I have had many on twitter, mostly rage farmers go on about how awful Carney is and how anyone voting Liberal is selfish and if care about future must vote for Poilievre. I believe this is false and on a personal note I would probably be better off personally if Poilievre were PM than Carney, but I voted for Carney as I do believe he is best person to lead our country. So my vote anything but selfish. Likewise blaming boomers is silly and Conservatives if want to win someday need to look in mirror. Its not boomers preventing them from winning, its Canadians in general including many younger Canadians too. Likewise, Conservatives have in past often done best with boomers and weakest with younger voters so I am not so sure I buy idea once boomers die off, Conservatives will become natural governing party. I actually think if anything they may find winning harder not easier. So in two paragraphs, I will first debunk falsehoods on why some support Carney and it is logical. And in second one will debunk this idea it is boomers holding back country and that Conservatives have much deeper problems.
- Anyone voting for Carney is wealthy and wants to protect their assets – That is completely false. Poilievre talks a lot about high housing prices but Carney has an actual plan. Never mind many aspects of high housing prices are thanks to municipal and provincial governments (latter mostly Conservative I may add) than federal.
- Carney is for rich and Poilievre for working class – This defies traditional views on which parties represent which, but I can assure you as someone who knows many wealthy, far more are Conservative than Liberal. It was Trudeau who raised their taxes on rich and while Carney is unlikely to do further raises; they are much more likely to get a tax cut under a Conservative than Liberal government. By same token new social programs that help those struggling far more likely to be created by a Liberal than Conservative government
- Carney has had 8 months and things still horrible – Governments cannot snap their fingers and magically fix things. What matters is are we making progress and on most metrics we are. Inflation down, crime starting to fall, housing prices levelling off and even had economic growth despite Trump’s trade wars. I suspect many of these are just rabid partisans and had Poilievre instead of Carney won last April, would be singing his praises even though its unlikely things would be any better off (probably worse more likely).
- Debt is out of control – I will admit our deficit is less than ideal and wish it were lower, but we are far from a crisis. We still have a Triple A credit rating and our deficit is still below most G7 and OECD countries. Can we do better? Yes. But dealing with involves tax hikes or spending cuts and when things less than ideal, people are far less open to either than if a crisis like it was in mid 90s.
- Carney has failed to get a deal with Trump – It is Trump not Carney who is at fault here. Canada already had a deal, its called CUSMA. It was Trump not Carney who decided to break it. It is Trump who has shown his word is meaningless and he is willing to not keep his word. I am all for a deal but only if it is good for Canada. I oppose idea of a deal at any cost. Likewise Carney is trying to diversify our trade and expand it with others, which will take time, but long term will deliver better results than just further tying us to US. World is unstable and friends can become foes easily so best solution is have trade as diversified as possible so if one goes rogue; you have alternatives.
A lot are blaming boomers for Conservative troubles, but really Poilievre and his base need to look in mirror. Boomers were group Erin O’Toole and Scheer did best not worse with. Harper was strongest with over 65. Doug Ford and yes even Danielle Smith did best with them. Idea younger generations conservative while older progressive is highly questionable. Yes in most recent election, Poilievre did better with younger than older, although strongest support was with Gen X, not millennials or Gen Z. But that has more to do with younger generations being more polarized while older more centrist. Boomers were not happy with Trudeau’s shift to left and returned because Carney is more centrist and from life experience understood he was the best choice. If party was smart, they would try to hold onto gains with younger voters but look for ways to win back boomers. Instead they seem determined to drive away boomers who are group that is most likely to show up on election day. Idea country will swing right when boomers die is just wishful thinking. When you poll on individual issues, young people less likely to be concerned with deficit, more likely to prefer socialism over capitalism, more likely to want a larger more activist government with more social programs. Hardly conservative ideas. By contrast, boomers are concerned with deficits, prefer tax and spending cuts over more spending with more programs and still believe capitalism better than socialism. Fraser Institute who is very capitalistic did a poll on this and showed young people were most left wing not older. Conservatives doing better is more they are struggling and when people struggling they are more likely to be anti-incumbent than when doing well. But if their values lean left, very likely would after one term swing hard away from Conservatives. In fact it was appeal to younger generations in big part why Trudeau swung more to left than Liberals usually do and it was Carney’s move to centre why he won back boomer support. Often where people sit on individual issues is a better indicator of who is most reliable supporter long term. Never mind its not just cost of living young people care about; climate change is another big issue as they will be around when worse hits unlike boomers. I agree Conservatives should continue to reach out to young people, but shouldn’t assume long term that will work in their favour as when poll on issues Gen X and boomers are far more receptive to conservative ideas than millennials or Gen Z. Latter two just are anti-incumbent not conservative.
