With 4 seats left to call and 1 going to a recount the CBC has called it that the Liberals will have a minority government.

Little salt, but spot on

President Trump, stay out of our election. The only people who will decide the future of Canada are Canadians at the ballot box.

Canada will always be proud, sovereign and independent and we will NEVER be the 51st state.

Today Canadians can vote for change so we can strengthen…

— Pierre Poilievre (@PierrePoilievre) April 28, 2025

womp womp

It was mostly Trump.

When he first started trolling, it was framed as just Trump being a jerk for the most part. It wasn't until the media started to turn on Trudeau, and whispers started about him stepping down, with Trump turning up the heat, until the framing changed to, 'Trumps going to annex Canada, elbows up'.

The top priority polls even showed this. Canada has an older pop, so the boomer vote is extremely important, and the polls showed they only really cared about healthcare a fair amount, and A LOT about fighting back against Trump. When it came to things like affordability, the economy, crime, jobs, the older generation didn't seem to care.

NDP votes further show this. They purposely switched to Libs because they knew if they didn't, it would be too close to call and the Cons might win. This isn't normal, and the reason those NDP voters did this, is because they were under the impression that Trump was too much of a threat and that Pierre would just hand Canada over to Trump, which was ridiculous if you actually had any idea what Pierre's campaign was about.

Even more pointing to Trump, as you said, negatives, and taking them away leaving your competition with nothing, is what happened with Trump going quiet in the later weeks of the election. The polls showed the high the Libs hit, dropped during that timeframe, to put them neck and neck basically with the Cons. As soon as Trump seemed to back off, the Lib lead started to wane.

Trump was never going to take Canada. 51 was only ever going to possibly happen, eventually, if Canada stayed on the same track and kept weakening itself, which is exactly what the Lib voters have now continued, which they clearly didn't realize. Which isn't a surprise, because most boomers I know, including one of my parents, don't have a clue about politics or how the Gov works, and believe most of what the CAN or USA media says without question.

If the media hadn't pushed the Trump narrative so hard, the election would've remained about Canada and the last decade of Lib Fed Gov. That's the reason the Country is so weak and why Trump is able to totally get away with this, because we can't do squat in the grand scheme of things. Pierre would've won if Trump would've gone quiet soon after Trudeau stepped down, but the step down probably wouldn't have happened (as soon) without the Trump trolling opportunity arising in the first place.

PP was right to be very general about this point. 'If Canadians don't do their job well, they're going to lose it.' 

Canadians just did a poor job at the ballot box, and now they're going to find out how many jobs they lose because of that.

You wrote US Republicans wrong

I've noticed a lot of so-called leftists on social media calling Carney a Neoliberal. I'm not really sure they know what a neoliberal is and just use it as a pejorative for people they perceive as being right-wing or centrists.

The most Neoliberal thing in Canadian leadership politics since the early 1990s, as far as I can tell, is Stephen Harper's haircut.

But in seriousness:

As far as I can tell, Neoliberalism was a major political movement in Canada around the same time as the UK, in the late 1970s to the mid-1980s, but largely waned after that. It was all but dead by 1993, that election was a referendum against Neoliberalism. And while much of the framework remained, the era of Chrétien, Martin, and Harper were largely about the dismantling of that framework. By the time of Trudeau, it was already history.

* Neoliberalism advocates for "let the free market decide" and slashing of taxes and regulations. While this policy was on the agenda for Mulroney and (presumably) Kim Campbell, it doesn't seem Chretien, Trudeau, Martin, or even Harper favoured this. And Carney was instrumental in the Macroprudential regulation on the banks to mitigate the impacts of the financial crisis of 2008 - quite in the face of neoliberal policy.

* To tack onto this, Carney advocates in something closer to a Keynesian framework, in direct opposition to neoliberalism, in order to repair the construction industry in Canada, which is currently overpriced and underdeveloped, and the free market is not interested in investing in something that drives their asset prices down - Carney is.

* Another major tenet is the privatization of public industry and services - this is probably the best place to pin Carney down if you want to call him a neoliberal - but taking this one piece of the framework is weak at best, as while he was responsible in being part of overseeing the selling off Petro-Canada assets to public companies, his aforementioned establishment of public programs and increasing crown corporation funding indicates the opposite of this approach. It's a mixed bag. But Canada as a whole, this was the first major defeat of Neoliberalism back in the 1980s when they failed to dismantle medicare for all. There was a famous speech by NDP founder Tommy Douglas that lit the fire under the asses of Canadian politicians. If Carney was a Neoliberal, he'd be championing their major battles. Instead, I predict that he'll probably use de-privatization of certain sectors as bargaining chips for the NDP and Bloc Québécois for when he needs them for something - kind of like the Trudeau administration with the dental thing.

* Individualism, or rather de-emphasis on class consciousness and an emphasis on personal responsibility - from a rhetorical standpoint, back in the UK, Carney went so far as to quote Marx and Engels and explain why they're relevant. But, most recently, his government funded apprenticeship program flies in the face of this tenet.

* The other thing that can probably be pinned on him is that he did seem to favour globalization. One of the big movements of neoliberalism was the expansion of free trade and the deregulation of third world economies and agreements like NAFTA - however, this isn't exclusively beneficial to neoliberalism as all forms of liberalism (or libertarianism, as some call it these days) generally advocate for free trade - even communist theory advocates for globalized trade - although, it also advocates for the dismantling of all political boundaries and the withering of the state. But, on the other hand, one of the first things Carney did was give a eulogy for NAFTA and the old order. He's not crusading for NAFTA (what is it, 3.0?) like the neoliberals - and even if he did, it's like saying being against murder is advocacy for Christianity.

* One more element is that Carney favours longterm planning for issues impacting the economy in the longterm, including solutions to the climate crisis and its impact on the financial system, while neoliberalism prioritizes short term fiscal turnarounds.

So, overall. I think using the phrase "Neoliberalism" is a pointless pejorative as it's both ideologically and historically disconnected from the recent Neoliberal era and its chief proponents. Neoliberalism is so far in the past that it's not even worth worrying about anymore since modern corporatization or, as Veroufakis puts it, "technofeudalism" (the increasing dominance of cloud/platform ecosystems in our economy - Google, Apple, and Amazon are good examples) is the main thing leftists should be targeting - as it's clearly replaced neoliberalism in the US. These tech platforms have deep hooks in the rest of the Western economy - but this is all a different topic that is more relevant to American politics.

MAGA as a whole understands and stands behind what Trumps trying to accomplish. That's not saying they don't or won't feel any pains, as they and other Americans will for a while, but if it works out, it will be for the best, especially as to the future. How long that pain lasts really depends on how long Dems, especially their politicians, fight against the attempted economic direction change. The sooner the majority gets on the same page, the sooner these struggles end.

Key word is trying. The rest of the world knows fully well that what Trump is trying to achieve simply can't be achieved that way and is doomed to fail. It could have worked if he didn't antagonize everyone and get everybody on the table for a more favorable deal for the US, but that's not the way of Trump.

But since Trump tried to strongarm everyone at once just to flip-flop after meeting some resistance meant that the rest of the world now sees the US as unreliable and tries to actively reduce buying US goods now or simply just not travelling there all while some countries cut some ties with US companies (like China banning new Boeing sales for instance), thus actively hurting the US economy, and finally the uncertainty is hurting the stock market and with it, US companies bottom line.