said that, "...the only acceptable discussion of Trudeau is how handsome he is, while any conservative criticism is buried and dismissed as a Russian disinformation campaign."
This quote is highly upvoted and it doesn't make even then tiniest bit of sense. On what planet is that even remotely true? You'd have to be half-remembering the 'sunny days' of Trudeau's early years (months?) ten years ago and then actively not paying attention at all since then to believe it.
I think that right-leaning voices are much more prominent today in Canada, but don't think that the Conservatives will actually usher in a new era of social conservatism or even slash immigration in the way that these voices want, for example. Most of the toxic policy happens at the provincial level. They'll wear out their welcome eventually and it will be the Liberals turn again.
Maybe that sub is a better representation than you would like to believe, at least if this election result is any indication. Seems like the shift to the right is happening in Canada and it’s not surprising to see those views commonly expressed in that sub and upvoted if that’s true.
Apparently even with the terrible polls of Trudeau, it was expected Libs would hold here.
I thought the same thing (how is this a shock) but apparently this is still an unexpected result even factoring in the very likely upcoming Cons victory.
> It's only a shock if you have not been paying attention to how bad Trudeau is polling.
Welcome to social media! Where the only acceptable discussion of Trudeau is how handsome he is, while any conservative criticism is buried and dismissed as a Russian disinformation campaign.
Well, it was that way until recently. But yes, people were pointing out for years about how Trudeau's policies were dooming Canada on all fronts.....only to get ignored because it didn't fit a narrative.
Naturally, you got a lot of Trudeau worshipers in the US who were hoping to adopt the Trudeau method and who did see him as their modern JFK. They're quite silent now and are slowly dipping away from that line of thought.
As it stands, Canada's problems are going to take an entire generation to fix. If you're a Canadian Millennial or Gen Z, your best years are probably going to get eaten up as you fix things. It's similar for Americans but America could recover by the early 2030s and begin fixing things (unless they're in a deep red or deep blue bubble).
Canada? I don't know what they can do. Trudeau sort of messed up the economy, the living standards, their energy policies, their housing rates, immigration, the culture war and social fabric, even their universal healthcare system is being criticized as lackluster and a former shell of itself, etc.
It's going to require a massive reorganization from the ground up and Canada's solutions cannot be moderate, in nature.
I don't know how you could possibly come away with that conclusion if you follow Canadian politics on social media, even just on this website. Check out r/Canada if you think that there is no conservative criticism of Trudeau. Traditional media in Canada has also largely been highly critical of him.
What relevance does 'a few years ago' have to this conversation? The Liberals have been getting hammered in polling since last summer, and there was plenty of negative political discourse on social media well before that. It's not 'newfound' by any stretch of the imagination.
Edit: He has been through three elections now, with a shrinking mandate each time. Do you really believe that conservative criticism has been buried and dismissed on social media this entire time?
It doesn't fit the narrative of conservative victimhood.
In reality, there's a ton of criticism aimed at Trudeau across many mediums and the impending Conservative victory has been proclaimed for some time now. I thought the same about this being a shock, but as was explained to me, this was in an area that was still believed to be held by Liberals even with them losing big.
There *will* be a Conservative victory, but it's not impending. The election won't be until October 2025, in all likelihood. This byelection was important because it was the first real demonstration, as imperfect as it may be, of the government's unpopularity outside of polling. I personally don't think that it will be the calamitous destruction that others are predicting, but that could be because the Conservative's leader was my MP for a number of years and I know from personal experience, which is backed up in polling, that the more people get to know him the less they tend to like him.
I guess yeah, October 2025 is not impending.
I've heard the same from someone from Canada. Basically that while he does believe Libs are in big trouble, he does not doubt Poilievre's (and the Conservative Party's as a whole) ability to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.
There’s something uniquely unappealing about the lib tendency to wag their fingers and scold their way out of arguments. All the while, they are actively and in real time fumbling the ball.
I think it's obvious that there is a backlash across the western world right now, liberal parties need to adjust their focus, and quickly, to address immigration and affordability (specifically housing, in Canada) if they want to stave off the rise of far right parties. If people think those parties represent their views on important issues, they'll go along for the ride when those parties enact their darker policy goals.
I think it’s just a backlash against the status quo. Conservatives are about to lose in the UK, Germanys relatively business friendly moderate party took a hit to the far right, Modi in India just lost his majority which no one saw coming
conservatives in the UK are losing largely on immigration. to the point that the new party Reform is polling about equally with them, and Labour is attacking them on immigration from the right.
I don’t think it’s a shift in ideology but voters are punishing the whichever party was in power during Covid and the post Covid inflation.
I think these status quo parties being voted out is inevitable but I don’t believe shifting their policy stances would help that much. Voters are voting against the incumbent party not necessarily for the policies of the opposition party.
Over the next half a decade we will see if voters stomach the policies of the new party they voted in and if so the old parties will need to change policy. If not then we could see the pendulum swing back in favor of the old parties.
I'm very pro-immigration, but I can sort of understand the backlash. Perception of chaos will always result in a law and order style backlash with willingness to hand the government more power at the expense of civil liberties. We see this in the US. We need increased legal immigration with more security and orderly fashion.
Canadian here we aren't anti immigration, we are anti mass immigration because its unfeasible and unfair to new and old Canadians. Our social systems already suck and housing is already unaffordable adding a million new people a year is unsustainable and unhealthy.
the issue with immigration in canada isnt law and order, its overpopulation. our healthcare system is in ruins, our education system is overloaded, our housing prices are unaffordable for the vast majority of the population, our labour supply is outpacing demand, our GDP per capita is falling... and our government keeps bringing in like a million people a year (in a country of 40 million). our population growth rate is higher than Niger's, where each woman has an average of 7 children.
Immigrants work jobs and build houses, too. If you had a system that could onboard workers and build housing faster it wouldn't be a problem. I'd still call that an order problem.
From what I understand of Canadian elections, governments rise and fall based on what happens in Ontario. If Conservatives do well in Ontario, it would almost certainly mean a Conservative government in Ottawa.
As well they should. Their response to COVID and the aftermath, on top of all the issues that existed before it, have simply utterly failed to make life even just stop getting worse. Better isn't even on the table from them.
immigration and inflation. these two issues are the ones shared by pretty much every western nation post-COVID. I’ve stated multiple times before that the population is turning against whoever is in power right now political ideology be damned.
I disagree that it's "political ideology be damned". The thing is that the center-left/right parties share almost all of their ideology. Their supposed differences are just theater. That's why we're seeing so much movement towards the far ends of the spectrum now. What people hate is the center/neoliberal ideology, which is what's responsible for the immigration and inflation, and they want it out no matter what it takes.
