Connect with us

Opinion

The majority of voters have moved on from legacy media and legacy narratives

Published

12 minute read

From EnergyNow.ca

By Margareta Dovgal 

A Wake-Up Call for Political Strategists Across the Continent

For only the second time in US history, a president has lost, left office, and won re-election. For most Canadians watching the US election, the news of Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House comes with some degree of disappointment – and confusion.

Rather than getting caught up in doomsaying as there’s enough of that going around, I wanted to share some thoughts on what I would hope Canadians working in and around politics and policy come away with.

Speaking to the heart shouldn’t neglect speaking to the wallet

Biden probably should have resigned sooner, and Harris should have gone through a competitive primary race before carrying the flag. Hindsight is 20/20, and I doubt that the Democrats will make those same mistakes twice.

What I do suspect will be harder to shake is the commitment to running campaigns on social issues alone. The Democrats made the gamble that reproductive rights were a persuasive enough ballot box question to distract from Joe Biden’s lacklustre economic performance.

The clear majority of voters showed that they are more concerned with their job security, housing affordability, and tax bills.

The Democrats now have an opportunity to realign with the concerns of working Americans, recognizing that economic anxieties cannot be overlooked. A robust economic approach doesn’t preclude a moderate and fair social approach, but the latter can’t replace the former.

In Canada, this holds true for our discussions around energy and resources. I’m seeing a very similar disconnect play out on resource policy. Patently bad policies with horrible economic impacts are being advanced at all levels by governments more concerned with virtue signalling than ensuring robust economic performance – the federal Emissions Cap and the fantastical ambitions of David Eby’s CleanBC program among them.

Pre-pandemic, vibes-based economic policy seemed to work. In times of plenty, it is easy to persuade voters that taking economic hits is the right thing to do — after all, why worry about the price of something if you can afford it? Anyone still trying that in 2024 has lost the plot.

Affordability remains a paramount issue for many citizens, and the U.S. election highlighted how campaigns that overlook economic concerns and the declining quality of life risk alienating voters.

From groceries to gas prices, the rising cost of living is top of mind for Canadians, and resource policies must reflect this reality. For instance, a balanced approach to energy production can help keep costs reasonable while supporting Canadian jobs and industries.

It’s a reminder that beyond political credibility or mainstream appeal, policies that directly address financial challenges resonate most with the electorate.

For the resource sector, this means recognizing how affordable energy, resilient supply chains, and robust employment opportunities are interconnected with national policy priorities.

Truth and gatekeeping

The gamesmanship over who holds the authority to define “truth” continues in earnest, and engaging in it by discounting mass popular narratives is a risky gambit for any political movement that seeks to maintain widespread relevance.

We’re seeing a generational change, not just in the US but globally, on how people consume and produce media.

I would argue that Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter was the edge that Trump needed in this new era. Millions of Americans, and millions abroad, sought news and commentary from the platform. Political discourse on the 2024 election was shaped by the ideas generated and amplified online, faster than mainstream news could reliably pick up on.

Since Musk’s acquisition of Twitter/X, the editorial stance, algorithm, and tone of the platform have all shifted. Yes, it has gone ‘rightwards’, but rather than that serving to shrink the audience, it has instead grown, picking up swing voters and rallying the “persuadeds” more effectively.

Just look at the last debate between Trump and Harris: they weren’t even talking about the same political realities.

Research finds that as a main source of news, social media is still behind TV. Where we see the biggest difference is among younger voters.

46% of Americans 18-29 say social media is their top source of news, according to Pew Research. Beyond widespread appeal or readership, social media drives the political commentary of the chattering classes more than any one other platform. TikTok’s influence is likewise growing, with an even younger demographic relying on it almost entirely to help shape and articulate their views.

A similar dynamic around “truth” was plainly obvious in British Columbia’s provincial election last month. A good chunk of commentators couldn’t fathom that voters could accept a party that had refused to throw out candidates saying offensive or dubious things.

The BC Conservatives went from zero seats to just shy of government.

Enough ink has been spilled on this by other commentators, but let’s recap what many have said about the explanatory factors: BC United collapsed following its disastrous rebrand, the BC NDP was stuck with having to account with the inevitable baggage of incumbency in a struggling global economy, and the rise of Poilievre and the federal Conservatives lent some additional name-brand recognition to the BCCP.

The most important piece, in my estimation, was the Conservatives’ ability to tap into a growing demographic that didn’t feel their concerns were reflected in the mainstream political discourse. Twitter was far from the only forum for this, but I think it had a large part to play in cultivating the sense among many voters that consequential narratives were not even remotely being touched on in mainstream media. It gutted voters’ trust in the media, giving the BC Conservatives whose narratives were more effective on social media a decisive advantage.

