This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Mark Carney, Ascendant
At the start of the year there was somewhat of a stalemate in Canadian politics. The Liberals were close to a majority with two recent floor-crossings, but still a few seats shy. Prime Minister Mark Carney was reasonably popular, but the Liberal party he led was decidedly not. Conversely, the Conservative Party was moderate popular, but its leader Pierre Poilievre was not. All this added up to what was essentially a deadlock in voter intention should an election be called.
Since then, there has been a dramatic change in political fortunes. Mark Carney is now the most popular Canadian politician in recent memory. Pierre Poilievre is now the most unpopular (give or take a Justin Trudeau). The difference between their favourability metrics (i.e. how much people approve vs disapprove of them) is now 60 points, which is truly monumental. The Liberals are now polling into solid majority territory, but they don't even need to call an election to get one. With two more defections (one from the Conservatives, and another from the NDP last night) they will have a majority if they (almost certainly) win two of three forthcoming by-elections. And that's even if there isn't more floor-crossers, of whom there are several more expected from both the Conservatives and NDP.
What the hell happened?
I've always said that even the most dysfunctional democracies favour boring bankers as leaders in times of crisis. Carney is probably the most-qualified PM in Canada's history, if you try and rank them by achievement before taking office, but obviously that only goes so far in the social media age. But the economic and political turmoil, and especially the impact of Trump, definitely works in his favour. As the various American attempts to squeeze the Canadian economy have continued, Carney's popularity has grown. This isn't all pure contrarian reaction to Trump - Carney's messaging has been very effective. He makes repeated high-profile trips to foreign countries to secure new trade deals and terms, and I think this is a huge boon to his popularity as the news of new trade deals, investment, partnerships, etc. is a good counterpoint to the economic uncertainty. Even the areas where Liberal support reached a nadir, like Alberta and Saskatchewan, have substantially warmed up to him because of his success in ending trade conflict with China and clearing the bureaucratic hurdles towards substantial new infrastructure projects. Also it can't be overlooked how influential his speech at the WEF was in setting himself apart from the crop of other Canadian politicians in terms of having a coherent, long-term philosophy that is achievable rather than a mishmash of contemporary trends and reflexive partisanship.
Speaking of which, Pierre Poilievre is largely the victim of his own personality. He is not exactly what you would call charismatic. He has had basically no work experience outside of being an MP, and for decades was the "attack dog" of the Conservative caucus who gave much of their replies during Question Period in Parliament. In short he developed a character that was partisan, quippy, and negative. This worked just fine when he was up against a very unpopular Justin Trudeau. Even while he was still unpopular himself he was looking at a super-majority election win at the end of 2024. But up against a very popular Carney he comes across very poorly by comparison, and Canadians have soured on him even more as a result. It doesn't help that his leadership style is very literally driving MPs out of his party: all the three defectors from the Conservatives so far have cited his abrasive nature as a reason for leaving. In late January his continued leadership of the party was confirmed at the Conservative convention, but you wonder how much leash he has if Carney remains popular and peels another few Conservatives away. It's one thing to lose an election: it's another to then let your opponent form a majority because you've driven off your own MPs.
The third element in all of this is that the NDP, the traditional third (fourth?) party and the left flank of Canadian politics, is currently having its leadership race and looks set on picking Avi Lewis, who is firmly from the progressive/activist mould. He is an interesting choice for leader in the sense that there is some reward to the risk; he's a very smooth media personality and has the potential to sell Canadians on a different approach. But his views are at odds with average Canadians and more NDP MPs seem primed to jump ship to the Liberals if he wins, which is very bad for the NDP as they're already skating on thin ice. Even the MP who just quit the party, Lori Idlout, was a supporter of Lewis not an opponent. But at some point you figure it's better to be in the tent pissing out, so to speak. Especially given that Carney has (so far) been successful at securing foreign deals and investments, there's a strong personal and political incentive to join the winning team if you can secure something for your region out of it.
Anyways, here are the polls as they stand now. You can see the very marked shift in fortunes since the start of the year. This is a new phenomenon in Canadian politics; floor crossers are nothing new, but the sheer number of them in such a short span of time, let alone to form a majority government, is entirely novel.
What about delivering on prosperity? Has Carney actually lowered cost of living, made things more affordable?
In Australia I see a certain symmetry. We have a similarly boring, albeit less qualified, centre-left Labor leader in Albanese. He was elected on a platform of lowering electricity prices and improving cost of living, promptly failed to do that (prices went in the other direction), got re-elected anyway. I was sympathetic to Dutton (former leader of the centre-right Liberal Party) and his more ambitious nuclear energy plan but the country rejected him totally. I guess Dutton wasn't charismatic enough, too Trump-coded.
The Liberal Party seems to be totally disintegrating, the more immigration-restrictionist One Nation is demolishing them in polling.
