2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election

[mileslunn]

My guess is PCQ support will be very telling about Poilievre's potential in Quebec as Eric Duhaime is very much your small government libertarian like Poilievre.  Other provincial elections less so as Atlantic PCs still have strong Red Tory current that is absent in federal party.  Ontario doesn't say much as Ford while hated by establishment showed a high degree of pragmatism Poilievre seems to lack. 

Manitoba election also not telling much as Manitoba PCs are more your run of mill type and Heather Stephenson I have heard is very unlikeable across the board not just amongst detractors like with Poilievre, but even those who normally vote PC.

Alberta is mixed.  If smith wins, then she will be easy foil for federal Liberals to compare Poilievre too.  If Notley wins, that is gone, but also says even in Alberta limit on how far you can go.  And even if Smith wins, it won't be the kind of lopsided version you are used to in Alberta.  If Travis Toews pulls off surprise, meaningless as he is more your establishment Blue Tory.

BC doesn't say a lot either as while BC Conservatives sort of like Poilievre, I suspect many Poilievre supporters will go BC Liberal simply because they have better shot at beating NDP than BC Conservatives do.  If Horgan had stayed leader he would be a near shoo in as very likeable and relatable.  Eby is not but still favourite to win but less certain.

[adma]

His populism is anti-Laurentian. I won't go into it too much, but this concept of the "Laurentian Elite" was popularized by author/commentator John Ibbitson during the Harper years. The idea is that there's a certain "elite" based in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal axis that dominates politics in Canada, but also academia, entertainment, media, etc. They tend to be centre-to-centre-left, pretty deferential to state authority, anti-American, pro-welfare state but pro-business, and practice soft protectionism. "Populist conservatism" in Canada exists as a counter to that, and while Harper was a bit too boring to come off as a "real" populist, he championed the same kind of anti-Laurentian populism that Poilievre now champions.

The sentiment of a populist conservative in Canada re: the Laurentian elite is described by Ibbitson as:
They're running the country but they're running it into the ground, and they won't listen to us.

So with that framework, a populist conservative in Canada doesn't care if a politician has a fairly elite background, which Poilievre doesn't really. I mean to the extent that being a career politician undercuts his populist bona fides, remember that his opponent is the son of a famous Prime Minister. But what's more relevant to Poilievre's populism is the strident anti-Laurentian politics.

Will it resonate with Canadians? It will resonate with Canadians to the extent that Canadians agree with the sentiment that the Liberals are running the country but they're running it into the ground, and they won't listen to us.

And said "anti-Laurentianism" might also subliminally help explain Poilievre's apparent youth appeal, if it truly is "a thing".

Let's keep in mind that the bulk of Canada's Millennial/post-Millennial cohort does *not* come from a Laurentian backround--like so-called "cultural elites" everywhere, Laurentians don't tend to harness themselves to traditional family-making, and haven't really done so for going on half a century.  We're talking about a cohort that grew up in predominantly suburban-type environments, McMansion & Tim's country, so to speak, and in an era when such one-time "family rituals" as daily newspapers vanished from the radar.  "Laurentianism" is thus remote from their everyday existence, and curiously "OK Boomer" older-generation at that.  They might have parked in the Justin and/or Jagmeet camps because of the residual power of, uh, "gatekeepers"; but what Pierre's telling them is, those gatekeepers are giving you a raw deal.  They may seem "trendy", but they have nothing to do with you.  They're using you, and giving you nothing in return.

The anti-elite tone might be *especially* pertinent when it comes to Poilievre's "male appeal", and in tune with the decline in the male university cohort and their not-unrelated ingrained anti-authority skepticism--he'd be big with the "Joe Rogan U" crowd, for sure. which is about as polar opposite from "Laurentian" as one can get...

[adma]

2.  Moderates like Poilievre believe government has gotten too big and needs to be reduced.  Its more a matter of degree so yes he could lose them if he goes too far once in power, but while true moderates tend to usually shun a small government message, if government is seen as growing too much different story.  See Mike Harris in 1995 or Margaret Thatcher in UK.  Both brought along moderates as belief was both cases had swung too far to left and needed change.