afiscalconservativepointofview 
My main concern with how so many define their politics these days is that the traditional labels are not sufficiently nuanced. One can be progressive on social issues and environmental issues and still be conservative on fiscal matters. Does that make a person liberal or conservative? Neither label seems to fit well these days, and I think there is good reason for that. In the face of accelerating climate disasters, the traditional conservative argument that a healthy economy and healthy environment are at odds with each other is completely irrational in my view. In fact, there is no healthy economy without a healthy earth. The culture wars and racist immigration tropes that some politicians would prefer us to fixate on are nothing more than disgusting distractions from facing up to and solving the problems we need to address for future generations to thrive.
LikeLike
I think trade off between economy and environment still exists, especially in a country like Canada where resource industry is an important part of our economy. Any shift will involve a fair bit of short term disruption. Yes long term adjusts but one should not ignore some will get hurt in process and certain provinces will take bigger hit than others. Globally backlash against environmental movement is environmentalist have not found a way to make greener energy affordable. People want affordable energy and greener energy is getting cheaper but still not there yet. Add to fact many environmentalists are in large urban centres where its much easier to be green than if living in rural areas.
Culture wars agree are a disruption and I totally oppose them. But I think a lot comes from fear of unknown which bad actors can tap into. Many by nature are fearful of unknown and a lot of backlash tends to be by more ignorant types due to fear of unknown. You will noticed well educated are most likely to oppose culture wars suggesting knowledge and understanding is key.
LikeLike
One big challenge I see is managing the gender gap among younger people – especially those under 30 (and even 30 to 45 year old Millennials). Gen-Z women are the most left-wing cohort (by far) of anyone – they are highly supportive of left-wing causes all around both economically as well as culturally and socially. In fact, the majority are quite far left – at least sympathetic of Gaza, believe climate change is a global emergency, think abortion is an absolute must and want to tax churches, etc..
The Liberals mainly won them because of fear, as they are naturally an NDP demographic. However, younger men have been zooming rightward and are very strong Poilievre supporters, while many at least flirted with the PPC in 2021 (which is why most polls have those age groups pretty close, depending on the poll). One part of that is the education gap as well, as far more females than males get university education today, while the majority of males are either high school only, trade school or community college. (I’m guessing university educated younger males were basically tied in 2025, although there are no polls narrowing it to them, while lower-educated went overwhelmingly Conservative). The main reason the CPC did best among Gen-X was because females there provided the Liberals with the smallest margin of victory (females of all generations went Liberal).
It does add a risk factor for a change of leadership in the CPC. A more moderate leader would likely win back some of the lost Boomer vote (although only some, since Carney remains popular among them), and may allow more of the young female vote to move back to their natural home in the NDP (or Greens). But it would likely suppress the vote among young and middle age male voters, who are the angriest in the electorate right now. Do we really want them flirting again with the PPC or some other far-right movement? After all, they believe Canada is broken and is a “woke” nightmare and they are often struggling due to high home prices as well.
LikeLike
I think largely true and you are right that gender gap is biggest amongst youngest voters. Its probably true some of the angrier young male types would stay home if party moderated, but at same time I think focusing on high propensity voters over low propensity voters tends to deliver bigger dividends. I feel Poilievre much like Trudeau and also Trump focuses heavily on low propensity voters which sometimes work, but is a high risk. For Trump has worked in general elections, but been a disaster for party in midterms when many stay home. Likewise for Trudeau big reason he lost majority as many first time voters he gained in 2015 didn’t switch in 2019, but stayed home. Appealing more to boomers and educated types I think is better for Conservatives long term. It has worked for Ford whose wins are largely based on doing well with high propensity voters despite low turnout. In addition the anger and rage Poilievre relies on much easier to do when Trudeau was PM. More Trudeau becomes a distant memory, less will be able to do that. Carney doesn’t generate same kind of anger Trudeau did.
LikeLike
Looking at provincial vs. federal results seems to also figure out where the “extra” votes – those who stayed home provincially and voted federally, a good proxy for lower-propensity voters. It’s very different in different areas!
