— Feature, Musings —12.24.2025 09:39 PM
Merry Christmas, Mark Carney
Figuring out the Canadian political winners of 2025 is pretty easy.
Mark Carney, Ontario’s Doug Ford, Newfoundland and Labrador’s Tony Wakeham: they all won elections in 2025.
But Carney, Ford and Wakeham aren’t winners simply because of that. They’re winners because they all made a little history, as Nick Cave sang.
For his part, Ford increased his share of the popular vote with a third majority win, and he kept his political opponents marginalized. Wakeham’s achievement was also winning a majority government, and ending a decade of Liberal rule – stunning many in the province.
And Mark Carney? In 2025, Carney is the biggest winner of all. Because his Liberal Party wasn’t supposed to win anything.
Just one year ago this week, Ipsos was reporting that Pierre Poilievre’s Tories had a 25-point lead over Trudeau’s beleaguered Grits. The CBC poll tracker, an aggregator of all polls, showed the same thing. Other polls actually showed the Conservative lead to be closer to 30 percentage points – a massive Parliamentary majority.
Then came January, and seismic political shifts. Justin Trudeau left, Donald Trump returned, tariffs hit, and Mark Carney made his debut.
2025 has been a political roller coaster, with plenty of twists and turns. But Carney’s April victory was truly extraordinary. Never in recent Canadian political history had a party overcome a nearly-30-point-deficit to win a near-majority – within just a matter of weeks.
[To read more, subscribe here]
Biggest winner. RH Mark Carney. Obviously.
Biggest loser. Chrystia Freeland… who believed mid Dec. 2024 she was a stone’s throw away from the big chair…. and tossed that stone into the abyss. Staying in cabinet that long…. and allowing the mess to fester….may have been one of the top miscalculations in Canadian political history.
Hesitant to put Poilievre in as biggest loser…. because I’m not convinced he’s a loser….. yet.
I can’t see how any Liberal tied to Justin could have made it to the big chair. Not to mention that I am not so sure that the whole thing wasn’t orchestrated.
On Pierre, maybe that is why so many Liberals want to see the back side of him so bad.
Is it me, or am I seeing a Gen X remake of Martin-Harper?
Anyone who was paying attention in 2005 knew that Harper was a stone’s throw away from being ditched and it was only when Belinda Stronach negotiated her way into Martin’s cabinet that Harper was in the clear to spend the summer preparing for the next election.
Prepare he did (well-designed tour, campaign planning, platform) and I truly believe it was his to lose when the vote was tallied in November of that year since Martin was looking frayed and tired vs Harper who was looking hungry and confident.
If Canada ever had a show like Sliders, having Stronach stay a Tory in May would be a fun episode (back-to-back June elections, Harper likely losing to another Martin minority, no Justin Trudeau?).
Exactly how I see it. Anyone who thinks Poilievre is done should take a hard look at all the editorials about Stephen Harper in 2004-2005. If Harper proved anything, he proved that losing and being castigated as a loser over and over again, means SFA in week three of the writ period. The voters don’t care. They also won’t care about losing his own seat since most Canadians really don’t pay attention to their local MPs anyways. The real question is what his party thinks and I think the factions most likely to oust a leader are on his side, while the moderates who want him gone are more likely to remain quiet. Just my impression.
You sound like a lot of conservatives who were not convinced Trudeau would not pull it off again and only breathed a sigh of relief when he was gone. Of course lots of things can happen.No one saw Brexit, T1, T2 or Carney for that matter.
Sean,
In short, the Liberals lost primarily due to corruption: AdScam, Sponsorship, the Gomery Commission, and the release during the campaign of an investigation into Ralph, who was 1000% innocent of the income trust allegations.
Our current leader has none of that to use as tailwinds. That’s too bad, at least for him.
Replying to Martin: Conservatives were focused on the wrong thing in 2025…. One person. When he was gone, they were lost at sea and land was not in sight. They weren’t focused on WINNING, which requires showing middle of the road voters that your party is reasonable. Attack mode isn’t your only gear… Your capable of driving 30 in a school zone. Middle of the road voters want to see that.
Replying to Ronald… Yes… those things were in the mix in 2005-06… The table was nicely set for sure. But it was Harper’s simple, easy to digest front-porch policies that finally sealed the deal. Example: 2% GST reduction. In line with the party’s ideology… but measured.
The table is still nicely set for Poilievre… but just like an Emmy winning actor or even a rock star… he needs to show some range of presentation.
