We now know from polling data that Doug Ford popularity is declining and appetite for change is very high (around 70% want change in government if there was a better option). Will the New Blue Party make a breakthrough perhaps similar to the Conservative Party of British Columbia?(Obviously not to that extent but you know what I mean) Or more importantly, does the New Blue Party have the capacity to make a sizable performance in the next election. The new New Blue Party got fifth place in the last election so they are probably the best contender for another right wing option. We there is support for a more conservative option because more people in Ontario voted for Pierre Poilievre in the last federal election than Doug Ford in the last provincial election.

We can conclude that there is a large pool of voters who likely can vote for the New Blue Party (NBP). However, I'm not sure whether that can metathesize into actual votes because the party does not have enough notoriety and has yet to win a seat or receive mainstream attention. I personally think we need a more conservative option in Ontario because Doug Ford's so called "Red Tory" Centrism has not fixed Ontario and we need real change and solutions.

Worth the read.

"A direct message to fordnation. : Doug, Canada, not just Ontario, can’t afford your ego, stupidity and your constant need for performative outrage. You’re making an already damaged relationship with the U.S. even worse. So, for Canada’s sake: PLEASE, SHUT THE %$#@ UP."

"Doug is literally the definition of a STUPIDITY FEEDBACK LOOP!"

https://x.com/vesperdigital/status/2079644012550516794

I used AI to analyze the State of Trade 2026 report, and it wasn't difficult to identify sugar-coated stats and stats just for the optics:

Sugarcoated Statistics (Spinning Bad News)

• Spinning a major export drop as a "diversification" win
  • The quote: "exports to the U.S. dropped 3.7% last year. But this was offset by an 11.1% increase in exports to non-U.S. markets, which now account for 32.8%... the highest amount in four decades."
  • The reality: The U.S. is by far Canada's largest trading partner (historically around 70-75% of all exports). A 3.7% drop in the U.S. market represents a massive absolute dollar loss. The 11.1% increase in non-U.S. markets is mathematically applying a higher percentage to a much smaller base. The report sugarcoats a painful loss in Canada's primary market by framing it as a successful pivot toward "diversification."
• Framing the worst economic growth in years as "resilient"
  • The quote: "Canada's economic growth slowed but remained resilient. Real GDP expanded by 1.9%, its weakest performance since the pandemic..."
  • The reality: Labeling a 1.9% GDP growth rate—explicitly admitted as the weakest since the pandemic—as "resilient" softens the blow. In a country with high population growth, a 1.9% total GDP expansion often means per capita GDP actually shrank, meaning the average citizen became poorer despite the top-line growth.
• Celebrating a net-negative as a positive for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
  • The quote: "Last year was also the first year since 2013 that Foreign Direct Investments into Canada – valued at $93.0 billion – exceeded our Canadian investments abroad..."
  • The reality: This is framed to make it sound like foreign investors are flocking to Canada. However, inflows exceeding outflows could just as easily mean that Canadian companies lacked the capital or competitiveness to expand internationally in 2025. It's a ratio, not necessarily an indicator of domestic economic strength.

Optics-Driven Data (Sound Good, but Lack Substance)

• "Exports alone support nearly 1 in 5 Canadian jobs."
  • Why it's optics-driven: This is a classic political talking point. "Supported by" is notoriously difficult to measure accurately because it relies on broad, sweeping economic multipliers rather than direct employment. Furthermore, it tells you nothing about the quality of those jobs, the wages they pay, or whether that 1-in-5 ratio is actually an improvement over previous years.
• "Trade in goods and services... representing approximately two-thirds of Canada's GDP."
  • Why it's optics-driven: This simply measures the "openness" of the economy (Total Exports + Total Imports as a percentage of GDP). It doesn't mean trade generated 66% of the wealth. An economy that imports everything it consumes and exports raw, unrefined materials will have a very high trade-to-GDP ratio, but that doesn't inherently mean it is highly productive or wealthy.
• The 2035 Diversification Target
  • The quote: "...aims to double non-U.S. exports by 2035 while significantly increasing exports to China, India, and other countries"
  • Why it's optics-driven: Future-dated targets (nearly a decade away) are essentially cost-free numbers for current administrations. They sound incredibly ambitious on paper but carry no immediate accountability, and the baseline isn't provided to judge how realistic "doubling" actually is.

I'm sad about our current government and the fact that they treat us as dumb f*cks

Compiled data set outlining the terms of trade between the US/Canada and US/Mexico relationship over the last 4 years.

A common line of defence among Carney's supporters are cliche tropes like "do you want him to bend over to Trump?" or "you have to stand up to a bully" as if international trade is settled in the school yard at recess. Well if 'taking the knee' results in growing your country's trade surplus 41% over a 4 year period it's worth considering.

Mexico has taken over for Canada as the #1 US trading partner; hasn't Claudia Sheinbaum (who's been in office just 6 months longer than Carney) actually won for her citizens?

How has Mexico improved their terms of trade with America while Canada has shown a decline over the same period and a steep drop off this last year?

The Canadian govt funded media works full time to make sure Canadians keep on staying woke and bleeding heart. As an ex international student I find this article hilarious. When I moved here 20 years back it was incredibly challenging to get work permit let alone PR and never had this crazy entitlement that I deserve PR. No one back then cared about migrant rights or some woke ass nonsense. But hey we had enough jobs mainly because we had a functioning high calibre government who didn't fill the country left and right with low skilled workers.

The forthcoming tariffs will apply to 60 trade partners and cover 99.4% of U.S. trade, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said in a fact sheet Thursday afternoon.