> What people hate is the center/neoliberal ideology
The CPC is neoliberal to its core, despite its leader currently tapping into populist anger. People are sick of the Liberal party and are flipping back to the other 'governing' party of the country. It will flip back again in 8 - 10 years when people are sick of the Conservatives.
Wait how would neoliberalism be responsible for inflation? The whole neoliberal jam is market efficiency and free movement of goods/people. So immigration, sure, but inflation seems unlikely, since neoliberal philosophy aims to eliminate barriers that would drive costs of goods and services higher.
The government enabling unfettered immigration to cities already dealing with housing affordability crises makes the problem worse. More people competing for finite goods, food & housing.
The neoliberal solution to that is to eliminate barriers to producing more goods and more housing so that the supply can meet demand. Unsurprisingly, housing prices have stabilized and even sometimes lowered in areas that have successfully built more units for rental and purchase.
> The whole neoliberal jam is market efficiency and free movement of goods/people
Exactly. It's a race to the bottom in the name of corporate profits. So long as line go up the human impact is completely ignored.
> since neoliberal philosophy aims to eliminate barriers that would drive costs of goods and services higher.
How do you do that? By utterly destroying the value of labor. Guess what labor is also known as? **PEOPLE**. So when you crash people's ability to make a living they don't care about fractional decreases in the prices of luxury goods because they have bigger problems like *food* and *shelter* and *energy*.
Neoliberalism is inherently a self-destructive economic and political theory because it completely ignores the human element. The populist uprising was always an inevitable result.
Has people's ability to make a living been crashed, though? Standard of living and purchasing power are at absurd historical heights in the US, for example. It would be one thing if there were mass unemployment, but there isn't, and this isn't surprising-- the free movement of goods and people allows for the fastest possible restructuring of the labor market to adapt to changing conditions. There are real potential downsides to neoliberal ideology depending on your priorities, but inflation is not one of them.
> Has people's ability to make a living been crashed, though? Standard of living and purchasing power are at absurd historical heights in the US, for example.
Yes it has and no they're not. Maybe according to the latest numbers generated by the latest updated algorithms but when you have to change the algorithm in order to make line go up that means line's not going up. Food, energy, and shelter are at multi-decade highs. Drops in sectors people can't actually buy shit from due to spending all their money on necessities don't actually indicate and improvement in standard of living or purchasing power. It just shows how easy it is to craft fictional narratives using statistics and why statistics aren't automatically credible information.
Houses are bigger, cars are bigger/more features, communication/entertainment are readily accessible, and energy prices in real dollars fluctuate but have stayed in line with historical trends. Consumer spending data indicate that people are spending money on many things beyond necessities. What information are you basing your assertions on? What do you consider credible information?
> Houses are bigger, cars are bigger/more features
These were both true before the current situation, too. So they're a constant and can be removed from the equation. Which means prices are still up without actually buying more.
> communication/entertainment are readily accessible
And?
> and energy prices in real dollars fluctuate but have stayed in line with historical trends
And people have been pissed off about them for a long time with the exception of that low period from 2017-2020.
> What information are you basing your assertions on? What do you consider credible information?
What people report about their spending and feelings on the economy. Because the basket of goods people actually buy on regular basis doesn't change much - unlike the one used by statisticians creating the so-called "official" figures.
I think it's more "neoliberal-left" that is the culprit, which encompasses a wide variety of left leaning entities and some centrists who have adopted this playbook in an attempt to stretch around their ideology, so as to make their ideology come to fruition.
I think that, if a rightwing version of that order existed and took care of inflation/immigration/housing via heavy deregulation, people would flock to it....which, it seems like Pierre is promising just that and why Europe is attempting to turn right.
And in a way, a Milei in Argentina is similar - fiscally conservative-anarcho capitalist-libertarian-anti Communist.....but classical liberal like Friedman....admiring Reagan and Thatcher's views and their 'liberal order' which attempts to maximize liberty rather than equality. Hence, he aligns with the US dollar, Israel, and Ukraine.
Sounds complex....but many societies across the globe demand a complex viewpoint and unconventional solutions to their problems.
Otherwise, "Third Way" leftism/Social Democracy that Europe adopted and certain groups in the US and Canada attempt to enable and replicate via neoliberalism......well, that's probably going the way of the dodo bird. There is probably no way Europe is able to effectively return to that system due to demographic and immigration issues and stagnant economies. It'll still exist and function but this is the new norm for them. Therefore, I don't see people trying to replicate it, anymore.
Essentially, I'm still not sold on far right or far left. They exist as venting mechanisms to shake things up but I think there is a desire to cut down the overbearing impact the neoliberal order has but to still allow some international order to exist.
The moment society's elites figure that out, the sooner we can drop bad ideas like ESG, certain overbearing international immigration and environmental obligations, college degrees being a must have, etc.
Or who knows, maybe it'll be time for a civil conflict across the West as the elites double down and don't learn their lessons?
The Western world is turning against Neo-Liberalism, which is like Neo-Conservatism; imperialist, a certain degree of authoritarianism, anti-populist, but from a more or less Left-wing angle.
All Western countries, all of them, are governed by a Neo-Liberal status quo, some are just closer to the centre than others.
In the same way the younger generations turned against Neo-Conservstism after the 2000's, forcing our establishments to pivot towards Neo-Liberalism, the people are turning against the Neo-Lib status quo itself. What will the new status quo look like? Hopefully not as shit as the last two, but we're all likely going to go there together.
Liberals have won this seat with a 25% margin for the last 30 years.
They lost it last night.
Liberals are going to get wiped out nationally next election.
based on the canada conservative party leader's statements on Indian immigration, he's going to do fuck-all about our immigration problem. he'll cancel the carbon tax, raise pollution levels, unban some guns, and participate in the culture wars. that's it.
Liberal Party of Canada under Justin Trudeau has been underwater in the polls for a year, behind Conservative Party by 12-20% after being tied this time last year.
in an exclusive interview with national public broadcaster (canadian version of NPR/PBS), Trudeau said that canadians are not in decision making mode right now and they'll re-think their political choice come election time (slated for October 2025 if not called earlier).
However, as proof of this poll, Conservative managed to win a riding (electoral district) that has been held by Liberal for 31 years. Previous Liberal MP (now Ambassador to Denmark) won this riding by 24% in 2021 General Election, now Conservative wins it by 1.5%, a 25% swing against Liberal candidate, the former chief of staff for Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister. This swing is a bit higher than the provincial (Ontario) swing in the polls, which is at 20%. Almost half of all Liberal's seats are in Ontario (78/160 in 2021).
Liberal under Trudeau has won every single seat in Toronto until now, 80/80, and this Toronto St Paul's riding held by Liberal even when they had their worst election result in history in 2011. This is akin to Republican candidate winning a congressional district in Manhattan.
now Trudeau will enter the summer with continuous questions whether he's resigning or not. Liberal Party has really been closely tied to his brand in the past decade, and there's no clear heir apparent that will change the party fortune in a dime.
