Now that federal election is over and I am back from my holidays, here are my thoughts for each party. I will do a separate blog latter on regional breakdown.
Liberals
If you told anyone back around Christmas, Liberals would get 43.8% (which is highest popular vote total since 1980) and fall just shy of a majority, most would say you were nuts. But then again this goes to show how events dear boy events phrase is very true in this tumultuous world. I always felt strong Conservative lead was built on dislike of Justin Trudeau not dislike of Liberal party and once he left, that gave party a chance to reset. Also I felt Trump would help Liberals as Canadians really dislike him and want someone who is polar opposite not Trump lite. Many conservatives on social media dismissed me when I said Trump winning or Trudeau resigning might throw a wrench into conservative path to victory, but it sure did. I believe Liberals won because Carney unlike Trudeau or Poilievre has the financial expertise to guide us through these tough times as he did as Bank of Canada governor during Great Recession and Bank of England governor during Brexit. But that does not mean a blank cheque and ability to win historical fifth term will depend heavily on whether he can fix issues people were upset about like high cost of living, rising crime, low productivity etc. I don’t think party should go to left as that will just help Tories rise further, but not to right either. Instead focus should be on getting us through next four years with Trump threats and fixing affordability and economy. If he does those, I believe he can push Tories back into 30s and not have to worry about an NDP rise so long as Poilievre is leader. But if cannot fix those, Tories likely rise further and win. Based on his past, I would bet on him fixing these or at least making progress on concerns. Predicting next election is silly due to how far out, but I think chance of Liberals winning historical fifth term is north of 50% but far from certain.
Conservatives
Blowing a 25 point lead and leader losing his own seat would in most instances count as an unmitigated disaster. And in some ways it was, but not totally. The Conservatives did have a few positives despite falling short. They got 41.3% of popular vote which is best showing since 1988 and were able to make gains with certain groups such as making heavily ethnic suburbs competitive and winning some traditionally NDP-Liberal heavily unionized blue collar seats. But they still lost in the end which is what matters. Under Harper and since him; party strategy has been be right wing enough to ensure base doesn’t form a further right wing splinter party while moderate enough to appeal to 40% of public. That may no longer be enough as they did get over 40% which in past elections would have easily been a majority, but thanks to collapse of NDP they lost. As such relying on splits on left is not something party can afford since we may be moving towards a two party system. Party likely will need 45% or more to win in future elections which won’t be easy as being moderate enough to appeal to such risks potential splits. Main areas of weakness were traditional Red Tories, upper middle class university educated boomers, and women. Party will likely need to find a way to do better amongst one or more of those to win. It is very doable, but will mean base needs to accept that party is not going to be as nasty and as divisive to groups they dislike as well as show more pragmatism. At end of day, these groups like solutions and aren’t into the whole lets own the libs which far too many in party including Poilievre have been doing.
Bloc Quebecois
Lost seats but could have been worse. Its seems nowadays, BQ is more the party of those who dislike both Liberals & Conservatives rather than separatist or any coherent ideology. It lost in suburban ridings but held its rural base which suggests many there still upset with Liberals, but really disliked Poilievre who was quite unpopular in Quebec. That is a risky strategy long term as no guarantee that Liberals being disliked in rural areas and Conservatives too tied to Prairie base which despises Quebec will continue. If either of those falls, Bloc Quebecois may find itself trying to fight for relevance. With Trump 51st state threats and Quebecers being more confident of language & culture, I believe chance of a successful referendum is quite low; even lower than in Alberta where threat of separation while low is somewhat higher.
NDP
In terms of showing, they have absolutely nothing to be proud of. This was just a plain disaster. However, the fact them crashing allowed Liberals to win may be on policy front a blessing in disguise. All the programs and progressive legislation they fought for likely would have been at risk under a Conservative government whereas with Liberals it is not. Whether this is a one off or long run troubles, too early to tell. But ability to recover depends a lot on others and only so much they can do. They need to hope either Conservatives fall back into low 30s or they dump Poilievre and choose someone more moderate. As long as Conservatives near or above 40% and have someone like Poilievre who scares the living crap out of most NDPers, they are going nowhere. I believe many on right wrongly assumed NDP was its own thing and wouldn’t care who won, when in fact they very much would rather have a Liberal government than Conservative. They may find Liberals not as left wing as they wish, but they can tolerate them and if in a scenario where voting Liberal is only way to stop Conservatives, they will.
Green Party
They faced same problem NDP did thus why fell to 1.2%. Two left wing parties already problematic enough and especially three. Maybe okay if Tories in low 30s, but once they get north of 40%, that is a sure fire way to ensure a Conservative majority and Greens much like NDPers see Liberals as lesser of two evils over Conservatives.