Somehow, referring to Poilievre as a "moderate" relative to Harris or Thatcher seems...off.  (Though yes, maybe he's euphemistically "moderate" relative to the party's rank and file today)

[mileslunn]

2.  Moderates like Poilievre believe government has gotten too big and needs to be reduced.  Its more a matter of degree so yes he could lose them if he goes too far once in power, but while true moderates tend to usually shun a small government message, if government is seen as growing too much different story.  See Mike Harris in 1995 or Margaret Thatcher in UK.  Both brought along moderates as belief was both cases had swung too far to left and needed change.

Somehow, referring to Poilievre as a "moderate" relative to Harris or Thatcher seems...off.  (Though yes, maybe he's euphemistically "moderate" relative to the party's rank and file today)

Poilievre is no moderate, I said reason some like him, not that he is one.  People like Kenneth Clarke in UK had no trouble serving in Thatcher government and ones like Elizabeth Whitmer in Mike Harris' case so it is possible although far from certain you see similar thing with Poilievre even though he is no moderate just as Harris and Thatcher were not either.

[omar04]

So how authentic is PP's populism to Canadians? His anti elite rhetoric comes off a bit hypocritical for a career politician.

It's hard to answer how authentic it is, because obviously people will disagree on whether it's authentic to them. For some Canadians, Poilievre is the most authentic politician they've ever seen, and for others, he's a phony right-winger trying to ride a wave with cynical promises. Obviously his background as a career politician undercuts his "man of the people" bona fides a little bit, but he plays up other aspects of his upbringing to counter that. He was born to a single 16-year old mother, given up for adoption, and raised in a non-political middle-class family. So there's a kind of conservative appeal of "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" there.

In some ways, Poilievre isn't even saying the things that a populist conservative "should". Normally, populist conservatives tend to focus on social issues and nationalism/nativism as their driving priorities, while minimizing their right-wing economic views which may be perceived as elitist. Poilievre minimizes social issues, is not a nativist and has put forward some pretty immigrant-friendly ideas, and while he is somewhat nationalistic, it's not a big part of his pitch. Instead, his pitch is more about cutting taxes, cutting regulations, cutting spending, not exactly traditional populism. In American terms, he's almost like Mitt Romney on policy but Ron DeSantis in presentation (although one area where he's definitely taken the "populist" lane is his strident opposition to vaccine mandates and the WEF, but that's not his main pitch either).

His populism is anti-Laurentian. I won't go into it too much, but this concept of the "Laurentian Elite" was popularized by author/commentator John Ibbitson during the Harper years. The idea is that there's a certain "elite" based in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal axis that dominates politics in Canada, but also academia, entertainment, media, etc. They tend to be centre-to-centre-left, pretty deferential to state authority, anti-American, pro-welfare state but pro-business, and practice soft protectionism. "Populist conservatism" in Canada exists as a counter to that, and while Harper was a bit too boring to come off as a "real" populist, he championed the same kind of anti-Laurentian populism that Poilievre now champions.

The sentiment of a populist conservative in Canada re: the Laurentian elite is described by Ibbitson as:
They're running the country but they're running it into the ground, and they won't listen to us.

So with that framework, a populist conservative in Canada doesn't care if a politician has a fairly elite background, which Poilievre doesn't really. I mean to the extent that being a career politician undercuts his populist bona fides, remember that his opponent is the son of a famous Prime Minister. But what's more relevant to Poilievre's populism is the strident anti-Laurentian politics.

Will it resonate with Canadians? It will resonate with Canadians to the extent that Canadians agree with the sentiment that the Liberals are running the country but they're running it into the ground, and they won't listen to us.

Is there any significant political pressure for limiting immigration?

[OSR stands with Israel]

2.  Moderates like Poilievre believe government has gotten too big and needs to be reduced.  Its more a matter of degree so yes he could lose them if he goes too far once in power, but while true moderates tend to usually shun a small government message, if government is seen as growing too much different story.  See Mike Harris in 1995 or Margaret Thatcher in UK.  Both brought along moderates as belief was both cases had swung too far to left and needed change.