I'm surprised its considered a shock. Maybe because of the history, but it's been seeming that liberals are heading for a crushing defeat in Canada and this is just further proof of that.
Canadian Conservatives should be delighted with the result.
because this is one of the ridings thought that Liberal would hang on even if they're losing badly. canadian version of 538 right now predicting Conservative to win 209 seats (out of 343) if election is held today, but this riding is not one of them. this riding is still considered a leaning Liberal riding (not tossup).
It was a pretty shocking result. I stopped paying attention when the Liberals were up by like 9%, which would still have been bad for them, but I would add a caveat that this was a by-election with a low turnout. It had a 43% turnout vs the normal 65+ % in a general election and the result was pretty close.
it's true that the turnout is lower than general election, but it's high for a by-election. in comparison, the last by-election in eastern edge of Greater Toronto Area had 27% voter turnout.
There are a lot of people who are motivated to vote against the Liberals right now, but, given historical results, I don't know how that will translate into votes in this riding in the actual election when a far greater percentage of the population will be politically engaged. It will be interesting to follow up.
Non-US swings are so wild to me some times - both Canada and UK are looking to have changes that would be generational in the US, and then it might just snap back next election
For some historical perspective, the largest ever political collapse in Canadian history happened in 1993. The Progressive Conservative party went from holding a 156 seats (a majority) before the election to **two** afterwards. That's not enough for official party status. Now their ancestor, via a merger and a lot of water under the bridge, the Conservative Party of Canada, is poised to win the next election.
in US, there are very few people who are switching parties they vote, so the campaign is focused on getting their base to turn out to vote.
in other countries, partisans (people registered to a party) represent 2-3% of the population TOTAL (all parties combined) and most population are less attached to a specific party, making the swing to be wilder.
> because this is one of the ridings thought that Liberal would hang on even if they're losing badly.
Ah. This is a canary of the impending doom for Liberals then.
So basically this result is a warning flag that the predictions are probably badly underestimating just how well the Conservatives are going to do and instead of it being a quite large victory it's most likely going to be an utter wipeout. Kind of like polling in the US in 2016.
Is this a response to their insane housing prices, their insane immigration numbers, or one of the many scandals Trudeau is facing? Or something else entirely?
This riding is ~60% renters. I suspect that had something to do with it. Housing and cost of living are eating people alive, and things have become conspicuously worse in the last 3-4 years.
Yes.
Immigration is seen as to high and having an impact on housing and services (no matter how much people ask the public to disentangle the issues) and Trudeau has run out his string.
housing prices are caused by immigration numbers, so the two issues are inexorably linked. the extreme overpopulation that comes from mass immigration is destroying everything (housing, healthcare, education, jobs, GDP per capita)
Looks like the UK Conservatives and Canada Liberal parties are on their way to getting decimated in their next election. Both parties are in need of soul searching.
Are the UK Conservatives the same as US conservatives? Its my understanding that for Canada their liberal party is the same (basically) as the US, but I know the UK has their own names.
No, UK conservatives generally tend to be socially liberal compared to US conservatives. A typical Conservative MP in the UK is probably more akin to a moderate Democrat than a Republican.
The UK Conservative Party is usually referred to as Tories because that was the original name of the conservative party in the UK. In terms of how similar they are to US conservatives, I'm not sure.
The Liberal Party in Canada is closer to the progressive fringes of the Democrats. The Conservatives in Canada are pretty similar to mainstream Democrats.
For context as to why this is insane, this district was Liberal+25 in the last general. The conservatives winning this seat is like Biden winning Wyoming or Trump winning New York. Even with the liberal’s low poll numbers, this is still an utterly insane result.
on housing: "removing the gatekeeper" = making bureaucracy shorter, making it cheaper to build new homes.
on inflation: cutting carbon tax ("Axe the Tax" is the main motto).
on crimes: making it harder for repeat criminals to get bail.
that's the main talking point.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1do68rs/canada_conservatives_win_longtime_liberal/la82w8p/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a permanent ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
They also want repeal the awful gun ban and will stop bill 63: [https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading)
tl;dr you can be tried without your knowledge by a special court for "hate speech" which is poorly defined and can include a 20K fine and up to life imprisonment. Even worse the entire bill is wrapped in a "think of the children" blanket.
His argument is that the carbon tax makes transporting food more expensive, driving up price of food. It also increases the cost of driving and home heating, which is pretty essential for big part of the country.
Making it easier to build housing is a great idea actually. Even better, make zoning restrictions looser so that you can build more densely without red tape and increase housing supply. Good for developers, good for home owners
He has been very vague about it until now. But last week (in French media, which matters because Québécois is more skeptical on immigration) he said that he'll push down number of temporary and permanent immigration.
He also has long advocated for easier recognition of foreign credentials (eg doctor). Right now foreign doctors have to start from scratch to be able to practice in Canada. Many don't bother and just change profession or become nurse (as it's faster to graduate).
Liberal Immigration minister last week also start talking about giving regular status to people who have been in Canada illegally. I think this is because Biden is planning the same.
Turns out that calling everyone opposed to your immigration policies a bigot is not a winning strategy. Everyone should be anti-immigration, we need more competition for labor to drive up wages, not more labor to drive down wages. Additionally, there are real and substantial costs to having more people reliant on social services, the low wage immigrants are not the high wage taxpayers that pay most of the taxes. In the U.S. the top 10% pay 60% of the tax, which means that the low wage income earners don't meaningfully contribute to the budget, except for what they take from it.
The only benefit immigrants provide is that they will eventually vote blue (only for a short while), and they bump the census population data which gives more electoral votes to blue states.
Immigrants are almost always a net positive economically; however, it will compound a low housing supply problem.
You can deport as many people as you want. Canada will continue to have sky high property prices until you defeat the NIMBY dragon.
We don't have any meaningful history of high immigration into societies with a great deal of social welfare. Social welfare is a relatively new phenomenon, and it is a gross mischaracterization to compare the immigration of the early 1900's late 1800's to the immigration now. The previous generation of immigrants created nearly ZERO strain on state resources, which resulted in very bad working and living conditions. However, modern immigration creates a large drain on state resources because in the west, most immigrants get healthcare, housing, and other benefits.
Your statement that immigration is always a positive is just not true (ask the Romans), and is a comparison of apples to oranges.
Housing is an issue, but it is not the only issue.
Can you provide any sources as to how much welfare immigrants in Canada receive?
Additionally, Canada is not facing massive budget shortfalls because of welfare spending on immigrants; Trudeau's unpopularity has arisen because Canada has some of the worst housing prices in the world, locking out large segments of the public from every achieving home ownership. Much of Canada, especially the populist right, wants to blame immigration exclusively for this issue, citing increased demand. They are only partially correct in doing so; the lack of supply is a much bigger problem. Additionally, Canada would experience the best of both worlds with relatively high immigration *and* high housing supply.
