A couple more post-election thoughts
What else did we learn after Monday's results?
It already feels like ages ago, but the federal election results are in, and Prime Minister Carney is already laying out the first steps his government will take to get government machinery firing again. By now, you’re familiar with the big threads coming out of Monday’s results:
The Conservatives posted their strongest vote share in a generation
The NDP had a near total collapse
Pierre Poilievre lost his seat
Mark Carney vacuumed up the progressive/boomer votes
In my pre-election piece, I argued that eight power shifts were already underway, regardless of the results. I think these hold up. But now that we have results, we can sharpen the picture even further. Some additional takes, based on the results:
1. This was a two-party race. That changes everything in English Canada
The Liberals collapsed the left. The Conservatives locked down the right. The NDP is no longer a national force. The numbers are stark: In ridings like Eglinton–Lawrence, the NDP dropped below 2%.
For the first time in a generation, Canada’s political map is binary in English Canada. Sean Speer explored what this means in this week’s episode of Craft Politics, asking what it would take for Conservatives to be successful in a world where the party needs to aspire for 50%+1 support. In short, it will require a rethink on how it appeals to swing voters, especially in urban areas.
Why it matters:
If this two-party dynamic sticks, the Conservatives can no longer win on vote splits alone. They’ll need to build a majority coalition, and that coalition must look different than any coalition it’s ever assembled.
2. The Conservatives built a new base. The question is: can they hold it?
The Poilievre Conservatives made inroads with working-class voters, especially in southern Ontario. It is a hell of a feat to flip NDP ridings in auto-manufacturing regions. Poilievre’s message resonated with younger voters concerned about housing, affordability, and economic mobility. He has the foundation of a potentially large coalition.
But as Andrew Percy put it on the podcast: new coalitions are often built on sand. That was the story of the UK Conservatives post-2019. And it’s a real risk here too, especially if the party needs to make inroads in urban centres (see point one, above).
Why it matters:
This kind of coalition is hard to hold—especially in opposition. In the UK, the Tories won big in 2019 with a similar working-class coalition. Four years later, it crumbled. That could happen here too—unless the party gives this new base a reason to stay.
The UK Labour Party offers a cautionary tale for the Conservatives. In 2017, Labour got to 40% of the vote on the back of a large coalition of the left, but by 2019 that coalition fell apart and his party dropped to 32% of the vote. We can’t assume that today’s coalition will hold tomorrow.
3. Tone—not policy—was the difference.
This campaign wasn’t about ideas. It was about posture. Or as I said on the pod this week, it was about vibes, not ideas.
Carney projected calm, competence, and credibility. Put another way, he looked and sounded like the adult in the room, and that’s what so many voters wanted this time around. Poilievre projected control, discipline, and edge. Perhaps, a bit too much edge for swing voters in cities and in Ottawa. There was enough discomfort with the packaging to hold back the Conservatives from bringing it home. Sometimes, likability matters.
Why it matters:
Campaigns are rarely about the facts, the case, or policy ideas. They’re about values, and how those values are packaged up, branded, and presented. Keep this in mind when campaigning on your own issues.
4. The Liberal coalition is powerful—but unstable.
Carney has stitched together a coalition that ranges from Bay Street to social activists. It’s impressive. But it will be hard to govern with. Especially in a minority Parliament. Progressive demands will clash with fiscal pressures. Climate ambitions will bump into economic realities. Energy policy will expose deep internal divides.
Why it matters:
This is a coalition built to win elections—not necessarily to govern. Carney’s challenge will be to centralize power fast enough to prevent fragmentation. If he can’t, the contradictions inside his own tent will define his first year in office. For stakeholders, that means policymaking will be volatile, internal power struggles will be intense, and the PMO will be the true center of gravity.
5. The US trade file will ignite regional tensions.
A Canada–US trade negotiation is coming. And it won’t be pretty. Carney has signalled a willingness to strike a broad agreement—but the trade-offs will be painful. Supply management, energy exports, auto rules, digital regulation—all of these should be on the table, but they run a very high risk of pitting one region against another. Someone will lose, and they are unlikely to turn the other cheek.
Why it matters:
As Sean Speer put it when he quoted former PM Mulroney: a Canadian prime minister has two jobs—protect national unity and manage Canada–U.S. relations. These two roles responsibilities are on a fast collision course.
Final thought
If I sum up my view of this campaign in one sentence it’s this:
Canadians voted for change and stability. They got neither.
Yes, they got change in swapping out Carney for Trudeau.
Yes, they got stability in re-electing the incumbent party.
But there’s nothing stable about what comes next, in the context of a minority government, but more importantly, in the trade-offs Carney will need to make, and the unintended consequences of those choices.
And those are likely to leave Canadians with an ever stronger thirst for change the next time around.