PPC
They are dead and irrelevant as rightfully deserve. Any split on right likely limited to Alberta & Saskatchewan and likely a separatist party. I will do a blog on this later, but hopefully Conservatives will see this as signal to stop pandering to far right.
Two party System
It is clear that Canada at least temporarily is moving towards a two party system. Liberals had best popular vote showing since 1980 while Conservatives since 1988. It was first time since 1930 you had two parties at federal level get above 40%. In Western Canada, you already largely have a two party system at provincial level so I always felt it was only a matter of time before would happen federally. And that is bad news for Conservatives as they require splits on left to win. Since more Canadians lean left than right, it means they are going to have to change if wish to win in future elections. Unlike some, I don’t believe moving to a two party system totally bad. One of the biggest positives is it gives clear indication which way philosophically country leans whereas more parties you have, harder it is. At same time its means fewer voices and ideas which is downside. I believe solution to that is give MPs more freedom to take views different from party and loosen party discipline. Two big tent parties can work quite well as long as both are actually big tent with a diversity of ideas. However, with our system of rigid party discipline that may be tough to achieve. And with each party trying to have gotcha moments of one crazy MP/candidate, this is probably why parties will be reluctant to loosen party discipline.
afiscalconservativepointofview 
Poilievre has a stranglehold on party members although he did send out to the members two questionaires soliciting qualitative feedback which I thought was extremely good. But only if he actually paid attention and read the replies which I am not certain of.
There doesn’t seem to be much appetite for a leader review, although I remain hopeful. As a red Tory female boomer with a good education, I don’t fit into the blue collar membership. In my local riding association, one of the other board members threatened me – publicly and in front of witnesses at a board meeting – for standing up against, politely, against the abuse I was targeted with for exercising my right to support whatever party leader I want to and to not be viciously attacked and condemned as a Liberal for doing so. I took the steps outlined in the party’s Constitution and materials for grieving abuse which included asking the offending party to meet to discuss our differences (she refused my offers to buy her coffee, a drink, etc.), then asking another board member to intervene (also refused) then making a complaint in writing to the national council (which I didn’t need to do because the individual who was viciously attacking me and spreading vicious lies about me felt the heat and stepped down). It was her husband to subsequently threatened me. He said he wasn’t through with me and would “get” me. Anyway, they are a very successful blue collar couple who own a small trades building business and donate the maximum and holiday with our MP so I wasn’t ever going to really win and so I stepped down from the board and did it properly and with my head held high. But that is what happens when someone like Poilievre whose style encourages abuse is the leader. I’d like a leader review.
I agree Carney won on the strength of his CV in the face of the threats from President Trump. I like his ideas for a trans-provincial free trade zone and I like that he has promised to get that in place by the end of this summer. I like that he values punctuality and professionalism. I like that he has promised to diversity trade partnerships and while I think the “Golden Dome” idea is a little over the top and I hate the name, I can understand the value of agreeing to that as part of a new North American trade agreement.
But Carney needs to stop listening to whoever is advising him on the relationship Canada should have with Israel. Canada is not France (France is in a very bad position) nor is it GB (also not France but in a different position than Canada too) and should take an independent stance. As it is, he sounds like Ireland’s Higgins speaking in support of the South African ICC prosecution of Israel for genocide. There is no evidence to support the claim and the court has ignored its own rules of jurisdiction to pursue it. Carney should read the riot act to the pro-Hamas protesters before they start killing Jews in Canada. He can do it in a way that expresses understanding for the experience of Palestinians living in Gaza but that points out to them – address them directly – that Hamas is really bad for them and for their future. As it is, Carney has demanded an immediate ceasefire that would allow Hamas to stay in power and collect funding from the world to rebuild its tunnels and commit another atrocity like 10/7 but worse. He must make clear to the world that Canada stands 100% with Israel, despite the very grievous consequences of the Hamas-initiated war, but that the responsibility for ending the war is 100% the duty of Hamas and that Canada will not waver in our support for Israel until Hamas surrenders and returns all of the hostages.
Let’s see who the NDP choose for its new leader. I think the NDP is valuable and I’d like to see it regroup and have a voice.
I don’t feel the same way about the Green Party. Or the PPC.
I like Blanchet but I agree his party has become irrelevant for the moment as there is little will for separation, especially in the face of Trump’s implicit threats to Quebec language and culture rights. I’d like him to get out of the way and support Quebec Indigenous oil and gas corporation development to work with Team Canada to build the infrastructure required to market our clean products to the world and to reduce global emissions.