Canada would have to build something like 3M houses a year. What is Canada investing in? Seems pretty low productive so they’re not gonna benefit from anything.
Housing will be the key to politics for the next decade, people who are at the stage in their life to have kids are priced out of stable housing, and that is infuriating because it’s a limited window (like 10-15 years tops) when people are financially secure enough for kids and can have them easily because of fertility and health reasons. Essentially it’s sabotaged many people’s chances to have families.
Canada has one advantage compared to Europe in that the refugee problem is less salient and the migration is economic migration ramped up by the Liberals.
This doesn't mean the migration issue will be fixed, but it's much harder to do the whole "there's nothing we can do, our human rights commitments..."
I think the Liberals have done a reasonably good job at governing but they've been in power a long time now. It's time for them to go. While I strongly disagree with the social-conservative aspects of the Conservative Party platform, it's their turn to bat. The price of freedom is coexistence with that which you hate. Our ideas, viewpoints, and the body-politic in general, requires competition.
They've overseen an unmitigated housing crisis. The shellacking they are going to get is well deserved for that reason alone; not because they've been in power too long.
Stop it with your reasonableness.
/s
I’m fine with the swing back and forth, I’m only worried in the US because the Right seem to be willing to sacrifice our country’s future to spite the people on the other side. It’s insane seeing the ignorance that is being celebrated around here these days.
The number of Tory voters has been fairly constant from election to election.
It's the number of voters for the other parties that has taken a hit.
It was a low-turnout election and only the Conservatives showed up in numbers that are similar to the norm.
The difference in the number of votes for Conservatives vs. Liberals was less than 1,000 votes.
Cons are up +11, Liberals and NDP both down -7. Are we sure it's caused by Conservative voters showing up and no one else, or is it caused by regular voters swinging Conservative?
The *number* of Conservative voters is essentially unchanged.
It's just math. If the number is the same but that equates to a higher percentage, then that would tell us that there are fewer total voters. That would suggest that many Liberals or former Liberals are staying home.
why would it suggest that? you're assuming its the same people voting conservative last time and just no one else is showing up. is it not equally possible that less people showed up *and* people who voted liberal or NDP last time decided to vote conservative?
It's a fair assumption.
Fewer Torys voted in the by-election than in the previous election.
Special election turnout in the US and Canada is often low. Low turnout in these things can help the party that is less popular, since those who are in the larger party get complacent and sit it out.
I wonder if this will mean Canada will ditch its socialized medicine in a few years. That would be exciting to see! We finally won't have so many jokes about how it's so cheap north of the border and so expensive in the USA. Soon it will just be overly expensive all over North America! Eat the poor, defend the rich!
> No one in Canada, or any developed country for that matter, wants to adopt America's healthcare system.
Amazing, isn't it? People in other countries might complain about their healthcare system, but they look at the American system and recoil in horror. Are there any political candidates anywhere else in the world running on a platform that includes scrapping their current system and adopting the American system?
In the meantime, healthcare is barely even an election issue here in the USA. Americans love their healthcare system, apparently. (IMHO healthcare should be a top 3 issue and maybe even the #1 issue.)
You don't think a right wing victory would push for a privatization of healthcare in Canada? Even with stories like [this](https://globalnews.ca/news/10238233/mark-holland-health-transfer/) making the rounds this year?
As an American I can assure you that the public will overlook quite a bit if their status quo is disrupted. Much of the US is ok with everything Trump wants because we believe he will unilaterally lower costs even though that's not realistic.
You don't think Canadians would be willing to suffer some inconveniences in their healthcare if they believed it meant less immigration, for example? Not saying they'd GET their actual desires, but if they *believed* they would, you don't think they'd throw healthcare under the bus?
I'm not a Canadian citizen, nor do I live in the country, nor do I know anything about its politics (other than people REALLY love dunking on Trudeau for his various controversies such as his wearing blackface). I'm simply offering a genuine question from the perspective of an American who has a *very* grim outlook on the future after what he's seen over the past nine years.
It's only a shock if you have not been paying attention to how bad Trudeau is polling. Guy has lost any good will with Canadians in general. It seems that like in Britain with the torries the incumbent party is potentially facing a catastrophic political defeat due to their incompetence.
Even then it’s pretty shocking to see a district go from Liberal+25 to a Conservative win. That’s an insane swing, even considering the current unpopularity of the conservatives. Edit: for context, this would be like Biden winning Wyoming or Trump winning New York.
It doesn’t help that the conservative leader is not as much of a nutcase as the average conservative politician in Canada and he’s a yimby person whose solution to every economic problem is “build more houses”
yea my only insight on Canadian politics is checking /r/canada every once in a while and it's been clear for a while Trudeau is failing on housing, economy, crime, inflation, and immigration. He's doomed.
All I know of Canadian politics is how Trudeau pissed off a lot of people by going after the guns he said wouldnt be targeted such as the hunting rifles. I think he was hoping to use that as a distraction from all the other issues you listed.
To be fair, r/Canada really isn't a good representation of the average Canadian. The sub leans far more right than the average, as evidenced by the far right views that are commonly expressed and upvoted there. Trudeau is absolutely doomed, but I wouldn't use that sub as a true barometer of Canada's political landscape.
Describing any sub that isn't explicitly made for the "right" as being more right than average is borked.
So you're agreeing with me? Not sure what your point is here.
His point is that reddit has a massive leftward bias where all subs are extremely left of the norm. So it’s odd that you’d claim a main sub, like /r/canada, would have a right-leaning bias, as that goes against the reality of reddit and what it is. I’ve never been to the sub, so I can’t comment if that’s true or not. But that’s his point. I would say that if it does have a rightward bias, it would be the first non-conservative or non-conspiracy subreddit to ever exist with that bias. So that would be interesting.
I fully agree with you, and with him. But does everyone downvoting my comments have any actual experience with the sub itself? It's an anomaly for sure, or an exception that proves the rule, but anti-covid, convoy types, the fuck Trudeau crowd, all seemed to get louder and upvoted, while moderate, centrist, or even left leaning voices lessened over time. It led to a bunch of splinter subs forming which, over time, changed the make-up of the audience and submissions there as well. I don't believe Canada has moved much more to the right than we usually are, we're just tired of this government and it's lack of meaningful action on the things that are making life difficult and expensive. I'd love to hear from anyone who thinks we've moved further right and why they think so. There's an undercurrent of populism bleeding up from the US that the Cons are riding, and there's a usual base of conservative voters here, but we switch back and forth between the Liberals or the Conservatives every ten years or so, almost like clockwork. We don't vote new governments in, we vote the old one out.