Somehow, referring to Poilievre as a "moderate" relative to Harris or Thatcher seems...off.  (Though yes, maybe he's euphemistically "moderate" relative to the party's rank and file today)

Poilievre is no moderate, I said reason some like him, not that he is one.  People like Kenneth Clarke in UK had no trouble serving in Thatcher government and ones like Elizabeth Whitmer in Mike Harris' case so it is possible although far from certain you see similar thing with Poilievre even though he is no moderate just as Harris and Thatcher were not either.

and of course George HW Bush was the VP to Ronald Reagan, and Reagan had James Baker has his chief of staff for his first term

[Continential]

Is there any significant political pressure for limiting immigration?

Every CPC candidate agreed with the idea of increasing immigration.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

So how authentic is PP's populism to Canadians? His anti elite rhetoric comes off a bit hypocritical for a career politician.

It's hard to answer how authentic it is, because obviously people will disagree on whether it's authentic to them. For some Canadians, Poilievre is the most authentic politician they've ever seen, and for others, he's a phony right-winger trying to ride a wave with cynical promises. Obviously his background as a career politician undercuts his "man of the people" bona fides a little bit, but he plays up other aspects of his upbringing to counter that. He was born to a single 16-year old mother, given up for adoption, and raised in a non-political middle-class family. So there's a kind of conservative appeal of "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" there.

In some ways, Poilievre isn't even saying the things that a populist conservative "should". Normally, populist conservatives tend to focus on social issues and nationalism/nativism as their driving priorities, while minimizing their right-wing economic views which may be perceived as elitist. Poilievre minimizes social issues, is not a nativist and has put forward some pretty immigrant-friendly ideas, and while he is somewhat nationalistic, it's not a big part of his pitch. Instead, his pitch is more about cutting taxes, cutting regulations, cutting spending, not exactly traditional populism. In American terms, he's almost like Mitt Romney on policy but Ron DeSantis in presentation (although one area where he's definitely taken the "populist" lane is his strident opposition to vaccine mandates and the WEF, but that's not his main pitch either).

His populism is anti-Laurentian. I won't go into it too much, but this concept of the "Laurentian Elite" was popularized by author/commentator John Ibbitson during the Harper years. The idea is that there's a certain "elite" based in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal axis that dominates politics in Canada, but also academia, entertainment, media, etc. They tend to be centre-to-centre-left, pretty deferential to state authority, anti-American, pro-welfare state but pro-business, and practice soft protectionism. "Populist conservatism" in Canada exists as a counter to that, and while Harper was a bit too boring to come off as a "real" populist, he championed the same kind of anti-Laurentian populism that Poilievre now champions.

The sentiment of a populist conservative in Canada re: the Laurentian elite is described by Ibbitson as:
They're running the country but they're running it into the ground, and they won't listen to us.

So with that framework, a populist conservative in Canada doesn't care if a politician has a fairly elite background, which Poilievre doesn't really. I mean to the extent that being a career politician undercuts his populist bona fides, remember that his opponent is the son of a famous Prime Minister. But what's more relevant to Poilievre's populism is the strident anti-Laurentian politics.

Will it resonate with Canadians? It will resonate with Canadians to the extent that Canadians agree with the sentiment that the Liberals are running the country but they're running it into the ground, and they won't listen to us.

Is there any significant political pressure for limiting immigration?

There's always some pressure against immigration, but not in any meaningful or significant way. Going anti-immigration would cost the Conservatives far more votes than it would gain them.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

His populism is anti-Laurentian. I won't go into it too much, but this concept of the "Laurentian Elite" was popularized by author/commentator John Ibbitson during the Harper years. The idea is that there's a certain "elite" based in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal axis that dominates politics in Canada, but also academia, entertainment, media, etc. They tend to be centre-to-centre-left, pretty deferential to state authority, anti-American, pro-welfare state but pro-business, and practice soft protectionism. "Populist conservatism" in Canada exists as a counter to that, and while Harper was a bit too boring to come off as a "real" populist, he championed the same kind of anti-Laurentian populism that Poilievre now champions.

The sentiment of a populist conservative in Canada re: the Laurentian elite is described by Ibbitson as:
They're running the country but they're running it into the ground, and they won't listen to us.

So with that framework, a populist conservative in Canada doesn't care if a politician has a fairly elite background, which Poilievre doesn't really. I mean to the extent that being a career politician undercuts his populist bona fides, remember that his opponent is the son of a famous Prime Minister. But what's more relevant to Poilievre's populism is the strident anti-Laurentian politics.