Dutton was certainly kneecapped, like most right-wing leaders in 2025, by the extreme unpopularity of Trump, but I would emphasise also that Dutton's personal brand was always awful. He just puts people off, and while some of that is not his fault (it's unfair to point out the alopecia, but I think it was a factor), some of it was to do with the way he'd spent a long time building a reputation as this hardline police officer.
Albanese is quite good at projecting an image of himself as a boring moderate, and this is a time for boring moderates. Trump created a vision of chaos overseas, while Albanese looks like stability. As a rule, when Albanese tries to gesture towards big, large-scale or symbolic reforms he fails (most famously with the Voice), but I think he has learned from that. He beat Scott Morrison with a small target strategy, and even with Dutton, it was mostly a matter of projecting competence, not walking into any landmines, and trusting that the political winds were blowing his way. Albanese is not an ambitious politician by any means, and is obviously a party man at his core, but that was what the Australian people wanted. No chaos, please, no big reforms, just keep working on trying to fix cost-of-living.
The Coalition is absolutely in crisis at the moment. Both partners are having troubles with leadership, they've threatened splitting up twice and got back together at the last minute, and as you say, One Nation are crushing them. As of last month, on their signature issue, immigration, One Nation poll better than both major parties combined:
Does this mean the One Nation will replace the Coalition as the Opposition in Australian politics? I doubt that myself. Much of the reported polling surge for One Nation is disaffected Coalition voters. I expect the Coalition to eventually pivot in enough of an anti-immigration direction to win most of that back. But it will probably be a long and difficult path back to power for them, because the older, Howard-style Liberal fusion is not going to work any more.
More options
Context Copy link
Nope. But then, this war may bail him out of responsibility to do that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not sure about Canada, I asked aislop and it says that basically the Liberals run Canada, forever, except for that one time that a liberal spoiler party joined the election and spoiled it for the Liberals. It also seems like a standard case of "Conservatives conserve nothing" just like in the UK. Why should anyone bother voting Conservative if it just means tax cuts and infinity immigrants?
Anyways it seems like the era of third parties and spoilers may be coming to a close, so we may see Canada simply become a one-party two-bit petrostate.
The Conservatives were in the Labour position: certain to win, so they decided to shut the fuck about anything controversial to avoid being tarred (as your AI says the Liberals are the natural governing party, the media is very favorable to them, every single conservative leader is prima facie suspicious and a possible Trumpite/American wedge to them). Whether they're leaving a highly motivated immigration voting bloc on the table or were right to avoid pissing off Boomers who don't want to be like America I don't know. But I think the latter fear is very reasonable.
But it isn't a Tory situation where people seem to actively want to punish them. Trudeau's handling of the immigration system was so over the top that even hardcore immigration restrictionists would likely welcome a turn back to Harper's already large numbers. And because they knew that, the CPC did nothing. Fuck were they going to do, vote PPC? Okay, maybe it isn't the late Tory situation.
The minute Trudeau dropped out though, the immigration argument stopped making itself and the CPC didn't want to touch it. PP's abrasive personality was also no longer a plus when it seemed like Trump was the only person it didn't apply to. But, then again, he wasn't in office and couldn't pull any stunts (like Doug Ford, another person you could consider an asshole at times who directed that at the US and scored some points, despite having to pull back on some of his stunts).
Beyond Carney's already noted talents, he is good at another thing and it's not doing anything radical while being seen to do stuff. Immigration has come down, especially temporary workers, but then there's also going to be a one-time speedup in PR for protected persons of about 100,000 (and he's assuming that the temporary workers let in by Trudeau will all just leave). Then the method of calculating the budget changed to split the operating budget and investment, which theoretically makes sense except Carney is in control of this distinction which has obvious consequences (like a supposedly balanced budget with a massive deficit)
On top of all of the right noises on interprovincial trade barriers and pipelines, I can see not only why he's popular but gaining defectors. If he's going to hang around for 5 years you might as well go to the popular party that can do something.
A petrostate with a loud minority of people who loathe building infrastructure to support and sell oil.
I mean petroleum producing parts of Canada will eventually secede and the country will collapse. One party Canada won't last forever.
Them and what army?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is because, from the only politically relevant perspective in Canada (Easterners), they are foreigners.
I can't really overstate that enough. Western Canada is a foreign country to them, and that means their political parties are foreign too- CPC and NDP both. The NDP collapsed because it was indistinguishable from the LPC (and is why its only seats are out in the West).
You never vote for a foreigner in a crisis, Trump is the Worst Thing Ever to the Eastern Boomers, QED.
This isn't that complicated, unless you're of the opinion that Canada is a political monolith (which polls tend to do, for reasons that at least rhyme with manufacturing consensus).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's why they lost the last 2 elections. This is why PP continues to have that mandate, by the way- at least he's saying Reform things this time rather than "but we should bend over backwards for whatever Karen of Toronto wants". You can't win that way, you see.
The NDP was the other counterbalance for reform, but they're arch-Conservatives now, which is why they're so indistinguishable from the LPC that most of their MPs are LPC now.
If the petrostate part of the petrostate isn't smart [or powerful] enough to prevent that, and content with losing elections for ever, then it will be so.