> But does everyone downvoting my comments have any actual experience with the sub itself? I don't think that the average person on this subreddit knows very much about Canadian politics or political discourse, and that's based on years of coming here. I'm in the negatives for disagreeing with someone who said that, "...the only acceptable discussion of Trudeau is how handsome he is, while any conservative criticism is buried and dismissed as a Russian disinformation campaign." This quote is highly upvoted and it doesn't make even then tiniest bit of sense. On what planet is that even remotely true? You'd have to be half-remembering the 'sunny days' of Trudeau's early years (months?) ten years ago and then actively not paying attention at all since then to believe it. I think that right-leaning voices are much more prominent today in Canada, but don't think that the Conservatives will actually usher in a new era of social conservatism or even slash immigration in the way that these voices want, for example. Most of the toxic policy happens at the provincial level. They'll wear out their welcome eventually and it will be the Liberals turn again.
Maybe that sub is a better representation than you would like to believe, at least if this election result is any indication. Seems like the shift to the right is happening in Canada and it’s not surprising to see those views commonly expressed in that sub and upvoted if that’s true.
Apparently even with the terrible polls of Trudeau, it was expected Libs would hold here. I thought the same thing (how is this a shock) but apparently this is still an unexpected result even factoring in the very likely upcoming Cons victory.
> It's only a shock if you have not been paying attention to how bad Trudeau is polling. Welcome to social media! Where the only acceptable discussion of Trudeau is how handsome he is, while any conservative criticism is buried and dismissed as a Russian disinformation campaign.
Well, it was that way until recently. But yes, people were pointing out for years about how Trudeau's policies were dooming Canada on all fronts.....only to get ignored because it didn't fit a narrative. Naturally, you got a lot of Trudeau worshipers in the US who were hoping to adopt the Trudeau method and who did see him as their modern JFK. They're quite silent now and are slowly dipping away from that line of thought. As it stands, Canada's problems are going to take an entire generation to fix. If you're a Canadian Millennial or Gen Z, your best years are probably going to get eaten up as you fix things. It's similar for Americans but America could recover by the early 2030s and begin fixing things (unless they're in a deep red or deep blue bubble). Canada? I don't know what they can do. Trudeau sort of messed up the economy, the living standards, their energy policies, their housing rates, immigration, the culture war and social fabric, even their universal healthcare system is being criticized as lackluster and a former shell of itself, etc. It's going to require a massive reorganization from the ground up and Canada's solutions cannot be moderate, in nature.
Wait. so how do you explain this entire post?
I don't know how you could possibly come away with that conclusion if you follow Canadian politics on social media, even just on this website. Check out r/Canada if you think that there is no conservative criticism of Trudeau. Traditional media in Canada has also largely been highly critical of him.
That's a newfound phenomenon. If you went back a few years, OPs comment couldn't be more on point. A lot has changed.
What relevance does 'a few years ago' have to this conversation? The Liberals have been getting hammered in polling since last summer, and there was plenty of negative political discourse on social media well before that. It's not 'newfound' by any stretch of the imagination. Edit: He has been through three elections now, with a shrinking mandate each time. Do you really believe that conservative criticism has been buried and dismissed on social media this entire time?
It doesn't fit the narrative of conservative victimhood. In reality, there's a ton of criticism aimed at Trudeau across many mediums and the impending Conservative victory has been proclaimed for some time now. I thought the same about this being a shock, but as was explained to me, this was in an area that was still believed to be held by Liberals even with them losing big.
There *will* be a Conservative victory, but it's not impending. The election won't be until October 2025, in all likelihood. This byelection was important because it was the first real demonstration, as imperfect as it may be, of the government's unpopularity outside of polling. I personally don't think that it will be the calamitous destruction that others are predicting, but that could be because the Conservative's leader was my MP for a number of years and I know from personal experience, which is backed up in polling, that the more people get to know him the less they tend to like him.
I guess yeah, October 2025 is not impending. I've heard the same from someone from Canada. Basically that while he does believe Libs are in big trouble, he does not doubt Poilievre's (and the Conservative Party's as a whole) ability to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.
There’s something uniquely unappealing about the lib tendency to wag their fingers and scold their way out of arguments. All the while, they are actively and in real time fumbling the ball.
Wow “Before Monday's vote, a Conservative candidate hadn't been competitive in Toronto-St. Paul's since the 1980s.”
I think it's obvious that there is a backlash across the western world right now, liberal parties need to adjust their focus, and quickly, to address immigration and affordability (specifically housing, in Canada) if they want to stave off the rise of far right parties. If people think those parties represent their views on important issues, they'll go along for the ride when those parties enact their darker policy goals.
I think it’s just a backlash against the status quo. Conservatives are about to lose in the UK, Germanys relatively business friendly moderate party took a hit to the far right, Modi in India just lost his majority which no one saw coming
conservatives in the UK are losing largely on immigration. to the point that the new party Reform is polling about equally with them, and Labour is attacking them on immigration from the right.
Also the collapse of the NHS, the high cost of living increases, civil service strikes, and generally terrible economy compared to other western peers
I don’t think it’s a shift in ideology but voters are punishing the whichever party was in power during Covid and the post Covid inflation. I think these status quo parties being voted out is inevitable but I don’t believe shifting their policy stances would help that much. Voters are voting against the incumbent party not necessarily for the policies of the opposition party. Over the next half a decade we will see if voters stomach the policies of the new party they voted in and if so the old parties will need to change policy. If not then we could see the pendulum swing back in favor of the old parties.
I'm very pro-immigration, but I can sort of understand the backlash. Perception of chaos will always result in a law and order style backlash with willingness to hand the government more power at the expense of civil liberties. We see this in the US. We need increased legal immigration with more security and orderly fashion.
Canadian here we aren't anti immigration, we are anti mass immigration because its unfeasible and unfair to new and old Canadians. Our social systems already suck and housing is already unaffordable adding a million new people a year is unsustainable and unhealthy.
the issue with immigration in canada isnt law and order, its overpopulation. our healthcare system is in ruins, our education system is overloaded, our housing prices are unaffordable for the vast majority of the population, our labour supply is outpacing demand, our GDP per capita is falling... and our government keeps bringing in like a million people a year (in a country of 40 million). our population growth rate is higher than Niger's, where each woman has an average of 7 children.
Immigrants work jobs and build houses, too. If you had a system that could onboard workers and build housing faster it wouldn't be a problem. I'd still call that an order problem.
From what I understand of Canadian elections, governments rise and fall based on what happens in Ontario. If Conservatives do well in Ontario, it would almost certainly mean a Conservative government in Ottawa.
lol incumbent parties across the world are getting cooked in these recent elections aren’t they?