In British Columbia, interestingly, they seemed to match the overall electorate, since the results from the 2024 BC election and the 2025 federal election in BC were nearly identical, including the relative seat distribution. Most places that went BC NDP went Liberal federally, and most BC Conservative areas went Conservative federally. Most likely, the voters for the two coalitions were the same for the most part too. In some ways, it acted to identify current trends (and should have taught us more about the South Asian vote especially, knowing that places like Surrey and Richmond are critical swing areas and they were very close in both, while they voted to the left in 2020 BC and 2021 federal).
In Alberta, it seems the lower-propensity votes are your classic business-conservative types, who vote Conservative federally but found Danielle Smith too extreme. There were probably more of them than NDP-Conservative voters. They probably would have voted PC in the old system, or UCP with a more moderate leader (risking rural losses to a separatist party), but couldn’t stand either today. In the past, they might have been rural right-wingers who thought the PC’s were far too moderate and are at least sympathetic to separatism, but the UCP has managed to gain most of them for now at least. Calgary has a lot of them, and Edmonton has some (but with relatively few on the hard right, it leads to NDP wins).
In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, it is probably a mixture as well, but the last elections in both were rather unusual and don’t provide clues.
In Ontario, lower-propensity voters likely were your right-wing populist types – the same type as the Trump 2024 pickups. You could see that with the higher vote for Poilievre even in a loss, while the left coalescing instead of splintering, and the biggest changes being in working class areas (such as Windsor, east London, northern Ontario) where the CPC had always finished a distant third. There were a lot of Ford-Carney voters (especially in more affluent and educated areas) and the Liberals would have likely won huge with the same electorate as the provincial electorate. The GTA saw a strange split roughly along Highway 407, which also is a class split. But there were a fair number of stay home-Poilievre voters to offset it, while very few Poilievre voters came from the left provincially. Arguably, that prevented the majority.
Quebec hasn’t had an election since 2022, so it’s hard to gauge, and it can be so wonky. The provincial swing voters will be the Bloc 2021 – Liberal 2025 voters, which were mostly in the Montreal suburbs. Do they go CAQ (unlikely), PQ, PLQ or stay home or splinter? With the CAQ self-destructing, 2026 might actually resemble a federal election in a way, with the PQ winning the Bloc heartland, the PCQ making gains in the outer Quebec City area, the PLQ holding the Island of Montreal (with QS pockets in the ultra-“woke” parts), and the Montreal suburbs being a swing area.
Atlantic Canada lower-propensity voters seem to match most of the electorate there – Red Tories that tend to be Liberal mostly with the exception of rural English New Brunswick. The Newfoundland election may have broken that trend, but we’ll have to see how things play later. In Nova Scotia and PEI, that is clearly the case, and New Brunswick is a mixture that usually also aligns federal and provincial results.
LikeLike
I vote Conservative; my local CPC MP is very popular and loves his job. Even the opposition candidates love him. Ours is a safe CPC riding but most of our voters are Trinity College Conservatives although there are still too many very vocal PPC-type newbies who still fly the upside down flag outside their homes and who hate Canada and think we are the enemy. The hostility in society generally has increased and our local Council has had to take out restraining orders on some of the local belligerents.
I like most of what Carney has done so far and the direction he is moving the country in – I think it is a direction most Canadians within two SD of the norm support – but I don’t like his and his party’s position on Israel. The Liberal party never runs a candidate in our riding who I could vote for in any event, even if there was a star candidate running here, I couldn’t vote for Carney based solely on what looks like real antisemitism in his heart. I think he is unfamiliar with the facts and that he listens to the wrong people on the subject but that he intuitively sympathizes with “resistance” movements like the IRA and is antisemitic almost unconsciously. I don’t think he thinks much about it and would rather leave it to his advisors.
What I noticed locally when Poilievre took the leadership was a tightening of control. Even the websites must all be the same across the country and Poilievre, not the local MP, must be the focus of the websites. We are encouraged to display Poilievre lawn signs over the lawn signs of local candidates. And I was more-or-less driven out of the local scene because I’d worked first on Peter Mackay’s campaign and then on Charest’s. They called me a Liberal and one of them, publicly at a board meeting, openly threatened me. There were witnesses. Anyway, so I quit the board and I did it well, waiting until the AGM and submitting a nice letter and so on. I’d raised a considerable amount of money for our local candidate at an event during COVID that only a handful of people attended (but the invitation itself brought in online donations) so he’s still very friendly to me.
