logo
Canada elections: How Liberals turned the tide and ‘Trumped' the right

Canada elections: How Liberals turned the tide and ‘Trumped' the right

First Post30-04-2025

Liberals were much able to consolidate their strongholds, meanwhile wooing swing voters under a maverick prime minister; the Conservatives could not generate the mass appeal required to sabotage the greater liberal ecosystem read more
One crucial factor in Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo was his decision to delay the assault until midday due to muddy ground from the previous night's rain, which hindered artillery movement. This delay gave the Prussians time to regroup and join forces with the British, allowing his enemies to inflict a crushing defeat on an emperor once shrouded in the myth of invincibility. Elections are not so different from war—while war requires men and weapons, elections rely on cadres and narratives to achieve victory. Both are still a means to achieve political power, and timing reigns supreme in both.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Canada went to the polls on Monday, where the Liberal Party, led by Mark Carney, secured a narrow victory, winning 169 seats—retaining power despite falling short of a majority. The Conservative Party, led by Pierre Poilievre, won 144 seats, even farther from the magic number of '172' in the 343-member House of Commons. The Liberals will form a minority government and will have to rely on other political parties to pass legislation, while Canada appears to be moving towards greater bipolarity.
The smaller parties, including the Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party, have suffered significant losses, while the major parties—the Liberals and Conservatives—have increased their seat tally. The New Democratic Party, often criticised for its perceived pro-Khalistani sentiments, was reduced to just 7 seats, a loss of 17 seats compared to before, and lost its official party status. Moreover, its leader Jagmeet Singh lost his Burnaby Central constituency. Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois won 22 seats, 11 fewer than in the previous count.
But yet the most shocking part of the 2024 elections is how fast the conservatives lost ground. Acknowledgedly, the party won 24 more seats than the last count; despite this gain, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre lost his own seat in Carleton, a notable upset given his long tenure in Parliament and the dream of being Canada's prime minister, despite being the most popular contender for the post just a few months before. It cannot be missed that Poilievre lost the seat he held since 2004 in the same elections he was expected to emerge as prime minister. Who knows if he will get this opportunity again in the near future? He will certainly have to face questions on his leadership.
In January 2025, when Justin Trudeau announced that he would resign as both the prime minister and leader of the Liberal Party, it appeared that Poilievre was the prime minister in waiting, and elections were just the formality. But just as with wars, elections are not won or lost till the last second. Last year, Poilievre-led Conservatives sustained a 20-point lead over Liberals for months, but that vanished like sand in wind. According to the rolling three-day Nanos poll released just a week before the elections, the Liberals led with 43.7 per cent public support, while the Conservatives trailed with 36.3 per cent. It was March when Liberals appeared to be gaining an edge over the Conservatives, and by the end of April, Liberals ended up just a few seats short of an absolute majority in the House.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Of course, sitting prime minister Mark Carney certainly deserves credit for rescuing the Liberal Party from a potentially crushing defeat. Despite being a relative newcomer to politics, he was much more able to convince the Canadian electorate to put trust in him. The banker oversaw the Liberals overcoming a significant trust deficit, which was caused by rising living costs, which impacted Trudeau's popularity and the Liberal Party's electoral prospects. Carney's ability to connect with Canadians and articulate a vision for the country's future helped secure a remarkable comeback. Carney was the man that brought difference, ensuring a fourth consecutive Liberal victory.
Trudeau's sermons on human rights and virtue mongering won't have helped Canadians trust Liberals, but Carney's background in banking and finance and his narrative surrounding liberal nationalism have had a lasting impact on people's minds, which saved the day for his party.
Carney's tough stance against the United States' onerous trade policies—and President Donald Trump's provocative suggestion that Canada become the 51st state—had a decisive impact. This may well have been the moment where Poilievre began to lose ground.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Sometimes, nationalism is much more than what we are; it is what we are not.
Also, Canada is a post-industrial developed economy, where liberal narratives already hold firm ground; all Carney had to do was to water them well; he did, and he harvested.
Poilievre's centre-right ideas might have been alluring against Trudeau's holier-than-thou idealist leanings but were no counter to the balanced and pro-Canada approach that Carney offered. Somehow, Poiliever waited for the 'muddy ground to dry up'; little did he expect what would come afterwards. The way Liberals regained their support within months, there remains no excuse for the callousness of Conservatives.
The Carney-led Liberals portrayed Poilievre as a Trump-in-the-making, and the opposition leader failed to do enough to convince the public otherwise. Although Poilievre distanced himself from Donald Trump's stance on Canada during the election campaign, his policies revolved around anti-elitism, inflation, and freedom echoed much like Trump's —an association that likely lingered in the minds of Canadian voters.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Carney's early statement after the electoral victory was: Canada should 'never forget' lessons of US 'betrayal'. The sentence shows what ensured Liberal's comeback.
Further, the Conservatives struggled to gain traction in urban areas, which are traditionally strongholds for the Liberals. Even Conservatives' opposition to radical wokeism could not appeal to the masses but ensured counter-support to the Liberals.
Liberals were much able to consolidate their strongholds, meanwhile wooing swing voters under a maverick PM; the Conservatives could not generate the mass appeal required to sabotage the greater liberal ecosystem. Conservatives appear to have remained much in their shells. They failed to diversify their support among non-rural, non-white people.
Other than these, Conservative apathy towards climate change issues and growing wealth inequalities ruined their appeal for moderate voters. With some publications, perhaps rightly noticing that the party focused more on 'divisive issues' rather than 'inclusive' ones.
However, Pierre Poilievre is just 45, though Mark Carney is also only 60; it would be unjust to analogise his defeat to that of Napoleon at Waterloo, but his wait for the muddy ground to dry up appears to have stolen the day for him. He has an uphill task now to regain the trust of his party in his leadership and to rework where he lost ground. Life is a game of second chances; he might surely get one too.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Meanwhile, Carney has a tough task ahead; he has promises to keep and challenges to counter. Trump is very much there in Washington; transatlantic ties are crumbling, and the economic aspirations of the people have to be fulfilled along with other ideological commitments that his party holds. 2025 Canadian elections have a lesson for Poilievre and a chance for Carney. There is no guarantee that Liberals could re-convince the people this fast next time.
Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Echoes from Courtroom No. 24: Verdict unseated PM Indira Gandhi, she struck back at nation
Echoes from Courtroom No. 24: Verdict unseated PM Indira Gandhi, she struck back at nation