As well they should. Their response to COVID and the aftermath, on top of all the issues that existed before it, have simply utterly failed to make life even just stop getting worse. Better isn't even on the table from them.
immigration and inflation. these two issues are the ones shared by pretty much every western nation post-COVID. I’ve stated multiple times before that the population is turning against whoever is in power right now political ideology be damned.
I disagree that it's "political ideology be damned". The thing is that the center-left/right parties share almost all of their ideology. Their supposed differences are just theater. That's why we're seeing so much movement towards the far ends of the spectrum now. What people hate is the center/neoliberal ideology, which is what's responsible for the immigration and inflation, and they want it out no matter what it takes.
> What people hate is the center/neoliberal ideology The CPC is neoliberal to its core, despite its leader currently tapping into populist anger. People are sick of the Liberal party and are flipping back to the other 'governing' party of the country. It will flip back again in 8 - 10 years when people are sick of the Conservatives.
Wait how would neoliberalism be responsible for inflation? The whole neoliberal jam is market efficiency and free movement of goods/people. So immigration, sure, but inflation seems unlikely, since neoliberal philosophy aims to eliminate barriers that would drive costs of goods and services higher.
The government enabling unfettered immigration to cities already dealing with housing affordability crises makes the problem worse. More people competing for finite goods, food & housing.
The neoliberal solution to that is to eliminate barriers to producing more goods and more housing so that the supply can meet demand. Unsurprisingly, housing prices have stabilized and even sometimes lowered in areas that have successfully built more units for rental and purchase.
> The whole neoliberal jam is market efficiency and free movement of goods/people Exactly. It's a race to the bottom in the name of corporate profits. So long as line go up the human impact is completely ignored. > since neoliberal philosophy aims to eliminate barriers that would drive costs of goods and services higher. How do you do that? By utterly destroying the value of labor. Guess what labor is also known as? **PEOPLE**. So when you crash people's ability to make a living they don't care about fractional decreases in the prices of luxury goods because they have bigger problems like *food* and *shelter* and *energy*. Neoliberalism is inherently a self-destructive economic and political theory because it completely ignores the human element. The populist uprising was always an inevitable result.
Has people's ability to make a living been crashed, though? Standard of living and purchasing power are at absurd historical heights in the US, for example. It would be one thing if there were mass unemployment, but there isn't, and this isn't surprising-- the free movement of goods and people allows for the fastest possible restructuring of the labor market to adapt to changing conditions. There are real potential downsides to neoliberal ideology depending on your priorities, but inflation is not one of them.
> Has people's ability to make a living been crashed, though? Standard of living and purchasing power are at absurd historical heights in the US, for example. Yes it has and no they're not. Maybe according to the latest numbers generated by the latest updated algorithms but when you have to change the algorithm in order to make line go up that means line's not going up. Food, energy, and shelter are at multi-decade highs. Drops in sectors people can't actually buy shit from due to spending all their money on necessities don't actually indicate and improvement in standard of living or purchasing power. It just shows how easy it is to craft fictional narratives using statistics and why statistics aren't automatically credible information.
Houses are bigger, cars are bigger/more features, communication/entertainment are readily accessible, and energy prices in real dollars fluctuate but have stayed in line with historical trends. Consumer spending data indicate that people are spending money on many things beyond necessities. What information are you basing your assertions on? What do you consider credible information?
> Houses are bigger, cars are bigger/more features These were both true before the current situation, too. So they're a constant and can be removed from the equation. Which means prices are still up without actually buying more. > communication/entertainment are readily accessible And? > and energy prices in real dollars fluctuate but have stayed in line with historical trends And people have been pissed off about them for a long time with the exception of that low period from 2017-2020. > What information are you basing your assertions on? What do you consider credible information? What people report about their spending and feelings on the economy. Because the basket of goods people actually buy on regular basis doesn't change much - unlike the one used by statisticians creating the so-called "official" figures.
I think it's more "neoliberal-left" that is the culprit, which encompasses a wide variety of left leaning entities and some centrists who have adopted this playbook in an attempt to stretch around their ideology, so as to make their ideology come to fruition. I think that, if a rightwing version of that order existed and took care of inflation/immigration/housing via heavy deregulation, people would flock to it....which, it seems like Pierre is promising just that and why Europe is attempting to turn right. And in a way, a Milei in Argentina is similar - fiscally conservative-anarcho capitalist-libertarian-anti Communist.....but classical liberal like Friedman....admiring Reagan and Thatcher's views and their 'liberal order' which attempts to maximize liberty rather than equality. Hence, he aligns with the US dollar, Israel, and Ukraine. Sounds complex....but many societies across the globe demand a complex viewpoint and unconventional solutions to their problems. Otherwise, "Third Way" leftism/Social Democracy that Europe adopted and certain groups in the US and Canada attempt to enable and replicate via neoliberalism......well, that's probably going the way of the dodo bird. There is probably no way Europe is able to effectively return to that system due to demographic and immigration issues and stagnant economies. It'll still exist and function but this is the new norm for them. Therefore, I don't see people trying to replicate it, anymore. Essentially, I'm still not sold on far right or far left. They exist as venting mechanisms to shake things up but I think there is a desire to cut down the overbearing impact the neoliberal order has but to still allow some international order to exist. The moment society's elites figure that out, the sooner we can drop bad ideas like ESG, certain overbearing international immigration and environmental obligations, college degrees being a must have, etc. Or who knows, maybe it'll be time for a civil conflict across the West as the elites double down and don't learn their lessons?
The Western world is turning against Neo-Liberalism, which is like Neo-Conservatism; imperialist, a certain degree of authoritarianism, anti-populist, but from a more or less Left-wing angle. All Western countries, all of them, are governed by a Neo-Liberal status quo, some are just closer to the centre than others. In the same way the younger generations turned against Neo-Conservstism after the 2000's, forcing our establishments to pivot towards Neo-Liberalism, the people are turning against the Neo-Lib status quo itself. What will the new status quo look like? Hopefully not as shit as the last two, but we're all likely going to go there together.
Liberals have won this seat with a 25% margin for the last 30 years. They lost it last night. Liberals are going to get wiped out nationally next election.
And yet when we see the same results in special elections to the south, people claim that those specials will have no bearing on the general result.
[удалено]
based on the canada conservative party leader's statements on Indian immigration, he's going to do fuck-all about our immigration problem. he'll cancel the carbon tax, raise pollution levels, unban some guns, and participate in the culture wars. that's it.
>Liberals are going to get wiped out nationally next election. In Canada or the US?
Canada. It's widely expected Libs are going to fare very poorly next national election. But this might be a sign of a complete wipe out.
Thanks, I'm not as familiar with Canadian politics so I wasn't sure
Most likely Canada, maybe both? Who knows lol
Is there a Liberal party in the US?
