Election 2025 Observations

 

The April 28, 2025, Canadian federal election unfolded as a gripping drama.  The Conservatives, advocating for ‘change’, were poised for a victory, but the voters surprised everyone by choosing a familiar path with a Carney twist.  The Liberal Party, which had been on the brink of collapse under Justin Trudeau, experienced a remarkable resurgence with Mark Carney at the helm.  In a nail-biting finish, the Conservatives, led by Pierre Poilievre and enjoying a significant lead in the polls, were narrowly overtaken at the finish line. 

Traditional third-party NDP support had been gradually dissolving, eventually coalescing behind their nearest policy cousin, the Liberals.  Their previous ‘confidence and supply agreement’ with the Liberals started the disaffection, but a likely Conservative election win sealed the fate, when many NDP voters held their nose and voted Liberal. 

The result was a significant victory for the Liberal government, which secured 43.5% of the popular vote, the best showing since 1980.  The Conservative opposition secured 41% of the vote, and the decimated NDP marked a clear shift in the political landscape.

In the 343 seat House of Commons, the Liberals secured 169, just three short of a majority in the House of Commons. Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party followed with 143 seats, even though he lost his parliamentary chair to a Liberal upstart.  That problem will soon be solved in a by-election.

The regional Bloc Québécois from Quebec won 23 seats and finished third.  Led by Yves-François Blanchet, the Bloc ran its usual separatist campaign based on Quebec’s autonomy and cultural pride but lost strength to the Liberals.  The New Democratic Party dropped to just seven seats, with leader Jagmeet Singh losing his riding, and the Green Party held onto a single seat.

The 2025 Canadian federal election witnessed a significant surge in voter participation, with 69% of registered voters casting their ballots.  This marked the highest voter turnout since 2015, signaling a heightened level of political engagement among Canadians.

Two events framed the election: Trudeau’s resignation and Donald Trump’s return as the U.S. President.  Together, these events changed the ballot questions, turning a contest about the faults of the Justin Trudeau administration into an image-impression contest over who might best deal with Donald Trump’s insults and tariff threats.

Some post-election observations can be made.

McLuhan's insight was that the media is the message.  This was a phrase coined by the Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan and the title of the first chapter in his 1964 book ‘Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man’.

The media, particularly social media, played a pivotal role in the election.  Pierre Poilievre strategically leveraged platforms like Facebook, X, TikTok, and YouTube, using viral videos and catchy slogans like “Axe the Tax” to rally voters around affordability and housing issues.  Some even speculated that Poilievre could be the first social media personality to ascend to the position of Prime Minister.  In a departure from tradition, the Conservative campaign largely bypassed traditional mainstream media, viewing them as adversaries rather than allies.

In contrast, Mark Carney took a traditional approach, building relationships with legacy outlets.  Older voters still consume legacy media news, contributing to some of the Conservatives' loss of support.

Carney’s droll media image benefited from legacy media’s favourable coverage, highlighting experience and stability in contrast to Poilievre’s alleged confrontational style.  Carney’s dominance in legacy media helped frame the election as a choice between uncertainty and predictability, or perhaps risky change for competence.  Papa Carney would take care of you.  The election reaffirmed the importance of a multi-media strategy that has social media reach undergirded with traditional sources.

Carney seemed for many to be the right kind of guy for the moment.  Carney had never been elected or tested at the political level, so there was somewhat of a blank slate, which voters could then ascribe to him whatever they subconsciously needed.  He appeared to have a strong resume from the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England that projected competence during a crisis.  Carney offered a deliberate blend of pseudo-professionalism that reassured rattled voters.

Trump’s election, Trudeau’s demise, and replacement changed the ballot choice.  The legacy media played a pivotal role in shaping the narrative, making full play of every question for the Conservatives, and glossing over the reality of the real Mark Carney.

The Conservatives had built solid, hard-won support by crossing the country with a clear campaign repeating memorable slogans such as “Axe the Tax,” “Build the Homes,” “Fix the Budget,” and “Stop the Crime.”  The slogans were based upon ready legislation and detailed administrative policy changes that the Conservatives promised to implement quickly.

Poilievre’s opening theme boldly stated the obvious reality for many: ‘Canada was broken.’  Voters were exhausted from the Liberal government’s inept and erratic rule during COVID-19.  Canada also had a housing crisis made worse by a Liberal administration that allowed too many immigrants within a year.  Inflation and crime were significant disenchantments.  The colossal national debt and mounting interest payments were very worrisome.

