April 22, 2025 10:23 MST
April 22, 2025 10:23 MST
The election 2025 was quite adaptive. I found that the conservatives continued efforts to appropriates respond to ongoing concerns raised by the liberals, was extremely effective. It was not hard as a conservative to agree that the conservatives were better for the job than leaving the Liberals deficits growing, looking to replace the carbon tax pricing that paid for some spending. In effect the carbon tax had been a very punative tax that will be passed right back to consumers, unless brought up by conservatives, as the Liberals work under Mark Carney. In terms of professionalism, the Carney Liberals should be more similar to conservatives than they were aiming to be in partnership with the Federal NDP. The election was overall able to produce a positive growth of percent of voters voting conservative with Pierre Pollievre. The Campaign kept the full media out of their tour bus, and that was one of the reasons that the conservatives benefited this campaign. The conservatives have a general way of governing, and I do feel that it was well reflected, when discussing the possibility of governing. It is always a possibility for Conservatives to form government, and perhapse that has been part of what is most exciting.
There were a couple of areas of concern from my point of view. There is a need for squashing some of the downside to voting conservative. Even choosing to cast a vote in favour of the conservatives, the party still does have reason to be out of government. Most of my ability to know what the conservatives are pitching in the house of commons, and advertising is from the CBC. Most of the sourcing for notes, memos, and webpages comes from the CBC. I have used bloomberg, however this is not the case fully as even with bloomberg I check to see if the CBC has covered the issue being presented on bloomberg, then go with the CBC story not bloomberg. Bloomberg becomes a notification that something happened, rather than Canadian source of news. The Sun, and a large portion of the continuing media in Canada is regularly passed around by it's owners due to being difficult to make a profit at producing consistently. Under the Harper Government, the CBC had recieved the ability to take in more money for the products they had, through increased ability to advertise and sell adverstising. This was a good decision. The need for the CBC is equivalent to that of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The BBC is reliable at reporting the government's official activities, presentations, and explaining the background to what the government is doing and why the government made the decision being presented over the news. The opinions are a bit of a facinating section. I like CBC opinions and CBC comedy, however, the ability to have opinions discussed on news is really a more entertaining segment of the news, than it is a necessity or right. The general comedy is actually really quick to summarize what is being argued about, and can quickly lead to opening a few tabs on google on another device to read about what government is doing. I find the comedy useful, and am glad this is there.
I do beleive the need for government corporations to be promised to be kept open at the existing budget from start to finish, and allowing for them to underspend and submitt future funding requests, would be the way to win elections. The lack of abillity to control the attacks on necessary parts of Canadians lives, makes the conservative party appear to be more of a risk than prudent manager. The conservative party provides seasoned experienced managment. I wanted to see Erin O Tool step down or change his CBC stance, and Alberta oil stances, despite still casting a vote in his favour. I actually worry as a conservative regarding just what kind of person is being elected. If the economy crashes, will the government actually keep any government services open, or are Canadians stuck with even less working services, while being billed for taxes that pay for other provinces to over spend, and promote irresponsible levels of immigration that is unfair to the immigrant and local alike. There are ways to pass laws to attempt to. have a lean non profit news organization that has nonpartisan coverage. Even here, it has promoted a party like the greens or people's party, when it otherwise is meant to be gone and not exist, inorder to choose a less radical version of governance. This is harming the ability to be nonpartisan. One thing that is an issue is that there is not a clear idea of what the government is already spending. There are costs of government that increased, without an explaination for the bill sent to Canadians. Generalized Governing is roughly what the liberals have articulated they are competant at. Why the budget is priced at an increase from Harper's 2011 budget is not actually clear.