Public safety is a great example of this. Anyone with eyes and ears who has spent time in Downtown Vancouver in recent years can attest to the visible decline, with visible drug use in public spaces, frequent run-ins with people with severe untreated mental illness yelling at phantoms, and unabashed property crime.

Yet, if we were to believe a great deal of commentators just up until the eve of the election, everything was just fine.

Willful blindness only works when people can’t comment on what they see. But comment they did, and the delayed response to it nearly cost the BC NDP the election.

In a purely practical sense, the increasing role of community-driven sources of information mean that gatekeepers can no longer control the flow of information. And let’s not mince words here: anyone concerned about misinformation is talking about gatekeeping.

Subjecting ideas out there in the commons to scrutiny is necessary. We just can’t take for granted that the outlets themselves will provide that editorial scrutiny directly, if it’s not baked in the platform by design and people are actively choosing to spend time on platforms that have a radical free speech mandate.

It’s time to accept that the train has left the station: persuasiveness needs to be redefined by the mainstream, rather than taking one loss after another and crying foul because the game has changed.

Canadian narratives for Canadian politics

Our closest neighbour and trading partner is the world’s largest economy, and Canadians can’t help but look south for news and ideas. Our own politics often mirror the messages we see in the US, and there’s no use trying to pretend that won’t keep happening.

If we want to avoid falling into the trap of inheriting the dysfunction and divisions that are increasingly defining the political system next door, we have a duty to develop compelling narratives that resonate with the unique needs of Canadians, across the political spectrum.

It’s the definition of insanity to keep trying the same things expecting a different result. Rather than directing anger at voters and political movements who have moved on from old media, if you’re not happy with the result, try meeting them where they are.

And no, this doesn’t mean ceding ground to conspiracy theorists or the fringe. They are only succeeding because a) they are speaking to issues that people decide they care about (like them or not) that are panned by the center and the left, and b) most crucially, there isn’t enough emotionally resonant, persuasive substance being put out to win hearts and minds.

These are not inevitable outcomes. Voter preferences and media technologies are constantly evolving. We need to evolve with them by subjecting our leaders to real scrutiny and demanding better.


Margareta Dovgal is Managing Director of Resource Works. Based in Vancouver, she holds a Master of Public Administration in Energy, Technology and Climate Policy from University College London. Beyond her regular advocacy on natural resources, environment, and economic policy, Margareta also leads our annual Indigenous Partnerships Success Showcase. She can be found on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Fraser Institute

Premier Eby seeks to suspend democracy in B.C.

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Niels Veldhuis and Tegan Hill

Last week, B.C. Premier David Eby proposed new legislation to give himself and his cabinet sweeping powers to unilaterally change almost any provincial law and regulation without legislative approval or review. While the legislation—dubbed the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act—has yet to be enacted into law, the fact that the government proposed such unprecedented powers is deeply concerning and a genuine threat to our democracy.

Only five months ago, British Columbians went to the polls and delivered a sobering victory to Eby’s incumbent NDP government, which lost 8 of its 55 seats and ended up with 47 of 93 seats, the narrowest “majority” possible. The popular vote was nearly dead-even between the NDP (44.86 per cent) and the upstart Conservative Party (43.28 per cent).

Even Premier Eby acknowledged the voters sent his government a message and promised to work together with other parties. “After a close and hard-fought campaign, it’s now time to come together to deliver for people,” he said. “British Columbians have asked us to work together and make life better for them.”

“Work together” in a democracy means embracing a deliberative and, at times, messy process. Thoughtful policymaking takes time. It’s a core feature of democracy. No leader has all the knowledge to act unilaterally to do what’s right. We need the legislature to weigh competing viewpoints through rigorous and transparent debate—that’s how our system works.

Yet according to the Eby government, the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act will lead to the opposite and provide “temporary authority to cabinet… to modify the application or effect of B.C. laws and regulations.” In other words, if approved, it will allow Premier Eby and his cabinet to override provincial laws, regulations, bylaws, rules, resolutions, practices, policies, standards, procedures and other measures without approval or review by the elected legislature. That’s not how our system is supposed to work.

To put it more starkly, the Eby government is telling British Columbians that 23 cabinet ministers and four ministers of state can sufficiently decide almost any matter pertaining to the government without democratic approval or input from opposition parties. It is by all measures an extraordinary circumvention of the province’s democratic institutions.

Premier Eby, of course, knows the extraordinary nature of this type of undemocratic authority. “In extraordinary times,” he told reporters last week, “we need extraordinary powers.” And he wants these extraordinary powers for the next two years.