Will it resonate with Canadians? It will resonate with Canadians to the extent that Canadians agree with the sentiment that the Liberals are running the country but they're running it into the ground, and they won't listen to us.

And said "anti-Laurentianism" might also subliminally help explain Poilievre's apparent youth appeal, if it truly is "a thing".

Let's keep in mind that the bulk of Canada's Millennial/post-Millennial cohort does *not* come from a Laurentian backround--like so-called "cultural elites" everywhere, Laurentians don't tend to harness themselves to traditional family-making, and haven't really done so for going on half a century.  We're talking about a cohort that grew up in predominantly suburban-type environments, McMansion & Tim's country, so to speak, and in an era when such one-time "family rituals" as daily newspapers vanished from the radar.  "Laurentianism" is thus remote from their everyday existence, and curiously "OK Boomer" older-generation at that.  They might have parked in the Justin and/or Jagmeet camps because of the residual power of, uh, "gatekeepers"; but what Pierre's telling them is, those gatekeepers are giving you a raw deal.  They may seem "trendy", but they have nothing to do with you.  They're using you, and giving you nothing in return.

The anti-elite tone might be *especially* pertinent when it comes to Poilievre's "male appeal", and in tune with the decline in the male university cohort and their not-unrelated ingrained anti-authority skepticism--he'd be big with the "Joe Rogan U" crowd, for sure. which is about as polar opposite from "Laurentian" as one can get...

There's definitely a counter-cultural appeal to him, and given global trends, I think you're right that Poilievre's anti-Laurentianism will be less about geography and more about background. Under-30 men without a university degree will no doubt swing Tory with him as leader, but even many with a university degree (myself included) aren't necessarily enthusiastic about the direction of the Liberal Party, and dislike many things about the cultural milieu that we grew up in.

[Hatman 🍁]

So how authentic is PP's populism to Canadians? His anti elite rhetoric comes off a bit hypocritical for a career politician.

It's hard to answer how authentic it is, because obviously people will disagree on whether it's authentic to them. For some Canadians, Poilievre is the most authentic politician they've ever seen, and for others, he's a phony right-winger trying to ride a wave with cynical promises. Obviously his background as a career politician undercuts his "man of the people" bona fides a little bit, but he plays up other aspects of his upbringing to counter that. He was born to a single 16-year old mother, given up for adoption, and raised in a non-political middle-class family. So there's a kind of conservative appeal of "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" there.

In some ways, Poilievre isn't even saying the things that a populist conservative "should". Normally, populist conservatives tend to focus on social issues and nationalism/nativism as their driving priorities, while minimizing their right-wing economic views which may be perceived as elitist. Poilievre minimizes social issues, is not a nativist and has put forward some pretty immigrant-friendly ideas, and while he is somewhat nationalistic, it's not a big part of his pitch. Instead, his pitch is more about cutting taxes, cutting regulations, cutting spending, not exactly traditional populism. In American terms, he's almost like Mitt Romney on policy but Ron DeSantis in presentation (although one area where he's definitely taken the "populist" lane is his strident opposition to vaccine mandates and the WEF, but that's not his main pitch either).

His populism is anti-Laurentian. I won't go into it too much, but this concept of the "Laurentian Elite" was popularized by author/commentator John Ibbitson during the Harper years. The idea is that there's a certain "elite" based in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal axis that dominates politics in Canada, but also academia, entertainment, media, etc. They tend to be centre-to-centre-left, pretty deferential to state authority, anti-American, pro-welfare state but pro-business, and practice soft protectionism. "Populist conservatism" in Canada exists as a counter to that, and while Harper was a bit too boring to come off as a "real" populist, he championed the same kind of anti-Laurentian populism that Poilievre now champions.

The sentiment of a populist conservative in Canada re: the Laurentian elite is described by Ibbitson as:
They're running the country but they're running it into the ground, and they won't listen to us.

So with that framework, a populist conservative in Canada doesn't care if a politician has a fairly elite background, which Poilievre doesn't really. I mean to the extent that being a career politician undercuts his populist bona fides, remember that his opponent is the son of a famous Prime Minister. But what's more relevant to Poilievre's populism is the strident anti-Laurentian politics.