Indian Express

timean hour ago

  • Indian Express

Echoes from Courtroom No. 24: Verdict unseated PM Indira Gandhi, she struck back at nation

At 10 am on June 12, 1975, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha reached Courtroom Number 24 of the Allahabad High Court and took his seat in the jam-packed courtroom. And then, he pronounced a judgment that would go on to have epochal consequences for then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi — and India. Allowing the petition of Raj Narain, who, following his loss to Indira Gandhi in the 1971 election, had moved court alleging electoral malpractices by the Prime Minister, Justice Sinha said, 'This petition is allowed and the election of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi, Respondent No. 1, to the Lok Sabha is declared void… (Indira Gandhi) accordingly stands disqualified for a period of six years from the date of this order.' For the first time in the history of independent India, a Prime Minister's election had been set aside. Months earlier, the courtroom had witnessed another first — the Prime Minister being cross-examined for two consecutive days. Justice Sinha then signed on the order, one that would set off a spiral of events that culminated in Indira Gandhi invoking Constitutional provisions to impose an internal Emergency – a 21-month period that witnessed an unprecedented suspension of fundamental rights and the suppression of dissent across the country. On a weekday morning, nearly 50 years to the day Courtroom No 24 of the Allahabad High Court witnessed the defining moment, the tall, teak doors to the room stayed latched, with the court being shut for vacation. The room has now been redesignated 'Nyay Kaksh or Courtroom 34' as part of a regular administrative rejig. Senior advocates practising in the High Court say the second-floor courtroom was chosen for specific security reasons. Considering the Prime Minister was appearing in court for her cross-examination on March 18 and March 19, 1975, the courtroom, at the far end of a corridor that is open only on one side, was considered the safest from a security point of view. It was on April 24, 1971, that Raj Narain, a socialist who lost the Rae Bareli Lok Sabha seat to Indira Gandhi that year as a joint Opposition candidate of the Samyukta Socialist Party, challenged the election result alleging electoral malpractices and misuse of government machinery by the then Prime Minister. When the petition was filed, no one gave it a chance. The petition was first listed before Justice William Broome, the last British judge of the High Court. But Broome retired in December 1971, after which it went to at least two different benches — that of Justice B N Lokur (father of former Supreme Court judge Madan B Lokur) and Justice K N Srivastava – but their retirements led to the petition being assigned to Justice Sinha in early 1975. As the recording of the oral evidence started on February 12, 1975, the courtroom witnessed several high-profile witnesses on either side – P N Haksar, then vice chairman, Planning Commission, who appeared for Indira Gandhi; and L K Advani (then president of the Bhartiya Jan Sangh), Karpoori Thakur (ex-CM of Bihar) and S Nijalingappa (president of Congress-O) who deposed for Raj Narain. While S C Khare argued for Indira Gandhi, Shanti Bhushan and R C Srivastava were advocates for Raj Narain. S N Kackar, then advocate general of UP, appeared for the State government and Attorney General of India Niren De for the Government of India. Finally, it was time for the Prime Minister herself to appear in the witness box. She reached Allahabad on March 17, 1975, a day before her two-day cross examination. By all accounts, people had poured into the court complex by 9 am, nearly an hour before Justice Sinha could arrive. Among those present in the court were leading advocates and political stalwarts of the time – Opposition leaders Madhu Limaye, Shyam Nandan Mishra (who later became Foreign Minister) and Rabi Ray (who later became Lok Sabha Speaker); and, on the other side, Indira Gandhi's son Rajiv Gandhi and daughter-in-law Sonia Gandhi. An incident that's now part of court lore is how, while the normal practice is for the witness to stand in the box, Indira Gandhi was provided a chair on a raised platform so that she would be on the same level as the judge. Indira Gandhi's counsel S C Khare had requested Justice Sinha to constitute a Commission that would take her evidence in Delhi, but Sinha had disallowed it. Days later, the arguments were wrapped up and the court closed for summer vacations on May 23, 1975. In his book The Case That Shook India: The Verdict That Led to the Emergency, Prashant Bhushan, whose father Shanti Bhushan was counsel for Raj Narain and later became Union Law Minister, wrote of the many pressures Justice Sinha faced after May 23, when the arguments were wrapped up and the verdict awaited. 