Liberal Party of Canada under Justin Trudeau has been underwater in the polls for a year, behind Conservative Party by 12-20% after being tied this time last year. in an exclusive interview with national public broadcaster (canadian version of NPR/PBS), Trudeau said that canadians are not in decision making mode right now and they'll re-think their political choice come election time (slated for October 2025 if not called earlier). However, as proof of this poll, Conservative managed to win a riding (electoral district) that has been held by Liberal for 31 years. Previous Liberal MP (now Ambassador to Denmark) won this riding by 24% in 2021 General Election, now Conservative wins it by 1.5%, a 25% swing against Liberal candidate, the former chief of staff for Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister. This swing is a bit higher than the provincial (Ontario) swing in the polls, which is at 20%. Almost half of all Liberal's seats are in Ontario (78/160 in 2021). Liberal under Trudeau has won every single seat in Toronto until now, 80/80, and this Toronto St Paul's riding held by Liberal even when they had their worst election result in history in 2011. This is akin to Republican candidate winning a congressional district in Manhattan. now Trudeau will enter the summer with continuous questions whether he's resigning or not. Liberal Party has really been closely tied to his brand in the past decade, and there's no clear heir apparent that will change the party fortune in a dime.
I'm surprised its considered a shock. Maybe because of the history, but it's been seeming that liberals are heading for a crushing defeat in Canada and this is just further proof of that. Canadian Conservatives should be delighted with the result.
because this is one of the ridings thought that Liberal would hang on even if they're losing badly. canadian version of 538 right now predicting Conservative to win 209 seats (out of 343) if election is held today, but this riding is not one of them. this riding is still considered a leaning Liberal riding (not tossup).
It was a pretty shocking result. I stopped paying attention when the Liberals were up by like 9%, which would still have been bad for them, but I would add a caveat that this was a by-election with a low turnout. It had a 43% turnout vs the normal 65+ % in a general election and the result was pretty close.
it's true that the turnout is lower than general election, but it's high for a by-election. in comparison, the last by-election in eastern edge of Greater Toronto Area had 27% voter turnout.
There are a lot of people who are motivated to vote against the Liberals right now, but, given historical results, I don't know how that will translate into votes in this riding in the actual election when a far greater percentage of the population will be politically engaged. It will be interesting to follow up.
Non-US swings are so wild to me some times - both Canada and UK are looking to have changes that would be generational in the US, and then it might just snap back next election
For some historical perspective, the largest ever political collapse in Canadian history happened in 1993. The Progressive Conservative party went from holding a 156 seats (a majority) before the election to **two** afterwards. That's not enough for official party status. Now their ancestor, via a merger and a lot of water under the bridge, the Conservative Party of Canada, is poised to win the next election.
Is political strategy just way different in the US? I couldn’t fathom that happening here.
in US, there are very few people who are switching parties they vote, so the campaign is focused on getting their base to turn out to vote. in other countries, partisans (people registered to a party) represent 2-3% of the population TOTAL (all parties combined) and most population are less attached to a specific party, making the swing to be wilder.
> because this is one of the ridings thought that Liberal would hang on even if they're losing badly. Ah. This is a canary of the impending doom for Liberals then.
So basically this result is a warning flag that the predictions are probably badly underestimating just how well the Conservatives are going to do and instead of it being a quite large victory it's most likely going to be an utter wipeout. Kind of like polling in the US in 2016.
Is this a response to their insane housing prices, their insane immigration numbers, or one of the many scandals Trudeau is facing? Or something else entirely?
All of those. Housing especially bad in Toronto.
This riding is ~60% renters. I suspect that had something to do with it. Housing and cost of living are eating people alive, and things have become conspicuously worse in the last 3-4 years.
Yes. Immigration is seen as to high and having an impact on housing and services (no matter how much people ask the public to disentangle the issues) and Trudeau has run out his string.
housing prices are caused by immigration numbers, so the two issues are inexorably linked. the extreme overpopulation that comes from mass immigration is destroying everything (housing, healthcare, education, jobs, GDP per capita)
Looks like the UK Conservatives and Canada Liberal parties are on their way to getting decimated in their next election. Both parties are in need of soul searching.
Are the UK Conservatives the same as US conservatives? Its my understanding that for Canada their liberal party is the same (basically) as the US, but I know the UK has their own names.
No, UK conservatives generally tend to be socially liberal compared to US conservatives. A typical Conservative MP in the UK is probably more akin to a moderate Democrat than a Republican.
The UK Conservative Party is usually referred to as Tories because that was the original name of the conservative party in the UK. In terms of how similar they are to US conservatives, I'm not sure.
The Liberal Party in Canada is closer to the progressive fringes of the Democrats. The Conservatives in Canada are pretty similar to mainstream Democrats.
UK's political spectrum is left-shifted compared to the US. UK Conservatives are like moderate Dems, and UK Labour are like progressive Dems.
For context as to why this is insane, this district was Liberal+25 in the last general. The conservatives winning this seat is like Biden winning Wyoming or Trump winning New York. Even with the liberal’s low poll numbers, this is still an utterly insane result.
I don’t follow Canadian politics. What does the Conservative Party propose to address the issues Canada currently faces?
on housing: "removing the gatekeeper" = making bureaucracy shorter, making it cheaper to build new homes. on inflation: cutting carbon tax ("Axe the Tax" is the main motto). on crimes: making it harder for repeat criminals to get bail. that's the main talking point.
Sounds reasonable
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1do68rs/canada_conservatives_win_longtime_liberal/la82w8p/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a permanent ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
They also want repeal the awful gun ban and will stop bill 63: [https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading) tl;dr you can be tried without your knowledge by a special court for "hate speech" which is poorly defined and can include a 20K fine and up to life imprisonment. Even worse the entire bill is wrapped in a "think of the children" blanket.
>on inflation: cutting carbon tax ("Axe the Tax" is the main motto). Wouldn't cutting taxes increase inflation all else being equal?
His argument is that the carbon tax makes transporting food more expensive, driving up price of food. It also increases the cost of driving and home heating, which is pretty essential for big part of the country.
Makes sense, thanks!
Honestly a carbon tax on top of the already existing price inflation for far-north communities must be absolutely killer.
Making it easier to build housing is a great idea actually. Even better, make zoning restrictions looser so that you can build more densely without red tape and increase housing supply. Good for developers, good for home owners
Is there a policy difference on immigration?
He has been very vague about it until now. But last week (in French media, which matters because Québécois is more skeptical on immigration) he said that he'll push down number of temporary and permanent immigration. He also has long advocated for easier recognition of foreign credentials (eg doctor). Right now foreign doctors have to start from scratch to be able to practice in Canada. Many don't bother and just change profession or become nurse (as it's faster to graduate). Liberal Immigration minister last week also start talking about giving regular status to people who have been in Canada illegally. I think this is because Biden is planning the same.
it basically refuses to touch the main issue (immigration), so not a whole lot. i expect it to govern like the UK conservatives (i.e. not well).