Will it resonate with Canadians? It will resonate with Canadians to the extent that Canadians agree with the sentiment that the Liberals are running the country but they're running it into the ground, and they won't listen to us.

Is there any significant political pressure for limiting immigration?

There's always some pressure against immigration, but not in any meaningful or significant way. Going anti-immigration would cost the Conservatives far more votes than it would gain them.

A lot of Canadians will say they don't want more immigrants when polled, but they don't care enough to make it an issue at the ballot box. Plus, it's a consensus among experts that Canada needs more immigrants as the boomers retire.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

So how authentic is PP's populism to Canadians? His anti elite rhetoric comes off a bit hypocritical for a career politician.

It's hard to answer how authentic it is, because obviously people will disagree on whether it's authentic to them. For some Canadians, Poilievre is the most authentic politician they've ever seen, and for others, he's a phony right-winger trying to ride a wave with cynical promises. Obviously his background as a career politician undercuts his "man of the people" bona fides a little bit, but he plays up other aspects of his upbringing to counter that. He was born to a single 16-year old mother, given up for adoption, and raised in a non-political middle-class family. So there's a kind of conservative appeal of "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" there.

In some ways, Poilievre isn't even saying the things that a populist conservative "should". Normally, populist conservatives tend to focus on social issues and nationalism/nativism as their driving priorities, while minimizing their right-wing economic views which may be perceived as elitist. Poilievre minimizes social issues, is not a nativist and has put forward some pretty immigrant-friendly ideas, and while he is somewhat nationalistic, it's not a big part of his pitch. Instead, his pitch is more about cutting taxes, cutting regulations, cutting spending, not exactly traditional populism. In American terms, he's almost like Mitt Romney on policy but Ron DeSantis in presentation (although one area where he's definitely taken the "populist" lane is his strident opposition to vaccine mandates and the WEF, but that's not his main pitch either).

His populism is anti-Laurentian. I won't go into it too much, but this concept of the "Laurentian Elite" was popularized by author/commentator John Ibbitson during the Harper years. The idea is that there's a certain "elite" based in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal axis that dominates politics in Canada, but also academia, entertainment, media, etc. They tend to be centre-to-centre-left, pretty deferential to state authority, anti-American, pro-welfare state but pro-business, and practice soft protectionism. "Populist conservatism" in Canada exists as a counter to that, and while Harper was a bit too boring to come off as a "real" populist, he championed the same kind of anti-Laurentian populism that Poilievre now champions.

The sentiment of a populist conservative in Canada re: the Laurentian elite is described by Ibbitson as:
They're running the country but they're running it into the ground, and they won't listen to us.

So with that framework, a populist conservative in Canada doesn't care if a politician has a fairly elite background, which Poilievre doesn't really. I mean to the extent that being a career politician undercuts his populist bona fides, remember that his opponent is the son of a famous Prime Minister. But what's more relevant to Poilievre's populism is the strident anti-Laurentian politics.

Will it resonate with Canadians? It will resonate with Canadians to the extent that Canadians agree with the sentiment that the Liberals are running the country but they're running it into the ground, and they won't listen to us.

Is there any significant political pressure for limiting immigration?

There's always some pressure against immigration, but not in any meaningful or significant way. Going anti-immigration would cost the Conservatives far more votes than it would gain them.

A lot of Canadians will say they don't want more immigrants when polled, but they don't care enough to make it an issue at the ballot box. Plus, it's a consensus among experts that Canada needs more immigrants as the boomers retire.

Exactly, this is the problem with issue polling, it's hard to gauge whether voters will actually vote on that issue. Kellie Leitch (remember her?) used to cite statistics about how the majority of Canadians, when polled, favoured a "values test" for immigrants. Maybe that was true as an abstract concept, but when actually put on the ballot box, it didn't drive many votes. Or for a left-wing example, it's true that polling shows the majority of Americans being in favour of single-payer healthcare, a statistic frequently cited by supporters of Sanders and the Democratic left - but most Americans already have health insurance, so while they may prefer one with no premiums, co-pays or deductibles, it wasn't enough to actually rally most voters to that candidacy

[adma]

There's definitely a counter-cultural appeal to him, and given global trends, I think you're right that Poilievre's anti-Laurentianism will be less about geography and more about background. Under-30 men without a university degree will no doubt swing Tory with him as leader, but even many with a university degree (myself included) aren't necessarily enthusiastic about the direction of the Liberal Party, and dislike many things about the cultural milieu that we grew up in.