'A special task force of the CID was employed to find out the contents of the judgment,' wrote Prashant Bhushan, adding that CID sleuths made a couple of visits to the home of Justice Sinha's steno Manna Lal. Over the next three weeks, as he wrote the judgment, Justice Sinha is said to have locked himself up at home – with visitors and callers being told that he was away in Ujjain to see his elder brother, a professor. Bhushan wrote that the night before the verdict, Justice Sinha also arranged for his steno Manna Lal to stay at Bungalow No 10, adjacent to the High Court building. The bungalow has since been demolished; in its place is a multi-story structure that's part of the High Court complex. At his home in Prayagraj's Civil Lines, Justice Vipin Sinha, the second of Justice Sinha's three sons, who retired as a judge of the Allahabad High Court in 2020, recalls the pressure the family faced in the days before and after the judgment. 'I was in Class 11 then and those days were very hard for us. We got a lot of very abusive calls, so much so that we did not allow our father to answer the phone.' Justice Shambhunath Srivastava, a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court who started his practice in 1968 and was present in the courtroom on June 12, 1975, recalls the moments that followed Justice Sinha's verdict. Some were surprised, some were shocked and Indira Gandhi's counsel Khare rushed to firefight. His nephew and junior, V N Khare (who later became CJI), drafted a stay application in his handwriting, following which Justice Sinha granted a stay on his judgement for 20 days. 'Everything was done in such a hurry that the stay application was not even typed,' says Justice Srivastava. Ashok Mehta, senior advocate and former Additional Solicitor General and presently Additional Advocate General of UP, who started his practice from the Allahabad High Court in 1980, speaks of the legacy Justice Sinha left behind with his judgment. 'There are few judges who can match up to Justice Sinha and Justice H R Khanna (who delivered the lone dissenting judgment that the individual's right to life and personal liberties are inalienable even when Emergency is in place). Whenever an election petition comes before court, the first matter that comes to our mind is that of Raj Narain vs Indira Gandhi. This is what we at Allahabad High Court must be proud of.' Fifty years later, there are few who can bear witness to that day in Courtroom No 24. Justice Sinha, who passed away in March 2008, had in an interview to this correspondent in August 1996 played down the enormity of his judgment, saying, 'For me, it was like any other matter. My job was over as soon as I delivered the verdict.' Yet, according to those who have known Justice Sinha closely, there was more than one 'judgment' that day. Senior advocate Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi, a family friend of Justice Sinha's, says Justice Sinha had prepared two orders – one allowing Raj Narain's petition and the other dismissing it. Given the extremely high-profile nature of the case, the second petition was a red herring, meant to fob off those who were allegedly trying to access the judgment. At 10 am on June 12, 1975, Justice Sinha read out from the first copy – a verdict that was to alter the course of the nation. Shyamlal Yadav is one of the pioneers of the effective use of RTI for investigative reporting. He is a member of the Investigative Team. His reporting on polluted rivers, foreign travel of public servants, MPs appointing relatives as assistants, fake journals, LIC's lapsed policies, Honorary doctorates conferred to politicians and officials, Bank officials putting their own money into Jan Dhan accounts and more has made a huge impact. He is member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). He has been part of global investigations like Paradise Papers, Fincen Files, Pandora Papers, Uber Files and Hidden Treasures. After his investigation in March 2023 the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York returned 16 antiquities to India. Besides investigative work, he keeps writing on social and political issues. ... Read More