When Chrystia Freeland resigned as Finance Minister on December 16, 2024, just before she was to deliver the fall economic statement, it was a direct fatal move against Prime Minister Trudeau.  During the Christmas break, the Liberal Party looked like it was dissolving in the polls, with Poilievre’s Conservatives with 45% support, 21% for the NDP, 16% for the Liberal Party, and 11% for the Bloc Québécois.  Trudeau was forced to resign on January 6, 2025.  Mark Carney soon emerged from the political mess as the replacement Prime Minister.

Donald Trump's return to the White House and the launch of a trade war were traumatic and enraging experiences for Canadians.  Trump’s musing that Canada should be the 51st state of the USA was the supreme insult.  This led to a surge of nationalism, with Canadians boycotting USA-made products and cancelling cross-border travel, highlighting the tension and uncertainty in Canadian politics.

In response to the Trump challenge, Carney’s first acts were to scrap the consumer part of the carbon tax and reverse Trudeau’s capital gains tax hike, thus signalling a policy shift.  He borrowed the Conservative policy goal to realize Canada’s constitution as one economic unit.  In an emotional response, Canadians overwhelmingly supported political talk of tariff retaliation. 

Carney then visited the leaders of England, France, and the European Union instead of Donald Trump.  The political image-making was clear, and Carney was doing the obvious.  Canada must become less dependent on the unreliable USA.  However, Carney required political legitimacy for his leadership, so he duly called a national election for April 28^th.

During the federal election, the Conservatives called for ‘change,’ but voters did not care much about carbon taxes, Justin Trudeau, or policy slogans. They became rather vaguely emotional about who would comfort and protect Canada in a time of sudden uncertainty.

Carney played the fear card and warned repeatedly that Trump “wants to break us so America can own us.”  This new political drama put the Conservatives in an undefined position.  The truth for Canada was our internal governance, the failures of the Liberal political philosophy, and the many internal practical fixes and policy changes that were greatly needed. 

However, many voters seemed spooked and simply opted for the easy answer: comforting Mark Carney.  Compared to Poilievre’s assertive style, which he had used to wake up Canada and say that help and relief were on the way with ‘change’, voters saw Carney as the comforting daddy ‘adult in the room’. 

No matter how Poilievre tried to place Carney into the Justin Trudeau narrative, fear and comfort without reflective analysis carried the Liberals forward.  When asked why voters chose, it was never about reading a Party platform.  Few could cogently state anything Carney promised about a future vision or plan for the country when directly questioned.  Liberal voters had a vague impression that their best bet was with Carney because of Trump.  The new version of the Liberals also allowed political denialism of what the Liberal Party had done to Canada.  Reactive support for Carney allowed past political sins to be suppressed and forgotten. 

Poilievre’s inability to pivot politically in his message was the chattering class's narrative.  They did not hear or want to listen to the relevant policy message that Canada had to get its own house in order to face all challenges, whether they be Trump or other international economic shocks.

Poilievre’s Conservatives campaigned for years on anti-carbon tax and anti-Justin Trudeau political philosophy.  As Poilievre’s points scored home, the defense was that his rhetoric often echoed Trump’s populist slogans.  Since admission of guilt or policy change would not be forthcoming from Liberals, the response was a smear about Poilievre’s style rather than substance. 

However, Poilievre adapted with a ‘Canada First’ message.  His reminders about the cost of living, high taxes, and crime didn’t break through the voter fog until the campaign's last week, when Conservatives appeared to be gaining momentum, but it was somewhat late.

Pierre Poilievre created a larger Conservative coalition, but in the process, he pushed most NDP voters into the arms of Mark Carney.  That is the backhanded Liberal explanation.  In truth, NDP voters were becoming disenchanted, but they had lived for generations on false anti-conservative myths and resentment.  The NDP's collapse was mainly internal, eventually unfolding into a two-party contest.  The NDP voting coalition with the Liberals had made them both accountable for the administrative record of failure. 

If Canada evolves temporarily into a two-party format, Poilievre must heal some relationships and further broaden the Conservative base.  The 2025 election wasn’t just a contest of parties or political philosophies—it was a contest of tone and vague leadership style in a world turned upside down by Trump.

When Canadians were forced to choose between a combative populist who uncovered the sins of the mighty, and a calm technocrat ready to provide a haven to cover shame, many chose the myth of stability and comfort wrapped in a renewed love of our flag.

The outcome was a rebalance in voting patterns and the temporary emergence of a two-party focus, with a stronger Conservative movement and a resurrection of the Liberal Party.  It was image over substance.