"Counter-cultural" in a Ron Paul/Max Bernier sense, a little like the cryptoverse being "counter-cultural"--but in some ways, also anti-"kulcher", in the sense of something that's been institutionally decreed for eons.  And to flip the "cultural milieu that we grew up in" coin, a lot of these are the sort who *might have* pursued a university degree a generation or two ago--but now think, "what's the point", and not just because tuition costs have gone sky high; it just feels too "establishment institutional" in an era when intellectual dark web figureheads are sexier.  To use toxic manosphere lingo, they're the electoral/cultural equivalent of MGTOW--which is also why, under Poilievre, we might see a pretty marked younger-voter gender divide, as it is young women who are disproportionately *not* rejecting university or a lot of those "Laurentian" cultural attributes today's young men reject as insufficiently "manly"...

[adma]

But on the whole, it seems to me that the Laurentian-legacy-media wishful-thinking party line is that Pierre Poilievre is to the Conservatives what Barry Goldwater was to the Republicans--really adored by a certain hardcore-idealist base, yet nasty-scary to everyone else.  (Come to think of it, Poilievre even *looks* a bit like a dark-haired Barry Goldwater.)

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

But on the whole, it seems to me that the Laurentian-legacy-media wishful-thinking party line is that Pierre Poilievre is to the Conservatives what Barry Goldwater was to the Republicans--really adored by a certain hardcore-idealist base, yet nasty-scary to everyone else.  (Come to think of it, Poilievre even *looks* a bit like a dark-haired Barry Goldwater.)

Liberal partisans may be cavalier about their chances against Poilievre, but it's clear that the government is taking him as a serious threat. It's no coincidence that they announced new affordability measures right after Poilievre was elected leader.

[toaster]

Is there any significant political pressure for limiting immigration?

There's been a bit of a role reversal on immigration in Canada. It's becoming more of a conservative thing to want to increase immigration, in order to fill all these jobs.  I tend to think it's more of a liberal idea now to want to slow it down because of the the housing/affordability crisis. A nurse, teacher, doctor even can't afford to live in most of Southern Ontario. Letting more and more people in is a scary thing when a person cannot currently afford to live.

[mileslunn]

But on the whole, it seems to me that the Laurentian-legacy-media wishful-thinking party line is that Pierre Poilievre is to the Conservatives what Barry Goldwater was to the Republicans--really adored by a certain hardcore-idealist base, yet nasty-scary to everyone else.  (Come to think of it, Poilievre even *looks* a bit like a dark-haired Barry Goldwater.)

Liberal partisans may be cavalier about their chances against Poilievre, but it's clear that the government is taking him as a serious threat. It's no coincidence that they announced new affordability measures right after Poilievre was elected leader.

Most seasoned campaign veterans do take his threat seriously.  Yes he may be Canada's version of Barry Goldwater, but could also be our version of Reagan although probably won't win landslides like Reagan did and also doesn't quite have the optimistic hopeful tone Reagan did.  I think Mike Harris and Tim Hudak best examples as both ran on small government platform and former succeeded latter failed.  In normal times someone like Poilievre would be unelectable, but with Trudeau being more to left than previous Liberal leaders possible seeing a backlash that will work in his favour, but far too early to say.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Is there any significant political pressure for limiting immigration?

There's been a bit of a role reversal on immigration in Canada. It's becoming more of a conservative thing to want to increase immigration, in order to fill all these jobs.  I tend to think it's more of a liberal idea now to want to slow it down because of the the housing/affordability crisis. A nurse, teacher, doctor even can't afford to live in most of Southern Ontario. Letting more and more people in is a scary thing when a person cannot currently afford to live.

I would disagree that there has been a "role reversal" in any serious way. I mean, the parties of the left are still very pro-immigration, and many individual conservatives are not, even if the CPC itself is.

[adma]

Is there any significant political pressure for limiting immigration?