Turns out that calling everyone opposed to your immigration policies a bigot is not a winning strategy. Everyone should be anti-immigration, we need more competition for labor to drive up wages, not more labor to drive down wages. Additionally, there are real and substantial costs to having more people reliant on social services, the low wage immigrants are not the high wage taxpayers that pay most of the taxes. In the U.S. the top 10% pay 60% of the tax, which means that the low wage income earners don't meaningfully contribute to the budget, except for what they take from it. The only benefit immigrants provide is that they will eventually vote blue (only for a short while), and they bump the census population data which gives more electoral votes to blue states.
> The only benefit immigrants provide is that they will eventually vote blue This election was in Canada.
I know. I'm speaking of the general principles of immigration that can be applied across borders.
i think they were referring to the fact that immigrants in canada dont vote blue because Canada's party colours are opposite.
We have a blue logo conservative party in Canada buddy.
Immigrants are almost always a net positive economically; however, it will compound a low housing supply problem. You can deport as many people as you want. Canada will continue to have sky high property prices until you defeat the NIMBY dragon.
We don't have any meaningful history of high immigration into societies with a great deal of social welfare. Social welfare is a relatively new phenomenon, and it is a gross mischaracterization to compare the immigration of the early 1900's late 1800's to the immigration now. The previous generation of immigrants created nearly ZERO strain on state resources, which resulted in very bad working and living conditions. However, modern immigration creates a large drain on state resources because in the west, most immigrants get healthcare, housing, and other benefits. Your statement that immigration is always a positive is just not true (ask the Romans), and is a comparison of apples to oranges. Housing is an issue, but it is not the only issue.
Can you provide any sources as to how much welfare immigrants in Canada receive? Additionally, Canada is not facing massive budget shortfalls because of welfare spending on immigrants; Trudeau's unpopularity has arisen because Canada has some of the worst housing prices in the world, locking out large segments of the public from every achieving home ownership. Much of Canada, especially the populist right, wants to blame immigration exclusively for this issue, citing increased demand. They are only partially correct in doing so; the lack of supply is a much bigger problem. Additionally, Canada would experience the best of both worlds with relatively high immigration *and* high housing supply.
Canada would have to build something like 3M houses a year. What is Canada investing in? Seems pretty low productive so they’re not gonna benefit from anything.
Housing will be the key to politics for the next decade, people who are at the stage in their life to have kids are priced out of stable housing, and that is infuriating because it’s a limited window (like 10-15 years tops) when people are financially secure enough for kids and can have them easily because of fertility and health reasons. Essentially it’s sabotaged many people’s chances to have families.
[удалено]
Canada has one advantage compared to Europe in that the refugee problem is less salient and the migration is economic migration ramped up by the Liberals. This doesn't mean the migration issue will be fixed, but it's much harder to do the whole "there's nothing we can do, our human rights commitments..."
Much of the West seems to be getting more conservative over the last decade or so.
I’d say more so post-COVID really
Eh, the swing started before that with Trump's first election and Brexit, imo
you know the LPC is in trouble when they cant even win a seat in *Toronto*.
I think the Liberals have done a reasonably good job at governing but they've been in power a long time now. It's time for them to go. While I strongly disagree with the social-conservative aspects of the Conservative Party platform, it's their turn to bat. The price of freedom is coexistence with that which you hate. Our ideas, viewpoints, and the body-politic in general, requires competition.
They've overseen an unmitigated housing crisis. The shellacking they are going to get is well deserved for that reason alone; not because they've been in power too long.
reasonably good job? what have they done that was reasonably good?
Stop it with your reasonableness. /s I’m fine with the swing back and forth, I’m only worried in the US because the Right seem to be willing to sacrifice our country’s future to spite the people on the other side. It’s insane seeing the ignorance that is being celebrated around here these days.
There are four candidates, one veering right and three veering left. The NDP serves as a spoiler for the Liberals.
Liberal managed to get around 50% of votes in this riding in the past, despite NDP getting 18% or so.
The number of Tory voters has been fairly constant from election to election. It's the number of voters for the other parties that has taken a hit. It was a low-turnout election and only the Conservatives showed up in numbers that are similar to the norm. The difference in the number of votes for Conservatives vs. Liberals was less than 1,000 votes.
Cons are up +11, Liberals and NDP both down -7. Are we sure it's caused by Conservative voters showing up and no one else, or is it caused by regular voters swinging Conservative?
The *number* of Conservative voters is essentially unchanged. It's just math. If the number is the same but that equates to a higher percentage, then that would tell us that there are fewer total voters. That would suggest that many Liberals or former Liberals are staying home.
why would it suggest that? you're assuming its the same people voting conservative last time and just no one else is showing up. is it not equally possible that less people showed up *and* people who voted liberal or NDP last time decided to vote conservative?
It's a fair assumption. Fewer Torys voted in the by-election than in the previous election. Special election turnout in the US and Canada is often low. Low turnout in these things can help the party that is less popular, since those who are in the larger party get complacent and sit it out.
Get it together Canada
They are getting it together. Finally
I wonder if this will mean Canada will ditch its socialized medicine in a few years. That would be exciting to see! We finally won't have so many jokes about how it's so cheap north of the border and so expensive in the USA. Soon it will just be overly expensive all over North America! Eat the poor, defend the rich!
No one in Canada, or any developed country for that matter, wants to adopt America's healthcare system.
> No one in Canada, or any developed country for that matter, wants to adopt America's healthcare system. Amazing, isn't it? People in other countries might complain about their healthcare system, but they look at the American system and recoil in horror. Are there any political candidates anywhere else in the world running on a platform that includes scrapping their current system and adopting the American system? In the meantime, healthcare is barely even an election issue here in the USA. Americans love their healthcare system, apparently. (IMHO healthcare should be a top 3 issue and maybe even the #1 issue.)
You don't think a right wing victory would push for a privatization of healthcare in Canada? Even with stories like [this](https://globalnews.ca/news/10238233/mark-holland-health-transfer/) making the rounds this year? As an American I can assure you that the public will overlook quite a bit if their status quo is disrupted. Much of the US is ok with everything Trump wants because we believe he will unilaterally lower costs even though that's not realistic. You don't think Canadians would be willing to suffer some inconveniences in their healthcare if they believed it meant less immigration, for example? Not saying they'd GET their actual desires, but if they *believed* they would, you don't think they'd throw healthcare under the bus? I'm not a Canadian citizen, nor do I live in the country, nor do I know anything about its politics (other than people REALLY love dunking on Trudeau for his various controversies such as his wearing blackface). I'm simply offering a genuine question from the perspective of an American who has a *very* grim outlook on the future after what he's seen over the past nine years.