While President Trump’s tariffs are terrible economic policy and very damaging to Canada and other countries, many governments throughout history have tried these policies. Like in the past, our politicians and policymakers must deal with tariffs and other economic challenges purposefully and deliberately within democratic constraints, which include transparent debates, reviews, re-assessments, and genuine deliberations that include opposition parties.

Instead, Premier Eby wants absolute power and control.

As British Columbians will no doubt conclude, there’s something fundamentally wrong with suspending democracy because we’re in challenging times. We often deal with significant challenges. Should our governments have suspended democracy in the wake of 9/11, the limited outbreak of SARS, the financial crisis of 2008-09 or COVID?

Finally, this dim view of democratic constraints is not new to the Eby government. Just last year, Premier Eby tried to pass one of the most significant and fundamental legislative changes in B.C. history, giving more than 200 First Nations veto power over land-use decisions in the province. Eby hoped to rush his legalisation through the legislature without full transparency or meaningful public input, and without disclosing any analysis of its economic impact. When British Columbians caught wind of his plan, there was an uproar, and before October’s election, Eby shelved the legislation (for now, at least).

Here we are again, mere months later, with Premier Eby wanting to make unprecedented changes to our democracy in response to an economic policy from another democratically elected government that, while damaging, is hardly an existential threat.

To call the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act a significant overreach would be a gross understatement. It’s an affront to our democracy.

Niels Veldhuis

President, Fraser Institute

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Soaked, Angry, and Awake: What We Saw at Pierre Poilievre’s Surrey Rally

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight Dan Knight

Thousands stood in the rain—not for politics, but for hope. And this time, they just might bring it home.

We were there. We saw it with our own eyes. We were out in the rain too.

This was our first rally. No press passes. No backstage passes. Just boots on the ground in Surrey, British Columbia, shoulder to shoulder with five thousand other Canadians standing in line, drenched, cold—and awake. We weren’t there to fanboy. We came to observe. To listen.

And what we saw was more than a political event. It was a moment.

We saw Alex Zoltan from True North (@AmazingZoltan), Mike Le Couteur from CTV (@mikelecouteur), and legendary broadcaster Anita Krishna (@AnitaKrishna1) in the crowd. But more importantly—we saw the people. Working people. Retired people. Young people. People who’ve been ignored for years by the political class, who finally feel like someone is saying out loud what they’ve been screaming into the void.

What we heard from them? It wasn’t rehearsed. It wasn’t ideological. It was heartbreak.

A lot of people are angry. Not the rage you see on Twitter. Real anger. The kind that comes from watching your country stop working—for you. One man told us he’s on a pension and can’t afford groceries. Another woman said she skips meals so her kids can eat. We met a young couple in their late twenties who’ve given up on the idea of owning a home. They’re not lazy. They’re not reckless. They’re just priced out of the country they were born in.

And here’s what cut the deepest—many of them told us, “We want to support this party. But we can’t.” Why? Because they’ve been burned too many times. Promised too much. Betrayed too often. But they came anyway. They stood in the rain for hours anyway. Because there’s a flicker of something they haven’t felt in a long time:

Hope.

I kept asking: “Do you like this guy?” The answer was a resounding yes. And not because they’re buying the hype—but because he’s giving voice to something real. Pierre Poilievre is reaching disillusioned Canadians—not through political poetry or staged empathy—but through hard truths, said plainly, with no filter.

These aren’t people looking for a savior. They’re looking for someone who remembers them. And on that night in Surrey, they believed they found one. They came for a message. For a fight. For a reason to believe that someone—finally—was on their side.

Before Pierre ever took the mic, the crowd in Surrey was already fired up—and a big reason for that was Anaida Poilievre.

Let’s be honest: she’s a bombshell. And not just because she’s beautiful but because she’s the real deal. Industrious, sharp, fluent in two languages, and built from the same immigrant grit that defines so many Canadians who feel left behind by this system.

She opened the rally not like a politician’s wife reading off a cue card, but like a woman who actually believes in what her husband’s fighting for. She talked about Pierre’s adoption, his humble roots, and the hard lessons that shaped him. No privilege. No elite pedigree. Just two schoolteachers raising a kid to believe that if you want something in life, you earn it.

She looked out at a rain-soaked crowd and didn’t flinch. She thanked them. She told them their presence was a sign of hope. She didn’t pander. She didn’t posture. She spoke like someone who’s been watching this country change—and not for the better—and is finally standing beside someone willing to do something about it.

And you know what? People listened.

And when Pierre Poilievre walked onto that stage hugged his wife and said, “Who’s ready to axe some taxes?”—the crowd roared. Not clapped. Not nodded politely. Roared.

Because after a decade of being kicked in the teeth by a government that lectures more than it listens, Canadians are tired. Tired of being broke. Tired of being lied to. Tired of being told their pain is imaginary while the Laurentian elite pockets billions and jets off to climate conferences.