There's been a bit of a role reversal on immigration in Canada. It's becoming more of a conservative thing to want to increase immigration, in order to fill all these jobs.  I tend to think it's more of a liberal idea now to want to slow it down because of the the housing/affordability crisis. A nurse, teacher, doctor even can't afford to live in most of Southern Ontario. Letting more and more people in is a scary thing when a person cannot currently afford to live.

I would disagree that there has been a "role reversal" in any serious way. I mean, the parties of the left are still very pro-immigration, and many individual conservatives are not, even if the CPC itself is.

*In-migration* might be another matter.  (Such is Canada, where the issues of immigration and in/inter-migration aren't too remote from one another)

Though to build upon my earlier point that Millennials largely come from a non-Laurentian and largely suburbanizing "normie" background, I also notice how the affordability-crisis concerns among younger voters hinge upon *their* being in a young-family/starting-families position; that is, normies breeding normies.  And maybe most markedly among the suburban immigrant class who were never really on the "Laurentian" boat beyond a layer of Canadian-multicultural-diversity touchy-feely, and who often observe their own cultural-community-based media infrastructure.  (The sort whom Ford Nation "reaches".)

[mileslunn]

First polls out and suggest a minor bump for Poilievre but nothing significant.  All three show Tories ahead but well short of a majority while NDP surging in Nanos, doing well in Leger, but not so in Abacus.  If an election were held today likely either a smaller Liberal minority or a Tory plurality but a lot can happen.

It seems Trudeau is increasingly becoming unpopular, but Poilievre's numbers are middling.  He isn't attracting the excitement he is amongst base, but he is not as repulsive to general public as some establishment might think.  Looking at regions, strong in Prairies as expected, but tied or slightly ahead in Ontario.  Struggling in Quebec while Atlantic Canada and BC same as 2021. 

Despite some talk of millennial breakthrough, polls show he is not doing well amongst millennials and support skews more older although is doing well amongst Gen X, but not millennials and Gen Z.  PPC surprisingly is still at 3-4% so that may be a hidden benefit as I suspect most goes over to Poilievre, but also assumes he holds the moderates O'Toole picked up and way too early to tell if he does or doesn't.

[adma]

  He isn't attracting the excitement he is amongst base, but he is not as repulsive to general public as some establishment might think.

Though judging from the relative stasis, he might still be more unlikeable than the convention-watching pundits who were impressed by his speech would have one believe.  And when it's *Jagmeet* getting the bump for no clear reason, well, what does that say.  (Maybe Poilievre benefit-of-the-doubters decided, "eff this" re both him and Justin)

[mileslunn]

  He isn't attracting the excitement he is amongst base, but he is not as repulsive to general public as some establishment might think.

Though judging from the relative stasis, he might still be more unlikeable than the convention-watching pundits who were impressed by his speech would have one believe.  And when it's *Jagmeet* getting the bump for no clear reason, well, what does that say.  (Maybe Poilievre benefit-of-the-doubters decided, "eff this" re both him and Justin)

Singh bump is tough to know as Nanos looks great for NDP, Leger looks good too, but Abacus not so much so seems polls all over map for them.  I think since NDP vote skews younger and young voters harder to reach, that could be reason.  Certainly idea Poilievre is winning amongst millennials does not seem to be case in polls and I never bought that.  I think he is doing well amongst male millennials without post secondary degree, but poorly amongst female millennials and male millennials with post secondary degree and latter two far larger than former.

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://old.ipolitics.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Canada_Sept_2022.pdf

Mainstreet has Tories up 8 and leading big time with young voters

[MaxQue]

https://old.ipolitics.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Canada_Sept_2022.pdf

Mainstreet has Tories up 8 and leading big time with young voters

Same pollster that saw Bernier higher than 10. I just think they don't know how to sample young voters.

[Continential]

https://old.ipolitics.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Canada_Sept_2022.pdf

Mainstreet has Tories up 8 and leading big time with young voters

The NDP won’t get 12% and 2% in Alberta.

[adma]

https://old.ipolitics.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Canada_Sept_2022.pdf

Mainstreet has Tories up 8 and leading big time with young voters

Same pollster that saw Bernier higher than 10. I just think they don't know how to sample young voters.

Yeah, it's like they're appealing to "incel army" young males and fellow travellers who want to feel "powerful" by participating in such polls and surveys...