Probably not now – silly partisanship is probably OK a year out from an election… the partisan rubes will expect that to keep their wallets open and keep the money moving…. but in week three of the next campaign, he needs to show that he is reasonable and responsible.
One idea was that he should have been more like Ford but he would have likely lost just as many voters as he gained if he would have done that. There are a lot of conservatives that are not fans of Ford. I don’t think a plan exists that gets the CPC more than 41% of the vote. And the Liberals got about the same only due to outside forces. Oh and a lie Carney told about making a deal but I digress.
Sean,
I take your points. Trouble is that our genius considers any moderate, centrist or middle-of-the-road policy as Liberal-lite, not worthy of a True Blue Conservative Party. In other words, this fool is the preordained author of his future defeat in the next election. We sure know how to pick’em…
Martin,
I agree except for Ontario. I think we would have got more seats there federally if we were more Fordish. But agree about the rest of the country. In those areas, it likely would have been a wash.
Or you could call Freeland a winner because she put in motion the changing of the guard that led to Carny winning and then defeating Poilievre.
I really like Freeland, so it’s hard for me to call her a loser.
Warren,
Like you always said, all that counts is winning. But as Rosie pointed out, what has he delivered on the Trump front? Squat. He goes on and on with his bullshit that Canada has the best trading deal (CUSMA), yada, yada, yada, which is no thanks to him or his government. We’re all being played by this guy and the fact that he just put his bud in DC won’t change diddly. He knows he has to change LeBlanc but he hasn’t got the guts to do it, primarily because that pick speaks volumes about Carney’s political judgment level, or more accurately, lack thereof. LeBlanc is a failure, but he’s Carney’s failure. Period. Keep up the phoney window-dressing now even though it won’t work for much longer. Results count, yes, even for the central banker golden boy and GS supplicant.
I find it hilarious that we are putting our fate in the hands of of a bunch of Goldman Sachs alumni like Hodgson, Carney and Guzman and Wiseman is a Blackrock grad, no better. Many of those folks literally should have gone to jail after the 08/09 financial crisis. I have been dealing with bankers for almost 50 years and I don’t share the same orgiastic opinion of them held by 40% of the electorate and the Canadian fourth estate. Quite the opposite, actually.
I think he’s doing well, and he’s changed the tone in the negotiation. Playing the long game is a lot better than a quick deal that sucks.
Curious,
Sure, he’s playing the long game but he hasn’t got the intellectual capacity or strategic heft to best POS in the negotiations. Another example of Carney puff pastry time. Just blow a little air into it and it folds.
There is no negotiating with a toddler. There is only what’s currently to the toddler’s liking. Some day adults will be in the White House again (I hope), and then we can have a serious negotiation. Until then buckle up it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Except for the fact that he is “the smartest guy in the world” and he literally said he could do it by the end of July so to rephrase a quote from our host, there are three possibilities.
1. He actually believed he could sort out T. That would make him a fool.
2. He wanted us to believe he could sort out T. That would make him a propagandist.
3. He knew the fact that he could sort out T was false. That would make him a liar.
Take your pick. Those are the only three choices.
In the meantime, my best advice is to buy Brookfield. You’re welcome.
Martin,
I’ll bet Carney, the guy who won’t tell us how rich he actually is, preferred to own BEP-UN-T and/or BIP-UN-T.
But I digress.
When I say Brookfield, I am talking about the group of companies and, yes, he likely has a ton of BIP units.(as do I) As good a tax shelter as you can get. Basically the same scam that Tories shut down when it was called Income Trusts.
There is no negotiation. What are you talking about.
Apparently they’re stalled, but the negotiation continues, even if officially stalled.
Again, what are you talking about? That is literally a distinction without a difference.
Curious,
Please try to keep up: Carney is “trying” to keep the 88 Saab JAS 39E Gripen deal secret but Trump already knows about it and is literally seething. Now, he wants CUSMA dead. He told aides as much because Canada did not buy the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II…so good luck with the negotiations! LOL.
In my limited experience it probably works out for Pierre that he did not win. With trump in office there will be no glory just a healthy helping of shit sandwiches to dine on. All Pierre has to do is dodge the turd infused saliva. IMHO. Yes I write poetry on the side.
The Conservatives need to remind voters the debt is too high, and it matters. They also need to mention foreign interference, the lack of investment, and the lack of trade deals. Voters need to ask themselves if the country is moving in the right direction and how much better Mr. Carney is than his predecessor.