'There were acts of mistreatment': French doctor claims that Greta Thunberg was mistreated by Israeli forces during Gaza aid mission
'There were acts of mistreatment': French doctor claims that Greta Thunberg was mistreated by Israeli forces during Gaza aid mission

Time of India

time2 hours ago

  • Time of India

'There were acts of mistreatment': French doctor claims that Greta Thunberg was mistreated by Israeli forces during Gaza aid mission

Greta Thunberg (Image credits: X/@benonwine) A French doctor who was aboard a humanitarian aid boat bound for Gaza has accused Israeli authorities of mistreating passengers, including Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, after the vessel was intercepted at sea. Dr Baptiste André, one of the 12 people on the Madleen, said passengers were mocked, deprived of sleep, and given limited access to food and water while in Israeli custody. 'I don't have the legal qualifications to specify what happened, but there were acts of mistreatment,' he told reporters upon arriving in France. The Madleen, organised by the pro-Palestinian Freedom Flotilla Coalition, departed from Italy on June 1 to deliver humanitarian supplies to Gaza amid a worsening blockade. It was intercepted by Israeli naval forces roughly 200 kilometres from the Gaza coast. Four passengers, including Thunberg, signed deportation documents and were sent back home, while eight others remain in Israeli custody awaiting a court hearing. Thunberg, 22, accused Israel of forcibly detaining the activists in international waters. 'This is yet another intentional violation of rights that is added to the list of countless other violations that Israel is committing,' she said upon arriving at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris. Israel's government dismissed the voyage as a publicity stunt, labelling the vessel a 'selfie yacht' and accusing it of breaching its naval blockade on Gaza. Thunberg described the voyage as a peaceful protest against Israel's blockade, which she said is worsening the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Trump won't allow mob rule in America, says White House amid LA unrest
Trump won't allow mob rule in America, says White House amid LA unrest

India Today

time2 hours ago

  • India Today

Trump won't allow mob rule in America, says White House amid LA unrest

US President Donald Trump 'will never allow mob rule to prevail in America,' the White House said on Wednesday, following escalating protests in Los Angeles sparked by the administration's aggressive immigration enforcement House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking at a press briefing, said President Trump remains firmly committed to upholding law and order in the face of what she described as organized unrest. 'The most basic duty of government is to preserve law and order, and this administration embraces that sacred responsibility,' she said, as images of burning vehicles and masked demonstrators were displayed during the unrest follows a series of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids carried out in Los Angeles last week, a city governed by Democrats, which has long opposed Trump's immigration agenda. Though many protests were peaceful, several incidents of violence, including the torching of self-driving taxis and clashes with police, prompted a militarized gas and other non-lethal methods were deployed, and President Trump authorized the National Guard to intervene, a rare move in recent Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass sharply criticized the deployment, calling it excessive and politically motivated. In response, Leavitt accused both leaders of dereliction of duty. 'Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass shamefully failed to meet their sworn obligations to their citizens,' she said, also alleging that Newsom had 'fanned the flames and demonized our brave ICE officers.'advertisementPresident Trump, speaking Tuesday at Fort Bragg military base, promised to 'liberate' Los Angeles, intensifying tensions with California's Democratic administration has also raised concerns about the organization behind the protests. Trump referred to some demonstrators as 'paid insurrectionists' equipped with professional anti-riot gear, a claim Leavitt said is under investigation. 'It's a good question the president is raising, and one we are looking into, about who is funding these insurrectionists,' she told news agency backlash is intensifying as the fast-growing 'No Kings' protest movement prepares for a massive, coordinated demonstration on June 14, coinciding with both a pro-Trump parade in Washington, DC, and the president's 79th birthday. Organizers estimate that nearly 3 million people could flood streets in cities across the country in what they describe as a unified stand against response, the White House remains defiant. 'President Trump will never allow mobs to take over the United States,' Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, signaling no intention to yield to mounting public inputs from agenciesTune InMust Watch

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store