I think a visionary Conservative leader (visionary leaders are few and far between in all the parties) who preaches conservation of Canada’s resources, history and culture, at the same time as embracing the future of AI technology in government, health care and industry, could win a majority if s/he promises to make a ten-year legacy of transforming our welfare programs into one Friedman-style basic income program for all. S/he could sell it to Canadians as a tax saving venture as it could be administered by CRA software. Welfare administration will be mostly replaced by AI anyway and as people begin to lose their jobs to AI, they will want to expand our safety net. That’s my dream. Mind you, I think Karina Gould is already thinking about that, so we’ll see what she can come up with too. For the future, although it is needed right now.
LikeLike
Agree with many parts and I do think Poilievre’s bully style has been unhelpful and also a big reason party fell short. If he won over Red Tories in Atlantic Canada, upper middle class suburban boomers in Ontario/BC and did better with women he could have won despite lack of splits on left. And it is possible to appeal to those while still holding onto blue collar voters he gained. Unfortunately I feel much of Prairie base is too much about owning libs and not willing to expand tent.
LikeLike
I agree with your analysis on this election – events YES with a !!!! And thank heavens, Canadians were paying attention to them and deciding accordingly. Now Carney has to deliver, within what is realistic in our chaotic world. As for our current party system, I don’t see the NDP folding without a fight, but I think the Greens are headed for a reckoning on why they cannot build a stronger following. I worry that a two party system could exacerbate polarization like it has in the USA.
LikeLike
There is that risk, but at same time I think moving to a two party system would mean Tories either have to moderate or get used to being permanently in opposition. Having a right wing government when 60% want a left of centre I don’t think was helpful so with a two party system would force them to actually appeal to majority not just 35-40% of population and win due to splits.
LikeLike
I know there was a sense that the election was divided by generation and gender especially. Here were my thoughts, based on a blend of polls, post-mortems and hints of results:
Gen-Z: Nearly tied, but with an enormous gender gap. Young males I believe went hard for the Conservatives (probably by 20 or more points) on the affordability issues and the sense the Liberals have made it hard for them, plus they tend to listen a lot to right-wing podcasts. They are a group that a more Red Tory party would not attract at all. On the flip side, young females went hard for the Liberals out of fear (probably by about the same margin), since they tend to be very left-leaning. They are natural NDP voters but their collapse meant they defaulted to the Liberals, while some who felt they were still too right-wing may have stayed home.
Millennials: Slight Conservative advantage, again with the gender gap. Younger ones (say, in their early 30s) likely had the same patterns as Gen-Z, while older ones were a bit more likely to vote Conservative and the female Liberal lead was likely more 10 points instead of 20 or more points. It’s interesting to note that, other than in heavily Indigenous areas and downtown cores, the ridings with the youngest average ages often were the strongest Conservative – you could especially see this in Ontario.
Gen-X: Again a slight Conservative advantage, although the gender gap was a bit smaller as the Liberals did do a bit better among males in this age group. Right-wing podcasts had less value here, so traditional patterns were more in line. Men likely voted about 10 points for the CPC, while women about 5 points for the LPC (the smallest victory of any age group for them). Some of the patterns we saw among Boomers start to apply here, mainly for those in their late 50s and very early 60s.
Boomers: This is where the Liberals won. Among Boomer women, they went to town – likely winning by over 25 points (with well over 60% of the vote). Even among Boomer men, they likely won by about 5 points (something like 51-46), which was a huge swing from previous elections. You could also see it with the riding trends – those that skew older tended to do the best for the Liberals (look at PEI and Nova Scotia, as well as certain retiree-heavy areas elsewhere). This was the demographic that was most concerned about Trump by far (it wasn’t as big of an issue for younger people) and the inflation and housing costs weren’t a factor since they did the best with their owned homes. Poilievre’s tone was not popular with them, despite it helping greatly with younger demographics (mainly males).
Silent: Too few of them voted to really get a trend. They were strongly Conservative in past elections (and arguably helped Harper the most) but most have died off.
LikeLike
Would agree with this as largely lines up with Abacus and Leger exit polls. My guess is they did by age range not generations:
Gen Z – Liberals win but big gender gap as mentioned
Millennials: Close to tied both in low 40s
Gen X – Strongest group for Conservatives, probably won by 5-7% and only group topped 45%
Boomers – Favoured Liberals but not by margin some polls suggested. Probably by 5-7 points with Liberals close to 50%, but CPC north of 40%
Silent Generation – Probably Conservative based on past but too few to say. It is 1927-1945 so earlier ones mostly dead but of latter its a real mix. Also maybe less conservative than past as cohort is now probably twice as many females as males (since women tend to live longer) whereas in Harper era was more evenly balanced gender wise.
LikeLike