The Conservative Party, like all other parties, is not run by any individual except during their tenure; it is the Constitution and other documents that determine the guidelines for behaviour and there is nothing extreme about the party’s principles, values, and Constitution. But I have never much cared for Poilievre’s style nor for his focus on stupid young people. I think it is irresponsible to pitch to greed. I know that is an unpopular view but I think it is right. He is telling young men, mostly uneducated, unemployed, disaffected young men, that they are victims of a Liberal government and that they are owed a house in a nice neighbourhood, a family in the suburbs, a good job and a fat pay cheque. He says everyone who works hard should be rewarded with wealth. That’s it. And he blames the Liberals for every disaffected young man who is unemployed. He foments hatred against the government for not delivering. But the corollary for that view is that if you don’t have a big house, a perfect family, a fat wallet, it must be because you are lazy and not because life is a game of snakes and ladders that isn’t fair where some very deserving people who work hard end up disabled or homeless or dead too young.
His mobilization of bias against seniors is a bit of a betrayal too and I think it actually makes seniors more vulnerable as targets of hatred. I have noticed a definite uptick in disrespect of seniors; lots of death wishes expressed on social media and in my own circle of friends and family, the way too many young people speak to their elders reflects a real lack of education and a loss of a tradition of Canadian civility. During the last election, Canada Proud published some ads showing young men, barely literate teenagers, bullying their grandmothers to vote Conservative so their me-me-me wants could be satisfied. No finessed argument about how the CPC might better serve the healthcare needs of seniors, or how the CPC might introduce tax measures to benefit seniors, only a berating of elders as if all over age 55 are senile, selfish ogres. Conservatives are quick to point out it wasn’t the party that published those ads by Canada Proud but still, no one in the CPC disagreed or even tried to put a kinder spin on it.
But what I dislike even more about the Poilievre leadership is the place of MPs like Jamil Jivani. Both he and the leader pitch to what are essentially low IQ incels, disaffected young men who want someone to hate and to blame and Jamil Jivani blames everyone else but doesn’t ask young men to look inside themselves for how they might improve their own lives. Both the leader and Jivani pitch victimhood. I think they do so intentionally understanding how wrong it is.
I want a leader who will inspire disaffected youth instead of encouraging them to be idle belligerents. I want leaders who will point out to our youth that Canada is still among the very top nations for freedom and prosperity and that life is hard but that there are plenty of opportunities in Canada. For example, I watched a local young man who was ten years ago very unsure of himself. He had a good family but not independent wealth and so he joined the CAF. They paid for his education so he now has advanced degrees and he travelled the world and made great contacts that will last a lifetime. He met a woman on his travels and they married and he resigned from full-time service to take a job with our local MPP. I hope he will take her job when she retires. But ask most young people who complain about being unemployed if they would join the CAF to get some of those same benefits, and they scoff. They consider that beneath them. They have bought the lie that life owes them wealth without risk, that life is fair, and that complaining is somehow the answer. Even Jordan Peterson doesn’t preach that. He tells young people to pick up their power and go. He understands the meaning and importance of purpose. Complaining about the government and blaming one’s situation on others is not a purpose, it’s bait for failure.
I would be happy to see Poilievre retire but not if the likes of Jivani take his place. I would really like to see Jason Kenney take his place, although he is very unpopular with some Conservatives in the west. Despite any mistakes he may have made as premier, Kenney is arguably the smartest politician in Canada (at least in the CPC) and he has the contacts federally to compete very well with Mark Carney’s poor social policies.
What I’d really like to see is the two parties work together, with two leaders like Carney and Kenney, to develop an economically competitive Canada that serves the centrists and stands up to wrong in the world, a country that cares about our species as a whole and about life in general and that develops policies to that end. I still value democracy and freedom and human rights and I don’t think either the far left or the far right serves those interests well. And the way the world is going, we need Canada to stand up to injustice not to isolate and stick our heads in the sand. I want Canada to embrace the future, including AI that has the potential to dramatically change social and business organization, and to aggressively promote our values.
LikeLike
Agree with much of what you said. On Israel issue, I think foreign policy is not Carney’s expertise so he defers to Foreign affairs on this. For the nasty types, a lot are younger males who grew up in era of social media where rage politics gets clicks. But they don’t realize while it works with online angry crowd, it doesn’t work with larger electorate and nor is it good for society at large. In addition, Poilievre is promising false hope. There is no easy path in life and defeating Liberals and electing Conservatives won’t magically turn things around for them. Yes we can be sympathetic to those struggling as should be but should try and push positive solutions, not false hope and rage.
I agree Jivani would be a horrible choice for leader. Kenney mixed on as even he is pretty right wing, but at least on Trump he is bang on and his tough approach might work well there. Unfortunately some in base like Trump despite what he is trying to do to our country.
LikeLike