Poilievre knows that. And in this rally, he laid it out in plain language. “The Canadian promise is broken,” he said. And he’s right. Food inflation is higher than it is in the United States. Vancouver is the most expensive housing market in North America. People can’t afford groceries, never mind rent. And Mark Carney—Trudeau’s successor and another unelected globalist—wants you to believe this is fine.

It’s not fine. It’s engineered decline. And the crowd in Surrey knew it.

Poilievre tore into the carbon tax scam. “They told us without the carbon tax, the planet would catch fire,” he said. “I thought you put out fires with water—not taxes.” The room went wild. Because finally, someone said out loud what every working-class Canadian already knows: this isn’t about climate. It’s about control.

And here’s the kicker—while Canadians are being taxed into oblivion, what’s Carney doing? Poilievre didn’t mince words: “He’s moved his headquarters out of Canada, shifted billions to offshore tax havens, and wants to tax our industries into extinction.” And it’s true. Brookfield took $276 million from the Bank of China. That’s the man now lecturing you about sovereignty and security.

And just when you think it couldn’t get more absurd, Poilievre nailed the punchline: “Imagine the one thing Trump and Carney agree on—taxing Canadian industry.” One with tariffs. One with carbon taxes. The same result: you lose. They win.

And then Pierre Poilievre started talking about the one thing the political class won’t touch—housing. Real housing. Not photo ops with construction helmets. Not climate-smart TikTok renderings. Actual places where real people live. You know, the thing you used to be able to afford before Justin Trudeau and his handpicked successor, Mark Carney, burned the Canadian economy to the ground.

And when Poilievre said it costs $250,000 a year to buy a home in this country? The crowd didn’t gasp. They nodded. Because they already know. They’re living it. They’re paying $2,600 a month in rent in Vancouver—more than most mortgages in the U.S. They’re watching housing slip into fantasy while their wages stagnate and taxes climb.

Poilievre didn’t just diagnose the problem. He named the villains: gatekeepers. Bureaucrats. Urban planners with six-figure pensions who spend five years approving a duplex. Politicians more concerned about aesthetics than affordability. And of course, the federal Liberals who reward this dysfunction with your tax dollars.

He looked them in the eye and said: We will cut them off. No homes, no money.

You want to build homes? Great—we’ll help. You want to stall, delay, regulate and strangle supply while pretending to care? Goodbye federal funding. And when he said he’d pay cities a bonus—$10,000 per unit—for every home completed, the crowd erupted.

Because for the first time in a long time, someone isn’t just “raising awareness.” He’s ready to bulldoze the roadblocks.

Then he got to the scam of the century: the carbon tax. He said, “They told us the planet would catch fire without it. I thought you put out fires with water—not taxes.” That’s not a joke. That’s clarity. And clarity is dangerous to the people who make billions off confusion.

Now Carney—Canada’s favorite unelected international banker—is floating his latest con: “Don’t worry, we’ll scrap the carbon tax and give you a rebate instead.” Right. The government takes your dollar, runs it through three ministries, skims 30 cents, then hands you back 70 and tells you it’s a gift. That’s their model.

Poilievre? He cuts through the lie: “Just let people keep their damn money.”

And here’s what made this rally different. This wasn’t a campaign stop in a suit-and-tie showroom. This was a declaration of war against the elite cartel that’s run this country into the ground for the last decade.

He talked about immigration, not from a place of fear, but of reality. Canadians aren’t against immigration. They’re against chaos. They’re against bringing in more people when we can’t even house the people already here. It’s not anti-immigrant. It’s pro-sanity.

And most of all, he spoke about something you rarely hear from a politician in this country: pride. Not in institutions, not in photo-ops—but in the tradesman, the small business owner, the truck driver, the welder. The people who actually build Canada. He said we’re going to make things again. That we’re going to stop outsourcing our sovereignty and start bringing it all home.

And the crowd? They didn’t just applaud—they believed him.

This was not a speech for journalists or corporate donors. It was a speech for people who still love this country, who want their kids to own homes, who want to work and not be punished for it.

It was for the family that’s cut out takeout to pay the heating bill. For the welder who can’t get approved for a mortgage in his own city. For the young couple living in their parents’ basement, not because they’re lazy—but because everything is rigged against them. And for the first time in a long time, they heard someone say out loud what they’ve been thinking in silence: This isn’t your fault. It’s theirs.

We don’t need more government programs.

We don’t need more subsidies or slogans.

We need leaders with a spine—who will stop apologizing for this country and start rebuilding it.

Pierre Poilievre stood in front of thousands in Surrey and said: “We’re going to bring it home.”

And maybe, just maybe, this time… we will.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Opposition with Dan Knight , share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Trending

X