If that happens, you might end up with a legitimate secessionist movement (assuming the stink from Trump wears off).
It's treated as absurd, as if QC has the exclusive right to agitate so, but we'll see.
It's kind of already here. It doesn't have as much support in the cities (NDP voters [progressives] are 95-5 against, UCP voters [traditionalist-liberals] are 60-40 for, UCP is majority party) but it's clear to every Westerner (and Easterner, for that matter) under 40 that they'll never be permitted to win an election in this country- outside of one 4-year period they never have.
QC is different because they don't actually need to hold the executive to get what they want.
AB, by contrast, has to hold the executive; if it doesn't the Easterners just team up to block everything. Older AB residents are probably made happier by the Carney regime's recent overtures about more development... but those aren't really his policies, and even the CPC voted for those bills. I don't think it's as reliable a signal of "well they're going to vote LPC at the first opportunity", this is the bare minimum that the LPC believes has to happen for the country not to splinter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Conservatives were set to win in a landslide, with Liberals possibly even losing Party status, until Trump awoke the Sleeping Lion of Canadian Politics: "Not being America".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, the government just straight up refusing to respect the results of the election is extremely novel for Canada.
Question is, of course, if anyone's going to care about that; or if the people that do care the most (i.e. people who don't live in Ottawa) are simply going to decide to quit. Sure, oil prices being higher helps those people in particular, but who knows if that's going to last.
More options
Context Copy link
Immigration is like boiling a frog. It really is too late by the time you notice it getting a little warm. Occasionally, you start thinking “man, it’s getting hot in here”, but then you’re distracted by geopolitics, or by the economy, or another financial crisis, or a pandemic, and the water temperature goes to the back of your mind.
I think this probably ought to be the greatest cause of pessimism for the Western right - you can have a few great years where immigration is the number one issue, but then there’s another recession and suddenly all anyone cares about is stimulus and unemployment and bank bailouts and it’s another decade before people remember what’s happening.
You have to have a total victory where the regime has a different perspective on immigration. Everything else is just delay tactics.
More options
Context Copy link
Immigration has been another interesting change with Carney in power; most of the pathways that were vulnerable to fraud have been (quietly) shut down. It's been a strange phenomenon where you end up seeing the article about how x or y immigration scheme has been closed from an Indian newspaper, because the Canadian government has not commented on it all. Since Carney has taken over, Canada's population has started to shrink for the first time in a long time (not including COVID years). The vast bulk of this is due to expiring visas of temporary residents.
Obviously it won't be enough for a lot of people, but the people who were claiming that Carney was going to press down the accelerator and flood the country were obviously wrong. I think more importantly for Canadians the more obviously fraudulent elements are being restricted, namely the international student streams, while popular capital I immigration (that is to say, permanent residency offered to non-Canadian residents) stays the same.
The other really troublesome issue is the stream of asylum seekers which exploded again at the end of Trudeau's reign; Canada got some 170k in 2024 and another 110k in 2025. The Carney government is cutting a bunch of funding to refugees and asylum seekers (again, quietly), and there's been more recent debate in Parliament about going further.
I think the Liberals have managed to somewhat skillfully defuse immigration as the bomb around their neck, at least for the present, by simultaneously addressing the most negative elements of the system they had set up (while also not telling anyone they are doing so, as to avoid blame).
The big question is going to be how they deal with the bubble of post-COVID migrants as their visas start to expire. Canada does not have the law enforcement capacity or legal infrastructure to carry out a deportation program at any meaningful scale. If people simply overstay and refuse to leave until they have exhausted all possible remedies including bogus refugee claims, it will create a decade-plus backlog of appeals in a system that is already not fit for purpose. An illustrative example of this is the Indian migrant who killed 16 members of a hockey team in one of Canada's largest mass casualty incidents. He pled guilty and was sentenced to seven years in prison, which should have triggered automatic deportation after his release. Now years later, he is still in Canada filing appeals, and using the anchor baby he has post-conviction to argue for humanitarian relief. What's even more insane is that legacy Canadian media appears to be supporting this push for his deportation to be waived. If they can't manage to deport this particularly heinous criminal, do they really expect to be able to process 100k+ deportations per year?
Nonsense, this is the system working as intended. Who's going to hold it to account? Clearly, voting doesn't matter- whatever party rep you selected is just going to go LPC anyway becuase fuck you, that's why.
Media system working exactly as it's intended to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Immigration was never a bomb around the LPC's neck, though: it helps exclusively their voters, and that's the only Canadian that matters.
See, LPC voters care about two things, and two things only: the price of their house, and flapping their jowls at the US (and any liberal reforms in that direction; the LPC is a Conservative party, not a classically liberal one). Carney is objectively the best candidate for those things, and that's clearly good enough for a dictatorship.
More options
Context Copy link
Labour in the UK are trying surprisingly hard as well, from what I can see. Not doing that well but definitely much more than I was expecting - and more than the Tories for that matter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link