Some belief by voters is there that the Harper government still mostly is there and ready to go back into governing again. The issue is that the literal decade of election advertising, is what the Harper voters are relying on to vote to put the Conservatives back in power. The conservatives will push to return to 2011's budget, and then have to pay for the liberal debt. That is generally what the pitch has been. There is a reasoable effort to spend time combatting the tax hikes from opposition. The polls in favour of conservatives, indicate to the liberals that Mr. Harper would be better for the job of management despite changing whom is preferred to Liberal on the ballot by a few percent. The Liberals have managed to leave the federal NDP without a list of bills to pass at this current 2025 election that will have quickly ended. What the liberals are doing well, was indicating that they would keep on the same path. I found I did not like that the liberals made changes. The tax cuts are not permenant. The benefits do not work like they did under Harper, and the price of governing is not going to be equal like it was previously pitching. The lack of basic income through the carbon rebate was not great. Those whom are poorest in society pose a legitimate threat to those whom do have the ability to pay for groceries. I could be more conservative and be inclusive, but it does not underline the harshness of a policy that does not reduce the need of beggers to find money. Poor inwork households are not well off, making this another area of concern. I do feel people can spend money better than the government can. It is part of why making sure that encouraging the poor to be vultnurable to pressure to join organized crime, is needing to be taken into consideration. If someone can meet some needs that differenciate themselves from middle class households, then there is a high chance of bridging that income gap illegally. Having the ability to purchase a new cellular device for example for a homeless individual may keep both shoppers, and the individual whom is homeless healthy and with the ability to get to services at all hours. Even with a full backpack of essentials, if the person were dislocated from a tent location chosen, that person could go from having mostly a warmer place to stay with a good number of items needed to live, to having this left or confiscated. That is how it appears at least. With some ability to get a check the person can at least go and spend the money as a consumer and be treated like a payed customer. How these individuals are treated is an area of concern. Homeless managed poorly by others become violent, and dangerous. It sounds nice to discuss a homeless person being given a better life, and in reality that is the aim of a conservative government. That is a personal belief. Conservatives are not complacent with poverty and low living standards. Conservatives want to make sure everyone is better off.
There are more reasons for government corporations to exist than there are government corporations. The corporations are what covers the areas of life that business is unable to profit from. Regardless of mass privatization, the airline industry has been paid for by government, and needed the bail outs, repetatively, even as private companies. What the conservatives will need to do is indicate that they will provide what is needed, and consider what is existing, as needed. There can be freezes to funding, but really should not be mass advertising opotunities regarding cuts. There are areas the conservatives are not responding much better than the liberals. The full spectrum of telecomunications is not being well served. Governments really do need to consider a private monopoly for telecom. There are not enough ways to keep the prices low. In reality, this is funded by the government, and it would be best to not make users switching between 3 carriers something passed on to investors as losses that are unexpected.
Presently the Pierre Pollievre brought a very poor presentation of what the conservative losses would be in office, and he highlighted this at most rallys or in most rally coverage. Media is not needing to be done by fully paying for a spin off of Bell Telus and Rogers. The fourth player is the CBC, and they are the official vehicle of delivering government budgets, promoting voter participation, communicating regarding manditory taxes and needs to budget for expense changes due to government or market changes. The private companies are not obligated to provide their news, and they do not provide reliable or accurate news. The CTV news, has been more bias against Harper after he made telecom caps on overage payments, and cut plans to having a working smartphone at least one of two years not three. Trudeau dropped wages of newscasters, whom were largely operating as commentators on opinions regarding the government and whom would leave the news caster themself wealthiest. The ability of students to have access to news for free, and having even homeless retain the ability to read advertising, also exists. It is not a needed bleak news story. No Mr. Pollievre is not the wrong leader for the election in 2025, and another one in the future. Mr. Pollievre is not right to carry on about CBC. CBC reports Pollievre as competant vs a more educated politician. I would be best to be frank and state that no, unless the arts degree is an economics major from calgary, the english degree will not leave him as competant to run government as Oxford leaves it's conservatives. The CBC is unreasonably bias in favour of the conservatives this election, and it is actually stunning.
There was not enough ability to know what the budget was going to feature. Conservatives needed to actually draft the think and then amend it while campaigning that they are amending it as they campaign. This is essentially how the conservatives needed to form government. Conservatives needed to be so good that even if the other party pitched the same budget, they would be trusted as most capable to deliver that same budget after the election. The minority government elections for Mr. Harper were triggered by Canadians voting in favor of the Harper budget. There was not a budget that was there to vote for and comment on. The conservatives also do need to keep in mind that they need to represent the interests of at least 80 percent of the population by moderating how much of a change a platform will offer. Until the conservatives are able to be frank that the Trudeau early Trump copy of the Covid checks or other parts of the liberals budgets are a success, they are not providing enough reliable conservatives without installing Mr. Harper back at the helm of the conservative party each election in a row for the next few years. More than less Mr. Harper might himself need 8 years to win. The other major area of discussion needs to stop being the desire to redo the political system in Canada. We are stuck with government mismanagement, if that is what we have voted to do. There is not going to be any improvement over the last 10 years without electing a strong stable conservative majority government. The government reforms of the houses and seats, or voting styles all turn away left leaning voters attention as if they could have a bigger house, nicer car, and have more luxury items if only the voting system was modified in their favor. This is what has been defining the elections. There are voters that do really beleive that under liberals they will have something that they never get because it was not possible, regardless of the voting system or changes made to houses of government.